page 3

The Spike
or
Victoria University College Review

(Published Once in the Session)

Editorial . . .

The right of freedom of thought and expression is in the older English Universities absolutely safeguarded. It is not only a tradition with which no public man who respects himself would willingly tamper, but as the universities are self-supporting is not dependent on political whim. It seems doubtful whether even of Government aid were necessary there would be any attempt at direct or indirect restriction. Those holding responsible positions in the government of the universities have too much sensibility of the worth of such a tradition and its effect in the community to wish any change.

The following incident is much in point: —At a meeting of the Board of Governors of the London School of Economics and Political Science (a College of London University) a member questioned the fitness of a certain lecturer to remain on the staff in view of the fact that he had made pronounced socialistic utterances in public. The chairman, a Conservative Cabinet Minister, interrupted and said: "Gentlemen, if a word of that kind is again spoken on this Board I resign my position immediately." And the academic head of the school, Sir William Beverage, added: "And I need hardly say that own resignation would follow."

But it seems otherwise in New Zealand. Here in a young country where the air should be clear and fresh, where enthusiasm and endeavor should be welcomed, where the problems and difficulties of the world should be freely discussed and any solution of them be given due consideration; when we should be weighing the pros and cons of every world movement and helping by honest thought to discover whether it is good or no, we have the nauseating spectacle of attempts to force restrictions upon those who dare to think and express their thoughts. With shame it must be acknowledged that such attempts have come from those who should have been most jealous to guard the interests of the University in this very connection.

It is perhaps too much to expect from Cabinet Ministers that they should have wide vision and open minds. When a lecturer in a University College says openly that we have spent the last ten years getting into a mess while in his opinion Russia has spent the same period in getting out of hers, the Minister of Education says that any person holding such opinions is not fit to hold a University post. The lecturer's opinion may or may not be correct, but the Minister's dictum offends against all ideas of justice. We many of us do not regard either Socialism of Communism as a panacea for the evils of government which we have, but we hope that we can view their various aspects dispassionately. Apparently this is wrong. We shall however be pleased to know why, if indeed any reason can be given.

When general attacks on freedom of expression are made by persons holding positions of authority in University government it is time to protest. We believe that complaints have no efficacy unless expressed in clear and unequivocal language, and unless specific facts are given Despite the fact that expressions of dissatisfaction with the acts of persons in high places are looked on with disfavor we here intend to deal with an actual case. What is more, we give the facts as we know them.

page 4

We print here a memorandum sent to all members of the Staff at Auckland University College by Sir George Fowlds, the President. The memorandum, with the exception of the fifth paragraph, was published in the Auckland Press. That it found its way there at all is regrettable, but apparently it was thought desirable to give the memorandum publicity. In our opinion such action was wholly indefensible.

In view of the present situation in the Dominion generally, and certain recent incidents in the College, I feel impelled, as President, to send a personal message to all members of staff.

In troubled times such as the present, feeling often runs very high in matters of a political and social nature. The university has two definite duties to perform— that of exercising its old-established right of academic freedom of thought and that of maintaining its right thereto.

I must point out that these two matters are complementary—abuse of the first inevitably makes the second very difficult of attainment.

It is my personal opinion that any public statement by a member of the College staff, either under the address of the College or in his capacity as a private citizen, should comply with the prime basic requirements of all such statements. It should be made only after a full and thorough examination of all known information—that is, after a scientific analysis of all the aspects of the subject. It should be a reasoned statement giving both sides of the question—all controversial questions have two sides. The University attitude should be a detached and impersonal one.

The College administration is in this matter entitled to every help and consideration from the members of the staff. If is not given to every man, merely because he is a member of the University, to be an authority on any given subject. As a general rule, the more fitted a man is to come to a reasoned conclusion upon any subject, the less likely he is to rush into print. The true humility of mind brought about by real learning is a definite check upon the intellectual arrogance engendered by a little knowledge.

The staff has a right to expect the full assistance and protection of the College authorities, and the authorities for their part are entitled to demand that members position when defending to the uttermost the rights and privileges of Universities.

