REPLY TO CRITICISM

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 148, 26 June 1925, Page 9

REPLY TO CRITICISM

THE UNIVERSITY COMMISSION

SIR ROBERT STOUT'S VIEWS NOT

ENDORSED,

(BI KIEOBAPH.— SPECUI 10 THE POST.) -■•■■ ■'.: ; AUCKLAN: D, This Day. .The views expressed by Sir RobertStout regarding the appointment of an outside Commission to inquire into.University matters do not meet with unanimous support in Auckland; ;-'; ' - Professor Segar, when interviewed, said he; disagreed entirely with the opinion of Sir Robert' Stout, and was ■ of opinion that the Government was to be congratulated upon its move in appointing an outside Commission. It' was only correct, he thought, to get'outside and therefore impartial views on "such an important matter, and he* was sure Sir Harry Reichel and Mr. - Tait would give a decision that would bear weight.. In reply to Sir Robert Stout's contention that there were'men in the: Dominion who would carry out the duties allotted to the. present Commission, Professor Segar said they wanted men. who had no' interest-in the matter. In Sir Harry Reichel they had a man who was conversant; with the federal system -. in universities, which, although different in constitution,, was the same in:principle as the universities here.' On the ■ other hand, Mr. Tait was familiar with the type of university that would result if the_ colleges in New Zealand wereevolved into four Universities. To his mind, a better combination could not have been found, and'if either one !or the other was converted to one , viewpoint the soundness of the Government's action would be fully;realised.- ; >' . -' ...."■ Eiplßining the federal ; and independent syatems,;; Professor : Segar stated that with^the former the governing body for _ the University controlled the examinations and .awards and degrees and constituent colleges had independent soyenung. bodies which controlled the .teaching.y ■If the proposed change were' brought there would be one controlling in charge of all three and each collegewould be independent ' : .._ Professor Algie said-there was a'great .deal to Vbe^ said for both sides of the question, - It was true that aU the' material likely to be elicited by the Commission was already on record, but many of _the. matters involved were of sharp difference of opinion, and judicial investigation qf.the question and; an impartial weighing, of opinions was desired. - A moment 3 consideration of the complete deadlock reached by the Senatein regard to the engineering, and the failure of some senators to give just-weight to the evidence put ; forward, showecT that an ! impartial outside investigation,should be -Of.Jal^- f :It perhaps too sweeping;! r^n,^ 63801 Ai gi6 ' t0 say «the Oommission.would prove futile. If tho Government gave effect to' the finding some: substantial benefit would actrue! but past incidents; did - not supply in! «SK£: Co™ni s?ions whose deliberation ofaref ed. l lnonly the Pres^taW ■? re P°rt-«« Dental Commission -and it was possible that Sir RobeH S' WaS lDff °f BUt .''GairaSa-: Robdrt .though pi-oper by Sir itooeit fatout -„ to, indulge - in "a tilt at professors ■ .by statin^that the sole «nJll °A, a!I thf aßitation l™ been to control th f eF Of!? sor? t0 g^: absolute control of education." I n his rjcwitinr, as Professor of Law he was outsiC the scope of the suggested reforms, and hb that the dommatmg motive so far as Ftm^rtlT 6?' 9° n<;«nied had been and far* f S e.desir» to improve the standard of their university work, and to'