UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 229, 27 September 1928, Page 8

UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT

GOVERNMENT BILL CRITICISED

"CHALLENGE TO ACADEMIC FREEDOM." !■ AUCKLAND BOARD'S STRONG I PROTEST. , I'he Auckland' tJniversityi CollegeProfessorial Board considered last evening the provisions of the 2s"ew Zealand I University: Amendment Bill, telegraphed summaries of which have recently appeared in the Press.. The following statement has been issued by thte board:—"ln the board's opinion the measure raises certain vital, questions of educational principle on which. th«; i board, in common with all the other educational bodies associated with the University,'finds itself in complete disagreement with the Minister. ' They concern the- whole- question of academic freedom versus departmental control, seriously endanger local autonomy and development. The ' proposals are absolutely unprecedented in British/conimunities,. It is a foundation principle of British University administration .that developments of policy snbuld be m the hands of the University authorities unfettered by political control. > "The bill provides for a veto by the Minister upon the creation of new Chairs at any of the affiliated colleges. In the existing Act adopted on the recommendations of the recent Royal ! Commission on the University system, a measure of control «f this matter is vested In the University Council, a nationally representative, body. To subordinate this authority to that of ■the, Education Department is radically opposed to the Comoasiaion's recommendations, which embodied the accepted practice throughout the British Empire. The proposed veto obviously renders possible political control in a particularly objectionable form', since -it gives the Department a means of paralysing local initiative and -hindering local development, in face of the considered and impartial judgment of an expert and thoroughly representative body, such as the University Council.

"A further indication of the underlying tendencies of this measure Is to be found in the substitution of an annual appropriation for the University in placo of the existing statutory grant. This opens the way Ho vexatious interf°rence by departmental officials, directly with expenditure, indirectly with all manner of detailed questions of' educational policy on which the University itself is the oibvious authority.

"The only possible justification for summary legislation on suc'i a question in the last few days of thte Parliamentary session, would be that the measure, was once agreed upon by all the interests concerned. It has even, according to Press report, been suggested by the Minister that this is so in the present case. So far is this from being in accordance with-fact that the proposals to which we have referred have besn the subject of repeated and en*phatic protest on the part of the University Council, and the councils and Tjrofessorial boards of the four col-

'f "The board wishes to register on its > own account a strong protest; against it.s. non-treceipt of a-copy of ihe bill, in spite of repeated promises., from the Department that u copy would be for- • warded as soon as the bill was introduced into the House. Under these circumstanccs.it is impossibly that the important interests which ].-..Ve views opposed to the Department, should have jutlk-u.'iit opportunity of presenting tlioi. - opinions, so that the highly contentious . issues raised by tl»e bill should be a.dt'<m;vU'ly <!_c:vlt with.

"Xhe board feels most strongly that the bill ejjiUodies a very scitoiis liireat to academic freedom."'