« AnteriorContinuar »
best to withhold mention of his name) has gone so far as to say that this scarcity is greater to-day than it was five years ago. Several suggestions have been made in explanation of the fact. For myself, I am not convinced that the proposition itself is true. The women now being graduated, with the doctor's degree, from our strongest institutions, are, in almost every particular, as able and as strong as the men. tunity were offered, these women would show that they possess the qualifications demanded. The fact is that to women there do not come the opportunities to show their strength which come to men. In colleges and universities for men only, women may not find a place upon the faculty. In a certain great State university, in which there are as many women students as men students, women are represented in the faculty by a single individual, and she has been appointed within the last three years. In some of the women's colleges women find a place. In others, second-rate and third-rate men are preferred to women of first-rate ability. The number of faculties of colleges and universities on which women have appointments in any number is very small, and even in certain institutions in which women have gained secure footing there is often greater or less distress among the men of the various departments if even one or two women are appointed. And yet, is it possible that the heads of our State institutionsinstitutions which are established by the people and conducted with the people's money; institutions which are professedly democratic beyond all others—deliberately refuse to recommend the appointment of women even when they have attained equal rank with men in scholarship and efficiency? So far as I can ascertain, during the past year the appointments of women, east and west, even in coeducational institutions, have numbered very few; fewer, perhaps, than ever before. Is this progress? Or is it rather a concession to prejudices which, instead of growing weaker, are growing stronger? I venture to ask the Regents of our State universities and the trustees of our coeducational institutions to consider this question; and I think it not inappropriate to suggest for the consideration of the trustees of certain women's colleges the
question whether, in this matter, they have given to women the full opportunity which they deserve.
A burning question during this past year has been that which relates to the tenure of office of professors. That. words have been spoken on both sides of the question is evident from the following statements, taken from personal letters addressed to me by two eminent presidents of universities. One of these gentlemen writes as follows:
Another tendency characteristic of the passing year, and tending toward reform, is the growing feeling that the professor's chair is sacred only as its incumbent makes it so, and that it is the right and duty of a university not to retain men deficient in character or ability as judged by the reasonable standards of the institution itself.
Another equally prominent president writes from the other point of view :
I can think of nothing so important to be touched upon in such a review as that which you propose as the danger of professorial degradation. The danger is mainly twofold: one arising from the extremely low salaries many institutions of considerable character are paying to titular professors who, in the nature of the case, must be most ill-furnished for the work ; and, secondly, from the tendency in certain quarters to snub professors, to treat them as underlings, and to constitute the head of the university a mere business boss. It is not at all the issue of academic freedom in the old sense, but rather one of personal freedom, manliness, and self-respect on the part of professors. I deem this a real danger vastly greater than any in which academic freedom, in the old sense, has ever stood in this country.
Here, then, is the issue; and it is an issue squarely drawn. Has progress been made in this respect, or has ground been lost in these last months? I have no hesitation in finding an answer to this question. Every month of the last twelve months has added to the security and permanence of the professor in the prosecution of his work. Every month has added to his dignity and to the importance which attaches to his words. Every month has made it clearer that public sentiment is on the side of the professor in any contest entered into with the institution of which he is a member. Within five years the sentiment has become almost universal that, once a man is appointed to do work in a university, the university
is responsible for the appointment, but not for the views which the man later may propound. Gradually, but surely, even the common people are coming to perceive the difference between the university and the individual professors who form its staff. The time has not yet come, to be sure, when the people make distinctions of this same kind between the president of an institution and the institution itself. It is still wrongly understood that the words of a president must be words carrying with them the force and influence and authority of the university as a whole. Ten years from now, in the West and Northwest, men will be able to make this additional distinction. But great has been the progress which has thus far obtained in the attitude of the public toward the individual professor. It is asked, however, and not without reason: “Is there no limit to the indiscretion which a professor may commit in language or in deed? Are there no circumstances under which, by common consent of all concerned, the resignation of a professor may wisely and justly be demanded ? ” I take the liberty of repeating on this occasion words which I have used within the year in another address:
