March 11, 1910] 



SCIENCE 



375 



be proved to be a mistake, I believe that 

 there is one factor in the constitution of 

 the foundation that this brief experience 

 proves to be a mistake. I refer to the 

 absence from its board of trustees of a 

 number of men who can and will safe- 

 guard, as well as express and understand, 

 the interests of the professors. Presidents 

 can, if they will, do this in part; but they 

 can not fully represent the academic and 

 the administrative interests (both fully 

 justified) at once. Is it not a fair pre- 

 sumption that if half of the members of 

 the board had been university professors, 

 the precipitate withdrawal of the service 

 provision — not to say the indefensible repu- 

 diation of obligations presently to mature 

 — would have been avoided? 



And so I ask whether it would not be 

 well for the foundation to collect opinions 

 upon the desirability of service allowances 

 and have them brought before the trustees. 

 If it shall prove that a considerable number 

 agree with President Jordan, it is to be 

 hoped that measures will be taken to secure 

 for the foundation the exercise of this 

 important service. I may repeat in this 

 connection a proposal that was suggested 

 years ago, that the universities themselves 

 be required to provide part of the funds 

 for retiring allowances; that at the outset 

 they should have been asked to consent to 

 a contingent provision that if at any time 

 the service allowance proves to be too heavy 

 a tax upon the foundation, the universities 

 shall carry the load until the men reach the 

 age of sixty-five ; or equally it might have 

 been urged that it is a greater privilege for 

 the foundation to provide the allowance 

 after twenty-five years' service and let the 

 universities carry the age provision. I may 

 also be permitted to say that from the out- 

 set it seemed to me that quite the wisest 

 provision to really advance the academic 

 profession was to have made possible a 



system of half retirement, upon which men 

 after twenty-five years of service shaU be 

 relieved of most of their teaching, while yet 

 they give to the university the influence of 

 their presence, their reputation and their 

 ripe scholarship. 



Not alone has the foundation without 

 notice withdrawn a portion of its program 

 of most vital concern to the academic pro- 

 fession, but the official channel of its ex- 

 pression announces that the change thus 

 decided upon "will command the approval 

 of the great body of devoted and able 

 teachers and is in accordance with the 

 spirit of the rules as originally framed." 

 For my part, I have no choice but to incur 

 the odium of exclusion from this approval 

 and content myself with showing what 

 modest devotion or ability I may possess 

 in other directions, in order to retain my 

 right of protest that the change itself 

 (whether enforced or not) is most regret- 

 table, and that there is nothing in the spirit 

 of the original rules that foreshadows the 

 interpretation that has now been made. It 

 is pertinent to recall that a point of great 

 emphasis in the original provisions is that 

 the right to a retiring allowance shall come 

 to the professor undisputed and as a result 

 of his own initiative. It was this feature 

 that brought the largest commendation to 

 the foundation and that was instrumental 

 in inducing institutions that already had a 

 pension system to give it up in favor of the 

 Carnegie provisions. There were many 

 who four years ago predicted that in spite 

 of this provision the fund would be admin- 

 istered as a semi-charitable old-age pension 

 fund. To this objection it was then possible 

 to reply that the twenty-five years retire- 

 ment allowance distinctly gave to the pro- 

 fessor some control of the use of the allow- 

 ance in a dignified manner and to serve the 

 cause of education. If this provision is 

 abandoned, it is not quite obvious how one 



