The Press Wednesday, June 24, 1925. The University.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18416, 24 June 1925, Page 8

The Press Wednesday, June 24, 1925. The University.

We print on another page two lelteis which the Chancellor and cx-iJlinus'L*!lor of tlie University sent recently to the Minister of Education in reply to an invitation to evidence before a Uoynl Commission on 1 Diversity Education. This (onnnission, as oiu readers know had its origin in llie Department of Education and not in the University itself, and many share th« opinion of Sir Kobert Stoul that setting it" up was ;i waste of public , money. That opinion may of course prove to be wrong. If the Commissioners arc big enough to iorget the rather impossible position in which they have been placed, and strong' enough while following the order of reference to forget who drew it up and why, the Dominion may still have reason to be grateful that it spent money 0:1 them rather than o)i a research scholarship. But in the meantime most of the friends of the University are wondering how to save the institution from further Departmental attentions, and do not, and of course should not, conceal the anxiety they i'cel at each new attempt to democratise it. The devastating criticism by Sir Robert Stout of the Departmental order of reference must be unparalleled in the University history of this or any Dominion. Some may think that it is unfair to speak so bluntly on the eve of the commencement of the taking of evidence, but the truth of the matter is that it would be far more unfair to allow the Commissioners to begin their work without knowing what kind of work it is. Wo arc not ourselves so hopeless of the result of the enquiry as Sir Kobert Stout is—mainly because wo believe that Sir Harry Keichel and Mr Tate are both wise enough to turn tho folly of the Department to public and permanent ufjes. But we should have had 110 hope at all if they had begun their work in the belief that they were invited here by the sons and daughters of tho University, and not by politicians and officials. It is very necessary also that the Commissioners should take the advice of the Chancellor to study the history of the University. Dr. Macmillan Brown has given his whole life to education, and especially to University education, and ho can see plainly enough that if the Dominion is not to "lose its foothold ih the ascent it has " so far achieved," it must advance as warily as, when it, first began to climb. He is certainly right also in regarding tho demand for separation as the worst, and the demand for a wholly new system of examination as the second worst, of the dangers to which the University is exposed from within. Wo do not remember that the disadvantages of devolution have ever been so searching!}' examined as they are by the Chancellor in this very remarkable letter. The advantages that most people claim for separation are shown to be its gravest disadvantages; or to speak a little more precisely. Dr. Macmillan Brown shows that instead of bringing to each College the benefits of competilijn, separation would bring them only a vulgar and superficial competition, and rob them of the competition that expresses itself in breadth and depth of culture. There would be scrambles for Parliamentary grants, ceaseless traffic with itoliticians, with a good deal of puerile noise about the number of graduates turned out, the strength of staffs, and the number and cost of special schools and departments, but there would be 110 "common " arena in which the intellectual " thews and sinews of the youth of the " great centres of New Zealand might "be'tested for comparison and stinm"lus, as the physical thews and sinews " are sure to be."' T\ e do not forget that the Chancellor is merely one witness expressing with deliberation, and avowedly from one angle, " some grave "disadvantages"' of abandoning the federal system prematurely. We do not forget either that it is not usual to take sides in advance with a witness whose evidence in the normal course of events would have been submitted to cross-examination, and which in some respects might have been modified. But to commend these weighty letters to readers in general, and especially to those who may in their turn give other evidence, is not so much taking sides as doing what we can, an J enabling the Chancellor and ex-Chan-cellor to do what they can, to prevent the community from seeking to run before it can safely walk. The existing system has defects of which everyono is aware. But to change it violently is only a little less certain to forco the " intellectual talent and " calibre of the country into decadence"' than handing it over to the control of politigiaua. ,

The Hoardings Problem. Otic juiu'ht have imagined that the ri<ii<T,!<>;t.-! position into. ivbi«-Ii tb«* <>l>l City CmiiK-il -"t itself through its t'i think nut n dear ;ui<l .sen.siblc policy iv-spccting hoardings would have led the member-; ol: the new Council to make ur» their nnnds nil thi> fjne,>"tion. Yet the discussion at Monday'.- meeting of the Council, when it came to deal with application* for the creeli-'n of hoarding on sites ndjoinini;' ci'tain hotels, makes it clear that (.'< iiiuciHoi'.s are hardly an inch nearer daylight. The Uv-Laws Committee recommended that the applications .should he granted. and in the ensuiny debate it became clear that Councillors did not kr.ow whether or not tiiu'li a recommendation could be made. and. fur-her, that, they do no I know whether or not the Council ha-' nower t<> refuse pernns-iou to a hotel proprietor io erect a hoarding on lih own properly defence oi his trade. Eventually the report was relcrred hack to tlie Committee, and al a future meet inv ol' the Council, no doubt, we shall have another exhibition of that ii!"iiial paralysis which appear- to aiilict the Council whenever the hoardings question comes up. Tin; ('ounoil will never be clear of trouble, and will cou-iiunly appear to the public !o lie vacillating and incompetent, until it adopts Ihe very simpie policy we have often suggested to it — namely, the banning of hoardings allo"■ellier. In Ihe meantime it is difficult to understand how ihe Council can justly refuse the addition of any new specimens io the iarge gallery 01. ugliness, which municipal apathy has acquired for Ihe City. AYe should be disposed to urge the refusal of all new permits if we con!:! fee! more sure than we do that the flagrant in,justice and absurdity of preserving' .Ihe existing Oid .Masters and .-hutting out others would lead to a sweeping away of the whole collection. But the Council's handling' of the question does not encourage one to believe tliaf reform can come that way. The hoardings which were under discussion lit Monday's meeting of the Council are designed to carry anti-l'rohibition propaganda, to offset tin; Prohibition propaganda which has begun to appear on .some of the existing hoardings. This fact complicated the already confused situation, for some Councillors at any rate, and it was actually suggested by some of tliem that posters proclaiming facts or arguments displeasing to the Prohibitionists ought to be forbidden. "We can hardly regret this display of intolerance, and we. could almost welcome a protest in flic Council against the display of Prohibitionist posters, for we should like to see Prohibitionists and anti-Prohibitionists, and, indeed, as many sections of the public as possible, tilled with irritation, for that would.probably help towards a decision by the Council to seek peace along a path which would lead not only to pence but also to civic decency.