UNIVERSITY APPOINTMENTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25797, 19 March 1945, Page 2

UNIVERSITY APPOINTMENTS

Sir—The Presbyterian Church Board Property Act, 1906, apparently gave power to this board to appoint, dismiss, or transfer professors in the chairs of history, philosophy, and English at the University of Otago. Although up to 1938 over £117,000 had been spent by the Church Board in the prosecution of this •• legal ” power, it would be ridiculous to suggest that this in itself redeems the system under which appointments have been made in the past. That some of these appointments have added excellent men to the staff of the University is undeniable, but to suggest that the system of appointment has always encouraged the best men to apply appears to Indicate some form of wishful thinking. In fact, it is not stretching the truth to say that some appointments have been relinquished partly owing to hindrances in the way of “free expression of opinion.” To hold a Presbyterian chair is in a sense to be prepared to please the Presbyterian Church. To clarify the situation, it appears necessary to bring together some of those questions which merit explanation or elucidation. (1) Why is it necessary to appoint a committee of advisers in London when it is obvious that its measurements of ability cannot be guaranteed on a par with the measurements by a local board of the abilities of local applicants? (2) Why is the personnel of the London committee not made known to the public? (3) Why is it that in only one previous instance local applications have been referred to the Selection Committee in London? Why, as in the case of Dr J. N Findlay, has reference been made to religious beliefs? Is it in the best Interests of New Zealand to have even some University appointments partially governed by “ religious qualification ’ ? (5) On what authority has the Church Property Board made appointments of acting heads to the departments of philosophy and history? These appointments seem to be very definitely ultra vires, and in the absence of Its ability to appoint professors the Church Board should have allowed the University to appoint the acting heads. , , . The principle of the appointment of professors to University chairs by outside bodies is looked upon with disfavour throughout the English-speaking world, especially In England, whence comes our University tradition. It would appear, therefore, that in face of the motion passed recently by the University Senate the Presbyterian Church has been given an admirable opportunity to demonstrate its unselfish attitude and devotion to the highest educational precepts by continuing to endow the chairs under discussion, at the same time handing over the responsibility for professorial appointments to the University Council. Should the Church not be prepared to make this gesture, the obvious alternative Is to amend the 1906 Act, repealing that section giving power “ to appoint professors to the Church Property Board, and further to vest this power in the University Council itself. To the Presbyterian Church we owe a debt of gratitude, but the past is the past, and in taking action to. place control cf University appointments within the University itself we are conforming to standards which are everywhere acceptable to-day. Vacancies would be thrown open to a wider number of applicants, criticism on appointments would be applicable to one body alone. In short we would be adopting the mo . st PR *f_ tls^ a f ct system possible for the staffing of our University.—l am, etc., Dunedin, March 17. Sapere Aude.

Sir,—After the next meeting of the Otaeo University Council all those who have read with concern the letters, in vur correspondence columns laising important questions and seeking public Information regarding the council s administration of certain matters will look forward with much interest to a press report of the discussion and replies given to the questions that have been asked. So far neither the vice-chancellor (the Rev. Mr Herron) nor any °hmr member of the council has answered publicly the questions asked. It is to be hoped that consideration of these questions will not be ignored or evaded by the council at its next meeting, and the public denied its right to have full and frank replies given to the questions to which the letters make reference. Otherwise public respect and confidence in the administration of the affairs of the University may be shaken. Should the subjects mentioned in the questions not be discussed when Ihe press reporters are present, the public may* feel that some members are conscious of blunders and mist! which they are responsible and deserve criticism. As there seem to be reflec lions cast on all the members of the council in their own interest members should speak out and make their position clear lo the Dunedin, March 17.