Education Boards Discuss Abusive Letters To Teachers

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29002, 17 September 1959, Page 22

Education Boards Discuss Abusive Letters To Teachers

(New Zealana Press Association)

NAPIER, Sept. 16. If an irate parent, nursing a grievance, should send an abusive letter to a school teacher, what action should be taken' by the education authorities? This question was posed to the delegates at the annual conference of the Education Boards’ Association in Napier. The delegates agreed that, as employers of school teachers, education boards had a responsibility to protect them from irate parents. But whether abusive letters should be referred to boards for action was a matter which left delegates in some doubt. On the subject of abusive letters, delegates were supplied with the copy of a letter to the association from the Educational Institute, which stated that from time to time, teachers were subjected to abusive letters—libellous and otherwise—and the question of taking action to protect teachers was always arising. “We had occasion recently to

discuss the matter with our solicitors, because of a batch of particularly abusive letters sent to us by a branch,” the institute’s letter stated. “In one case, the teacher was told: ‘Last warning before my husband comes to deal with you in person, as he absolutely detests aliens.” While some of the letters sailed “very close to the wind” as defamatory documents, there was usually no publication in the legal sense which was one of the essential ingredients for a libel action, the letter said. It asked the association, to agree with a suggestion that abusive letters be forwarded to the appropriate board for investigation. When the matter was being discussed by the conference this afternoon, Mr S. C. Hyndman (Wellington) moved that the Educational Institute’s letter be “received,” and that the institute be advised that existing bylaws provided the machinery for dealing with abusive letters. Mr T. J. Gosling (Southland): It often happens that when an abusive letter is received, the teacher sits down and writes a reply even more abusive —and away the thing goes. Mr I. J. Day (Auckland) said the association should do something more than merely “receive” the institute’s letter. As an amendment, he moved that the matter be referred to the association’s executive for consideration and action. The amendment was carried.