TEACHING ECONOMICS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIVIII, Issue 17684, 20 January 1921, Page 8

TEACHING ECONOMICS.

MR. ARCHER'S APPOINTMENT. DISCUSSION BY SENATE. CHANCELLOR'S CRITICISM. [BY TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON. Wednesday. In I]is address to the Senate of the University of New Zealand to-day, the chancellor, Sir Robert Stout, said : — " I have not yet seen the reports of the Workers' Educational Association from the Auckland University College and the , Canterbury College. The Ota go University and the Victoria University College have sent in their rcpurts. So far as I can judge from the list of tutors, the Otago University has been successful 'n obtaining able and competent teachers, most of them have university degrees. The Victoria University College has" been equally successful. "During the year considerable discussion has appeared in the public press regarding the appointment of one of the instructors in economics in Canterbury. He does not seem to be a university graduate, and judging by his public utterances he is a Marxian in theory, and may properly be termed a l revolutionary communist.' We know that there are at present in every country in the world propagandists who desire to see the present industrial jifo of the community changed, and that oy forcible means if necessary. In my opiniotn these workers' educational classes will not be beneficial to our people if they are conducted by revolutionaries. There can be no progress without order, as Comte long ago pointed out, and I do not think the university sbouU use its funds for the propagation of Jjfy special economic theory, and especially should not lend its aid to a propaganda of revolution. A teacher of economics should be able to place before the students a history of the subject and the different views 'held by writers on economics, A true teacher will not be a propagandist of any special theory.; he ought to be a man who can fairly and honestly place before the students all the different economic theories. I also think that the university should insist upon the teachers having either university status or university diplomas in the subjects of which they are teachers. The workers' educational classes should have as teachers the ablest men or women attainable." Professor Macmillan Brown, vice-chan-cellor, said that when the matter came up before the Senate he intended to move that a committee should be formed to investigate the working of the Workers' Educational Association. The senate should accept the responsibility. The committee should inquire into the efficiency of the teachers and the association. Professor Hunter (Wellington) opposed the chancellor's views. He was sorry to see the paragraph in. the chancellor's report going out to the Press and the public without any presentation of the other side of the case. It was hard to realise the tremendous difficulties there had been during the war period in obtaining the right type of tutor, not only on account of the scarcity of men, but also on account of the inadequacy of funds which prevented the offering of reasonable salaries. In regard to the particular case mentioned by the chancellor Professor Hunter pointed out that the tutor had been recommended by a joint committee and the appointment had been sanctioned. There were different opinions and schools of economic thought. They ■were faced with the difficulty that one section of the community strongly objected to economists, of one type and another section took just as strong an animosity toward economists of another type. The proper duty of the Workers' Education Association was to endeavour to appoint the most capable man for the position, and having appointed him to leave him absolutely free to teach hia classes in his own way. Professor Wright supported Professor Hunter, and claimed that Mr. Archer had not gone to extremes, but rather the other way. Mr. J. C. Adams (Christchnrch) also spoke m favour of Mr. Archer. The committee was perfectly satisfied with the way he conducted his classes. Professor Benham said he thought the chancellor had made a mistake, and moved that the Senate disagree with the implications in the paragraph. The discussion was adjourned.