FEBRUARY 2, 1912] 
value of the services of any professor.” Per- 
haps a sixth point should be enumerated to the 
effect that these other points “seriously re- 
tard the growth of the institution and impair 
the usefulness thereof.” 
With respect to the allegation that there is 
a spirit of unrest and dissatisfaction existing 
between the student body and the president it 
would be interesting to know just how many 
and just what students were examined upon 
this point. As far as such information has 
come to the president by indirection and 
rumor, it would appear that a considerable 
proportion of such students were those who 
have personal reasons for “ dissatisfaction.” 
In the course of administering a clean ath- 
letic policy and reasonable standards of schol- 
arship, together with correct principles of con- 
duct, the president has found it necessary to 
deal more or less sternly with some, at least, 
whose opinions seem to have impressed the 
committee. The process that was used to ob- 
tain student sentiment is noteworthy, chiefly 
because of the absence of students whose 
chief concern is scholarly work or scholarly 
distinction. To the members of the faculty 
it has appeared somewhat remarkable that the 
management of general student affairs in the 
university has been accompanied with so lit- 
tle friction and with so much genuine good 
will. 
With regard to the second point on the al- 
leged dissatisfaction between the alumni and 
the president, it is noteworthy that the “ re- 
quest of certain of the alumni” which is said 
to have produced this investigation was 
signed by two members of the class of 1911, 
the other three being undergraduates. One 
of these graduates had been severely disci- 
plined for various delinquencies, both under 
the preceding and present administrations. 
How many alumni, apart from these two, 
testified is quite unknown to the president. A 
few persons seemed to be considered “the 
alumni.” It should be added that some of the 
alumni, like some of the students, have been 
“ dissatisfied ” with the president’s enforce- 
ment of athletic eligibility rules and his neces- 
SCIENCE 
185 
sarily vigorous efforts to prevent professionals 
from getting places on football teams. A 
very few also have been displeased because the 
president declined to perpetuate a so-called 
honor society, oathbound and secret in char- 
acter, composed of three members of the 
faculty and a handful of third and fourth 
year men. Such an organization was not a 
healthy influence with regard either to the 
general student body or to the faculty, what- 
ever may have been its ideals and hopes in its 
earlier history. A very few also, when they 
heard of discipline being applied to members 
of their fraternity chapters, were more or less 
critical. Certainly a judicious inquiry would 
consider questions of the animus and credibil- 
ity of witnesses. Finally, it should be re- 
marked that there has been no expression by 
“the alumni” of dissatisfaction with the 
president. On the contrary, many of them 
have been exceedingly helpful and most cor- 
dial in advancing the plans of the president. 
With regard to the third point on lack of co- 
operation between the president and “a large 
portion of his faculty,” it is difficult to see 
any real justification for such a statement. 
In an authorized interview published in the 
Missoula Sentinel on October 25 the chair- 
man of the committee is quoted as saying that 
he “ desires to correct the statement published 
by the Sentinel yesterday that any of the fac- 
ulty had been disloyal to Dr. Duniway.” The 
members of the faculty who were summoned 
before the university committee voluntarily 
and individually told the president that they 
had not been dissatisfied with the administra- 
tion and that they had so testified to the 
committee. It would seem that the com- 
mittee has construed a reasonable amount of 
candid difference of opinion such as right- 
minded members of any faculty are sure to 
feel into “lack of cooperation and coordina- 
tion.” Jf such a supposition does not fully 
explain this point is it not reasonable to think 
that what psychologists call “reaction to ex- 
ternal stimuli” might have been produced in 
a few cases where members of the board let it 
be known that they were looking for criticism ? 
