166 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIX. No. 



(1912-13) contains the following statement 

 (p. 146): 



' ' The aim of Lafayette College is distinctly re- 

 ligious. Under the general direction of the Synod 

 of Pennsylvania of the Presbyterian Church, its 

 instruction is in full sympathy with the doctrines 

 of that body. At the same time religious instruc- 

 tion is carried on with a view to a broad and gen- 

 eral development of Christian character, within 

 the lines of general acceptance among Evangelical 

 Christians, the points of agreement, rather than 

 those of disagreement, being dwelt upon. ' ' 



The last sentence would appear to indicate the 

 understanding upon which Professor Meeklin ac- 

 cepted the call to the professorship of philosophy 

 and psychology in 1904; he writes that he then 

 and at all times recognized that his teaching, "as 

 well as that of every other professor, ' ' was to be 

 "in accord with Christianity in the broad Evan- 

 gelical interpretation of that term. ' ' 



Here, then, would appear to be three distinct 

 views of the position and policy of the college : It is 

 committed to no specific creed; it is committed only 

 to the principles of ' ' Evangelical Christianity ' ' ; 

 and it is committed to the principles of the Presby- 

 terian Church. The committee, for the rest of this 

 report, assumes that substantially the last-men- 

 tioned view is to be taken as the answer to the 

 first question, — that, in the words of a trustee, it 

 has been ' ' commonly understood that the teach- 

 ings in such departments [i. e., those of philos- 

 ophy and psychology] are in general to be in har- 

 mony with the doctrines of philosophy usually 

 taught and held in the Presbyterian Church." 

 But the committee can not but think it highly un- 

 desirable that in any college a question of such im- 

 portance should be left open to such divergent 

 official answers; and it appears of doubtful legal- 

 ity that the prevailing practise in the matter 

 should be in express contradiction vrith an unre- 

 pealed clause in the college charter. 



II. The second question which the committee has 

 endeavored to answer is : What were the actual 

 grounds upon which Professor MecTclin's resigna- 

 tion was asked for, and what do these indicate as 

 to the doctrinal limitation imposed upon pro- 

 fessors in philosophy and psychology under the 

 present administration of the college? Upon this 

 the committee's findings are as follows: 



1. No connected and altogether definite state- 

 ment seems ever to have been formulated of the 

 specific points in Professor Meeklin 's teaching to 

 which objection was made, or of the maimer in 



which these were held to conflict with Presbyterian 

 principles. A member of the board of trustees of 

 the college, who was present at the meeting of the 

 curriculum committee at which the matter was 

 first brought forward, states that he was unable 

 from the discussion at that meeting, or in any 

 other way, to ascertain precisely on account of 

 what charges as to doctrines held or taught by him 

 Professor Meeklin was dismissed. This trustee 

 writes that the accusations of erroneous doctrines 

 or opinions made against Professor Meeklin at 

 this meeting ' ' were indefinite and as far as I am 

 concerned remain so to this present time. ' ' 

 Another correspondent conversant with the facts 

 writes the committee that the president of the 

 college simply asserted that ' ' the doctrines set 

 forth in certain text-books adopted by Professor 

 Meeklin, viz., Angell on Psychology, Dewey and 

 Tufts on Ethics, McDougall on Social Psychology, 

 and Ames on the Psychology of Religious Experi- 

 ence, were a departure from the doctrines that had 

 been taught in the college in previous years. No 

 definite statement was ever made by the president 

 to the board of trustees, so far as I recollect, of 

 the exact teachings to which he made objections, 

 other than the general objections to the text-books 

 above mentioned, and a general and indefinite 

 statement that the teachings of Professor Meeklin 

 were not in harmony with the traditional teachings 

 of the college in the department of philosophy. 

 Previously to Professor Meeklin 's occupying the 

 chair of philosophy, the teaching in that depart- 

 ment had for some years been by Presbyterian 

 clergymen who devoted a portion of their time 

 thereto, but did not undertake to present to the 

 student any clearly defined system of philosophical 

 instruction. Professor Meeklin undertook to in- 

 troduce such a system of instruction, in line with 

 other first-class educational institutions, some of 

 which were well-known Presbyterian colleges, and 

 used in connection therewith, among others, the 

 text-books above mentioned. Some of his teach- 

 ings as inferred from the said text-books were 

 objected to by the president as contrary to the 

 traditional teaching of the college on these sub- 

 jects. The board of trustees did not pass upon 

 the questions raised, although they discussed them, 

 and there was a difference of opinion among them 

 on the subject. Some of the trustees, feeling it de- 

 sirable that a controversy of a religious or denom- 

 inational aspect should be avoided, thought it 

 wisest, in view of all the circumstances, to advise 

 Professor Meeklin to resign rather than have the 



