Protest By Lecturers

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31090, 20 June 1966, Page 15

Protest By Lecturers

<N Z. Press Assn. —Copyright) AUCKLAND, June 19. The executive of the Auckland branch of the Association of University Teachers yesterday issued a statement protesting against personal attacks made in Parliament against Auckland staff members.

It has also written to the Minister of Labour (the Hon. T. P. Shand) saying that the activities of Mr D. Godfrey as a security policeman on the Auckland campus were more extensive than the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) or Mr Godfrey conceded.

The statement said the executive particularly protested against Mr Shand's assertion that teachers in the political studies department had “set out to ruin an honest public servant” by “deliberately exposing him to ridicule. “This is an allegation which this executive flatly refuses to accept, for it is contrary to

the facts as we know them,” it said.

“We similarly deprecate the suggestion expressed by Mr J. B. Gordon, the member for Clutha, that one teacher in the political studies department should be dismissed because in going home she unlocked the front door through which demonstrators entered the building.” Mr Sheat, member for Egmont, had described this incident as “a grossly improper act.”

The executive said that the door to the building, a converted house, was usually unlocked and was used by staff and students alike. The executive said there had been much discussion recently of Parliamentary privilege. Remarks made within the House used to be heard by comparatively few, but the broadcasting of Parliament had changed this. Now remarks could be heard throughout the country. Whether privilege covered broadcast speeches was regarded as a moot point by lawyers. The executive said that Par-

liamentary privilege did not involve any unrestricted licence of speech within the walls of the house.” On occasions members had been called to account for offensive words uttered in Parliament.

In the present instance, University teachers were attacked in the hearing of a nation-wide audience.

They had no way of reaching a similar audience when they made statements in their own defence.

“Mr Godfrey’s various activities as an active security agent on the campus last term had become so widely known as to cause resentment and discussion among political studies students and to inhibit frank discussion in his classes,” the statement said. “The university authorities could not ignore this situation, and instructed the head of the deparament, Professor R. M. Chapman, on the steps he took regarding Mr Godfrey’s instruction. “He was to receive private tuition. Thus his rights as an individual were protected at the same time as academic freedom of discussion was preserved in the classroom.”