The greatest single element necessary for the cultivation of the academic spirit is the feeling of security from interference. It is only those who have this feeling that are able to do work which in the highest sense will be beneficial to humanity. Freedom of expression must be given the members of a university faculty, even tho it be abused; for, as has been said, the abuse of it is not so great an evil as the restriction of such liberty. But, it may be asked, in what way may the professor abuse his privilege of freedom of expression? or, to put the question more largely, in what way does a professor bring reproach and injury to himself and to his institution? I answer: A professor is guilty of an abuse of his privilege who promulgates as truth ideas or opinions which have not been tested scientifically by his colleagues in the same department of research or investigation. A professor has no right to proclaim to the public as truth discovered that which is yet unsettled and uncertain. A professor abuses his privilege
who takes advantage of a classroom exercise to propagate the partisan views of one or another of the political parties. The university is no place for partisanship. From the teacher's desk should emanate the discussion of principles, the judicial statements of arguments from various points of view, and not the one-sided representations of a partisan character. A professor abuses his privilege who in any way seeks to influence his pupils or the public by sensational methods. A professor abuses his privilege of expression of opinion when, altho a student and perhaps an authority in one department or group of departments, he undertakes to speak authoritatively on subjects which have no relationship to the department in which he was appointed to give instruction. A professor abuses his privilege in many cases when, altho shut off in large measure from the world, and engaged within a narrow field of investigation, he undertakes to instruct his colleagues or the public concerning matters in the world at large in connection with which he has had little or no experience. A professor abuses his privilege of freedom of expression of opinion when he fails to exercise that quality—which, it must be confessed, in some cases the professor lacks—ordinarily called common-sense. A professor ought not to make such an exhibition of his weakness, or to make an exhibition of his weakness so many times that the attention of the public at large is called to the fact. In this respect he has no larger liberty than other men.
But may a professor do all of these things and yet remain an officer in the university? Yes. The professor in most cases is only an ordinary man. Perfection is not to be expected of him. Like men in other professions, professors have their weaknesses. But will a professor under any circumstances be asked to withdraw from the university? Yes. His resignation will be demanded, and will be accepted, when, in the opinion of those in authority, he has been guilty of immorality, or when for any reason he has proved himself to be incompetent to perform the service called for. The public should be on its guard in two particulars: the utterance of a professor, however wise or foolish, is not the utterance of the university. No individual, no group of individuals, can
speak for the university. A statement, by whomsoever made, is the statement of an individual.
President Jordan of the Leland Stanford Junior University has suggested to me that among the various important movements of the year is the disposition of small colleges to become junior colleges, turning their graduates over to the universities at the beginning of the junior year. I may not dwell upon this opinion longer than to say that, within my own observation, many facts pointing in this direction have occurred. When some of our smaller colleges shall have come to appreciate the fact that their position in the educational world will, indeed, become a higher one if they will limit their work to that which they can do with thoroness and satisfaction to all concerned, and will encourage their students at the end of the sophomore year to take advantage of the larger foundations to be found in the State universities and in the great cities of the country, a great step forward will have been taken. The adoption of this policy by even a few will inaugurate a movement the ultimate results of which will be of incalculable value to the cause of higher education.
No fact has been commented on more widely than that which has been thoroly illustrated by the change of presidency at Princeton; namely, the transfer of the control of education from the clergy to the laity. In the Association of American Universities only one institution is under the administration of a clergyman; that one is the Roman Catholic University at Washington, and is essentially a theological institution. Special attention was drawn to this fact in the address of Mr. Eliot at the Columbia celebration. The significance of it is self-evident, and, when coupled with the fact that so small a number of college graduates in our universities now plan for the profession of preaching the significance grows even more startling. Moreover, from no quarter, not even from the clergy, do we find criticism of this policy. It seems to meet with general favor and approval. Surely, if anywhere, the old régime would have continued in Princeton; but even at Princeton the new policy has been adopted. The fact is itself