QUESTION OF COURTESY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19062, 6 July 1925, Page 11

QUESTION OF COURTESY.

WITHDRAWAL OF EVIDENCE. —r* REASONS FOR THE DECISION. . " COMMISSIONERS COMMITTED." A statement by the. Hon. George Fowlds, president of the. Auckland University College, regarding tho action of Professors J. P. Grossmann and W. I). Anderson, in withdrawing their offer to give evidence before the University Com- , mission, was published on SaturdEty. Professors Grossmann and Anderson write as follows: In tho letter which wo sent to the commission withdrawing our names from tho list of witnesses, there was nothing suggesting tho least reflection upon the ability, experience or public and professional standing of the gentlemen concerned. We simply stated that, for (ho reasons given, in our opinion tho commission as constituted could not bo expected to give an impartial or unbiassed decision on some of the points in the order of reference, because the members were already publicly committed to definite conclusions on these highly controversial questions. This surely is legitimate criticism of such a public Ijody as a commission, which is supposed to be judicial in character and purpose. As regards Mr. Fowlds' charge of "discourtesy," we understand him to mean that this lay in " withdrawing at tho last moment" after applying to be heard by the commission. On this point we may explain that when the commission was first announced and the order of reference circulated, desiring not to lose the chance of expressing our opinions before it, we naturally put in our names as prepared to give evidence. But we were anxious to know if the commissioners had already expressed publicly any definite opinions on at least two of tho points submitted to them—accrediting and internal examinations—and wo therefore endeavoured to collect information on this matter. This took some time, and it was not till tho day following the arrival of tlie commissioners in Auckland that we secured what we regarded as evidence on tho subject sufficiently definite and conclusive to compel us, as a matter of principle, to withdraw. No Derogatory Implication. It should thus be clear that our letter was sent "at the last moment" simply because through lack of evidence we did not feel that wo were in a position to decide before; and in our opinion it was better to take this step even at that late hour, feeling confident, as we did, that the members of tho commission "would recognise that our criticism carried no derogatory implication or meaning. We wish further to explain that our comments on the constitution of the cornmission bear on only two of tho questions included in the order of referenceaccrediting and matriculation, and internal or external examinations. Wo regard these as by far the most important questions to be discussed by the commission, and of vital interest to the whole university. Whether we have one' university or four, we must sooner or later decide on what tests or qualifications we are prepared to admit students, and whether we shall award degrees on the results of external or internal examinations or of both combined. These were the questions on which we were naturally mosC anxious to express an opinion, and therefore when we came to understand that the commissioners were Virtually committed beforehand to certain definite views on these points, we decided that it would be the wiser course for us to withdraw, and thus reserve for ourselves 1 complete freedom of criticism and action if the opportunity should , arise later on. Professor Hunter's Position. Mr. Fowlds thinks that we have been "gratuitously discourteous" to Professor Hunter by objecting "at the last moment to his connection with the commission. But Mr. Fowlds is entirely mistaken in assuming that "Professor Hunter's,presence at the meetings of the commission as representing the senate" must havo been known to us when we sent in our names as prepared to Rive evidence. Those are the facts:—(l) We are not members of the senate and wo received no official notification of Professor Hunter's appointment till tho minutes of senate reached us, after the sittings of the commission had begun. (2) Though we heard casually that Professor Hunter was to be present at the meetings of the commission, wo certainly did not know that he was to take anv official part in the work of tho commission; and the first intimation we got of this came from a note in the daily papers three days before tho commission reached Auckland. (3) We thought this so important that we wrote at once to Wellington to get special information as to tho terms of his appointment and tho naturo of his duties. We got an answer last Tuesday morning, and it confirmed. our decision to withdraw our names from the list of witnesses. It should be thus clear that we left it "to the last moment" to record our objection to Professor Hunter's connection with the commission simply because, through no fault of our own, *wo were not in possession of tho facts before. a . One further point in regard to Professor Hunter:—Thero is nothing; in our letter to the commission (it has already appeared in the daily papers) which conveys tho slightest suggestion of any personal reflection upon Professor Hunter, or throws any doubt on his ability or his intimate knowledge of University business. But we may observe that if it was really necessary for the senate to appoint one of its members to supply the commissioners with information about onr university, its history and regulations, that m itself is a strong argument in favour of appointing as commissioners men already familiar with, the peculiar circumstances of our university, and tho special prob- r terns and difficulties that have arisen out of them—the course already recommended by Sir R. Stout. In any. case, in view of the judicial character which is supposed to attach to all'commissions, it seems to us that the senate might well have selected a representative not so closely and completely identified with one side of tho great examinations controversy, with which this commission has to deal. Criticism, not Discourtesy. Wo hope that we have now made it clear that there were special reasons which, to our minds, compelled lis to delay our decision about giving evidence till late in the day and finally .induced us to withdraw our names after the commission had entered on its Auckland session. Having said this, we now protest emphatically against tho suggestion that there is. anything "discourteous" in the criticism of "a judicial body on the ground that its members have already committed themselves on the principle of certain important issues which they are called upon to discuss. AH we havo 6aid is that, for the reasons stated in our letter to tho commission, in our opinion its members are not in a position to givo an impartial and judicial decision on what seem to us two vitally important questions in their order of reference, and in acting in accordance with our convictions we believe that we have performed a public duty, in tho best interests of • • the' 1 university. We notice that Sir Robert Stout has protested against the personnel of the commission ) on much the same grounds that we havo taken, and he has been called, "discourteous" by Sir James Parr for saying r lie thought about the commission after it had got here. Surely it is the franter and fairer course to make such staterue i < within the knowledge of those • rather than before they they go. At all «™nts-"Ma»<>m cum Platcne"—we would rattermib with Sir Robert Stout in ,^ J j S( j nca ti OS , fight with the Minister io