University Protests At Minister’s Statement

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32306, 26 May 1970, Page 1

University Protests At Minister’s Statement

The University of Canterbury Council yesterday protested at the attempt by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Education (Mr G. F. Gair) to “use the behaviour of a tiny minority to curb funds needed for university 7 development.”

A motion of censure against Mr Gair was passed on a close vote in reference to a statement during which Mr Gair had said that “university councils could do well to note this growing trend of public impatience (with demonstrations) and remember that they live by a flow of public funds which can be stopped or slowed, or diverted to other causes which serve the taxpayer better.”

The opinions of council members were sharply divided during a 45minute debate on the motion of censure proposed by the Rev. D. R. Wilson.

For too long universities had been “taking too much on the chin,” Mr Wilson said “As a council we are aware that any Government has only so much to come and go on, that it will decide its own priorities and dispense money accordingly. We may disagree with how much but we do not dispute its right."

Mr Wilson labelled Mr Gair’s criticism of student protesters as not taking full cognisance of the fact that few who appeared before magistrates for “unruly protest” were students. “I am concerned for the good name of students as a] whole and for the minority! group who, because of their conscience and perhaps be-; cause of excessive idealism,; are led to make known their I views publicly. “Mr Gair has lumped together these two groups—| mischief makers, and those' motivated by conscience—and has used the behaviour of the first group as a threat to curb funds and gain public support in so doing,” Mr Wilson said. ‘Unfettered System’ Mr Gair had used the public dislike of demonstrations as a “lever for his own ends.” “If we do not contest these views now we are helping to dig the grave of a free, unfettered university system.” The president of the Canterbury University Students’ Association (Mr D. B. C. Cuthbert) said Mr Gair’s experience as a public relations man “leaves something to be desired.”

“This is shown by his attitude to education, where real values and experience are being taught—not the superficial and banal images of the public relations world from which Mr Gair has come.”

Mr Cuthbert said that New Zealand was one of the first nations to recognise the right of every individual to an education to the fullest extent of his ability. “Perhaps Mr Gair’s approach to education is responsible for the minority groups In our community—be they social or economic—that is, the underprivileged who do not receive a university education. “Mr Gair may care to ponder why at the University of Canterbury there are so few Maori students,” Mr Cuthbert said. Students’ Channels

Students were often denied channels of communication and protests appeared to be the only means by which stu-

i dents and others were able to ■ communicate with the coun- ■ try’s leaders. “As the Ombudsman pointed out earlier this year,! i dissent is a necessary part of a healthy developing society,” ! said Mr Cuthbert. He said that university councils had a challenge to discuss where universities were going in the 1970 s and should not deal almost wholly with administration. Too little had been said by university councils on university development and the philosophy of university education.

“Professor Phillips is the only vice-chancellor in New Zealand who has been prepared to ■ state publicly his position. “University councils must give a strong lead and I believe that this motion goes some way towards that end,” said Mr Cuthbert. In his address on the motion of censure, the vicechancellor (Professor N. C. Phillips), said that as an institution the university had to remain politically neutral. The university’s function was first and foremost a place of learning, dedicated to the transmission, extension and application of knowledge, he said. Individuals’ Rights “Its teaching and research must be carried out with the strictest regard for objectivity and detachment.” However, Professor Phillips pointed out that as individuals both staff and students had the same right as any other citizens to make their opinions known. Therefore universities would often become a “seminary for ideas that are critical of society.” “We must uphold the rights of staff and students, as individuals, to propagate views—however unpopular. Mr Gair condemns the clamour for legalised ‘pot.’ I do not myself want to see ‘pot’ legalised but I do not mind lis-

tening to the arguments of those who do,” Professor Phillips said. “Is it not better that people should seek to change the law by peaceful democratic means, by persuasion, than that they should break it?”

There had fortunately been little violence or intimidation in New Zealand universities. “We must be careful not to father on to our own students the excesses of students in other countries. ‘ln Passing’ “Rather, we should see through the long hair, the eccentric uniforms and the occasional immoderation of speech a generation that is thoughtful, articulate and socially concerned and which has no more than its usual share of undesirables.” Mr Gair’s warning to university councils was uttered in passing. Professor Phillips said. “But I do not think it should be allowed to pass.” To cut off funds because of the misdeeds of a minority would be to penalise the many for the few, he said. Professor Phillips’s remarks were followed by a sharply worded reply from the Mayor of Christchurch (Mr A. R. Guthrey) in which he applauded Mr Gair’s stand.

“We as a university council have an obligation to see

that the taxpayer is getting value for his money,” he said. “We also have an obligation that both students and lecturers are conscious of the privilege—and I repeat the privilege—that this vast amount of many is being spent on them.” It was time that university councils imposed some discipline on the ‘‘few” mentioned by Mr Gair, to ensure that

“No Tour” has been painted 10 times on the fence surrounding Rugby Park. Three groups of the words with letters about 4ft in height are painted on the fence beside the Rugby ground in Malvern Park. Three other groups of the same words, but with the letters slightly smaller, appear on the Malvern Street and Rutland Street frontages, and one group is painted on the Innes Road frontage.

they did not continue to take advantage of people’s support and try to wreck society. He called for a greater degree of responsibility from student leaders and “some” lecturers. There was far too much emphasis on protest and not enough on responsibility, Mr Guthrey said. “It is time we took steps to stop intolerant and belligerant minorities from blackmailing authorities into acting against the wishes of the majority. “Surely the Government, through its Minister, is entitled to say that university councils would do well to note the growing trend of public impatience and remember that public funds can be slow-ed down if necessary in the taxpayers’ interest,”, said Mr Guthrey. ‘Much Ado’ Mr D. W. Bain said he was against any move to criticise Mr Gair’s stand.

Any action by the council would be “much ado about very little,” he said. The pro-chancellor (Mr J. N. Matson) said Mr Gair’s remarks were of a purely political nature. They were not a reasoned summary of the state of education and its importance to New Zealand. Professor G. Jobberns said tha. he agreed that the motion of censure was “much ado about very little.” Mr Gair had spoken with the voice of a vast number of people, he said. He asked that his protest at the motion of censure be placed on record. | Mr W. G. Quirk said that to criticise Mr Gair would be like “taking issue with a politician in a political forum.” He suggested that Mr Gair be invited to meet the council and discuss various matters with them.

Vote Taken The motion passed by the council by eight votes to seven said that the council viewed “with considerable concern the implications of the statement on the role of university councils made by Mr Gair in a speech on April 9. “We are well aware of the need for public support for the university and all it seeks to do. , “We would stress that students who are academically bdlow standard or who seek to abuse the university as an institution are liable to suspension at any time. “We strongly protest at the attempt to use the behaviour of a tiny minority as a threat to curb funds needed for university development.”