SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXVI. No. 65-3 



professor of the group sometimes has a 

 formidable amount of restrictive power. 

 This danger to liberty is diminished in 

 some institutions by disregarding seniority 

 in selecting the chairmen of departments 

 or divisions, and making frequent changes 

 of chairmen in those departments which 

 have many members. The points at which 

 danger to freedom exists are: first, the as- 

 signment of subjects to the younger mem- 

 bers of the department; secondly, the di- 

 rect access of advanced students to all mem- 

 bers of the department; and thirdly, the 

 exchange of subjects year by year among 

 the various members, old and young. At 

 any one of these points it is easy for a 

 department to become despotic, particular- 

 ly if there be one dominant personage in 

 it. The exercise of power by a division, 

 department, or school should therefore be 

 carefully watched by the president, the 

 dean of the faculty, or some committee of 

 the faculty; so that the just liberty of all 

 members of the department may not be 

 invaded. 



The prodigious stream of benefactions to 

 institutions of education in the United 

 States, which has now been flowing in in- 

 creasing volume ever since the Civil War, 

 has brought upon the endowed institutions 

 a new risk in regard to academic freedom. 

 So far as state institutions are also in a 

 measure endowed, as is the case with the 

 University of California, the same new x'isk 

 is incurred by them. The risk is all the 

 greater because the living benefactor plays 

 in these days a part even more important 

 than that of the dead benefactor. Ought 

 the opinions and wishes of a living bene- 

 factor to influence the teaching in the insti- 

 tution which he endows? In general, the 

 answer must be in the negative; because 

 teaching Avhich is not believed to be free is 

 well-nigh worthless. It inevitably loses its 

 intended effect on those who listen to it. 



It has no effect even on those who agree 

 with, or are pleased with, its general tenor. 

 Nevertheless, benefactors have certain 

 rights in this respect. They may fairly 

 claim that their benefactions entitle their 

 opinions and sentiments to be treated with 

 consideration and respect, and not with 

 contumely or scorn, in the institutions they 

 have endowed, or by the professors whom 

 their gifts support. If their benefactions 

 are for general uses and not for the support 

 of any specific courses of instruction, they 

 may fairly claim that subjects likely to be 

 taught in a manner repulsive to them 

 should be omitted altogether, unless some 

 serious public obligation requires the insti- 

 tution to include them. The mere lapse of 

 time will probably free an endowed insti- 

 tution from embarrassments of this nature, 

 not chiefly because the living benefactor 

 will die, but because the burning questions 

 change so frequently with the rapid prog- 

 ress of society. Thus, the choice between 

 Calvinism and Channingism was a burning 

 question seventy years ago, but now few 

 people take keen interest in it. In like 

 manner, a few years ago academic freedom 

 was seriously impaired during the discus- 

 sion about the relations of gold and silver 

 to a stable currency; but now all heat has 

 gone out of that controversy. For two 

 generations protection and free trade have 

 been hot subjects; but in a few years they 

 will be stone cold, because the practise mis- 

 called protection will have become inap- 

 plicable to American industrial conditions, 

 and, indeed, manifestly injurious to both 

 manufactures and commerce. Any slight 

 interference with academic freedom which 

 time will certainly cure may be endured 

 with equanimity for a season, in considera- 

 tion of great counter-balancing advantages. 

 There is another university authority 

 who can, if he choose, put limits to aca- 

 demic freedom for a time — the president. 



