HONORARY DEGREES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18766, 20 January 1923, Page 6

HONORARY DEGREES

DISCUSSION BY UNIVERSITY SENATE. proposal defeaTp:d. A lengthy discussion took place at the meeting of the University Senate yesterday on the following motion by Air I l '. 11. Bake well: “That the necessary steps he taken to enable the Senate to confer honorary degrees.” In bringing the motion forward Mr Bakewell said his chief ground for bringing the proposal forward was the charter itself, which stated that the university was founded for the promotion of higher knowledge. He did not see what better principle they could follow than that of appreciating such knowledge, either within or outside the academy. A number of men had done excellent work in the field of science, and their work had been appreciated by the learned societies at Homo. He considered that it was a standing blot on their university (hat such a man as Augustus Hamilton should not have had his work, recognised by it. And there were others whoso work deserved recognition, including Hudson, whose work on , insect forms in this country Was going to be a standard work for all time. They all knew the work done by the Hon. G. M. Thomson in botany. He did not see why people whose merits were recognised in other countries should not be considered in the country to which they belonged. The men to whom he had referred were missioners of culture among the people, and had been so all their lives. Mr F. A. de la Mare seconded the motion. He considered that there were two types of people whom they should delight to honour. Some of the men who came to New Zealand belonged to the great kinship of culture, and this proposal afforded oho way whereby we could take them into our brotherhood. There were men who had not been definitely connected with the university, and to whom the university owed a very great debt. . If they could bring such men into university circles he thought it would bring honour to the authorities. The argument had been very often used that instead of being a reward for original work an honour might be a reward for itinerant politicians, but he thought that might easily be met bj r wording the motion in such a way that rewards were to bo given only for original work.

Professor Macmillan Brown said he was going to oppose the motion because of the difficulty of framing a statute that would guard against such dangers as were referred to by the mover and seconder of the 'motion, 'that was the feeling when the question was discussed many years ago. The subject then brought up was the question of granting an ad eundem. The university had several doctorates which could be gained on an examination thesis.. They might be charged with abuse of the honours, and he did not think they were large enough as a community to be able to deny that charge with a clear conscience. It was a pity that they could not grant a degree, but it would be extremely difficult to frame a statute that would enable them to steer clear of all difficulties.

Professor G. K. Thompson said the New Zealand University was now more than SO years old, and they were all proud of the developments that had taken place during that lime. Ho thought it was about time for them to take the steps which (lie universities at Home had taken. In what respect was tlie time not ripe for the change proposed? If the university had reached the prestige and honour that they thought it had the honour would bo appreciated. On the Board of Studies there were experts, and a person to whom an honour was to he conferred would write something which would come within, the purview of one or more persons on the Board of Studies. lie considered that the difficulties referred to would not be very great. On supporting the motion Professor Wall said ho saw no fear of the privilege being open to abuse, politically, but ft was open to abuse; in other ways. If they refrained Irom asking for the right on the ground that; they could not exercise the right properly then they would stultify themselves. ±ne speaker proceeded to refer in glowing terms to tne . accomplishment of Dr ■ Cockayne, whose work in botany was. appreciated all over the world and whoso books on the subject were used as text books in some schools.

Professor Hunter also supported the motion. He said it had always seemed to him a pity that these men had not been more closely associated with the teaching of scientific subjects. These . people • were really enthusiasts, and it would have done tile schools a great deal of 1 good if they had been associated in the teaching., thought it would be quite easy to draw up the regulations in such a way as to guard against abuse.

The Chancellor asked if they were going to force the examiners to give degrees although the examiners failed. The university of London had granted, only throe honorary degrees in about 100 years. The King was granted tlie LL.B. degree, the Queen the degree of Doctor of Music, and the Prince of Wales an honorary degree in science. The University of Melbourne had the power to grant honorary degrees ad eundem, but that was quite a different thing. Ho thought they should keep in view the fact that the university was established for the purpose of examining people who wished to get a degree. Professor Benham said there seemed to be a rather vague idea in the, minds of the mover and seconder of the motion ns to the -character of the men on whom honorary degrees were conferred at Home. The whole ■ i.ea seemed to him to be undesirable.

Professor Dettmann quoted an experience which ho had had in Adelaide in opposition to the motion. After he had filled a position for 12 months it became vacant, and he was an applicant for it, but instead of getting the position he got an honorary degree.

All' VV. J. Morrell said the university was now more than 50 years old, and surely tiiey could trust to their experts, who would resent an unworthy bestowal' hi honours. He thought it wotdd be well to require tne concurrence of the Board of Studies. If the, statute required that honorary degrees bo conferred for academic merit that would in itself he a sufficient safeguard against some of the abuses that had been hinted at. He thought they should have the power to reward men whose high merits warranted it. Professor Segar said he would oppose the motion. lie tuought the university, as at present constituted, was approaching its end, and lie did not consider that. it. should alter its policy for the short while it had to go. Much a degree ns was proposed would bo of no use to a man, and there was no advantage to be gained in awarding it. There was more or less risk of abuse, and if they once gained the power it would always have to be retained.

Mr (laugh ley said that if they wore to encourage learning tlipy should make provision tor timsp whose work did not lie vvif 1 1 in the confines of the work proscribed in the calendar. He did not think they should lake such a narrow view as to soy that, the only way to decide was hy examination. lie did not consider that they need bp greatly concerned about abuses. They could iTraw up the statute in such a way that, a degree could he awarded oulv on the ground of scholarship and research work.

Professor .1. Bankiue Brow!) said he was going to oppose (lie proposal mainly on account of the difficulties to be met with in connection with the granting of degrees. With (ho exception of one or two men they would he on the border line. Dd Anderson also opposed the motion. In replying, Mr Bakewell said ho did not agree with the suggestion that the systern of granting honorary degrees was bound to create abuses. On being put to the meeting the motion was lost, nine votes being recorded in favour of it and U against it.