YOUTHFUL IMMORALITY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16983, 17 October 1918, Page 6

YOUTHFUL IMMORALITY

CLERGY AND TEACHERS,

THE RECENT "CONFERENCE."

The following letter has been received from the Revs. H. Mason, J. L. A. Kayll and A. J. Greenwood with reference to the report published last Thursday by the executive of the Headmasters' Association of a conference with Dr. A. W. Averill, Anglican Bishop of Auckland, and a lumber of Church of England clergymen regarding school morality — The headmasters' report calls for com- . ment. Tho report states, inter alia, that the bishop, with a number of his .clergy, J met the headmasters at a conference and | discussed the matter under consideration; , ''< that the clergy cited a number of cases of . \ child immorality; that moat of these cases -U' were already known to the headmasters present; that from these cases all of the >'

clergy deduced an almost universal conclu- |; sion of widespread low morality; j'that | the Headmasters emphatically disagreed J with this attitude of tho clergy, being con- ig vinced from long personal experience that : A.

the cases quoted were the exception and not the rule.

In the Nature 01 an Inquiry, In the first place, we should like to point out that the careless use made of ianguago in the wording of this report is not what we should have expected from schoolmasters. There was nothing in the nature of a conference. No material discussion took place, The proceedings opened by the bishop repeating what he had said at tha meeting of the St. Mary's Homes' Association, and declaring that he would stand by what he had said, neither adding anything nor taking anything away. Then the bishop submitted to the headmasters tho information that he possessed, and was. ■■subjected to a cross-examination by.tha headmasters. 'Each of the clergy present in turn submitted his information and was subjected to a cross-examination.. The pro-. ceedings, therefore, to be correctly de« ! scribed, were in the nature of an inquiry, and in the matter of cross-examination tha headmasters were given greater latituda than would have been allowed in a Court inquiry. ? At the conclusion of the proceedings, the chairman of the association declared that what he had heard had shaken his faith in human and yet we read in" the report that most' of the cases cited, were already known to the teachers present. The chairman must possess a very. distinctive psychology if his faith in humaii nature can be shaken by hearing repeated facts that he already knows. But, further,; since the headmasters asked of us to ac-.: count for our conduct in not having made j these facte known, why, we ask, since they knew of them, did they themselves 'not move in the matter? The obligation Was ; all the greater upon the headmasters,-, for this knowledge was split up among four of us altogether, whereas their executive knew of them all. Their inconsistency goes further, for having declared.to "3 that the facts were weighty enough to have imposed upon'us this obligation, they turn to the patents and publicly assui* them that the morals of school children give no grounds for any apprehension. Extent of the Evil.

Tho report further states that we' all— i.e., the three clergy present—deduced the jalmost universal conclusion of widespread - low morality. We emphatically deny this statement. The opinion was expressed that the evil was universal, and even th«& opinion was not expressed by us aIL Surely the headmasters will not fail to see 4 : difference between an opinion and a deduced conclusion as wide as that between: the bill of a grand jury and the verdict, of a common jury. The one justifies bringing a man up for trial, the other justifies sending him to prison or the gallows.' The two of us who were asked whether we deduced such conclusions replied, the one uij.; ' the negative and the other by a refusal ; j to state any opinion or conclusion whats-.v y I ever. J j The headmasters admitted that filthy■„'.: language was very prevalent among school" , children, and yet in their report they.stats that the great majority of the children »*& \ clean minded and highly moral in W j thoughts. How they know what is in the ... children's thoughts puzzles us beyond measure, and our difficulties are only increased >| ; when we read that the headmasters 'coneider that the co-operation of teachers, \; parents, clergy, education boards, school ;. committees and the Education Department :j is necessary in order to combat the spread v :| of influences inimical to the moral welfare of the children. The headmasters consider that filthy language is compatible V MM clean minds and nighly moral thoughts, % and that such an imposing array of forces 1% necessary to deal with isolated occurrences, m We do not. Wo consider that we should be stultifying ourselves by making such a statement. Finally, the report ; conveys the impression that it had .received the i bishop's approval His Lordship gives us permission to state that he did nothing 0r,, ; the sort.. ' . ____. : '' '--iV ■ ■ ■—- -' ■