The Dominion WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1928. FOUR UNIVERSITIES OR ONE?

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 123, 22 February 1928, Page 10

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1928. FOUR UNIVERSITIES OR ONE?

Professor Hunter, of Victoria College, submitted to the University Council in Christchurch, on Monday, a proposal against which the Royal Commission on Higher Education in 1925 made a very definite pronouncement. Instead of the University of New Zealand, with its affiliated colleges in the four centres, Professor Hunter desired separate universities, each with a limited charter. The mover was prevented from developing his arguments by the intervention of a motion to proceed to the next business. This is rather regrettable. Without necessarily agreeing with his suggestion, one would have liked to have had an opportunity of studying the reasons advanced by Professor Hunter for proposing a system rejected by the Commission on substantial grounds. The Commission suggested a modification of the present system, which ought to have produced certain anticipated results. To judge from the preamble of Professor Hunter’s motion, the Commission’s reform has failed, in his opinion, to produce these results:—

“That as the discussions at the meetings of this Council,” states the motion, “indicate that there is little likelihood of the Federal constitution being worked by the colleges in such a spirit of co-operation as to justify- a »

reasonable hope that the new system will be successful, the Government should reconsider the question whether the time has not come to set up separate universities under a limited charter.”

The reform indicated by the University Commission was, in its judgment, a practical alternative to that suggested by the advocates of separate universities—not to the then existing system, which it roundly condemned. The Commission did not object to the idea of separate universities in principle, but merely considered that in view of the small population of New Zealand a reformed federal system was the best “for present conditions.” If the results anticipated by the reform adopted have failed to materialise, the public would be interested to know why, and for that reason a full discussion on Professor Hunter’s motion would have been informative and suggestive. The objective in the minds of the Commission was, to quote from the report, “to minimise as far as we can the operation of the provincial jealousies and strife which have in the past, we are convinced, operated prejudicially to the interests of the University.” Since that report was published, and this particular recommendation given practical effect, the public has had a practical demonstration of the operation of these “provincial jealousies and strife” in connection with the scheme for the establishment of the agricultural college at Palmerston North. In justice to the colleges it must be admitted that political jealousies had more to do with the controversy between North and South than the rivalry of the educationists. The way to university reform has been pointed out. Are we following the directions given. Flow far have we progressed to remove the impression created in the minds of the Commission that “the New Zealand University offers unrivalled facilities for gaining university degrees, but that it is less successful in providing university education”? In recommending a modification of the existing system the Commission warned us that “the first few years of a new- system demanded presence of “a vigorous and inspiring influence,” and suggested that our efforts to improve our methods would be greatly facilitated by the appointment, as principal of the University, of “a young and vigorous man of high academic standing, of lofty ideals of university life and work, and of inspiring personality, who would inaugurate a new era in the higher education of the Dominion.”

What has happened is that while we have adopted a modified system, we have neglected to provide the requisite leadership, and if there is anything in Professor Hunter’s criticism, we are not likely to make much progress without it.