Apeil 16, 1915] 



SCIENCE 



561 



are all very well — in themselves desirable — ■ 

 but complexity of organization, and the 

 practises and tendencies that go with it? 

 are these conducive to the intellectual life ? 

 This, in my opinion, is the critical question. 

 So far from our taking this for granted, 

 there is good reason to believe that beyond 

 a certain limit dependence on system and 

 organization in institutions of learning is 

 directly injurious to good work, and this 

 for the simple reason that it makes for the 

 stereotyping of activities, and hence inter- 

 feres with freedom and its expression, which 

 is originality. Such restriction in fact is 

 the general purpose of organization ; it aims 

 at diminishing variation from an accepted 

 norm. Now the more stereotyped certain 

 things are the better; thus a railway serv- 

 ice or a department store can not be too reg- 

 ular and dependable ; but if our aim is not 

 simply to repeat things already done, but 

 to discover new truth, the conditions that 

 surround us, as well as our own temper of 

 mind, should so far as possible encourage 

 independent activity, and not simply that 

 carried out in accordance with a pro- 

 gram. In brief, purely routine activ- 

 ities should be subordinated in an institu- 

 tion of higher learning; all needless ma- 

 chinery should be disposed of, and the rest 

 should be relegated to its proper place. 

 This is a practical suggestion, and it is one 

 of the first that I should make. 



I do not, of course, wish to propose any- 

 thing impracticable, and I am aware that a 

 certain degree of established order, insepar- 

 able from organization of some kind, is nec- 

 essary to stability and efSciency even in an 

 institution devoted purely to research. But 

 what I maintain is that the aim should be a 

 minimum rather than a maximum of or- 

 ganization, and that the ideal toward which 

 universities should work, if they regard 

 original scholarship as something which it 

 is their serious duty to further, is the attain- 



ment of the greatest possible freedom in 

 the work of the individual departments and 

 of the scholars making up those depart- 

 ments. A system of separate colleges, as in 

 the English universities, or of autonomous 

 departments, as in the German and some 

 American universities, seems to give the 

 best results. Such an ideal should not be 

 left to chance, but it should be held con- 

 sciously; and every one in the university 

 should regard such freedom as the chief 

 condition of his effective activity and should 

 oppose vigorously every attempt to infringe 

 upon it. Liberation must come from within 

 rather than from without, and as the result 

 of a more widespread insistence on the im- 

 portance of personal freedom and initiative. 

 This spirit would be incompatible with the 

 over-developed autocracy that has aroused 

 so much complaint. Freedom from merely 

 petty and distracting activities would then 

 soon come, and more men would give the 

 best part of their attention to things that 

 are seriously worth while. 



The university should be the stronghold 

 of individuality. Every one's serious in- 

 terests should be respected and furthered 

 so far as possible, both out of regard for 

 personal freedom, and also because we do 

 not know what their potential value may 

 be. Eemember that our aim as original 

 scholars is not simply to impart what is al- 

 ready known and valued, but to produce 

 something new, whose value to the world 

 may not be in the least evident at first. 

 But who can tell what its value may be 

 later? Besides, it may be of value to the 

 few if not to the many. "We must recog- 

 nize that the needs of men are as various as 

 their characters and capabilities. A toler- 

 ance, open-mindedness, and detachment are 

 thus of the essence of true academic life. 

 An unwillingness to interfere needlessly, 

 coupled with a determination to adhere by 



