ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 151, 23 March 1934, Page 12

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Reply to Graduates’ Protest ACTION DEPRECATED Victoria College Council Attitude STUDENT REPRESENTATION Resolutions requesting the retirement of certain members of the Victoria University College Council, recommending student representation on the council, and advocating the maintenance of academic freedom with a protest against “recent attacks on the freedom of expression inside the college,’’ passed at a special meeting Of the college Court of Convocation, on March 9 Inst, came under review at last evening’s mating of the college council. On the motion of Dr. D. M. Stout, a resolution was passed expressing the council’s great regret of the gradti.ates’ action as it would tend to encourage influences in the college considered inimical to the good interests of the university.

- The members of the College Council requested to retire were Mr. Justice Ostler, Mr. A. Fair, K.C., Mr. S. Eichelbaum, and the chairman, Mr. P. Levi. In the resolution passed by the Court of Convocation appreciation was expressed of the four gentlemen’s services, but they were requested to retire and offer themselves as might be desired for re-election. The subject arose last evening when the Registrar read a letter from the Court of Convocation enclosing a series of resolutions passed at its meeting The first resolution rend as follows:—

“This meeting affirms that it is the first duty of a university to maintain academic freedom, including the right of discussion in matters of current _■ controversy ; that, as far as the teaching stall is. concerned, the tolerance that has been characteristic of English universities is the minimum that should be conceded; that, so long as they keep the law. students should be permitted and encouraged to control their own affairs; that this meeting protests against recent attacks on the freedom of. expression inside the college and that any direction from the college council or other authority that conflicts with these vital principles should be rescinded; and that in particular the letter from the chairman of the Professorial Board to the Students’ Association, dated October 19. 1933. should be withdrawn.” ; The second resolution dealt with the question of student representation on the college council in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission into University Education set up by the Government in 1925. The Court of Convocation asked the council, pending legislation, to give effect to the Royal Commission’s recommendation. In Open Council. After the letter had been read, the chairman said that if there were going to be any discussion on the matter, he did not think it ought to be taken in open meeting. ■Mr. Fair: I prefer it to be taken in open council. It was then decided that the subject be discussed in open council. At the request of a council member, ■tlie. registrar was instructed to read a letter sent by the chairman of the Professorial Board to the College Students’ Association on October 19 last, and referred to in the resolution passed by the Court of Convocation. The letter read as follows:— |‘T am directed to advise you that the Professorial Board has resolved :— (1) That as the method of debate is a clumsy and inefficient method of arriving at truth, religious matter should in future be omitted from the programmes of debates of the debat- , ing society. ( (2) That topics involving sex morality are unsuited for debate or discussoin by clubs or societies with mixed assemblies. "Jt is, I think, unnecessary for me to' elaborate the reasons that have actuated the board in passing these resolutions. It is sufficient to say of the first resolution that it will bring Victoria into accord with most British universities. Religious beliefs are at once so important and so personal that they should not bp subjected to the conflict of debate where the desire for verbal victory so naturally and so often overshadow? the quest for truth. ’“Of the second resolution I may say that the board feels that the discus-’ sion of sex by mixed assemblies, except under the most favoured conditions. is neither desirable nor necessary. As it. is.not possible to be sure of these favourable conditions, the board directs that such subjects be omitted from the programmes of discussion and debate.” Will Not Rescind. The chairman of the professorial board, Professor W. H. Gould, said that the board had a request that it. should rescind its resolutions, but it had decided to adhere to them. 'The chairman said that by statute the discipline of the college was in the hands of the Professorial Board, which had representation on the College Council. No appeal had been made against the action of the board In passing its resolutions, and the matter did not. concern the College Council. Until it came before the council in proper manner, it was not going to deal with it at all. As to the question of student representation on the council, the system of election was fixed by statute; therefore he did not see how the council could deal with the matter. Dr. Stout said that there had been a good deal of publicity given to the question, and the real motive behind the resolutions that had been forwarded from the Court of Convocation had been to a certain extent masked, especially by the question of student representation. He thought that the real motive of the resolutions was the disagreeing with the council’s action in disciplining certain student activities within the college. He felt, therez fore, that the resolutions passed were nothing less than a vote of censure on the council in acting as it did, and furthermore he thought it a grossly improper thing for a meeting of graduates to have done. They did not know the circumstances under which the council acted. Actually it .acted on the recommendation of the professorial board, whose duty it was to discipline students. He was wondering whether the council would consider the passing of a motion expressing those views. If the council considered it desirable, he would be prepared to move a resolution to that effect. He felt, though, that the conn cil should take some cognisance of the Court of Convocation resolutions. It could, of course, simply receive them, but '

he thought as there had been so much publicity, the council should state definitely what it considered the reason for the passing of the resolutions. It had not been the question of student representation—that was a red herring —but because of the council’s disapproval of certain student activities. What Action Was Taken. Professor T. A. Hunter: That is not quite correct. This council has not taken any action. Hon. R. McCallum. AI.L.C.: Certainly we did. Dr. Stout: We approved of the action of the Professorial Board. Professor Hunter: I think you had better look at the minutes. Mr. Fair: We approved of a report published in the Press. Professor Hunter: The action of the board I do not think has ever been before the council. Mr. Fair added, after further discussion, that the council had confirmed the views of the Professorial Board. Dr. Stout said that there was no doubt that the council approved of the action of the Professorial Board. He then moved his resolution, the text of which was as follows:—

