The Grey River Argus WEDNESDAY, Sept. 19, 1945. AN AWAKENING.

Grey River Argus, 19 September 1945, Page 4

The Grey River Argus WEDNESDAY, Sept. 19, 1945. AN AWAKENING.

Unless the future meetings of the Greymouth Technical High School Board of Governors are, in its own words “almost sleepy” meetings, “as hitherto’’, the Greymouth “Evening Star” pretends to imagine that “the school’s progress will not be helped”. So it is quite fair to assume that the “Star’s” idea of an ideal Board for the School is one whose meetings invariably are “almost sleepy”. This assumption is further justified'- by an editorial complaint at the fact that the Board’s latest meeting broke completely away from the alleged tradition of somnolent meetings, and actually was a lively one characterised by a controversy. Probably, it is only fair to our contemporary to suggest that it might scarcely have held the Board up to ridicule as it did on account of this advent of controversy except for one feature of the controversy, and that a .feature which, in the “Star’s” own political philosophy, appeared to offer a loophole for the ex-

traction of a'paltry piece of party capital. Rejoicing in this, .‘t professes “regret”, with the jeering remark that “Labour comrades should be at variance, or have cause to distrust each other”. Yet because Messrs J. B. Kent and P. L. Turley, the only nominees, did not refuse to contest the Board chairmanship, the “Star” chooses itself 4o express distrust in each of them, though suggesting its idea is that of “reconciliation”. Willingness to serve as Chairman —which attitude did not appear to characterise more than one of the other members —is impudently held up as a fault on the part of either candidate, the one being accused of a wish not to give place to others, and the other accused of having “no inferiority complex”, and of “sheer effrontery” in allowing himself to be nominated for the position. Not a word of remonstrance regarding the plainly implied lack of enterprise on the part of the other members who showed absolutely no inclination to accept the “Star’s” mean estimate of the actual candidates by themselves opposing those candidates and contesting the chairmanship. It began its criticism with a laboured homily on manners and an insinuation that the controversy might lower the pupils’ estimate alike of their Principal and their school, but did not say a word in exculpation of the effort to lessen that estimate, which took the form of making a mountain out of a molehill, and devoting no less than a column and a-half of space to an incident the exploitation of which in this fashion would be calculated to cause the very thing it pretends to reprobate, namely, to cause “the outside public to become perturbed’’. The. “Star” even goes further in its fantastic fault-finding. While deprecating the lively interest in the school taken by the two candidates, it suggests their interest might “induce the public to take a.more lively interest”. It reckons that the members appear little qualified or lacking in interest. If one candidate has been chosen for the presiding office of so many local bodies, then he must be reckoned one of those “little qualified”, whilst the other is similarly condemned because his interest is reckoned to be altogether too “lively”. The general public will be inclined to argue that the “comrades” are both thoroughly worthy members, as demonstrating their public spirit and readiness to give service to the utmost. They are by no means “sleepy”, and have obviously the welfare of the school very much at heart. Presumably if either refused 1c band, the other, in the words of the man in the street, would “fly in”. One has the qualifications which go with long and faithful service on many public bodies, and the other those that go with membership, not only of the Technical High School Board, but also the Canterbury Education Board. There is the real rub! The qualifications of the “comrades” are second to none, and it is only to camouflage that fact as far as it thus might be camouflaged, that our contemporary feels obliged to pit against them only some mythical individuals -amongst an allegedly disinterested public. If it is a question of taking an interest in the school, why not be fair and acknowledge those who demonstrate their interest, instead of making an utterly unverified insinuation “of a drive, by one section to secure control of the school”. What section?