Banned professor flown to N.Z.

Press, 28 March 1981, Page 1

Banned professor flown to N.Z.

-Dr Julienne Ford was flown from England to New Zealand for her interview for the position of professor 'of education at the University of Canterbury, at the university’s expense. A lecturer in social sciences at the Middlesex Polytechnic, Dr Ford was officially appointed to the position of professor of education, then failed to appear at the university for the first term.

Mystery surrounded her non-appearance ' until an interview with her 1 in London revealed that she had been refused. entry into New Zealand for several reasons, including that she was a solo parent with a dependent child and had falsely declared that, she had had no criminal, convictions. Dr Ford had been convicted of a drug offence. The Minister of Immigration (Mr Malcolm) has criticised the university for paying her fare and for them offering her the job at more than $31,000 a year. He said that “there would be a few New Zealand taxpayers who have not committed drug offences who could think of better ways to spend public money.”

The university’s staff registrar (Mr C. S. Kernahan) said that that was the usual procedure in the case of appointments to a chair. Upon an appointment, a grant would be made towards transfer costs.

Applicants were brought to New Zealand before their appointment because of the importance of the position of professor. Deciding who should be selected as a professor lay in the hands of an appointments’ , ... committee, which was responsible to the University Council, he said. This committee followed recommendations from the relevant academic department. The Canterbury branch of the Association of University Teachers is upset because it believes Mr Malcolm is trying to influence the university .in its manner of making appointments. The association’s president (Dr A. G. D. Whyte) said he deplored Mr Mal-

colm’s published reasons for refusing an entry permit to Dr Ford. The association did not dispute the Minister’s right not to grant permanent entry in exceptional circumstances, but it could not countenance discrimination on the ground that there was an over-supply of applicants for the job, nor accept that it- was normal to refuse entry to solo parents with dependent children.

In the first case, he said, the Minister was “usurping” the univer-sity’s-prerogative to judge who was best qualified for the position and most worthy of being offered the appointment. The second ruling seemed “surprisingly. inflexible."

' Dr Whyte said there Was a. lot of careful consideration before an appointment to a headship of a department was made, and a lot of con-, sultation within the department. He did not think a university should have to ask an appointee whether he or she had had any previous convictions when it was ability that was being considered. “If a person is a free agent, has paid the

penalty, then that person should'be considered independently of what he has done in his past.” '. Dr Whyte emphasised he was arguing a principle. He was not taking up the cudgels for Dr Ford because she herself did not wish to pursue the matter with the university. If she did, his association would “have a, certain amount to say” on the matter.

When asked, about the university’s policy of paying for an appointee’s travel expenses for an interview, the vice-chancellor (Professor A. D. Brownlie) had no comment to make. “I am leaving this matter entirely in the hands of my staff registrar,” he said.