UNIVERSITY STAFFS

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23755, 29 September 1942, Page 4

UNIVERSITY STAFFS

OBJECTORS TO SERVICE ATTITUDE OF COUNCIL By nine votes to eight the Canterbury University College Council yesterday afternoon rejected a motion lor the rescission of a recent-resolution “that any person employed by tne council who refuses military service on grounds of conscientious objection shall be granted leave of absence, without pay. for the duration of the her notice of motion, Mrs C. L Young said that the several points of view of members should be framed into a resolution more worthy of a university council. She, personally, felt that each case, should be considered on its merits. Archbishop West-Watson seconded the notice of motion. Mr H. D. Acland said -he was not prepared to support the motion. We have got to face the .fact that if we don’t win this war we shall be faced with extermination,” he said. There is no place in this community for a conscientious objector, except possibly in a mental hospital.” As a political organisation the country had to uphold its principles, and there was no room for parasites, Mr Acland said. Provisions of Regulations Mr J. H. E. Schroder said that he was one who disagreed with conscientious objectors, but he favoured the rescission of the motion because it was entirely-superfluous. In May, 1941, certain powers had been taken by the Government to deal with conscientious objectors, Mr Schroder said. In August, these were superseded by regulations of a more mandatory nature which expressly provided machinery for dealing with all cases. A special tribunal was empowered and directed to deal with conscientious objectors whose appeals against service had been allowed. Provision was made that such persons should not be economically better off than they would- be in the Army.

The position now Was that a conscientious objector whose appeal was dismissed either submitted dr became a , defaulter and was dealt with as such, while one whose appeal was allowed came within the scppe of the special tribunal, which would direct where he should work and on what conditions. In either case the conscientious objector came under the direction of a superior authority to the college council, and thus no good purpose was served by the present resolution. Mr Schroder said. “I consider it an insult to the college staff that we should have sdch a resolution on our books,” said Mr A. A. G. Reed. “To the unenlightened public it would appear from the resolution that the college staff is packed with conscientious objectors.” So far as he knew there was no one on the staff to whom any such resolution would apply. The Rector (Dr. H. G. Denham): While we must consider the point of view put forward by Mr Schroder . . Mr Schroder; It’s not a point of view. It’s a fact.

Dr. Denham then said he was concerned with the harm which might be done by a conscientious objector, beyond the military age groups, who might not be called up and thus avoid having his case dealt with. Professor A. H. Tocldbr said that the most important aspect of the case was that it concerned teachers in the highest, realm of the profession, and whp, as such, had a public trust. The council had the trust of seeing that teaching was in the hands of the right people. Position of Teachers Opposing the rescission of the resolution, Mr C. T. Aschman said that members could not know the beliefs of the staff. Some might not express opinions and yet turn, out to be conscientious objectors when called up. The Government had made regulations, similar, to the resolution, governing school teachers and if it would not apply them. to. university staffs the councils should. “Further, a rescission just looks as if we are crawling dpwn,” Mr Aschman said. The chairman; (JMr A. E. Flower) said he would definitely vote against rescission. There was no reflection on the present, staff; but the council held a position of , trust and should have the courage of 'its cdnvictions. The council had too often been accused of not taking a firm stand. He disagreed with Mr Schroder’s statement that the tribunals w er e fully competent to deal with the position. If : the council passed the responsibility to them it would surrender the right to admin-: ister its own affairs. “I think if you read ‘Hamlet' you might find some appropriate lines,” said* Mr Flower. . „ „ Mr Carr: Why not read the New Testament? , Mr Schroder: Why not read the regulations? On the voices the chairman gave the decision to those for the motion, but on a division it was lost by nine votes to eight. > • • The division was as follows:

For the motion to rescind: Mrs C. L. Young, Archbishop West-Watson, Dr. H. C. Holland, Mr Clyde Carr, Mr J. H. E. Schroder, Dr. H. Simpson, Mr A. A. G. Reed, and Dr. H. G. Denham. Against: Mr A. E. Flower, Mr H. D. Acland, Mr W. T. Langley, Mr W. P. Spencer, Mr W. C. Colee, Colonel G. J. Smith; Mr C. T. Aschman, Sir Joseph Ward, and Professor A. H. Tocker.