26 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVI. No. 914 



Paragraphs (2) and (,4) seem to me to be 

 very well stated; certainly I subscribe to them 

 most heartily. I confess that paragraph (1) 

 is not so clear to me. I see possibilities there 

 of great confusion. The corporation might 

 easily become so large that certain tendencies 

 and attitudes might be forced upon the pro- 

 fessors which are not representative of the 

 best interests of the university. If the voting 

 power of the corporation could be so arranged 

 that the professorial vote would represent half 

 of the total and the outside members the 

 other half, I think the plan might work very 

 well. In regard to paragraph (3) it seems 

 worth saying that the plan you call for is 

 rather artificial unless you would hold to a 

 more strict departmental grouping than I 

 think your wording called for. Such large 

 groupings would be hard to make and would 

 eventually lead to friction. I think I am 

 more in favor of autonomy for the professors 

 than for the group, yet such a condition of 

 affairs might lead to anarchy. The grouping 

 psychology, philosophy, chemistry, physics, 

 etc., are natural growths. In certain depart- 

 ments there are only one or two professors; 

 such departments should be grouped by them- 

 selves and not forced to become a part of a 

 larger whole. 



I am heartily in favor of such a plan. I 

 have been connected with German universi- 

 ties and have talked with a number of pro- 

 fessors in Germany, France and England, as 

 well as here in America. I feel very keenly 

 that our present system will have to be modi- 

 fied somewhat according to your proposed 

 plan, and it should be done as soon as possible. 

 We are very fortunate here in Johns Hopkins 

 University, of course, for we have, as you 

 know, a university council which advises the 

 president. Even here, however, there is a 

 tendency toward an autocratic " one man 

 power " in the departments, in that the so- 

 called " director " of the department has con- 

 siderably more authority than is sometimes 

 wise. Although there is sometimes talk 

 against our " one man system," you see that, 

 as a whole, the wisdom of our leading men 



here in the university has kept things going 

 on a sane basis. Considering the matter en- 

 tirely independently of our own immediate 

 surroundings, however, I should like to see 

 a more democratic control established in our 

 American universities. 



I agree with you that for the successful de- 

 velopment of the American university in the 

 future, a change in the form of administra- 

 tion which at present dominates our higher 

 institutions of learning is imperative. Cer- 

 tain recent developments have shown the 

 danger of concentrating too much power in 

 the hands of any one man. If a professor in 

 one of our leading universities is to be dis- 

 missed not only without a trial before a jury 

 of professors, but even without a hearing by 

 the president of the university in question; 

 the dignity and honor appertaining to an 

 American professorship would be so slight 

 that much of the very best intellect of this 

 country would be turned away from the uni- 

 versities into safer channels. The result from 

 this cause alone would be greatly to weaken 

 our higher institutions of learning, and to 

 foster the already overwhelming commercial- 

 ism of this country. I think the policy out- 

 lined in (1) is good, except that I would not 

 have a chancellor. The organization should 

 be kept as simple as possible, to avoid any 

 unnecessary sources of autocracy finding a 

 foothold. All financial matters should be 

 left to the trustees, and they should be ex- 

 pected to secure the necessary endowment. 

 The financial affairs of the institution should 

 be the chief, if not the sole, function of the 

 trustees. I agree with (2), except I would 

 not preserve the name president, since this 

 has now come to have a well-defined signifi- 

 cance. I would call the officer in question, 

 perhaps, " rector," as in the German universi- 

 ties. He should be elected for one year, with 

 the possibility of reelection — ^but in no case 

 should be eligible for more than three years. 

 His salary should be exactly that of a pro- 

 fessor and his powers the same as those of 

 any professor. His office, however, should, I 

 think, be looked upon as even more dignified 



