THE W.E.A.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22957, 12 August 1936, Page 14

THE W.E.A.

OTAGO AND SOUTHLAND DISTRICT Conducted by Tutor Memoranda Brief comments upon matters referred to below will be welcomed. Letters should be addressed to “ Tftor,” care W.E.A. office, Otago University. . . ... Class notes for Insertion m this column should not exceed 30 or 35 lines in length. Reports that have appeared elsewhere must not be repeated. All copy should be in “Tutor's” hands by the end of each week. . . The W.E.A. column appears m this paper fortnightly on Wednesday.

Education and Propaganda At the annual conference of the Home W.E.A. a demand was made that the class teaching should give a lead on party-political issues—that it should, in plain terms, lend itself to the deliberate manufacture of socialist opinion. On this occasion (says The Highway) one delegate expressed some impatience with the W.E.A. slogan, “We teach you how to think, not what to think,” and flirted with the suggestion that it was the business of the association to broadcast a specific working class evangel. In his reply. Principal Nicholson reiterated the imperative necessity for a clear distinction between education and propaganda. Propaganda, he said, plays inevitably into the hands of the dictators; it weakens the resistance of the citizen to reasonable argument; and to make the W.E.A. a propagandist movement in this sense would destroy its basis. The opinion had been expressed during the discussion that the W.E.A. should teach men not only how to think, but what to think. “ This, said Mr Nicholson, “ may be the proper function of political parties. Heaven knows, I do not wish to deter anyone from political activity: but educational activity is different. Truth must never be made the servant of policy. My critics criticised the universities as class institutions. They overlook the fact that it is precisely in the university tradition that freedom of thought and opinion is most deeply entrenched. So far as the universities have failed to be true to this tradition. I shall be the last to complain if they are criticised: but the trust they hold is not for one class only, but for the community as a whole. In this, at least, they and the W.E.A. have common ground.” This timely reminder (comments The Highway) was received wU.h acclamation by the conference. “Tt needs to be taken to heart, particularly bv that minority of the association which looks upon education as a kind of adjustable spanner ‘for getting on with the job.' ”

A Frontier College In Canada the Frontier College is a Dominion-wide organisation which was founded in 1900. Its headquarters are in Toronto. A Dominion charter was granted in 1922. The basis of the Frontier College structure is the lab-ourer-teacher, 80 to 90 of whom are placed each year by the college. They are carefully-selected university graduates or students in thenfinal year, between the ages of 23 and 32. They are placed in the camps, lumber and mining, not as teachers but as labourers engaged at the usual rate of pay for such work, which in relief camps amounts to 20 cents per day. They work with the men during the day and teach in the evening. Because of th 6 intimacy of the day’s task, the labourer-teacher knows something of the atmosphere and problems that surround the lives of his pupils, and is better able to counsel and advise them. In addition to his usual wages, the labourerteacher is paid a small honorarium by the college. Since the inception of the work 1700 labourer-teachers have been drawn from the universities and colleges. At the close of the day’s work the classes meet in shacks, railgang cars, boarding houses, or in bunkhouses. But, wherever located, each classroom is fitted with a blackboard, a large map of Canada, and a library of 50 books. From time to time general discussion classes are held, when blackboard talks are given on subjects of current interest to these camp workers, such as land settlement, current events, hygiene, thrift, and naturalisation.—Bulletin of the world Association for Adult Education. Co-ordination

The problem of co-ordinating the work of the W.E.A. with that of other organisations in New Zealand which are engaged in adult education is causing local officials a great deal of thought. The Minister of Education has decreed that some arrangement must be reached if State funds are to be made available. Working in isolation as the various organisations are at present doing, is it possible to delimit their spheres of labour so that the ground may be fully covered? The Minister apparently does not think so. He wishes to have some form of unified control under which the different agencies may work together while each continues to perform its particular service. Is it possible to find a basis for a scheme of this kind 9 Will it mean the obliteration of the existing organisations and their titles? Will the W.E.A.. e.g., have to give up its original idea of catering for the educational needs of “ workers and undertake the education of “adults” of all social and industrial classes? Would that mean that the W.E.A., in its new capacity, would be asked to provide “vocational as well as “cultural” subjects, and to permit the use of examinations and inspections? If changes of .£ in „ are involved it is obvious that there will be fundamental alterations in the principles hitherto observed by the W.E.A. The association would lose touch with the mother organisation in England and in other countries. Would it lose touch, also, with the workers whom it is supposed to exist to serve. The answer to this last question may be that the “workers” have . never availed themselves of the services of the W.E.A., and that the suggested new status would probably bring it into touch with a far larger number of “workers” than it has ever reached before. All of these questions and many more must be taken into consideration by those who are concerned with the readjustments, and they would like to enlist the interest of all members of the WE A. Expressions of opinion are invited, as suggested in the memoranda at the head of this column. Class Notes