I regard recognition, by members of the staff, of the responsibilities referred to in this memorandum as a matter of vital importance, and as being intimately related to the question of fitness for tenure of a University post.

Finally, my fixed purpose as President of the College is, and will be, to maintain and uphold our old-established University right of academic freedom. I sincerely hope that in this matter I shall have the full and loyal confidence and co-operation of you all.

Geo. Fowlds, President.

5th May, 1932.

A brief summary of the facts leading up to the sending of the memorandum will help to show its inner significance, especially when subsequent happenings are taken into consideration.

A day or so prior to the appearance of the memorandum the President and the Registrar of the University had the opportunity afforded by two lecturers of the College, one of these being, Dr. Beaglehole, Assistant Lecturer in History, to read a letter which it was proposed to send to the Press. It was thought that the Presidents might possibly have liked to endorse it. Such letter was an expression of opinion that certain prosecutions in Auckland which resulted in the imprisonment of offenders charged with importing literature alleged to advise lawlessness were the result of hysteria following on recent disturbances. One of the salient points of the letter was the argument that such action is looked upon as victimization and presents the disgruntled with a ready-made case. The letter was not extreme either in thought or expression.

A letter, altered in form, but the same in substance, was after receipt of the circular submitted to t he Auckland papers, but they refused to publish it. It was later published in the "New Zealand Worker." It is noticeable that the Auckland papers saw no objection to publishing the memorandum of Sir George Fowlds. We think that it should be remarked here that after reading the letter we could come to no other conclusion than that its suppression was due to a bias which in our opinion is quite unworthy of the Press of this country. The readiness to print Sir George's memorandum stands out in sharp contrast.

page 5

On the receipt of the memorandum no meeting of the Staff, as distinct from the Professorial Board of the College, was called to consider it, though such a meeting was asked for, but the Professorial Board did so and advised the President of its intention loyally to fulfil its terms. The letter of the lecturers was not before this meeting, but it was adversely reported to the Board.

It is our considered opinion that the memorandum of the President, despite its professed intention to uphold the University tradition of "academic freedom of thought" (but not its expression), is intolerant, arrogant and offensive. In the first place, it refers to the "situation in the Dominion" and to "recent incidents" in Auckland, and so assumes a political tone. There can be no doubt as to what situation is meant, and the incidents would evidently include such as that when another lecturer of the College was reprimanded for daring to writer a preface to a book on Italy, no objection would have been taken to it.

Only one statement in the memorandum is unexceptionable—that which says the University has in this connection two duties, exercising freedom of thought and maintaining its right thereto. We cannot understand how Sir George can find this statement compatible with the rest of his remarks. Why was he not prepared to state directly that he was opposed to freedom of expression in the University, at least in political matters? It can only be assumed that he was ashamed to hold this view and wished to disguise it by a feeble advocacy of freedom of thought.

It is difficult to see how academic freedom of thought can be abused if the expression of it is made after careful study and due consideration. The only explanation can be that the abuse will consist in the expression of opinions contrary to those of the University authorities. It the terms of the memorandum are taken to contain an expression of those views on academic freedom of thought, then we emphatically state that the oftener they are repudiated and confounded the better.

The President's prime basic requirement of a full and thorough examination of all known information is, if taken alone, excellent, but his demand in every case for a statement giving both sides is obiter dicta from which most will dissent. Is it customary, when supporting a contention which is the result of mature thought, to give the arguments against it, save to refute them? The examination should be strictly impartial, but the result may well be a statement supporting one side or the other. We are all entitled to come to a decision. Sir George's ideal seems to be that impartiality which we have seen better named as rail-sitting.

The fifth paragraph is a slightly veiled insult. It was true foresight that excluded it from the published memorandum. While the rest might have a seeming of truth to those who could not be expected to know the real facts, this paragraph would have removed all shadow of doubt as to the meaning and intention of the writer. When read in conjunction with paragraph seven its meaning is abundantly clear.

