June 19, 1914] 



SCIENCE 



891 



recognition which his profession has long en- 

 joyed in the older countries of Europe. A 

 university professor who rose from the ranks 

 occupies the White House; another is a 

 prominent member of his cabinet; and large 

 numbers of college and university professors 

 are prominent in the direction of municipal, 

 state and national affairs. This new appre- 

 ciation of the teacher and the failure of some 

 governing boards to understand their relation 

 to him have led to a considerable discussion of 

 his academic position from various points of 

 view. Much of this discussion has centered 

 around the matter of his tenure of office. 

 Tenure is, of course, affected by the definite- 

 ness of the appointment, including its phrase- 

 ology, and may be affected, though not neces- 

 sarily so, by the method of appointment, which 

 may vary widely without prejudice to the in- 

 cumbent's tenure. Furthermore the method 

 of retirement for old age by retiring allow- 

 ances or pensions may have an important 

 bearing, but need not be discussed after the 

 very full presentation of this matter by Dean 

 Davenport. 



Although there has been considerable dis- 

 cussion of specific cases in which the matter 

 of tenure has been involved, broad statements 

 dealing with present customs and determining 

 principles are few in number. The only satis- 

 factory discussion I have found is that of 

 President Van Hise^ before the Twelfth An- 

 nual Conference of the Association of Amer- 

 ican Universities at the University of Virginia 

 in 1910. In this address President Van Hise 

 fully described the practise of the universities 

 which are members of that association, and so 

 clearly stated the principles which should 

 govern that there seemed to be a general con- 

 currence in his views. That association, how- 

 ever, includes only 22 of the leading American 

 universities offering graduate work, 9 of which 

 are not state-supported institutions, and only 



2 Van Hise, C. E., ' ' The Appointment and Ten 

 ure of University Professors," Journal of Pro 

 eeedings and Addresses of the Twelfth Annua 

 Conference of the Association of American tJni 

 versities, pp. 50-61; also in Science, Vol 

 XXXIII., p. 237. 



7 are members of this body. It was evident, 

 therefore, in order adequately to discuss this 

 problem as it pertains to the land grant 

 colleges, that facts must be secured concern- 

 ing our present customs and the views of our 

 members. Hence a questionnaire was sent 

 to the presidents and deans of agriculture of 

 all the land grant colleges. The replies re- 

 ceived from forty-three institutions seem to 

 justify the following statements. 



Only eight institutions use definite forms 

 for notices of appointment. Appointees are 

 notified by the president in nineteen states, in 

 ten by the secretary of the governing board, 

 in two by both the president and secretary, and 

 in one by the university treasurer. A formal 

 acceptance is required at three institutions, 

 sometimes only of instructors, and two use a 

 written contract signed by the president and 

 appointee. The time or conditions of tenure 

 are specified in the appointment in nineteen 

 institutions, and are not thus specified in ten. 

 Duties are specified in the appointment in five 

 institutions and merely by the title of the 

 position in sixteen. In several colleges duties 

 are thus stated if special reasons make it 

 necessary. 



The replies to the queries concerning the 

 manner of appointment are neither conclu- 

 sive nor illuminating, except in showing that 

 there is no general usage and that it seems to 

 be usually considered of but little importance. 

 This is evidenced by the fact that in several 

 institutions the appointee may be informed 

 simply by word of mouth. Furthermore, some 

 of the replies are evidently inaccurate, for 

 some institutions state that they specify the 

 time or conditions of tenure in their appoint- 

 ments which, as a matter of fact, do not do so. 

 It is interesting to note that the few institu- 

 tions which use formal appointments and are 

 most definite in the form thereof are among 

 those generally recognized as best administered 

 and those which are most lax in this matter 

 are among the smaller institutions. The most 

 usual procedure is for the president to write 

 the appointee that he has been elected to a 

 certain position, naming the title and salary, 

 and the date effective. It is usually stated 



