DISCIPLINE AT THE COLLEGE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 14097, 26 June 1906, Page 5

DISCIPLINE AT THE COLLEGE.

THE RECENT RUSTICATION. MORE REMARKS FROM THE GOVERNORS. Discipline at Canterbury College was discussed by the Board of GorettiSre at its meeting yesterday, when Mr G. W. Russell moved that a small cub-commit-tee, consisting of the chairman, Bishop Julius, Dr Talbot, Mr L. B. Wood and the mover, should be appointed to inquire into the subject and draft by-laws dealing with the matter es far as the powers of the Board extended. He explained that, by a mistake, tho following clauses had been added to his motion as it appeared on the order paper:— “That any person bringing alcoholic liquor on to the College premises for consumption, except at regularly organised functions, controlled by the Board or Professorial Board, will bo summarily dismissed; and that any student trespassing upon tho College premises and forcibly entering any room of the College. during the hours when the room is closed will be liable to expulsion.” His motion dealt only with the future and not with what had occurred in the'past.

Mr G. J. Smith seconded the motion. Mr L. B. Wood said that ho did not aprove of the word “college” in the motion. The inference was that the question of discipline had to bo looked into in connection with the Institution. It seemed to him that a degree of degradation was being placed on the whole College. As far as the Board knew, all those offences of which complaints had been mads wore committed by students of the Engineering School. ' No other department of the College was concerned in them, <w had been responsible for that kind of thing during the two years ho had been on the Board. In a former case five students of the Engineering School were concerned in the affair, and were fined £1 each. He was not prepared to see the College ns a whole suffer the degree of degradation proposed to be inflicted. A special committee should be set up to deal with the question and report, and he would oppose the motion. As a matter of fact, the Board was thorougly incompetent to deal with details of discipline. Mr C. H. A. T. Opie said that the motion was a motion of want of confidence in the Professorial Board, which was quite competent to deal with all matters of discipline. There were on the Professorial Board two or three men at least who might be regarded as experts on the subject in the highest sense of the term. Tilings went on very well, and as soon as something happened at the College it was proposed to carry motions that seemed to him to be very wild, as if members of the Board of Governor had lost their senses. The line of action proposed, if adopted, would not bo creditable to members. Nothing had happened or was likely to happen that should weaken members’ faith in. the ability of the _ professors to carry out proper discipline at the College. A better course would bo to ask the Professorial Board to submit a report on grave breaches of discipline, and also the proposed punishments, so that rnembers might review' the case before it became public. By the present method of “dealing with those matters, ex-parte statements got into the newspapers, sometimes when a case was sub judico. It w r as highly desirable that the students should not be led to think that the Board of Governors was taking steps to undermine the authority of the Professorial Board. As Mr Wood had stated, it was not right to include the whole of the College in the scope of the motion, as the College as a whole bad committed no offence. Bishop Julius said that be wmuld not like to serve on tbe committee, mainly because the Board of Governors had not the slightest power to deal with discipline. He did think that the motion looked like a reflection on the Professorial Board. The Board of Governors was only a Court of Appeal in those matters, and it did not want to have appeals brought up in regard to every little case.

Mr T. Hughes moved, as an amendment, that the Professorial Board should be asked to draw up a few simple rules for the conduct of the College. The amendment was not seconded. Mr Montgomery said that he also felt that the motion was almost an insult to the Professorial Board. There was only an isolated case or two 'of breach of discipline. He hoped that the motion would not be carried. He had no hesitation in saying that he had as much confidence in the Professorial Board as in the Board of Governors, as far as carrying out discipline was concerned. Dr Talbot said that he was very much of the same opinion. It was not desirable to pass the amendment. The Professorial Board would male© its own rules, and it would bo a mistake for the Board of Governors to interfere with the other Board in regard to discipline. Mr Russell pointed out that his motion only.dealt with the future, and he thought that the committee ho suggested would be a representative and useful one, and ,it could see if the Board of Governors had power to make the proposed by-laws. At present it was entirely a matter of caprice on the part of the Professorial Board, or anyone else, as to whether students were breaking the rules or not. The motion was lost.