TONE OF COLLEGE

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 48, 25 August 1933, Page 8

TONE OF COLLEGE

SUGGESTED INQUIRY

OmQH JAMES'S CONCERN

In hi& letter to the committee of inquiry, Canon Pereival James denies that lie made any charges against the staff ipf tie college, tut states that his concertt was for the true atmosphere of the college, for the protection of the young students and for the peace of "mind of the parents. He suggested that the committee might extend-its order of reference and inquire whether there was "any foundation for existing fears that influence* in the college ■were not adequately watched and eon.if,tolled.". The full text of Canon James's .letter is as follows:— £. Levi, Esq., ■ Chairman, Victoria University College Council, Wellington. Dear Sir, I have received your letter of 'the I4th instant in reply to mine of jfche- 11th, and I have to reply to your j&ommittee as follows: It wa» reported in the "Evening Post, of July 28, that Professor Hunter lad declared to the Council of JvTeioria "University College on the previous day that I had made charges against the staff of the college, and ehwild be called upon to substantiate them in, a- manner that would be accsepted in. a Court of Law. He nomin- & ted. a committee, which was afterwards appointed by the majority of the council "to invite . . . Canon James HnS other persons to- support the 'charges and insinuations made against ths staff of the college." Thero was % fortnight's silence, and then I read jpoar committee's advertisement in the Press, and- subsequently received through the post a copy of that advertisement, sent to me by the Begistrar,.by direction of the council. I wrote immediately fo you as chairman, enclosing three copies of the letter apparently referred toy .which had preyions^r appeared in the " Evening Post" fend requesting the committee to specify %\\<s charges made therein against the jftaff of the college. "OJTENSIVE TERM." I must point out that in your reply fe>u do not yet- specify tho charges VUca, it is alleged,: I made against the teacling staff. Instead, you express tW opinion, that my letter "insinuated most serious charges against the teaching sUtf"; and you repeat three times the word "insinuation." I pass by (1 {far th« present, the- dishonouring and fSfflwhreierm "insinuation" which has

