PROFESSORS’ SALARIES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3867, 24 April 1928, Page 82

PROFESSORS’ SALARIES.

QUESTION OF DIFFERENTIATION, VIEWS OF UNIVERSITY COUNCIL, At the •meeting of the University Coum cil on Tuesday, Air J. C. Stephens moved as follows —*’ That the resolution of thg council of December 13, 1927, ‘ that a dif, fcrentiation be made between the salaries of married and unmarried professors,’ bg rescinded.” In conjunction with this reso. lution the council oonsidered a letter from the Professorial Board, dated March 19, setting out the board’s objection to thg differentiation.

Mr Stephens stated that the question had been considered by the Professorial Board, the views of which had been placed before the Finance Committee. The com> mittee felt a difficulty in dealing with thq question because the council had previously come to a conclusion, and in order to reconsider the matter the resolution would have to bo rescinded. He proposed to read the letter sent by the Professorial Board, and then leave everything in the hands of the council, as he thought that everything that could be said in favour of recission was set out in the letter. The letter from the Professorial Board was as follows: —“The Professorial Board understands that the council has under consideration a modification of the scheme for professorial salaries which wa 3 adopted at a conference of representatives of uni. versify councils recently held in Welling, ton. Instead of a uniform salary of £lOO9, the modification provides for a standard salary of £9OO, and a marriage allowance of £lOO. The board decided at its last meeting to lay its views on the question before the council. Any differentiation in salary between professors who are doing what, s o far as can be estimated, is equivalent work is liable to lead to a sense of injustice. Besides introducing this differentiation, the arrangement which the council proposes is‘bound to produce administrative difficulties. For. instance, if } the wife of a professor dies, is he, therefore, to have his salary reduced by £IOOJ If it be not so reduced on account of his dependents (and this raises the very delicate question of their degree of dependence on him), the board maintains that the unmarried professors, who may have similar obligations, are also worthy of consideration. The case which would most frequently arise is that of a professor who becomes a widower after giving many years of service to the university, and whose family is grown up. In his case, surely, no reduction of salary is justifiable. The board is aware that such a schema as the council proposes is in operation in the educational service, and the many difficulties that arise under it are the subject of discussion in the latest number of the official organ of the New Zealand Educational Institute. The amount that the council could save by the adoption of the proposal is a very small percentage of the total professorial salaries. The board feels that this small saving would scarcely compensate for the inevitable raising of such difficulties. Further, beyond the Dominion, the inference would be drawn from each advertisement of a professorial vacancy, that the standard salary paid to a professor was not considered sufficient to enable him to marry. Thus, the adoption of the proposal here discussed would, in the opinion of the board, be detrimental to the efficiency and prestige of the university.” Air Stephens said the question was whether they should introduce a difference in the standard they adopted and the standard in ther universities. The whole object of the conference was to adopt a uniform scale of salaries for the Dominion, and he felt that they should fall in with the others in what they decided. There were so many difficulties and the difference was so small that he felt that thev should adopt the standard adonted by the other universities. The motion was seconded by Professor Bonham. Air AV. J. Alorrell said he thought he should give the reasons which induced the majority of the delegates at the conference to adopt the proposal for differentiation. It was adopted, he supposed, because it was a logical sequence to certain other proposals included in the recommendations of the conference. Differentiation was not introduced by the University Council, and was intended to apply to other appointments, so that many of the considerations now referred to by the Professorial Board must have applied to others. He was convinced that a certain amount of differentiation was right and that it shoul 1 be anplied to the professors as well as to the assistants. With regard to the question of applicants from outside the Dominion, he believed that differentiation had made no difference in the number of applicants. He believed that the expenses of single professors were not on the same scale as those of married men. and he also believed that a professor was more valuable to his university if he were married and took part in the social life of the communitv. Differentiation was carried out to a large extent in the educational service. the reason, he took it, being that the profession was in some senses a sheltered one. He was convinced that the principle of differentiation was destined to find adoption, and he believed that the conference took a forward step in making its recommendation The question, so far as it concerned lecturers and assistants, was on° of very considerable importance and deserved very careful consideration. Differentm‘mn wmild solve certain problems which arose from, time to time in connection with women lecturers and professors, and problems in connection with other branches of the educational service would be solved in the same way. If there ceased to be dependents, he took it that the evnenses would cease. The objections raised w r ere mere questions of detail, but the-principle was a sound one and was bound to prevail.

The motion was carried by six votes to four. .