MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21359, 12 June 1931, Page 8

MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS

TO THI EDITOR. Sir, —Your columns report fresh developments in the odious attack on> married women teachers. In the total number of adult women teachers, some 4000, it is becoming clear that, as I predicted, tlie number of married women is found to be a very small percentage of the whole, and that the dismissal of them will “ solve ”no worth-while “ problem.” Of the 74 possible victims in Canterbury, “15 are widows, others are separated from their husbands, others again are the sole support of their children, their husbands being unemployed, disabled from war injuries or by sickness or are pensioners with a .bare living.” The lovely job of selecting the victims is proceeding. Meanwhile, teachers threatened with die; missal are getting ready for the Teachers’ Appeal Court, and it is stated that “ if the teacher is wrongfully dismissed the court could require her reinstatment, together with the payment of compensation.” One could wish that the members of the boards undertaking this odious task might have all the trouble they deserve. The Auckland hoard has discovered 54 victims it intends to dismiss, and' 54 more are “ deferred for further consideration,” while 12 are deemed sufficiently poor * and favoured enough to remain. What gallant men and statesmen! ‘ Many young teachers are now in distressing circumstances and they require consideration,” says the chairman. There are lots df young people, other than these, who are in “distressing circumstances.'’ Possibly the chairman himself has-a good job and ample means. Would it not be well for him to give up his position and make way for the “ distressing ” cases down the ladder? It is only because it is women, and not men, that you are making this abominable discrimination. They have not the “rights” of men. No; they are “ dependents ” of the Bedouins, and can be treated as male selfishness and sheer custom dictate. I hope that the Teachers’ Institute will fight every ease in the Appeal Court. Plainly the unemployed girls themselves« are unqualified by service, experience, or age to fill the posts of the dismissed married women. It means merely promotion for some teachers already in employment. May we hope thaT women teachers offered promotion to the vacant posts of the dismissed victims will courageously decline to accept them! Women have more enduring courage and sejfsaerifice than men. It would only be another instance of their nobility if they all stood loyal to their sisters in the present trying time. And among unemployed girls, how is the “ selection ” to be made? Are their private circumstances and needs to be investigated, and only the most “ necessitous” to be employed. There is no end to this sort of thing. We all desire our girls to he employedbut making victims, of a number of qualified married women is not the way. Ttvo wrongs do not made one right. ft is an evil example and precedent. It is not the Golden Rule of doing right in a context of the whole, but the jungle rule of false sentiment’ envy, and injustice. It is a discrimination men are not applying to themselves; only to women. The meanness of it! —I am, etc., June 10. F- B. Fraser.