UNIVERSITY CONTROL

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

UNIVERSITY CONTROL

QUESTION OF REORGANISATION. BOARD OF STUDIES CENSURED. ITS POWERS! EXCEEDED. The following motion standing in the name of Dr Anderson (Wellington) was productive of some discussion at the meeting of tlie Senate of the Now Zealand University yesterday“'l hat the Senate regrets that tlie tune of tho Board of Studies should be taken up in dealing with subjects over which tne board has no jurisdiction.” Iho resolution followed upon a question by Dr xiiiaerson, who had previously asked tho Chancellor (Sir Robert Stout) to rule whether a motion passed by the Board of Studios to the effect that in tho opinion of the board the time had arrived for the reorganisation of the university into four independent universities was within, the scope anu powers of the Board of Studies. Ihe Chancellor, had ruled that this resolution, together with a consequential motion, was out pi order.

When Dr Anderson’s motion came up for consideration Professor Segar (chairman of the Board p£ Studies) rose to a point of order. The powers of the board, he said, were defined in tlie Act, and he asked for a ruling whether it was in order for the Senate to criticise the procedure of tho Board of Studies.

'lhe Chancellor said he thought the Senate should have tho right, to say whether the board was fulfilling its functions, and he held that it was not fulfilling any part of its functions in dealing with things that were not before it. fie understood that the resolutions as passed by the bbard had been, sent on to the Senate,

Professor Segar: They were not sent forward officially to the Senate. 'ihoy simply appear in the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Studies. The Chancellor; The minutes of the meeting are the only report which wo have from the Board of Studies. My ruling is that it is competent for tho fctenalo to discuss the matter.

Dr Anderson, in formally moving his resolution, said it dealt, very mildly with the offence out of which it arose, and his only fear was that an outsider might not know to what it referred. The members of the Senate all knew what it referred to. The point of the whole matter was a very definite one, but he did not wish to stress it unduly. Professor Segar: You have made the matter public-- not the Board of Studies. , Continuing, Dr Anderson protested against the attitude of (ho chairman of the Board of Studies in seeking a ruling on the question whether any criticism of the board by the honate was out of order. The point of the whole matter was that the board had undertaken to express an opinion on a upon which, as a board it was not competent to express an opinion, it was competent for any individual member, who was also a member of the Senate, to propose such a resolution, but it was not' competent for the board to give currency to its views in that particular way.. There would necessarily be very strong opposition to such a proposal, but a motion cf that kind should not be placed before the public -without discussion. He moved his motion as it stood, but at the name time it might be capable of amendment' 1 or of revision in some other form.

The Hon. u. A llanuu, in seconding the motion, said he thought it was desirable tnat the Senate should place on record its opifiion regarding the powers and duties of me -Hoard of Studies, which had .exceeded its limits in this case. As it was present constituted, the professors dominated the proceedings and deliberations of the Senate, uut me Senates had certain powers and rights which should not be usurped by the ■ Board of Stumcs. The question was - whetner me powers of the Senate were to ■bo so- usurped. He- would like to -hear tlie attitude taken up by the professors. • Professor Segar said he thought the Board of Studies would bo grateful to Dr Anderson for securing a degree of publicity for the matter which the board itself had not aimed at. The board bad merely desired unit’ the question of reorganisation should be ventilated and discussed. Opinion in regard to this subject had undergone a cJiango during recent years, and one aspect of the present system of university administration was a tendency not to indulge in tlie public discussion of certain matters. In this particular case the Board of Studies had been accused of exceeding its powers, but, he had no hesitation in saying tnat the motion was in order because it came within'

me scope cf that part of the board’s duties concerned ivitli degrees, diplomas, and ox-, animations. In the resolution they were simply declaring mat degrees might bo made more effective, and that examinations might he carried out more effectively than under the present system. Professor iv. J. fcicott (Canterbury) said it seemed to him that if the motion was carried it would create an open breach between the Senate and the Board of Studies. --(Laughter and mild dissent.) For that reason he would vote for the motion. It had been one of the most foolish things in the whole of their history to set up two bodies for practically the same purpose. The Chancellor; “Hoar, hear.” Professor Scott added that if all legislation in connection with the various courses were stopped for several years it would be a great blessing. • ihe existence of the ■Board of Studies had been due to a weak policy of temporising, and for that reason ho would support the motion. Dr Cameron (Otago) said it was an extraordinary tiling that the Professorial Board in Dunedin should have been asked to consider a question of such importance, while the University Council, the governing body, had been passed over. In addition to that the Board of Studies had now passed this resolution. Ho could not see what powers the hoard had to take the action in the matter that it had taken.

