May 31, 1912] 
size and directly as the time it works to- 
gether. A body of fifty men such as the 
faculty to which I primarily belong, meet- 
ing for an hour three times a year, without 
power or responsibility, is clearly dedicated 
to futility. But if any one supposes that 
university presidents would do better under 
these conditions, he should call to mind the 
conduct of the trustees of the Carnegie 
Foundation. It seems to be the case that 
in order to make large faculties real legis- 
lative bodies, it would be necessary to de- 
vote more time to their meetings than is 
expedient, and perhaps more common 
sense than is available. All parliaments, 
congresses and legislatures do their work 
through cabinets and committees; but 
these are responsible to the whole body. 
Some such plan is necessary in the uni- 
versity. Still the cynical attitude toward 
faculty meetings common in academic 
circles appears to be one of the sinister 
symptoms resulting from the existing 
methods of autocratic control. It is typical 
of existing conditions that the most recent 
university school to be established—the 
School of Journalism of Columbia Uni- 
versity—does not have a faculty but an 
“‘administrative board.’’ I belong to a 
club at the meetings of which each member 
must speak once and only once, not ex- 
ceeding his share of the time, and the dis- 
cussion is followed by a dinner.- If faculty 
meetings could be made into educational 
and social clubs they would perform a use- 
ful function. The meetings of the faculty 
of arts and sciences at Harvard may give 
rise to complaints, but they have been of 
real service to the university. 
Truth, openness, publicity, are the safe- 
guards of free institutions. It is better to 
wash your dirty linen in public than to 
continue to wear it. The affairs of a uni- 
versity should be conducted in the full 
light of day. The proceedings of the trus- 
SCIENCE 
859 
tees, the discussions and conclusions of 
faculties and of committees, the activities 
of the president, the work of professors, 
salaries and the provisions of the budget, 
the appointment of officers and the rare 
cases in which it is necessary to dismiss a 
professor, should be open to all. Light is 
an excellent disinfectant; what is of more 
consequence, it is essential to healthy life 
and growth. ‘‘And God said, let there be 
light: and there was light. And God saw 
the light, that it was good.’’ 
Several of my correspondents argue that 
if the control of a university were vested 
in its teachers, they would be distracted 
from their proper work of teaching and 
research. In a recent article’? on ‘‘The 
University President in the American 
Commonwealth,’’ President Eliot writes: 
Most American professors of good quality would 
regard the imposition of duties concerning the 
selection of professors and other teachers, the 
election of the president, and the annual arrange- 
ment of the budget of the institution as a serious 
reduction in the attractiveness of the scholar’s life 
and the professorial career. 
Do President Eliot and the lesser presi- 
dents and the few professors who share 
their views believe that university pro- 
fessors and other citizens of a city should 
not concern themselves with municipal 
government or vote for a president of the 
nation? Are we of the world’s greatest 
democracy and in the twentieth century to 
revert to the theory that the common 
people should do the daily work imposed 
on them, and trust to the king and his lords 
to care for them? 
In the preface to the first edition (1906) 
of the ‘‘Biographical Directory of Amer- 
ican Men of Science,’’ I wrote: 
There scarcely exists among scientific men the 
Tecognition of common interest and the spirit of 
cooperation which would help to give science the 
place it should have in the community. It is fully 
” The Educational Review, November, 1911. 
