Mat 29, 1908] 



SCIENCE 



863 



would not permit any discussion of college 

 affairs, although the opportunity was excel- 

 lent. I made a little speech at dinner to the 

 alumni and said to thirteen from the College 

 of Applied Science, who were in the employ 

 of the General Electric Co., at Schenectady, 

 that I hoped they would soon be so numerous 

 . and strong in influence that they could elect 

 one of their number to an alumni trusteeship, 

 so that their college could be represented by 

 its own alumni. For this I was taken to task 

 by the chancellor, who stated that the alumni 

 trustees represented the university rather than 

 any particular college. To this, I replied, 

 that the plan of having each college repre- 

 sented on the board of trustees was a good 

 one, and one that would soon be acted on if 

 the university grew. This talk indicated to 

 the chancellor that he and I had radically 

 different ideas on university government. No 

 further differences occurred until December, 

 1906. 



6. On December 11, 1906, while I was in 

 the chancellor's office on formal business, 

 he stated that complaints had been made 

 of disorder in L. C. Smith College — " rough 

 housing," he called it — and that he wanted 

 it stopped. At the perfectly natural inquiry 

 as to who had told him, the chancellor became 

 violently angry and began to rage. I left 

 the room as soon as possible without losing 

 my temper, or creating any disturbance. 

 This trouble did not blow over as quietly as 

 others had done, for the next day the chan- 

 cellor sent a three-page, scolding letter begin- 

 ning as follows : " My dear Dean Kent — I 

 wish you to decide between this time and the 

 meeting of the trustees in January as to 

 whether you are to act harmoniously with the 

 administration of this university and treat 

 the chancellor with civility and respect. I 

 will not permit you to repeat the incident of 

 yesterday morning in my office and the lan- 

 guage which you used after you left my 

 office." Another paragraph contained the 

 most remarkable statement: "I called your 

 attention to certain lack of discipline in your 

 college. You had no right whatever to begin 

 to interrogate me as to who the authority 



was in the case, and if you had had experience 

 as an educator you probably would not have 

 done so. It would have occurred to you that 

 that would be impossible." This letter 

 created a difficult situation. It was from a 

 peevish, irritable man, under a severe nervous 

 strain from the castigations of the press for 

 sis months past, on account of his violent 

 attacks on President Roosevelt, and a man in- 

 capable of reasoning in the same manner as 

 other men. It was also evident that he had 

 been misled by some tale bearer and held 

 exaggerated ideas as to slight breaches of 

 discipline. In such a case, no answer but a 

 most abject apology would satisfy him, such 

 as no man would write and retain his self- 

 respect. Therefore, a long letter was sent 

 him, from which the following is quoted: 



Replying to yours of the 13th inst., I do not 

 need to wait a single day to decide that it is my 

 honest intention to act harmoniously with the 

 administration of the university and to treat the 

 chancellor with civility and respect. I am not 

 aware that I have failed to do this in the past. 



You speak of the " incident yesterday morn- 

 ing " in your office. As far as I can remember 

 that incident, it was merely that you informed 

 me that complaints had been made to you of 

 " rough-housing," as you called it, in this college, 

 and I asked you the perfectly natural question 

 who made the complaints and why did the person 

 who made them not make them to me, and you 

 refused to give me the information. If I am 

 wrong in this statement of the incident, I wish 

 you would correct me. 



. . . You say I have " no right whatever to 

 begin to interrogate " you " as to who was the 

 authority in the case." Perhaps I have no right 

 to interrogate you about this or any other matter, 

 but if my ability as an administrator is attacked 

 by persons making complaints, I think I ought 

 to know who makes such complaints, and to have 

 them made not in general terms, but with detailed 

 specifications as to the particular things com- 

 plained of, with dates of the events, and the names 

 of the offending students if they are known. 

 Then I can intelligently take such steps as may 

 be necessary to punish the offender and to prevent 

 a repetition of the offense. 



To this the chancellor replied with a long 

 characteristic letter, in which the following 

 sentences appear : " I do not propose to permit 



