CANON GARLAND AND THE TEACHERS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1617, 7 December 1912, Page 7

CANON GARLAND AND THE TEACHERS.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—l. accept the challenge given by Canon Garland, organising secretary of tho Bible-in-Schools' League, in this morning's issue of The Dominion, to substantiate a statement made by me during a discussion at the Educational Institute last Friday, that "the literature which the league has disseminated was in some instances an insult to teachers." My grounds for this statement ar© as follow.— "The league regrets that statements aro being mado to the effect that the teachers of New Zealand cannot be trusted to give these lessons, it being said that the teachers will impart their particular 'isms,' and that so many of them are unbelievers, that the children reading lessons under their supervision will become atheists, and also that there are so many teachers of 'uncertain' character that the whole profession is unworthy of being trusted with the Scripture lessons. The league officially, and without a shadow of reservation or hesitation, repudiate this charge made by its opponents, and states at all its meetings, and in every possible direction that it is prepared absolutely and unreservedly to trust the teachers of New Zealand." (Extract from circular addressed by the league to the .teachers of Now Zealand). i In the first section of this extract the league publishes statements. slanderous to the teachers of New Zealand. It is no condonation of the offence, but rather an aggravation of it that the league immediately proceeds to "repudiate officially" the charges that it has thus published. If tho league so unreservedly repudiates these charges, then it must know that they are groundless; if they are groundloss, then why publish them? On which horn of this dilemma does the Bible-in-Schools League elect to remain impaled? if the leasuo is sincere in its repudiation, does it not occur to Canon Garland that an open insult has been levelled at the teaching profession in publishing to tho teachers themselves slanderous statements made by irresponsible' perrons? But I do not think that the league is sincere, for the circular already quoted goes on to say.— "Tho league fears that this chargo against the teachers, if endorsed by tho people of New Zealand, will convey to the Empire the impression that the teachers of New Zealand are not to bs trusted." If this clause means anything, it means that the leaaue is absolutely insincere in its "official repudiation" of the slanders it first publishes. How aro tho people of New Zealand to endorse those charges against the teachers? Obviously, by refusing to sanction an alteration of tho prcsont secular oy»tom of education. Then, WW tho ksypw, la «$l

feet: "If oar agitation is unsuccessful, if the people of New Zealand will not allow 'Scripture lessons to be rend by the children under the supervision of tho tenchors,' then tho people of New Zealand are endorsing the charge' that Hie teaclicrs arc not worthy of being trusted; therefore the charges are true, and tile league fears that such an endorsement by tho people of A T ew Zealand will convey to the Empire the impression that New Zealand teachers are branded 'Atheists! Not to be trusted!'" This is the logieal interpretation of tho league's circular, and whichever way ono looks at it there are insults. First, baseless charges against an honourable profession; then a repudiation alleged to bo unreserved, but really only tentative; then a resurrection of the charges, with the scarcely-veiled threat that if the league does not gain its objective it "fears" that it will havo to givo even a wider publicity to tho baseless charges (which it at one time repudiated), in order that it may explain lo a listen-' ing Empire that New Zealand refrained from changing its secular system of education. because its teachers were not to bo twisted.—l am, etc., WILLIAM FOSTER, Petone, December 5, 1912.