FEBRUARY 22, 1901.] 
SECTION OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY 
OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 
A REGULAR meeting of the Section was held 
on January 28th. A paperon ‘Certain Racial 
‘Characteristics of the Base of the Skull’ was 
presented by Dr. A. Hrdlicka. The paper 
dealt with the middle lacerated foramen, the 
petrous portions of the temporal bones and the 
styloid. The author demonstrated the differ- 
ent stages of development of these parts in 
primates and at different stages of life in the 
whites, and the differences of those parts, fully 
developed, in the negroes, Indians and whites. 
In the adult whites the average middle lacer- 
ated foramen is large, the petrous portions ap- 
pear considerably sunken (bulging of surround- 
ing parts), the styloid is well developed. In 
the Indian the foramen is but a moderate size, 
in negro small, in apes absent ; the petrous por- 
tions are less sunken in the Indian than in the 
white, on, or almost on, the level with the sur- 
‘rounding parts in the negro, bulging more or 
less beyond these in the primates; the styloid 
is in the majority of cases small in the negro 
and small to rudimentary in most of the In- 
dians. Where the styloid is rudimentary, the 
vaginal process often plays a compensatory part. 
In whites all the mentioned stages of the parts 
described may be observed at different periods 
of life. Brain development accounts for the 
differences in the size of the middle lacerated 
foramen and the relative position of the petrous 
portions. 
The second paper wason ‘The Alsea Indians 
of Oregon’ and was read by Dr. Livingston 
Farrand. The paper reported observations 
made by the author on the language customs 
and traditions of this tribe. 
CHARLES H. Jupp, 
Secretary. 
DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. 
FREE SPEECH IN UNIVERSITIES 
RECENT events in certain American univer- 
‘sities have again raised the old question as to 
the right of the professor to freedom of speech. 
Sensational reports in the newspapers have 
loosened floods of sympathy for the alleged 
victims of tyranny, and the popular belief is 
SOIENCE. 
309 
that great wrong has been done. Whether this 
belief is correct or not, few men are in a posi- 
tion to know, for the complete evidence has 
not been made public, and in default of that 
no reasonable criticism is possible. But a dis- 
cussion of the principles involved in such cases 
is in order, and, indeed, it seems to be most 
necessary. 
That a university professor should be free to 
teach his honest convictions would seem at 
first sight to be a most reasonable proposition. 
But the rights of the teacher are not absolute ; 
they are limited by the rights of the pupils 
and the rights of the institution in which he 
is employed. The institution must protect its 
own dignity and reputation; the student is 
entitled to protection against obvious error and 
against the wastage of his time; and to these 
rights the rights of the professor are subordi- 
nate. 
Suppose for example that a professor of 
mechanics should spend his time in teaching 
his class the possibility of perpetual motion. 
Or thatthe professor of mathematics should try 
to demonstrate in the class-room the squaring 
of the circle. Or that the professor of astron- 
omy should denounce the heliocentric theory 
of the solarsystem and adopt themedizval teach- 
ings of Cosmas Indicopleustes. His right to 
freedom of teaching would avail him little, and 
he would be promptly invited to resign his 
position. The right of the professor to teach 
is conditioned by the right of the pupil to learn, 
and the latter right is entitled to first consid- 
eration. The teacher has no right to teach 
nonsense nor to waste the time of his students 
over his own personal vagaries. Irrespon- 
sible freedom of speech or of teaching is plainly 
inadmissible ; a point which certain sentimental- 
ists have failed to see. 
The present controversy, however, has not 
dealt with obvious questions of truth or error, 
but with subjects which are still under discus- 
sion and unsettled. In sociology and econom 
ics we find the chief difficulties, and here the 
rights of the professor are not quite so clear. 
Still, the responsibility on his part remains, and 
it cannot be honestly evaded. Ifa professor of 
sociology, speaking in his class-room, should 
denounce the present institution of marriage 
