May a, 1914] 



SCIENCE 



647 



Doctor Johnston's frank utterances are of 

 benefit and form an integral part of many 

 present-day expressions which, no doubt, will 

 result in bettering conditions in universities. 



Some readers of the article referred to might 

 perhaps have desired more detailed expression 

 in the author's constructive paragraphs. He 

 fails, in the estimation of the undersigned, to 

 give in sufficient detail, suggestions for the 

 relief of the situation in general existing be- 

 tween a head of department and his staff, al- 

 though it is this feature which he particularly 

 criticizes in the article referred to. In just what 

 position, for example, should a head regard 

 his men, with reference to their responsibil- 

 ities? In how far would the Doctor make 

 them independent of the head, that is, free 

 to act upon their own intiative, without first 

 obtaining the sanction of the chief, etc.? 



A detail included in Doctor Johnston's 

 broad generalizations and annually clamoring 

 for relief is as follows : A head, in recommend- 

 ing a member of his staff for advancement, 

 either in rank or salary, is almost invariably 

 and perhaps sometimes unconsciously influ- 

 enced by prejudice. The man of pleasing per- 

 sonality or with a possible close social connec- 

 tion or representing a particular phase of the 

 work in which the head is interested is the 

 one recommended for promotion, although 

 others on the staff are perhaps more useful to 

 the institution and more deserving than the 

 party fortunate enough, for reasons above 

 stated, to be close to the chief. What meas- 

 ures of relief for this condition would Doctor 

 Johnston advise? 



We know of one department where the staff, 

 rebelling at the recommendation made by 

 their head, drew up and submitted to their 

 president counter resolutions recommending 

 a fellow member other than the one favored 

 by their chief. But for the president to give 

 heed to such mutinous ( ?) expressions, when, 

 as the Doctor shows, he is dependent upon the 

 various heads, would be destructive to all 

 system and discipline. 



The author intimates that men of a depart- 

 ment should be at liberty to discuss matters 

 of their division or department freely with 



the dean of a college or even carry their criti- 

 cisms and complaints to higher officials. 

 Arguing by analogy, we must assume that he 

 would have the heads do the same — namely go 

 around their dean and lay their woes before 

 a president or even, disregarding the latter 

 official, go directly to the board of regents. 

 We hardly believe that such a system or, 

 rather, lack of system, was in the author's 

 mind at the time he wrote the lines referred 

 to. If so, on the principle of " What is sauce 

 for the goose, etc.," it would appear only right 

 that, if the dean of a college should consult the 

 members of a department, disregarding the 

 head, he should expect an equal disregard of 

 professional etiquette on the part of a head. 



We doubt also whether Doctor Johnston, 

 when he states, referring to " the results of 

 arbitrary power placed in the hands of single 

 men without check or publicity " that " such 

 a system always breeds dishonesty and crime." 

 really refers to conditions in any university ; 

 if such is the case, he uses somewhat strong 

 language. One might, at this point, be a bit 

 facetious, and we are tempted to ask the 

 Doctor what, in his opinion, the result would 

 be if this arbitrary power were placed in the 

 hands of married men? 



Without, in any way, taking issue with the 

 excellent article referred to, it suggests cer- 

 tain phases of the problem which Doctor John- 

 ston did not discuss and which we mention 

 here at the risk of being regarded presuming — 

 believing that the subject is one which merits 

 free expression from all standpoints. 



This thought occurs to the writer. The head 

 of a department is generally several years the 

 senior of his men and with that seniority 

 should go a maturity of judgment born of an 

 experience generally lacking in the younger 

 men. Further, allowing that all the undesir- 

 able traits listed by Doctor Johnston may exist 

 in a head, are we not liable to find just as 

 many or more undesirable characteristics in 

 the numerous young minds under him with 

 the additional factor that the younger minda 

 of the staff have not reached that point in 

 development where they can see the futility of 

 such characteristics? 



