NORTIL v. SOUTH.

Hokitika Guardian, 24 February 1922, Page 4

NORTIL v. SOUTH.

—— AUCKLAND’S ENGINEERING

SCHOOL

HON. G. FOWLDS’S ATTACK ON UNIVERSITY senate.

AUCKLAND, February 31

The attitude adopted by members of the New Zealand University Senate in regard to the request for recognition of the engineering department at Auckland University College was strongly criticised at a meeting of the College Council yesterday. The chairman (the Hon. G. Fowlds) in reporting on the reception given the request said his first experience on the question was most depressing. It seemed to him that the Senate, as it was at present composed, would not recognise the claims of the North. It did not recognise its rapid growth, and thought that all grants should he apportioned equally between the North and the South Islands, regardless of practically all the special schools in the South Island, which seemed determined to hold on to those advantages, regardless of the needs of the North Island. The motion he had sufbmiitted for the recognition of tho School of Engineering had not been met with argument, except by Dr W. J. Anderson. Partly to save their faces, the members of the Senate had passed a motion recommending the Government to appoint a Commissioner to see if Canterbury and Auckland College were equipped to carry out necessary engineering work. This deprived a large number of Auckland students passing their examinations. Mr FowMs said lie bad little faith in a Commission, as the Government was largely opposed to the recognition of the school. It was apparent to anyone that the position was becoming intolerable. If the North had three times the population, the New Zealand University Senate would still insist on the equal division of money. He thought they should sound a note of warning to the southern people that they would not stand this treatment much longer. Unless they could get better recognition of the claims of the North they would .have to try other means. In view of LjtTm^ecominundation that a Commission be appointed, the Council must wait for the result before taking action. Failing favourable results, the two University Colleges of the North must appoa] to Parliament for justice. Dr T. W. Leys said it was inconceivable that Auckland students should he debarred by an indefensible act of the Son ate. Some action should he taken.

Professor A. I’. W. Thomas said it was clear that the question was not dealt with on the merits of Auckland’s claims, hut on the Senate’s determination to keep the schools in the South. The discussion then closed.