January 30, 1914] 



SCIENCE 



167 



discussion proceed to a vote, which might or 

 might not have been in his favor. ' ' There seems, 

 in short to be no general and clear understanding 

 among the members of the board of trustees and 

 the faculty of the college as to the precise doc- 

 trinal grounds upon which the president's insist- 

 ence on Professor Mecklin's dismissal was based. 

 It is the opinion of the committee that in no insti- 

 tutions, of whatever type, should a professor be 

 compelled to relinquish his position for doctrinal 

 reasons, except upon definite charges, communi- 

 cated to him in writing and laid, with the support- 

 ing evidence, before the entire board of trustees 

 -and the faculty; and that it is unfortunate in any 

 case of this kind that, even by agreement between 

 the persons concerned, the matter should fail to be 

 brought to an explicit issue before the responsible 

 governing body of the institution. 



The committee, however, reports that, so far 

 as can be determined in the absence of definite 

 charges, the president's original and decisive 

 objection to Professor Mecklin's teaching was, 

 in the words of another professor at Lafayette, 

 " based upon Dr. Mecklin's use of the doctrine 

 or theory of evolution in his discussion of the 

 growth of religion." 



The committee observes that " as a body it 

 has no competency to discuss whether or not 

 the doctrines and text-books in question are or 

 are not in harmony with Presbyterian stand- 

 ards." With regard, however, to the restric- 

 tions now imposed at Lafayette the committee 

 reports as follows: 



The committee is forced to conclude that at La- 

 fayette College at the present time tenure of the 

 professorship of philosophy and psychology is, in 

 practise, subject not only to the requirement that 

 the teachings of the incumbent shall be in sub- 

 stantial harmony with the commonly accepted doc- 

 trines of the Presbyterian Church, but also to the 

 requirement that his teachings shall be in substan- 

 tial harmony with the theological opinions of the 

 administrative authorities of the college, and with 

 their interpretation of the philosophical implica- 

 tions of those opinions. The committee also con- 

 cludes that the statement of the Lafayette College 

 Catalogue, that the religious instruction there ' ' is 

 carried on within the lines of general acceptance 

 among evangelical Christians, the points of agree- 

 ment, rather than those of disagreement, being 

 ■ emphasized," is not accurately descriptive of the 

 present policy and practise- of the college. The 



committee further gathers from various evidence 

 brought to its knowledge that the administration 

 of the college disapproves of the mere presentation 

 to the students, through text-books or collateral 

 reading, of any philosophical views which it re- 

 gards as seriously erroneous, and discourages in- 

 struction which has the effect, as Professor Meek- 

 lin 's evidently had, of provoking thought and 

 stimulating discussion and debate among the stu- 

 dents upon philosophical and' religious issues. 



III. The third general question taken up by 

 the committee concerns the attitude of the ad- 

 ministrative authorities of Lafayette College 

 towards the committee's inquiry. This atti- 

 tude, as indicated above, was one of unwilling- 

 ness to give the information asked for. Upon 

 this the report makes the following comments : 



It is true that President Warfield [in his last 

 letter to the committee] gives as a reason for his 

 refusal to make ' ' a statement with regard to these 

 matters ' ' a formal request by ' ' those who were 

 recognized as speaking for Professor Mecklin" 

 that "no information should be given out with re- 

 gard to what took place before the board of trus- 

 tees except that after the consideration of a report 

 from the curriculum committee Dr. Mecklin of- 

 fered his resignation which was accepted and that 

 he was granted a year 's salary. ' ' President War- 

 field thus represents his reticence as actuated, at 

 least in part, by a deference to Professor Meck- 

 lin 's wishes. Upon this matter Professor Mecklin 

 makes the following statement to the committee: 

 that no such request was made to the trustees by 

 his authority, that, on the contrary, he regarded 

 such a policy of secrecy about the causes and .cir- 

 cumstances of his resignation as unfair to him 

 and likely to be detrimental to his professional 

 reputation; that he expressly informed a com- 

 mittee of the trustees which conferred with him 

 that he desired no concealment of the grounds for 

 the action taken; that he has publicly given evi- 

 dence that such was his desire, by his letter on 

 the case, published in The Journal of Philosophy ; 

 and that his wish that the facts should be fully 

 made known has come within the knowledge of 

 President Warfield. Your committee notes, also, 

 that there was published in the Philadelphia Fublic 

 Ledger of June 20, 1913, a long and circumstan- 

 tial (though incomplete) statement (already re- 

 ferred to) by Dr. Warfield respecting Dr. Meck- 

 lin's resignation; it can not, therefore, be said 

 that hitherto ' ' no information ' ' has been ' ' given 

 to the public with regard to what took place be- 