also been employed by other members of the councjl. It can only mean, in this context, that I avoid framing charges which I nevertheless imply. But I insiat that whether your committee holds the charges to be "made" or "insinuated," your committee is now bound to specify what those charges arc. With what definite offence or offences- did my letter charge tho teaching staff or any member of the same? You have failed to answer this plain question. With the best will in the work!, I could* not come before your committee to support charges, which I am unable to find in my letter, and which you also fail to specify. Professor Hunter laid down for his nominated committee the standards of a "Court of Law." I shall continue to hold the committee to the rigour of strict and precise definition, or to the alternative of a frank admission that no charges against the teaching staff wero made or "insinuated" in my letter. You refer to the heading "Twisted Teaching" which appeared over somo of the correspondence in the "Evening Post." COUNCIL'S RESPONSIBILITY. The heading "Ideals of the Community," under which my letter was published was, of course, chosen by the editor and appears to me a very fair introductory description. I have no connection with any talk about "Twisted Teaching." You will find that, before I wrote, the Welfare League had denied that they intended any charge that the teaching staff of Victoria University College were guilty of giving an "antiBritish twist" to their teaching. I feel very keenly the necessity you have laid upon me of protesting that neither in word norm intention did my letter make any such charge. I have submitted it to a number of men of high standing, including eminent counsel in Wellington; and they all agree that it is not possible to lead into my letter any such, "insinuation." I was not seeking for scapegoats. My letter throughout was an appeal to the "authorities" ; of the college, by which term I meant primarily the council, upon whom I assumed the ultimate responsibility to rest for the good governance of tho college, though the council must act through the Professorial Board. You quote what you describe as my main statement: —"The opinion is widely held, whether it is justified or not, that when young- students enter that college, their religious faith, their moral ideals, and even their sentiments of loyalty to King and Country are powerfully assailed," My letter proceeded: — We are told that 00 per cent, of those students are between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one. The plastic minds of these young people, exposed to the influences of the college, are a charge committed to the authorities by the community. _ AVc ought to be assured that those influences are watched and controlled. The point and the purpose of my short letter were abundantly plain. Its "main statement" is that fears and apprehensions aro held by many people, that there are influences at work in tho college inimical to ideals which are cherished by the greatest part of the community here. To my certain knowledge these fears exist, and I believe that it is generally admitted that they exist. The grounds of these fears (of the existence of undesirable influences) I plainly stated to be the results that appear to accrue in the students after their entry into - tho college. These fears arise in the minds of many parents and many others, who frequently observe the development of these young students with dismay. DISCIPLINE AND CONTROL. The activity of a university college is not confined to the lecture-room. There is a many-sided corporate' life in a college. The influences which affect the students who enter our colleges should be watched and controlled. This is a trust committed to the authorities. In the light of Tecent events, I thought it a public duty to ask "the autnorities of the college to assure us that this trust is honoured, and that abuse of it will not go unchecked." I fully admit both the necessity and the value of reasonable freedom for the students, but there are limits to the expression of their opinions—whether in speech or in print. Some measure of reasonable discipline and control is essential to the very existence of corporate life —obviously essential when, many students are so young as those found m our university colleges. I had in mind recent statements ot Sir James Allen of the Council ot the Otago University, and Dr. Morrell, the Vice-Chancellor, that the authorities of Otago University, -faced with the difliculties that appear to confront the authorities of your college, had xounrt a satisfactory and effective method ot overcoming them. Dr. Morrell, after reprobating recent excesses in. student magazines of other University colleges in New Zealand, is reported to havo said: — "A similar outbreak, but on a mucn milder scale, was promptly dealt with by the Otago University Council some year or so ago, and since then there has not been a vestige of that kind of view expressed. A wise step then taken was the. establishment of a new board of control, on which the. council, the teaching staff, and the students were represented, and we: have found this work most admirably in fostering good relations between all branches of the University." Sir James Allen, expressed the same opinion. My concern is for the atmosphere and the ton© of the college, for the protection of the young students, and for the peace of mind of their parents. Ttforeover, the tone of the college, which includes many of the ablest of our young men and women, must afiect powerfully the spirit of the younger people in. and .beyond. Wellington. My letter was an appeal tri the authorities. It opened -with the submission, that the present controversy afforded an opportunity to re-establish our University colleges in the esteem of the community. It closed with the appeal for a, plain statement, which might serve to allay apprehensions which have for a long time troubled the public mind. REAL ISSUE IGNORED. I£ your committee is confined to its formal terms of reference, i.e., "to investigate charges and insinuations against the teaching staff," I do not see how I can help them, for reasons I have already given. I submit that this procedure destroys all hope of useful investigation, and ignores the real point at issue, -which wa3 raised in my letter. But if the committee thinks it right to go further, and to inquire whether there is any foundation for existing fears that influences in tho college are not adequately watched and controlled, then I shall be prepared to meet the three members of the committee in conference, and. to amplify and support the terms of my letter, from. wMch I have nothing to subtract. If they -will give me two or three days' notice, I shall bo glad to receive the committee at my house, if they will favour me with an, appointed visit, or to meet with them, at some appointed place in the city area. Personally, I still think that the action which should be taken at the college should be decided by the council itself, with the Professorial Board; and that they have- ample grounds for deciding to take action. But, I repeat that, if I am iuvited, I am willing to appear and to support the plea_o£ my letter at any serious and candid inquiry by the council concerning the tone and atmosphere of the college, the influences which appear to bo effecting a deplorable development in not a few students, and the best means of counter-

acting those influences. But, if I am to appear, it must,be understood to be a broad inquiry which concerns the pro-sent-responsibility and tho possible future action, of the council itself, not la, narrow inquiry directed against I ; assumed charges against the teaching ; staff, which charges I myself, at auy_ rate, have not made. i JUDGES IN OWN CASE. At present the majority of the members of the council appear to have ; virtually constituted themselves not i only prosecutors in s\ vague and undefined accusation, but also judges in their own cause. If this is their fixed attitude, there remains the "truly British way" which some of the members of the council profess to desire. It is a general inquiry by an impartial tribunal independent of tho council and the Professorial Board. Beforo such a . tribunal I am fully prepared to support the terms of my letter. I beg that you will communicate this letter to your committee with the copies ■ of my original letter already supplied to you.