UNIVERSITY APPOINTMENTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25801, 23 March 1945, Page 6

UNIVERSITY APPOINTMENTS

Sir, —In reference to the appointment of the Very Rev. D. C. Herron as chancellor of the University, certain statements were made which would cause serious concern. One was that in which Mr W. R. Brugh said “ his (Mr Herron’s) appointment would maintain the relationship existing between Knox Church and the University. . . .” Why should there be any relationship between any particular church, as such, and the University? Of all our institutions, the University is preeminently the one which should be free of all sectional relationships. A sectional relationship cannot exist without a sectional influence, and, notably in the sphere of education and research, no such influence should exist. To be true to its essential function, which is the search for and the propagation of truth, a university should have no organic connection with any other' institution. The university, by its very nature, should be an institution to which all can look as an integrating factor in society. If it recognises any relationship with any other stitution—religious or otherwise—it becomes another of the disintegrating influences of which. God knows, we have already far too many. -- Another disconcerting statement was by Mr Downie Stewart, who “ would gladly allow every denominational church in Otago to endow chairs in the University provided they recognise its academic freedom with the same liberality and generosity as the Presbyterian Church has done.” Has academic freedom been accorded to the occupants of chairs endowed by any particular church? One doubts it as long as that church has faded to pass the one test .which would prove its altruistic motives. That test is its willingness to hand over its endowment contribution without’ any condition whatever. If, however, with the endowment it retains the right even of discussing appointments then it is obvious there must be a reason for the retention of this right. The reason for the retention of this right must have been present in the mind of Mr Stewart when he said: In some distant day to come I fear political control of thought more than religious intolerance." Apart from its significance, this statement is not logical, for it carries the suggestion that the only alternative to religious intolerance Is political control of thought. Surely in between these two extremes' there is the • position of entire freedom from any external body whatever, and those who object to religious interference should, by the same token, oppose political interference; —I am, etc., March 22. Humanity.