In effect the worthy President states that in any political or social questions members of the teaching staff of a University College must not be responsible for publishing anything at variance with the views to which the College authorities subscribe. They are, whatever their opinions and whatever the result of their study and research, to subscribe their positions are in peril. We wonder if Sir George would welcome the carrying out of his ideas to their logical conclusion—that during a socialistic regime any member of the Staff who advocated capitalism would not be fit to hold a University post.

We would remind the President that intellectual arrogance may be shown in many ways, and recommend him to exercise a little tolerance and respect for views which, if they do not agree with his own, yet may still be the result of honest thought.

page 6

We also cannot see how the College authorities can be placed in a "untenable position" by expression of any opinion by a member of the staff, provided it has been arrived at in the manner suggested by the memorandum itself. Either the President was beating the air, or he was referring to expressions of opinion which he had had the opportunity of hearing of perusing. We are reluctant to believe the former, and consequently must express considerable surprise that he immediately doubted the bona fides of those expression the opinions to which he evidently refers.

It seems to us that excepting utterances which are contrary to the law of the land, which may in all cases be dealt with by the proper tribunals, the College authorities are not acting in the best interests of the University if they use coercive measures, however concealed, to prevent expressions of opinion by members of the staffs of the Colleges. We would suggest that if they wish to uphold the old-established tradition of academic freedom of thought they do it by supporting their staffs, of at the least refuse to allow their officials or representatives to make public statements which reflect on members of those staffs.

Finally in this connection we would remind the President of the Auckland University College that it ill becomes anyone holding a position of authority in our University Colleges to tamper with the right of academic freedom, especially under the disguise of a protest of purpose to uphold it. We do this advisedly because such statements as he has made harm not only the College of which he is President, but reflect on the others as wll.

There is, however, considerably more in this matter. Subsequent events show that it has been proposed, and so far as our information show, the purpose is fixed, to retrench Dr. Beaglehole.

Again we give a few facts. The History school at Auckland University College is without a Professor and carries on under the previous lecturer who has as his assistant Dr. Beaglehole. This department is apparently one of, if not the largest at the College. It has over two hundred students and by far the greatest number per lecturer. The matter of economy having been generally under discussion, it appears that the Registrar of the College suggested that the lecturer in History might be assisted by one of the assistant lecturers in Economics (also a very large school) as a part-time lecturer, thus retrenching Dr. Beaglehole. The matter of retrenchment seems to have been discussed by the Council and inquiries as to its possibility to have been left to the Registrar. Why this should have been done is to us inexplicable, the Registrar surely not being the person to make recommendations concerning the staff. The Education Committee of the Council had the matter before it and recommended the retrenchment. On this being known a very complete memorandum was signed by a deputation from the history students strongly protesting against such action, and showing the detrimental effect it would have on the History school. This deputation, which waited on Sir George Folds in the matter, was composed of men of standing. It brought before the President's notice that while economy was the known ruling factor in the suggested action, £200 had been granted to the Registrar to assist him in his journey to America with a Carnegie Fellowship. This, while it may have been undiplomatic, was undoubtedly true. It is noticeable that the Registrar had not placed before the Committee any protest from the heads of the Departments concerned in this suggested shuffle. It afterwards transpired that both of these had objected strongly to the proposals of retrenchment and readjustment, and, at an ordinary meeting of the Council held later, the report of the Education Committee was referred back on the grounds that the Committee had not had full information before it.

There is also one other fact concerning this vexed question. At the first meeting of the Council, it has since been discovered, more than one member spoke against Dr. Beaglehole. One of these was reported as having said that he was "a dangerous young man," and it is well known that other such statements were made. Furthermore, these statements have been the cause of persons outside page 7 the University believing that the retrenchment was a fact, for it has been brought to our notice that the matter was thus known to persons unconnected with the Auckland University College when actually it was still undetermined. The latest information at our disposal is that the Education Committee has again recommended the retrenchment. The matter must now be dealt with by the Council. Whatever the will be the position in the future. Are the University Colleges and the University of New Zealand to be governed by politicians or, as in England, to be free? We hope that any suggestion of political control will not be tolerated.