SPEAKING WITH TWO VOICES.

Waikato Times, Volume 94, Issue 14584, 5 February 1921, Page 6

SPEAKING WITH TWO VOICES.

JIIK WEEK \I(K I,HAGUE AMI SIR ROBERT STOUT. To the Editor.) Sir,. i wish to draw altcnlion as ln-letly as 1 can to the article which appeared in your issue of yesterday. I do not know much of Iho Welfare League, hut 1 had imped il would serve ii <r(>ikl purpose. I have, however, a rooted suspicion of propaganda which gains ils authority, not from Use weight of ils author's character and ability, biu from the strength of more or less secret organisation. That suspicion is not allayed by such pernicious stalemmls as that published in your columns of yesterday. The Chancellor of l!m University,' in Ids opening address to Hie N.Z. Universilv Senate and in ids subsequent remarks dealing with the Workers’ Educational Association, attacked the appointment of the Hev. J. K. Arclier to a. lectureship in Economics. The attack seemed to bo based on two statements 0 r fact—it) That Mr Archer was a revolutionary who advocated the overthrow of existing institutions by physical force; 2) that Mr Archer had entered into an agreement with t lie Canterbury College Board of Governors not (o preach Ids revolutionary doctrines ini,! had subsequently staled that lie would not stand by Ibis undertaking. That lie treated il, in fact, as a “scrap of paper.” The Chancellor went on to argue that Mr Archer was unfit to bold a lectureship; that a University teacher should slate Hie opinions of all the schools ml should not be a "propagandist.” The criticism directed against the Chancellor was to the following effect: — I) There was no convincing evidence that Mr Archer preached revolul,i hy physical force. The Chancellor's extracts did not seem to prove j! end l!o' Canterbury College Board of Govern.irs did not believe il. i/,>; The Chancellor's evidence as to Hie “scrap of paper” was merely newspaper report; Hie Canterbury College members of the Senate did not believe Hie farts, as staled. In be reliable, H iiiigli definite information was not available. If the facts were lime. Hie Indictment lay primarily againsl Hie hoard of governors for bargaining with a (eaeher to betray bis opinions. ;i While it was not denied Dial a teacher wnose devices were ‘scraps of paper” and whose methods were 'blood' was unlilted fur teaching of any kind, il was pointed out that every .teacher of power and originality did more than expound Hie views of oilier people and that it was in the last degree undesirable to limit freedom of thought in an institution dedicated to the search of abstract truth. It was even pointed cut that the Chancellor himself had always been a propagandist. We know what became of Germany at Hie stage at which tier professors bad to toe Hie political mark. In Hie np|.ttf»tmenl of professors and lecturers Hie kole consideration must be qualilicaliou for the Job apart from political considerations, though il may he conceded that truthfulness and sanity are conditions precedent. We know what untold harm Ihe cause of education has suffered in I :.st times by imposing reslrictions on II e religions freedom of temdiers and students. Economic freedom is not less desirable, than religions. i 11 was also objected that Hie Chancellor had created an entirely wrong impression in Hie public mind hy delivering what, would certainly be (alien as, ami what in fact was taken as, an attack on the W.K.A., for polhing was said of Hie excellent work done hy that institution. Sir Robert later protested himself a friend of Hie W.E.A., but in the opinion of many, inside and outside tiie Senate, the barm had been done. It. may be explained that the W.E.A. looks for ils students largely to the manual workers, and these are suspicious of the association believing (wrongly no doubt) that it may he a weapon of Hie capitalists to impose conventional economics on the masses. The Chancellor, it was thought, bad put a lethal weapon into the hands of Hie enemy. With these facts concerning Hie merits of the discussion on which the

1 Welfare League’s argument was based, ,il will be possible for anyone Interested jin the subject to trace the confusion !of ideas in the offending article. I have 'called the article pernicious. The cloven hoof, ns usual, comes with the tail. This Welfare League propaganda aims at the persecution of certain professors and teachers who, it is alleged, give ‘il l c weight which their positions pwe, lending their aid to party movements, (he central object of which is common ownership of all industries, trade and commerce." I suggest that religious persecution has given place ho political. The Welfare League, if 1 am to judge from its latest nfanifesto, is not concerned with conservative political professors such as arc not uncommon in England and elsewhere, but it is concerned with displacing teachers who disagree with il on such sacred subjects as properly and profits. If the Welfare League is wise it will take its lesson from history and trust to the • sanity of people in general—-fearing above all things the suppression of honest, if misguided, thinking- in UHsure hope that such is far less danger-' oi s above ground and in the fresh air.— I am, etc., F. A. DE LA MARE. February 3, 1921.