OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 30 May 1941, Page 5

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

RENEWAL BY COLLEGE TEACHERS BOARD MEMBER'S PROPOSAL. REJECTED AFTER EXTENDED DISCUSSION. Following- a long and at limes heated discussion, a motion before the Wairarapa College Board of Governors, last night, that every member of I he ('allege slaii' be reqnesled to lake or iTiiew the oaih of allegiance lo the Crown was lost by seven votes to 1 wo. Members, in general, were in sympathy will) the proposal contained in the motion, but considered that it would cast an undesirable reflection on the teaching staff. “We have io light- with the kid gloves off now,” said Mr A. Owen Jones, in moving a motion that every member of the College staff be requested to take or renew the oath of allegiance to the Crown. There was no suggestion of Fifth Columnist activity, he said, but “there were pacifists among us.” If they were not with us, they were against us. Teachers were in a different position from individuals, more particularly so in secondary rather than primary schools. Mr Jones continued. Young boys and girls had ■receptive minds. They took notice of what was told to them. It might be done witli intention or not, but remarks were passed by teachers which should not go on to young children. It was possible that the boys coming on would build a nation with an inferiority complex. Mr Jones cited the case of a child who went home and told his parents: "Of course the Germans’ war sluff is better than ours. Take Jutland, where we lost more ships than them." GETTING THE WRONG IDEA. •‘A child gets the wrong idea from that," said Mr Jones. The teacher might not mean harm. An attacker always took risks, he pointed out. The average parent saw his child at breakfast. dinner and tea, followed by studies, and then the child went to bed. A lot could go on during the day in the big schools throughout New Zealand. The majority of teachers on the College staff had already taken the oath and would not object to doing so again. Mr G. G. Hancox (Principal): “It is provided for in the Act.” Mr Jones: “And never carried out.” The chairman. Mr W. R. Nicol, stated that teachers could make an affirmation. Mr G. C. L. Dickel: “What- if the teachers refuse?" Mr Jones: “Sack them! There is no room for pacifists." Mr F. M. Whyte: "But they mightn't necessarily be pacifists. On principle alone they might resent the compulsion as applying to the College only." Mr T. Hanley: “It should come from the Department.” Mr Jones stated that he did not. wish his children, from his own point of view, to run the chance of being taught pacifism. He again cited the case mentioned above. Mr Dickel: “I heard the same thing from London on the situation in Crete. It doesn’t sway my judgment." Mr F. C. Daniell rose to a point of order and asked if the discussion was in order as the motion had not been seconded. Mr J. D. O'Connor seconded it. ACTION BY OTHER BOARDS. Mi- O'Connor stated that the Auckland Education Board had taken simiI lar steps to those proposed by Mr Jones. At Wellington the board decided against it, but if there were any suspicion, the teacher could be asked to take the oath. In one case this had been done. Mr Jones: "I don’t agree with that." Mr O’Connor: “We want proof first. I agree with Mr Jones. I could renew my oath every day. So could Mr Hancox or any member of the staff. If there is any doubt we should get to the bottom of it. At present there is nothing concrete." Mr Jones: “Do you want to wait until the Fifth Column starts?” Mr O'Connor: "No, I want evidence.” Mr Jones remarked that the parents were too frightened to come before the board. “The matter is serious. We must deal with it in a cool way." said Mr Nicol. "If the board will nominate a member, I will take him to two parents and prove my bona tides—which appear to be doubted,” said Mr Jones. Mr Whyte: "There is no question about that." Mr Nicol: “If any complaint is received in writing, the board will deal with it without any ‘beg pardons'." “How can we get tliat when a board member refused to give evidence because his child would bo persecuted?” said Mr Jones. Mr Nicol: “It is quite true." Mr Hancox stated tliat soldiers on the staff had taken tho oath. Mr Jones: "What is the objection to them all taking it again?” “Those who excuse themselves accuse themselves. To pass such a resolution is an implied accusation against tho staff." said Mr F. C. Daniell. , “You can’t get away from it." "We have to have something specific and not vague generalities," said Mr Whyte, “It places the teachers in an invidious position. It becomes almost personal." Mr Nicol: “It does cast suspicion on tlie staff.” Mr Daniell stated that he would vote against the motion because an undesirable implication could not be escaped. The motion was put to the meeting and declared lost. Mrs J. L. Hair and Mr Jones voted for the motion and Messrs Nicol. F. C. Daniell. F. M. Whyte. O’Connor. Dickel and Hanley voted against it.