STAFF APPOINTMENTS

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 21980, 26 March 1946, Page 2

STAFF APPOINTMENTS

UNIVERSITY TEACHERS POSITION OF C.O’S COUNCIL CHANGES MIND (P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, March 2G. A resolution passed in August, 1942, granting leave of absence without pay for the duration of the war to any person employed by the Canterbury University College Council refusing military service on conscientious grounds was rescinded at the council's meeting yesterday. The motion to rescind led to a few strong comments, though t was supported by a clear majority. In moving its rescission, Professor A. h Tocker said that the resolution on conscientious objectors was passed m 1942, when the roll number at the college was about 800, when the Japanese menace was real and near, and when practically all fit students over 18 years of age had been taken. Now in 1946 the war was in effect over, the roll number was 2100, the college was badly in need of additional staff, and in at least one case the resolution had tied the council's hands. The rescinding of the motion would place Canterbury in the same position with stall appointments as ether colleges. Mr. W. C. Colee, who seconded Professor Tocker’s motion, said that the war had been over quite a time and it no longer seemed necessary to carry on with the resolution. The Returned Man’s Viewpoint

Colonel G. J. Smith said he could not understand the anxiety displayed towards so-called conscientious objectors. There were returned men whose studies had been interrupted and who had gone away to fight while others had stayed at home. Many had died in service. He doubted if the returned men would want to be taught by men who had stayed at home rather than fight for their country. He respected an objector who had performed non-combatant service, but not one who just stayed at home because he did not believe in war, which all men hated. In his opinion, to appoint an objector to the staff would be to create trouble. It would not be in the best interests of the college. In reply to a question by Sir Joseph Ward, the chairman, Mr. J. H. E. Schroder , said that certain staff positions had been advertised and applications received. What was decided by the present meeting would unquestionably affect one position and, possibly, two. In replv to a question by Professor C. T. Aschman, Professor Tocker said that from his knowledge of the returned men he did not think they would be interested whether their tutor was a returned man or not. A voice: I disagree, A Matter ot' Principle

Mr. D. J. M. Glover said that the council of a university of free people did not need to wait for a lead from the Government. He was not interested jn conscientious objectors any more than in vegetarians, Plymouth Brethren or any other minor sect, but the council's business was simply to make the best person available to the university, irrespective of his private beliefs, religious or political. For the council to set itself up as a sort of inquisition to inquire whether the staff thought the same as the council did was ridiculous. Supporting Professor Tocker s motion, Professor R. S. Allan said the matter was one not of expediency but of principle. The council should be the guardian and trustee of the best in university life and that involved freedom of thought and of speech. Some of the people, said Mr. Clyde Carr. M.P., had been away fighting for the very thing the council was discussing freedom of conscience. If the council thought it was sticking up for them by condemning that very freedom and fblerance then it had reached the height of contradiction. Professor Tocker’s motion was carried by 13 votes to five.