COMMUNISM & SCHOOLS

Grey River Argus, 13 December 1940, Page 9

COMMUNISM & SCHOOLS

AUCKLAND TEACHERS Action by Board UNIVERSITY STAFF ATTITUDE. AUCKLAND, December 11. “The petition before us, bearing as it does the signatures of so many responsible university teachers,_ officials of the Workers’ Educational Associat:on, and even members of the Auckland University College Council, is a matter of gravest public concern. That so many gentlemen holding positions of responsibility in the educational world should be so blind to the essential fitness of things in a democratic State as to be prepared to advocate the retention in the primary teaching, service of those known to be tainted with Communism is of appalling significance,’ declared the chairman of the Auckland Education Board (Mr W. J. Campbell), at this morning's meeting of the board, in referring to a petition forwarded by Professor H. Belshaw in relation to the board’s 1 decision to request the Education Department to withhold the issue of teachers’ certificates to a young woman and a young man as, in the opinion of the board, they were unfitted for employment as teachers.

The letter from Professor Belshaw stated that at a recent meeting of the Education Board it was resolved to recommend to the Education Department “That certificates be not given to two teachers, because of their alleged political opinions and activities.” A number of members of the staff and council of Auckland University College, who deplored this resolution, and who Considered that to give effect to it would be a grave injustice, had instructed him to forward to the board the enclosed resolutions, to which they had appended their -signatures. /As the matter was urgent, no attempt had been made to canvass the whole staff or council on the matter. The resolutions, with the names appended of W. T. G. Airey R. F. Anchutz, H. Belshaw, L. H. Briggs, D. Brown, P. W. Burbidge, E. M. Higgins, J. E. Gray, L. W. Holt, S. Leathern, P. Martin-Smith, A. E. Minchin, G. D. Robb, F. H. Sagar, Pulius Stone, and A. E. Thompson, read as follows:—

“(1) That a person should not be penalised in any position he holds for his political views as long as he does not use that position for the purpose of political propaganda. "(2) That the report of the meeting of the Education Board reveals no evidence that the teachers 1 concerned have in fact at any time, past or present, so used their positions, and, indeed, emphatically negatives any such suggestion. “(3) That in any case it is a matter for serious public concern that action, of whatever sort, should be initiated, by an anonymous letter. “This warrants the strongest public protest, not only because of the injustice done in the present case, but also because it gives the recognition of a public body to a forjn of at-

tack which is cowardly and repugnant to the British tradition of open criticism and fair play. It condones a practice which is characteristic of Nazi methods, and which would open any public servant to the menace of unscrupulous opponents whose lack of courage and inadequate sense of civic responsibility deterred them from signing their own names.” “I think we would be doing our duty, sir, if we passed that list on to the’ police,” said Mr W. I. Bowyer. “The matter should be thoroughly investigated.” Another member: Some of those gentlemen are well known for their opinions anyway.

• “The position is that we have been troubled for some considerable time,” said Mr Campbell. “In fact, for some years we have had complaints about our university which, I think, is a terrible thing. We know perfectly well from complaints received that these people have been working underground, and now they have come out in the open. We are very thankful for receiving the names we have to-day. We know exactly where wo stand. I feel strongly concerning the position at our university, and that it should be used> as a place for the teaching of Communism.”

Mr F. A. Snell said the board had known for a long time that a lot of its troubles came from the university. He alleged that some parents of students were broken-hearted at, the training they got at the university. He thought the time had come for a purge of the University of New Zealand, and the rooting out of certain elements in it. . Mr S'ims counselled the board to be sure of its grounds in taking action. Mr Snell said he was not claiming the right to say that any man should or should not be a Communist; but parents did not send their children to school to have their minds poisoned. Stating he did not have Communistic leanings, and was not lacking in' loyalty, Mr M. Priestley maintained that the board should be sure of its grounds before it took the drastic action it did concerning the two teachers. He could not see that either had been guilty of any disloyalty since coming out of training college. Mr Morris said he wished to endorse the sentiments expressed in the letter. The board discussed in committee a letter from the Minister for Education (the Hon. H. G. R.'Mason), and finally it was reported in open board that the letter written by Professor Belshaw had been received. Subsequently the board considered the case of the young woman teacher who was reported to have refused to salute the flag, and it was decided that her services be dispensed with, “as she had refused to carry out the instructions of the board.” “Let her appeal,” was Mr Campbel’s final word.