The Star. TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1920. TUTOR IN ECONOMICS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19986, 29 June 1920, Page 6

The Star. TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1920. TUTOR IN ECONOMICS.

The discussion nt the meeting of the Board of Governors of Canterbury College yesterday afternoon regarding the appointment of a tutor to a class of economics revealed sonio interesting opinions. The Workers’ Educational Association, with the assistance of Canterbury College, is conducting various classes, some in the city and others in the suburbs. One of the branches is at Sydenham, and it was proposed yesterday to appoint tho Rev J. K. Archer to the position of tutor of that class in economics. Mr Archer is a Baptist minister who is not unknown in the public life of the country. At tho last general election he was the Labour candidate for Invercargill, standing in opposition to the Hon J. A. Hanau. Mr Archer was unsuccessful, but he received fairly substantial support. It is not often that the minister of a Church identifies himself with a political party—he usually lias enough troubles without inviting more —but Mr Archer has apparently taken the view that there is nothing inconsistent in his advocacy of Labour principles in , conjunction with his preaching of the Gospel. The objection raised to his appointment was that he was a strong propagandist for one side of economics. The opposition was headed by Mr L. M. Isitt, M.l’., who contended that in tho present condition of affairs it was not the right thing for a propagandist such as Mr Archer to bo placed in the position. Mr Isitt found himself strongly 'supported by his old Methodist Church colleague, tho Rev S. Lawry, while tho majority of the other members appeared to be mo;(3 concerned about Mr Archer’s capacity as a tutor in economics than tho possibility that ho might spring revolutionary— not to say Red Bolshevik—theories on his innocent class of Sydenham students. The appointment of Mr Archer to tho tutorship had been approved by Dr C. Chilton (Professor of Biology) and Dr J. Eight (Professor of Economics), and but for Mr Isitt’s opposition that would have been enough for tho board. According to Mr H. D. Aclaud, Mr Archer had had a university training at Nottingham, and had boon recognised by the Otago University. Wo do not think that tho board can reject the recommendation of the two Professors, ouo or whom is the Professor of Economics. Mr Archer’s political views may bo, and probably are, entirely opposed to those of the majority of the members of the College Board, but it would bo highly improper to run a political yardstick' over any candidate for a tutorial position. There is one test which should bo applied: That a candidate should be of good repute, and sufficiently qualified to teach his subject efficiently and intelligently. Mr Archer’s personal character, we believe, is beyond reproach, and tho professorial recommendation should he some sort of guarantee us to his knowledge of economics. It is not desirable that a class in economics, or any other class associated with Canterbury College, should bo made a vehicle for propagandist work. If that difficulty did arise it could bo dealt with in a very simple but entirely effective manner. It i B unfortunate, however, that the question was raised m such a way yesterday. It i 3 i, n . possible to argue fairly that because a man is a Labour advocate ho is disqualified by prejudice to lecture on a subject which has a peculiar interest for all classes, not excepting tho working classes. It is also extraordinary that the objection should have come from Mr Isitt, whoso distinguished record as a propagandist has not faded from the public’s memory. It i s rather disconcerting to hear from such a source that propagandists are not to he trusted. Surely the old days of “invincible bias” have gone!