The attendance at the Mosgiel group is keeping up well. Last week the members debated the proposition “That the 40-hour week is necessary and possible,” and, although the sides were unequal owing to the unavoidable absence of some who were to speak, the discussion was carried through with spirit. . , . . . The Merton class also indulged in a debate on the same subject, although the approach was different —‘That the working hours of farmers should be reduced to 40 each week. The result was a very real difference of opinion upon the possibility of such a re 4 orm being carried out among farmers. On the affirmative side it was argued that organisation and co-operation would enable it to be done, but the negative speakers cited such an overwhelming list of farm duties that were always waiting to be done that it appeared impossible to convince them that any shortening of hours was possible. The debate was followed by a discussion on farm work in general—could it be redeemed from its monotony and laboriousness? This brought everyone present into the matter, and some very interesting opinions were recounted. Altogether it was a valuable and wellspent evening. Women’s Class The Women’s Class is having a successful course of study on Germany. Commencing with a survey of the evolution of Europe from Feudalism and the Guild System of industry to modern conditions, they especially emphasised the significance of the progressive development of transport and communications and the increased use of capital, while from the human side, they inquired into the meaning of the Reformation' and Renaissance. With this background, they then studied the history of Germany, leading up to 1914 and the Great War. Comparison was

made between President Wilson's Fourteen Points and the Treaty of Versailles. Recent classes have been concerned with Germany’s post-war domestic and political history, with the rise of Hitler to power, and the 25 points of Hitler’s nrogramme. Remaining classes will be concerned with a study of the character of the Leader and his chief associates, and with Hitler’s national and international ambitions. Debate at Outram A debate between the Outram and Railway Classes of the W.E.A. was held at the home of Mr A. J. Stewart, Outram, on Wednesday last, on the subject of the colour bar in the scheme of restriction of immigration. One speaker remarked that this question was not “ practical politics ” at present, but would again become important. The Railway Class team (Messrs A. Powell, J. Saunders, and Jamieson) put the arguments for removal of the colour bar, and were answered on behalf of Outram by Mr Townrow, Mrs Stewart, and Mr Reid. The principal arguments for removal were that troubles arose from failure to put one’s own house in order and that under a correct social and economic system race should not count; that the enforcement of exclusion tended to check the improvement of the standards off other races, and in any case meant accepting the rule that “ might is right.” Eminent students of race agreed that the old ideas of inferiority and superiority must be dropped; restrictions on immigration were necessary, but there was no justification for racial discrimination. In furtherance of this argument it was pointed out that there was some feeling even against immigrants from Britain in times when the search for employment was intense, whereas no one objected to the coming of Indian princes. In Soviet Russia, with its many racial units. European and Asiatic, racial barriers had ceased to exist. The arguments in reply, favouring the present rule, under which no new coloured people are allowed to come in for permanent settlement, were put by the Outram speakers, and may be summarised thus: It was desirable to preserve the British type; if others of alien race were admitted in considerable numbers, there would be trouble over their political status; if they were not admitted to full citizenship, they would resent the discrimination; if they were, they would constitute a danger—with their divided loyalties. Unemployment would be aggravated; the Asiatics would tend to usurp the lower grades of employment and then proceed to push out whites from other occupations, all by virtue of lower standards of material well-being. In the past such people had been imported by their own countrymen under conditions amounting to slavery, until the money advanced for theii fares, etc., had been repaid. The hard fact of differences in racial character had to be faced. As to intermarriage, authorities were quoted opposing it as between widely diverse races. In any case the social result —the of a group of half-castes divided in mind between the codes of two races—was disastrous. Even if it could be conceded that the immigration of people accustomed to low standards of comfort would do little harm in an ideal community, it had not to consider that but rather what would be the results of removing the colour bar with conditions as they now existed. In the leader’s rejoinder it was claimed that there was no evidence against intermarriage according to the best present authorities. The fact that Chinese of the second generation living in New Zealand were just as ourselves was

proof that the racial discrimination was quite unjustified. The debate was not judged, being arranged simply as a friendly interchange.