Procedure defended

Press, 1 April 1981, Page 6

Procedure defended

The procedures- for appointing someone to a chair at the. University of Canterbury have, been further defended by the vice-chan-cellor. (Professor A. D. Brownlie). Of a total expenditure of more than $23 million annually, just $50,000 was assigned to expenses related to staff appointments, he said. “This covers all aspects of appointments, including interviewing, advertising, fares, and removal expenses.” Considering the staff budget also extended, to nonacademic appointments,, the figure was “very low,” Professor Brownlie said. The question of asking personal details of an applicant for a position had been

carefully considered by an academic staffing committee. It had considered the Human Rights Act and decided, in the absence of a clear lead, ; to continue asking for minimal personal details, such as nationality, date of birth, marital status, and the names of. three referees.

The lack of detail sought by the university in the case of Dr Julienne Ford, tlie Middlesex Polytechnic lecturer who was not allowed to take up a chair in education at Canterbury, has been criticised by the Minister of Immigration (Mr Malcolm). He has accused the university staff of an “Alice in Wonderland” outlook for emphasising the fact that Dr Ford was a solo parent rath-

er than the fact that ski. married to circumvent immi-. gration requirements, made, a poor impression at her. interview, was not honest over her criminal record, and had a recent conviction for possession of drugs. He i has called the university's, stance of not checking out- applicants’ backgrounds an example, of “woollyi, thinking.” ] Lt In response, Dr Brownlp has reiterated that the question of human rights was merely “considered" in tion to a few ' personal details normally included on application forms. . ; v The university was satis-, fied with its procedures and costs of appointment and did not consider them unsatisfactory in any way..