RECTOR OF COLLEGE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17230, 5 August 1919, Page 9

RECTOR OF COLLEGE.

PROPOSAL IN CANTERBURY.

TEACHING STAFF'S VIEWS.

RESOLUTION RESCINDED.

The proposal that a rector should be appointed has been advanced in connection with Canterbury and Victoria Colleges. The former has now abandoned the idea, owing to the opposition of the Professorial Board.

A resolution was passed by it he Board of Governors of Canterbury College on May 26 that immediate steps should be taken to appoint a professor of education, who shall also bo rector of the college. The matter was reviewed at the lawc meeting of the board upon a motion to rescind Mm resolution.

The board a deputation from the Professorial Board, whose views were expressed by its chairman, Professor Gabbatt. The latter said the Professorial Board was not hostile to the appointment of a professor of education—far from it. That was a different matter to the professor of education being also rector. A professor of education was almost the worst man to be appointed rector, because he Would be more likely t 0 endeavour to aggrandise his own department. He pointed out that three times within the last three or four years the Senate of the University of New Zealand had declined to accept the recommendation of the board of studies to insert in the University statutes a clause providing that students' courses should be supervised by the Professorial Board; but such a scheme had been adopted at Canterbury College, and was working perfectly. Professor Wall and Dr. Chilton were at present directors of studies. If a rector were appointed it would simply mean striking a crow-bar into that machinery. If a bad rector were obtained —which was not out of the questionit would mean that all the students would be affected by his incapacity.

Professor Gabbatt contended that the chairman of the Professorial Board was at present _ called upon to do work that an academic registrar should do; such an officer would act as secretary to the board, and as intermediary between the two boards as regards students there was no necessity to pay a. man £1000 per annum for those duties. Summarising the Professorial Board's attitude he said the board considered (1) that the legal oosifcion was difficult (the Act provides that a rector must be appointed from the members of the Professorial Board); (2) that the appointment is being made on the vote of a bare majority of the board ; and (3) the Professorial Board was unanimously opposed to the appointment of a rector. He contended that if the Board of Governors acquainted the person proposed to be appointed with these details it would not get the best man—the man who would take the position in such circumstances was not the man who should be rector of Canterbury College. "Canterbury College has gone on for 40 years as a republic ; now we are going to have a king foisted on us against our will," he concluded. T In the course of the subsequent discussion, Mr. S. G. Raymond, K.C., said 't seemed a ridiculous position that the new chair was to carry with it a salary (£1000) far in excess of the salary of any of the present members of the professorial staff. The motion to rescind the previous resolution was carried by 9 votes to 7. | The chairman then submitted the report of the special committee on the sub- : ject of the appointment of a professor of education, the first clause being:'' That the salary attached to the position of professor of education be £1000." Mr- Hughes gave "notice of motion for '• next > meeting;:— *' Thai immediate steps be taken to appoint a professor of education at a salary of £1000 per annum." j Mr. Raymond gave notice of a supj plementary motion :—" That the earns j salary be , pud tc all the other professors."