NOT PROVED

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 70, 15 December 1921, Page 3

NOT PROVED

CHARGES AGAINST TEACHER THE CARTERTON CASE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE The special committee set up by the Wellington Education Board to inquire into the charges brought by the Carterton District High School Committee against Miss Jean Gladys Park, assistant teacher, reported to the board yesterday exonerating Miss Park. The report is as Tinder: — "The special committee, consisting ot the chairman of the board (Mr. T. Forsyth) and Messrs. W. T. Grundy, G. T. London, and T. Moss, appointed by the board at its last meeting to inquire into the charges made against Miss Park, have the honour to report that tlhc inquiry commenced at Carterton on Thursday, December 1, and concluded on Friday, December 2. The DireMor of Education was present. Mr. H. E. Hart represented the School Committee, and Mr. C. H. Taylor Miss Park. Miss Park having expressed a wish that the inquiry be taken rin committee, 'tho Committee of Inquiry decided accordingly. The unanimous findings of the special committee, roadbed after exhaustive inquiry, are as follow:— While the School Committee, through Its counsel, definitely disavows any charge of disloyalty against Miss Park, this question has bo frequently been referred to in the Press and circulated throughout the district that full evidence was taken on it, and it was established beyond all doubt that no charge of disloyalty could stand against Miss Park. In regard to the specific charges of (a) gross insubordination, (b) grave impropriety, (c) serious misconduct as a teacher, arising out of the faot that she wrote a letter and caused it to be published in a public journal called "National Education," the board's Committee of Inquiry finds that upon the evidence adduced none of these three charges has been sustained. The School Committee’s view of Miss Park’s letter being that in effect she protested against the Coiirtfs conviction and the board’s dismissal of Miss Weitzel, the Committee of Inquiry wishes to point out that in giving her evidence Miss Park admitted that she had written the letter without a full knowledge of the facts. In these circumstances s'he expressed regret and desired to withdraw her references to the Department and the board. The School Committee charged Miss Park with having, in the same letter, made a serious definite political attack on the conduct of the head of her Department, namely, the Minister of Education, and the Committee of Inquiry finds that in her published reference to the action of the Minister she committed a grave indiscretion. In conclusion, the Committee of Inquiry is of opinion that no further action should be taken, in view of the fact that Miss Park cannot be hold answerable for irresponsible statements, and that no charge of sedition or any crime against the Sovereign or against morals can be formulated out of her letter. Mr. Field asked why the inquiry had been held in secret? The chairman (Mr. T. Forsyth) replied that it had been the practice of the board in the past to hold all inquiries in committee. Mr. Field: Was not a copy of the evidence taken? The chairman: Yes, and it took 18 hours’ solid going. Mr. Field asked if members could not see a copy of the evidence. They were being asked to pass judgment upon something they had not seen. The chairman replied that the committee of inquiry had no trouble in coming to a unanimous finding, and ho therefore saw no reason why the evidence should bo submitted. He moved that the report be adopted. Mr. R. A. Wright, M.P., agreed with Mr. Field. A good deal of feeling had been engendered in the district, and he was afraid the matter would not be allowed to rest where it was. M'r- C. I. Harkness seconded the adoption of the report. He had every confidence in the committee, who had gone into the inquiry very fully. Mr. R. McCallum, M.P., said they were under a debt of gratitude to the members of the board, who had gone up and made the inquiries. They must accept the finding as they would the verdict of a Court Judge. While teachers had the fullest right to discuss subjects—they were not slaves—still ho held that Miss Park had been guilty of grave indiscretion in writing what she did. However, when confronted with her error she had expressed regret. The board had the responsibility, and they must accept the finding. He considered the next step should bo to discipline Miss Park, for her own soul’s good, and thought the board should censure the teacher. Mr. Field moved that the report be held over until next meeting, and meantime members should be supplied with copies of the evidence. The chairman regarded Mr. Field’s amendment as a vote of want of confidence in the committee. There was not a tittle of truth in the charge of disloyalty against Miss Park. The School Committee had backed down on the charge of disloyalty. Most of the evidence tendered had consisted of anonymous letters to the Press. Political capital was being made out of the affair, and he for one was not going to allow the 'board to be made a stalking-horse. Both headmasters had been asked if they had had any complaints from any of the parents concerning (Miss Park’s attitude, and they had replied that there had not been a single complaint. Mr. E. P. Rishworth supported the adoption of the report. Hq knew Miss Park as a very intelligent, very loyal, and very capable young woman. As an intelligent woman she had probably made an indictment that was hard to answer. He (the speaker) could say more bitter and biting things regarding the government of education than Miss Park had ever done. He thought it might bo a wise move on tho part of the board to transfer Miss Park to another school, where her integrity, her intelligence, and her able teaching would be more appreciate.!. The worst that ’could be gaid of Miss Park was that she wns outBl> Mr Wright remarked that if any teacher had criticised the board as Miss Park had done the Education Department the members would soon be up in arms. The chairman: Not at allMr Wright repeated that th© Education ’ Department naturally resented criticism by teachcis* Tho chairman: What about the Minuter of Education’s criticism in the House? It was wrong, and he knew G T. London se.id there was not _ single complaint from any parent that they were dissatisfied with Miss Park, while on the other hand there was a great deal of evidence that Miss Park was held in the highest esteem Tho ecavs which Miss Park’s pupils, had nmducod breathed true patriotism. Hiey finot run away with the idea that Cartei-ton was in a ferment over the wnffnr There was an idea held by Z" "” 7

should make teachers as they made clothospegs, and if one had sufficient strength of mind to break away, not very seriously, it was a good thing. Individuality must count. Mr. Grundy remarked that Miss Park had written the article which had caused all tho bother for a teacher’s periodical, "National Education," and never for a moment thought that her article would be seen by any other than teachers. Miss Park had taken up the cudgels on behalf of a young teacher, 18 years of age. As an old teacher he was greatly impressed with Miss Park and her teaching methods. Ho had grandchildren, and if they could only come under the influence of such a sound teacher as Mi«s Park he would be delighted. He hoped the board would remove Miss Park to y niotfb congenial sphere, where she could carry on the good work she was doing in the cause of education.

Mr. Moss said if they wished to keep disloyalty out of their schools they would have to go beyond Miss Park and Miss Weitzel, and go to tho fountainhead and find where this disloyalty was coming from. The chairman: You are classing Miss Park with Miss Weitzel. Miss Park does not know Miss 'Weitzel. Proceeding, Mr. Moss said that because they might differ from the Minister of Education, that was no reason why they should not inquire promptly into all allegations of disloyalty. Teachers should teach the truth. Tho chairman: What is tho truth? Mr. Moss: You go to some of the “Red Feds” and they will tell you what is the truth. The chairman: Some of us here are Socialists. We change our views. Mr. Field quoted from one of tho essays written by pupils of Miss Park, wh’ch stated that half of the moneymakers who made a great deal of money and then gave a little to the Empire were not true patriots. Mr. Field considered that to say half was exaggerating somew-hat. Several members (rising to their feet): Threequarters would be nearer the truth.

Eventually the chairman’s motion to adont the finding of the committee was carried, Messrs, Field. Wright, and Moss alone voting for the amendment to hold the report over.