DUTY OF TEACHER

Wairarapa Times-Age, 13 August 1941, Page 4

DUTY OF TEACHER

PROTECTION OF PUPILS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR QUESTIONED. APPEAL BOARD DISCUSSION. A statement, made before the No. 4 Armed Forces Appeal Board at yesterday’s sitting in Masterton by Leonard Mansfield King, sole teacher at Mauriceville West, aroused some comment by Mr W. F. Stilwell, S.M. The reservist appealed against overseas service on the grounds of conscientious objection and public interest. In reply to Mr C. O. Bell (Crown representative) the Yeservist stated that his appeal was not supported by the Wellington Education Board. His appeal was based on religious grounds and the sanctity of human life. King submitted that his views were the same as those of missionaries who went to other lands. Mr Bell: “Are you loyal to your country?” King: “Yes, very.” Replying to further questioning by Mr Bell, the reservist said that he was a member of the Church of England. He attended services regularly. His church allowed freedom of conscience. He formed his present views in 1935. He studied at university and began to think for himself when he studied the New Testament. King said he had passed his B.A. examination and was sitting for his M.A. degree. In conformity with his views he joined the local E.P.S. organisation, to which he was secretary. All educationalists agreed that a sole teacher at a country school with a roll of between twenty and thirty children required special qualifications. Teaching children was one of the highest forms of service. King said that the clergy were exempted from service to tend to the spiritual and moral needs of the nation. He contended that improving the moral and intellectual needs of the future rulers of the country was quite as important. “You are aware that the first duty of the citizen is to the State?” asked Mr Bell.

“I am willing to assist the State in any way I can,” said King. Mr Bell: “The preservation of the State is a citizen’s first duty.”

King: “The preservation of intellectual and moral standards is of more importance than physical things.” Mr Bell: “If the children under your care were attacked would you use violence to protect them?” King: "Not force.” Mr Bell: "If some bully rushed into your classroom would you stand aside?”

Reservist: “I would assist to the best of my ability without—” Mr Bell: “Answer a straight question: what would you do?” King: “Stand aside.” Mr Stilwell, S.M.: "A poor outlook for the children!"

Mr Bell said that he did not want the reservist to leave the witness box without clearing up the matter. “If a child was in peril at your school or in the vicinity, would you use violence to protect him?” asked Mr Bell. King: "I would take steps which would not mean taking life.” Mr Stilwell: “No one is talking about taking life. Surely as a man if you had to face a ruffian you would deal with him?”

King agreed that he would. “For that reason, I want this cleared up,” said Mr Stilwell. “I do not want it to go out that you would not protect your pupils.” Mr Bell: “He said a few moments ago that he would stand aside.” “Soldiers do not go overseas with the object of taking life,” said Mr Stilwell.

, King: “Certain sections do.” “Ninety-nine per cent of the soldiers are imbued with the obligation resting on them to go and defend their kith and kin,” continued Mr Stilwell.

“They have no authority to destroy life,” said King. “I know all about that. I don’t suggest they left for that,” said Mr Stilwell.

King stated that he would if necessary go to the assistance of his pupils. The appeal was dismissed, subject to the reservist carrying out non-com-batant duties. A second appeal on the grounds of public interest was dismissed.