TEACHING OF ECONOMICS

Otago Witness, Issue 3489, 25 January 1921, Page 6

TEACHING OF ECONOMICS

REV. MR ARCHER'S APPOINTMENT. THE QUESTION OF PROPAGANDA. 'JTeou Octb Own Coebespondent.) WELLINGTON, January 19. Sir Retort Stoat, in the course of his enuuai report, touched briefly upon the cr.SiViuor.s at pro Workers’ Educational Assooiaiiou. A iao;, g other things, he said hra “during the, year oonsiderabie discussion had appeared in the public press regarding the appointment of one of the instructors in economics in Canterbury. He docs not seem to be a university graduate, and, judging by his public utterances, he is a Marxian in theory, and may pro periy be termed a ‘revolutionary Communist.’ Wo know that there are in every country in the world propagandists who desire to see the present industrial life of the community changed, and that by forcible means if necessary. In my opinion, these workers’ educational (lasses will not bo beneficial to our people if they at e conducted by revolutionaries. There can be no progress without order, as Comte long ago pointed out, and I do not think tlie University should use its funds for the propagation of any special economic theory, and especially should not lend its aid to a propaganda of revolution. A teacher of economics should be able to place before the students a history of the subject and the different views held by writers on economies. A true teacher will not be a propagandist of any special theory; he ought to lie a man who can fairly and honestly place before the students all the different, economic theories. I also think that the University should insist, upon teachers having either university status or university diplomas in the subjects of which they are teachers. The workers’ educational classes should have as teachers the ablest men or women obtainable.’’ Professor Macmillan Brown said he intended to move that a committee lie formed Lo investigate the working of the W orkors Educational Association. Professor Hunter (Wellington) said he regretted that the matter had been so referred tv, in the Chancellor’s report. In regard to the particular case referred to, the tutor had. been recommended by flio .Joint Committee^

and the appointment had been sanctioned. It was rather unfortunate that the matter should be flogged again in the press. There were different opinions and schools of eoo nomio thought. They were faced with the difficulty that one section of the community strongly objected to economists of one type, and another section took just as strong an animosity towards economists of another type. The proper duty of the \\ orkers Educational Association was to endeavour to appoint the most capable man for the position, and having appointed him to leave him absolutely free to teach his classes m his own way. It would do no good after the appointment to try to make him \\a_a a particular path. If jt.liis sort of view w ato come from the University, how coala they turn round and criticise it a Labour organisation said a certain tutor too much of a “classic economist,” and. refused to have anything to do with him? It would kill t’he movement. The Chancellor: “Better kill it than have a revolutionary propaganda.” Professor Hunter: ‘“You assume he is. a revolutionary propagandist.” \\ as it fan, asked the speaker, to assume that? The Chancellor said lie was going by wnat had been stated in the public press and by members of the Canterbury College Council. Professor Hunter pointed out that the appointment had been sanctioned by the committee. The Chancellor: “He has no status as u graduate.” . Professor Hunter detailed the qualifications of some of the tutors who were teaching under the Workers’ Educational Association. Not all were graduates; some were university students, others were not; but their qualifications had been considered. He was quite certain that, it would be a grave mistake if it appeared that the university took sides. The Chancellor: “I take the ground that there should not be sides.” Professor Hunter: “Is a man to bo condemned because he is a Marxian in theory? ' The Chancellor: “1 say such a man should not be a teacher in a university if he is a Marxian, and says that the whole system of society should be set aside In revolution if necessary. It has been upheld in uni vorsitlos in America, t Professor Hunter: “Upheld by trusts. 'I he Chancellor: *Tl:o Poland Stanford University in America.” XTofesaor Hunter : “Yes, a man had criti

cised the way in which the money was obtained.” Professor flight said the Chancellor’s reference was rather unfortunate. Mr Archer was not a graduate of any university, but he had completed a course in economics at a university college, and had distinguished himself. Personally, he would not favour specifying that tutors must be graduates. On behalf of the University Joint Committee in Canterbury he would like to say that they had thoroughly investigated the allegations about Mr Archer’s classes, and it had been found that he had been particularly restrained in his presentation of the subject. Instead of putting forward revolutionary doctrine he had rather gone to the other extreme. Mr J. C. Adams (Christchurch) said that careful inquiry into the methods and matter of the teacher had been mdc, and it had been found there was a great deal of exaggeration. The governing body had sanctioned the appointment. So far from being revolutionary, Mr Archer had, if anything, leaned to the other side, and the committee was perfectly satisfied with the-way he was conducting ids classes. Professor Uenhain said he thought the Chancellor had made a mistake, acting under a misapprehension. The. Chancellor: “Not at ail. I have the printed evidence here.” Professor Bonham deprecated instituting anything like a test which would kill a movement which had suffered already from the opinion among the work rs that it was engineered by the employers. It was a very dangerous thing for a Chancellor of the University of New Zealand to make such a statement. It took a long time to catch up a statement like that. Mr 11. F. von Haast: “The Senate can disagree with it.” Professor Bonham then moved that the Senate disagree with the implications contained in the paragraph. After further discussion, a division on Professor Benham’s offer to withdraw his motion was taken. The result was 12 votes to 8 in favour of withdrawal.