ACADEMIC RIGHTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22712, 26 October 1935, Page 2

ACADEMIC RIGHTS

LETTER FROM ENGLAND AUCKLAND COLLEGE COMPLIMENTED A MISAPPREHENSION CLAIMED The question of academic freedom of speech was raised again at a meeting of the Auckland University College Council on Tuesday last (says the New Zealand Herald), when the council received a letter signed by 620 members of the staffs of 19 universities in the British Isles, offering congratulations upon a resolution passed by the council last year, in which the rights of university teachers in regard to tfceir public utterances were defined. The letter, which had been printed after the manner of a petition and circulated for signature, as as follows: “ It has come to our notice that the council of Auckland University College has recently adopted a resolution on the issue of academic freedom of speech, which reads as follows: — RESOLUTION QUOTED. “‘ 1. The university teacher has no less freedom of speech within the law than any other citizen, excepting that there is a special responsibility on him to weigh his public utterances. It must also be recognised that his position in the community may sometimes involve a special obligation to speak, and, indeed, to make a pronouncement not in accordance with the opinions and traditions of the majority of citizens. ‘“2. The exercise of this freedom (as defined in clause 1) and, indeed, the obligation to speak, should not place in jeopardy a university teacher’s tenure of his post, or make him subject to supervision or correction by the governing authority.’ “As members' of the staffs of academic bodies in Great Britain, we, the undersigned, wish to express to the council our congratulations upon this timely pronouncement on a subject of such fundamental importance. It maintains the best traditions of academic freedom and safeguards that loyalty to truth on which all advance in learning depends. We wish also to express our wholehearted agreement with the terms of the resolution itself.” Among the signatures were Professor Lascelles Abercrombie, Sir Maurice Sheldon Amos, K.C., Sir R. H. Biffen, Professor Ernest Barker, Mr Edmund Blunden, Mr G, D. H. Cole, Professor J, B. S. Haldane, Sir F. Gowland Hop-, kins, 0.M., president of the Royal Society, Mr C. E. M. Joad, Sir Gilbert Murray, the Rev. Canon C. E. Raven, Lord Rutherford of Nelson, Sir Michael E. Sadler, Sir Arthur Salter, Sir Charles Sherrington, 0.M., Professor Frederick Soddy, and the Rev. Canon B. H. Streeter. The list included 15 fallows of the Royal Society. MR DICKINSON’S SPEECH. The universities and university colleges represented were those of Oxford, Cambridge, London, St. Andrew’s, Manchester, ‘ Birmingham, Sheffield, Cardiff, Aberystwith, Bangor, Southampton, Hull, Reading, Dublin and Belfast. “ On August 5, 1934, Mr H. D. Dickinson, lecturer in economics at Leeds University, made an anti-war speech at Auckland, New Zealand, at which university he was at the time an exchange lecturer,” stated an attached memorandum. "This speech caused some press comment, and disciplinary action was demanded by a member of the New Zealand House of Parliament. The council of Auckland University College, however, not only refused to censure Mr Dickinson, but passed a resolution, which is given below, affirming their support of the right of free speech for university teachers. “A provisional committee was formed, which held a meeting in October last, at which it was resolved to send the enclosed letter of congratulation to the council of Auckland University College. This letter, as can be seen, has been signed by 620 members of the staffs of 19 English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish universities, among whom 185 are professors, readers or heads of colleges, 341 are lecturers, tutors or demonstrators, and 94 are research workers.” THE COLLEGE AND THE PUBLIC. The memorandum also quoted the terms of a resolution passed by the Association of University Teachers, on similar lines to the Auckland resolution. The former pronouncement, it stated, had been supported by all the association’s branches, including those at universities which were not represented among the signatories to the letter of congratulation. When the letter had been read, Sir Henry Horton said he felt that the council would have to rescind its resolution before any appeal could be made with hope of success to the public for assistance to the college. Personally, he could not act upon any committee for that purpose until the council divested itself of a resolution which whittled away its rightful powers. He was in favour of free speech, but he felt that the council ought to possess powers of which the resolution deprived it. The council ought to be free at all times to act according to its own wisdom and discretion. He believed that those who had signed the letter had had a quite erroneous idea. From his own connection with the council he could say that there had never been any attempt to suppress freedom of speech. Mr W. H. Cocker suggested that a suitable reply be sent. He felt that the council could not merely “ receive ” the letter. The president, Mr T. U. Wells: I think a very exaggerated view was taken of the attitude of the College Council. All that the then president, Sir George Fowlds, wanted was that members of the staff should -weigh their words and speak with a due sense of responsibility. Mr Cocker: This letter congratulates us, and we receive it in a spirit of criticism. AN AMENDMENT DEFEATED. Mr Wells; I am not criticising, but I think the letter was written partly under a misconception. Sir Henry Horton: The idea, of the professors was that freedom of speech was restricted. It has never been. Mr Johnstone; You mean that they believed we had passed a resolution granting freedom. They congratulate us, and instead of thanking them we question their action. Sir Henry Horton said that according to a newspaper report ho had read the Socialists of Leeds had held a meeting on Mr Dickinson’s return and statements very wide of the mark had been made. Then the university movement had started. Professor Burbidge said this was not correct. The movement had started before Mr Dickinson left New Zealand. His own view was that the signatories had wished to thank the council for expressing in its resolution the prevailing custom in England. Mr Johnstone moved that a suitable letter of acknowledgment be sent. The motion was seconded by Mr 11. J. D. Mahon. Sir Henry Horton moved as an amendment that the letter be received. This was seconded by Mr S. I. Crookes. The amendment was lost on the voices, and the motion was carried. Mr Johnstone and Professor Burbidge were appointed a sub-committee to draft the reply.