BOARD DIVIDED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24716, 19 September 1941, Page 4

BOARD DIVIDED

OBJECTORS TO SERVICE EMPLOYMENT OF TEACHERS STATE POLICY AWAITED When a motion to dismiss conscientious objectors from teaching staffs in Otago was discussed by the Education Board yesterday its form was condemned by some members. A division was taken on an amendment to defer the matter until the Government’s policy in the handling of conscientious objectors was announced, and this was carried by five votes to four. In putting the amendment, the chairman, Mr James Wallace, said there were some members who would vote against their convictions, but they had to face the question as it stood to-day. Mr W. M. Cooper moved, and Mr N. Colquhoun seconded—“ That it be a recommendation to the Minister of Education that no person who refuses to take his part in the defence of the Empire should be employed as a teacher in any school in the Dominion and that education, secondary and technical school boards should be given the power to dismiss any teacher who refuses to comply with the defence regulations of New Zealand or who, on the grounds of conscientious objection. claims exemption from service." “ I contend that it is grossly unfair that the conscientious objector should be allowed to teach in our schools,” said Mr Cooper. “In many cases they may leach the children of our soldiers, at the same time sheltering behind our boys who are fighting for our very existence.” Chairman in Doubt Mr Wallace: I have some doubts about accepting the motion, which comes as a surprise to me. Mr Colquhoun said there was nothing in the motion that loyal and patriotic citizens could fail to support. Mr Wallace: I question that. “ Other education and high school boards have not found it beyond their province to express their opinions,” Mr Colquhoun said. People who sheltered behind their conscience and made other lame excuses in the last war were found by returning men to be in positions that it was promised would be kept open for the soldiers. “ I was one of those who came back to find that position," he said, “and to-day we have other soldiers overseas who are doing their bit belter than any soldier in the last war did his bit, and they, too, are being told that they will be protected when they come back. Yet here, when a motion expressing this very sentiment about teachers whose duty it is to inculcate a spirit of loyalty in our children is introduced, we hear it said that it is doubtful whether the motion should be accepted.” Mr Wallace: The matter was brought up without notice. I was never consulted. My questioning of the motion is being wrongly interpreted. An Apology Offered

Mr Colquhoun apologised, he said, if he had misinterpreted the chairman, adding: “ I don’t know whether notice of a motion on such a subject is necessary.” Mr Wallace: Courtesy demands it.

Mr Colquhoun: Right procedure is a side issue. My contention is that it is within our province cither to support this patriotic motion or reject it. It rests with the conscience of individual members of the board whether they can support it or not. When the news reaches the boys overseas it will let them see who are 100 per cent, behind them and who are sheltering behind a leaf of the Bible wrongly interpreted. Supporting the motion. Mr E. Morgan said it was wrong to encourage teachers who were conscientious objectors. It might do tremendous harm to the children. Teachers were expected to show an example. Principle Not Disputed

“All of us agree on the principle ot the matter, but the motion is illadvised,” said Mr D. C. Cameron. “To deal with a teacher claiming exemption on conscientious grounds, as sug gested, would be pre-judging his case. It is a free country, and a man has a perfect right to claim exemption After his case is heard, however, and he is told that he must serve and he refuses—that is different altogether. I also object to the inference that it we do not support the motion we are not being loyal to the boys overseas and to,our country.” Moving an amendment to defer the matter pending a declaration of Government policy, Mr Cameron said u was a contentious question, and he deprecated “butting in” with a motion to “ worry and harss ” the Governwhen, when it was already dealmc with the subject , Mr Cooper: We may be helping them. Mr Cameron: It Government policy is not in line with what we consider fit, then is the time for us to express an opinion. Speaking to the amendment, Mr W R. B.rugh said he was sorry for genuine conscientious objectors, but considered others the most contemptible members of the community. The motion was far too general, and it would embarrass the board if the State allowed certain men to work and told it to employ them Question Not Answered

Mr Cooper asked Mr Cameron whether he would agree to a teacher granted exemption as a conscientious objector teaching children, including those of soldiers. “ I will not answer that.” said Mr Cameron. “I have had my say.” Mr W. Jacobsen objected to Mr Colquhoun’s reference to present soldiers doing bettor than those in the last war, and Mr Colquhoun replied that his only wish was to see every man get credit. “ I have a certain amount of sympathy for the genuine conscientious objector, but I have no sympathy for a teacher with these convictions," said Mr Wallace. “I am as strongly in favour of a conscientious objector being relieved of his duty as a teacher as any man could be. Yet I must vote against the motion. It will be difficult for the public to realise the attitude of some of us, who must vote against our convictions. It is one of those motions I detest." The amendment was carried. Messrs Wallace Cameron. Brugh, H. A. Brough and D. Marshall voted for it, and Messrs Cooper, Colquhoun, Morgan. and Jacobsen against it.