Sir J. Caughley (Director of Education)' said that in his opinion Professor Segar had given a very remarkable interpretation of the definition of the powers of the Board ol Studies. 'J he powers of the board could not be made to apply to a case of this kind. The proper thing to have done was lor a member of the Board of Studios to have brought forward the motion iu the Senate.

Mr t . A . do la Mnro (Wellington) deprecated the attention that was being devoted to what he described as "legal quibbles.” it cl id not. concern him very much if the Senate discussed something of educational value which did not perhaps come within the four corners of its powers. It seemed to him that the chairman of the Board of Studies would have been lacking in courage and commonsense if he had not accepted the motion. 'The tendency to day was for the four colleges lo break apart, hut the essential question was whether the time was ripe for such a change. He did nof know that they were any more justified in criticising the Board of Studies than the Board of Studies would bo in criticising the Senate, and ho would move as an amendment that they proceed with the next business. Professor Wall (Christchurch) seconded the amendment. It had been taken for granted during the discussion, he said, that this proposal had nothing to do with the question of examinations and the appointment of examiners, hut he wished to assure them Mint, it had a great deal to do with this latter matter. As long as there was ono university here the professors were unable to call upon their colleagues to examine with them, whereas if there were tour separate universities in existence it would he possible to call upon another professor to assist in an examination upon n particular subject? 'That was a matter which had a direct bearing on the subject of the appointment of examiners, and therefore the whole quest inn was within the scope of the Board of iSindiqs. The amendment was lost.

•The tnancellor said the Board of Studies eould have no powers outside those given it. by statute, and the statute was very clear. Professor Segar had claimed that the resolution came within the powers < f me hoard in so far as it. was the duly of the board to make recommendations to the .Senate regarding the appointment of examiners, degrees, diplomas, scholarships,' etc , but. he v.id not think that such a claim could ho supported. How did they know that, the new universities would have any examinations. It. was no part of Uio function of the Board of Studies to inform the outside public about n matter of this kind. It was a violation of its charter Proceeding. Sir Robert said it appeared to him that the professors desired to obtain the control of higher education in the dominion. Already (heir representation on the fVnnle was nut of all proportion to what it was in other countries. Personally, he wanted to see the professors looked up to; and their status raised, but lie objected to being ruled by professors;- - ■Professor Detrmann (Auckland! said he agreed with the mover that • the motion should be discussed on its merits, and not

on the lines of the general question which it raised. The action of the Board of Studies had been misunderstood; it was nor intended as propaganda, but was rather intended as a means of obtaining opinions so tbar at a later date some definite plan might bo placed before the Senate or the Government. If the motion were more specific and less general he might be able to support it. Professor Hunter (Wellington) reminded the Senate that the. Board of Studies had not suddenly raised a new question. similar motion had been, proposed m the Senate a few years ago, and very nearly carried, so there could be nothing very revolutionary about it. The board had acted in good faith about the matter, but it had exceeded its powers, and ho would therefore vote for the motion.

Professor Macmillan Brown (Christchurch), whom it was almost impossible to hear at press table, was understood to say that ho was not opposed to the motion which had been earned by tlio Board of Studies, but the question was whether the time was ripe for reorganisation. Professor flight (Canterbury), in referring to the correspondence which had taken: place regarding this matter, said it had not been the desire of the Board of Studies to proceed with the proposal unless it wa-s assured of the support of the councils and a considerable body of university opinion. Mr Morrell (Otago) supported the motion. With Professor Macmillan Brown he thought the time would come when there were four independent universities —as a matter of fact they all thought so—but 'they were not discussing that. It could not he denied that the Board of Studies was utterly unjustified in discussing it in view of its powers under the Act. He did not think that the Board of Studies intended to be discourteous, but the Otago University Council would probably decline to take part in any such conference as had been proposed at the present time. Although ho could not speak with authority, he thought that Otago would take up the stand that the time was inopportune. Mr Bakewell (Wellington) said ho agreed with Professor Dettmann that the motion was too drastic. If thev had proposed that the chairman of the Bofrd of Studies should be asked for an explanation he would have Supported it. He regretted to find that there was a spirit of antagonism in the Senate towards the professors and the board. He hoped there would be no need for four universities, but if the change were to come lot it come.

Dr Thompson (Otago) said that now that tho matter had been discussed so freely the mover had almost attained his object, and perhapA the subject could end there. Ho would be very sorry to see a quarrel between the two bodies at that stage.

The mover, in replv, said the question had been very fully discussed, and it was not necessary for him to traverse the ground. The wording of the resolution might have been improved, but he could not see how to alter it, and no one had suggested a suitable amendment. He was nrepared to lea<o it to the good sense of the Senate. The motion was declared carried on the voices without a division being called for. 5