NAME REMOVED

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 99, 21 January 1936, Page 10

NAME REMOVED

University Senate and French Examiner REASON FOR ACTION Academic Board’s Function Outlined By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, January 20. The action of tlie Seuate of tlie University of New Zealand in temoving the name of an Auckland professor from tlie list of examiners for the Entrance Examination, wbieli list was submitted by the Academic Board, was the subject of considerable discussion in committee by the senate, which is now sitting in Auckland. The matter was made public last year. The annual report of tlie Academic I Board to the senate contained the following passage:— “The board feels Unit, in recommending tlie examiners, it must act with justice and witliqut unfair discrimination, and that it must submit the name of any person who is in. other respects eligible, unless and until it has in its possession information . whieh would justify it in withholding recommendation in any given ease. The board, therefore, in view of its resignsibility in recoin mend ing examiners, would be glad if the senate v.otild inform the board of the reasons for it< action.” After discussion in committee, the senate reported that it bad decided that the following statement be sent to the board :— 1. Tlie seuate is responsible for the appointment of university examiners. 2. The function of the Academic Board is to recommend for approval the appointment of examiners by the .senate. 3. In the opinion of the senate, the board is entitled to have reasons given to it for any action tlie senate may take in declining to appoint an examiner recommended by the board. 4. In the ease under consideration, the senate informed the board that that particular, person would not in future be accepted by it Io act as examiner in French in tlie Entrance Examinations. Injustice to Candidates. Tlie fads which caused tin- senate to take this action, continued the report, wore tlie following:— (a) That the examiner, owing to liis avowed disapproval of ilie policy at present followed by the senate in regard to tlie purposes; and to conduct of tlie Entrance Examination in French. did. in effect, refuse to accept tin- conditions of examining required from him under that, policy. (b) That as a result of this refusal liis standard and method of marking diffoqtd materially from those of his eo-extiminers. entailing thereby the possiliility of injustice to some candidates. (e) The re-marking of his scripts by the chief examiner, disclosed the fact that injustice had actually been done in some cases. The senate also resolved that a subcommittee be set up to decide on some procedure to deal with these types of cases and report to their 1 respective bodies.