WORKERS' EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 June 1920, Page 2

WORKERS' EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—The letter of Mr. Fltzherbort in yon) issue of to-day In condemnation of the W.E.A rnlsts a number of points of more than usua interest, because while some of tliem ar< founded on a complete misconception of the central feature of our work, others are interesting as illustrative of lltf dlfflcultie: with which it Is often faced. ram not objecting to the sinister reactionary purpose! which' he attributes to the W.E.A., because these owe their existence—as 1 view It — entirely to the imagination of Mr. Fltzhcrberl with which it is not appropriate that I shoulc interfere, and because (If Indeed thev have any basis In fact) they -are not such fron their nature as may be either proved or disproved. I can only point to certain fact.' which are not questions of opinion, and whlcl: he not appear .to harmonise with tho conclusions which Mr. Fltzherbert has reached. How, for example, If the W.E.A. Is merely an instrument of reactionary propaganda, does Mr. Fltzherbert reconcile this view with mi suggestion that he should join the committee! Did lis assume that I regarded hLin as a llkels convert to the capitalist programme, which he attributes to the W.E.A., or that I was unaware of his views? If so ho Is undurv modest as to his reputation. Did he regard me as possibly a, well-meaning but deluded possibly a carefully disguised, emissary of the bourgeoises? If so, I should confess to a shame-faced regard for his acumen. Short of unduly laboring the point, 1 hoped that 1 had made it abundantly clear to my audience that tho W.E-A. class is essentialy that "debating society for tho discussion of economic problems," of which Mr. Pltzherbert has approved: After each lecture -the class debates the subject for an hour, aim ontr the -unco puid" of bo,th extremes of the economic foltli decline to 'take part. * To maintain thai orthodox doctrine is "drilled into" a class which is expected and encouraged to challenge the subject matter of the lecture—de llvered frequently by a tutor whose views are highly advanced—is an abuse of words mischievous in Its effects, and lrre.ii>on.sih.f In that it is obviously based on cmmloic ignorance of the \V E.A. class wor',;. The dttv of the class tutor is to do justice tc all'opinions on the subject under consideration. Has Mr. Fltzherbert considered whe.thei there Is a better method of "liammer'iig out an economics of actuality 1 ' than hv snhmlttinp tho opinions of the "innrispts to tho 1i!d;!ment on the practical man in the class? Wliat does'. Mr. Fitzhorbert propose •as hypothrtical economic pending the development of the science which even in his view is "only in its infancy?" What subject'matter, foi example, docs ho propose for his debating society to work upon? Will It he permissible for the society to consider the opinions ol Marshall, as well as those of Marx; and If sc why not in W.E.A. class? Mr. Pltzherhert ciassiflos economics into "a. system ol apologetics justifying the existing social order " and "the mentnl grouping of numbers ol Independent and disinterested men." Onl> the former l» found ln tllp University apparently. ' Tllp "'''S'" »"<! location of tilt latter 'is muipeclfletl. Will Mr. Fltzherbert iflmllv explain exactly how he has manager to separate" the sheep from the goats wltl «uch nrniAifftM ' IhB iMUoatloa tUtt