“That this council considers it is regrettable that even a small meeting of graduates of the college should see fit to pass a motion which in effect amounts to a vote of censure on the Professorial Board and the College Council for taking disciplinary action to preserve the good name,of the college ; it realises that this ihotion was passeel without any investigation of the circumstances that made the disciplinary action necessary, and also without any notification of the intended motion to the Court of Convocation; the council views with great regret the fact that this action of the graduates will tend to encourage influences in the college which the council considers inimical to the good interests of the university and will tend to undermine the disciplinary control of the Professorial Board on the students: the lack of courtesy shown to. and the lack of appreciation of the exceptional services given to the college by these representatives on the council is a matter for considerable regret.” No Credit to Graduates. Mr. McCallum, seconding the motion, said that responsible graduates had done themselves no credit by passing the resolutions. He could not understand their action in view of the fact that they had the opportunity to vote out the gentlemen mentioned a few months ago. The usual thing was to show a little gratitude for services rendered. The work that had been done by the College Council in connection with the establishment of Weir House was stupendous, and his principal object in accepting office on the council had been to provide facilities for country students at the university. He was very interested in the good name of the college and to see that the money generously provided by the Government was expended wisely and well. The Professorial Board, in his opinion, acted in the best interests of the college. It had to work with boys, and what unruly boys I He thanked God that the council did not have to discipline those boys. Mr. Fair said he did not'propose to vote on the motion, but' perhaps the council would be interested to know that the functions, of the Court of Convocation were very limited, and did not include the dealing with resolutions as it had done. They were not, in fact, resolutions of the Court of Convocation at all. They were resolutions of a number of graduates who had been called together as a Court of Convocation, and had dealt with matters quite outside the jurisdiction of the court. The statute of 1908 laid it down that the Court of Convocation was to make representations to the New Zealand University Senate on matters of interest concerning the university. That was the sole function laid down in the statute. In addition to that, it had'the power of electing four representatives to the College Council. It was prescribed that voting should be done by postal ballot, and consequently a general meeting of persons had no power to elect anyone. Graduates Were Young. The very great majority of students present at the meeting were comparatively young graduates, Mr. Fair continued. There were verv few graduates present of. say, more than eight years' standing. In addition it was quite apparent the meeting had been organised, and it had been organised in curious fashion because the resolution, of which notice was given was worded in general.terms of discussing matters of “interest concerning academic freedom.” The clerk of the court endeavoured to obtain more specific information as to the business of the meeting, but he had been unable to obtain it. But in snite of that, those responsible came forward at the meeting with the res-.)-intions duly typed for presentation to those present. That was not conduct that one would expect from university graduates. Furthermore, organised action of that sort was to be deprecated. Graduates should have come to a meeting of that kind free to form an impartial opinion, but obviously a large number came forward with preconceived ideas, determined to vote in .? particular way. Mr. H. A. Huggins said he wanted to say publicly that the chairman of the council was one who had always upheld the principle of free academic discussion, and to ask a man of his standing to resign after the good work he had done for the college, was. in his opinion, one of the greatest mistakes that the graduates had made. A Meeting or Not? Professor Hunter: There is the point as to whether it was a meeting of the Court of Convocation tat all. Arc we to take notice of it if it is not? Mr. T. A. Forsyth: Yes. certainly. Professor Hunter said that notice of meeting must be posted 10 days in advance. It seemed to him that it was not a meeting of the court under standing orders. Dr. Stout: It was a meeting of the graduates of the college. Mr. McCallum: It was rather an irregular meeting. The registrar of the college, who acts as clerk of the court, detailed his difficulties in calling the graduates together. He gave notice by insertion of advertisements in the Wellington Press. It was quite impossible to send postal intimation to the 2000 graduates of the college, and lie had records of only about half their •addresses. When the regulations were approved 30 years ago. conditions were very different. He did not know whether the council had authority to spend money on newspaper advertisements, but he had spent a few pounds. Professor Hunter said -he thought the position unsatisfactory so far as the Court of Convocation was concerned. It ought to be put on a proper basis.

Dr. Stout’s motion was put to the meeting and passed unanimously. Professor Hunter said he thought a committee of one or two members ought to be set up to go into the question of the Court of Convocation.

Mr. Fair replied that he did not see any urgency in the matter as there was not an election for some time.