194 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXII. No. 815 



it seems clear that there exists a large class 

 of university teachers to whom it is every 

 year becoming clearer that they have 

 neither part nor lot in the larger interests 

 of the institution to which they are at- 

 tached. The effect of this condition is dif- 

 ferent in the case of difiEerent individuals. 

 Some pessimistically give their assent to 

 the theory that a university teacher is 

 simply an employee of the trustees, who is 

 paid a fixed salary for teaching certain 

 classes. Others, having a truer sense of 

 the importance and dignity of their profes- 

 sion, yet recognizing that the logic of actual 

 events confirms the theory which they deny, 

 grow restive and generally find the cause 

 of their discontent in the tyranny of some 

 individual whom they believe to be de- 

 priving them of their just rights. In both 

 cases alike the result is unfortunate, and 

 one that loudly calls for remedy. A man 

 who regards himself as merely an em- 

 ployee is not likely to give to the univer- 

 sity more than his theory demands, while 

 a man who lives with a constant sense of 

 grievance, knowing that there is no court 

 before which he can claim redress, can not 

 reasonably be expected to be greatly in 

 love with his profession. 



It is clear that the problem can not be 

 solved by giving to each individual exactly 

 the same weight in the government of the 

 university. Organization and efficiency 

 demand that some individuals shall have 

 more responsibility and some less. But it 

 is essential that each university teacher 

 shall be conscious that he is a member of a 

 community with which his own interests 

 are organically bound up. This is only 

 possible when the individual is made to 

 feel that he is governed by principles to 

 which his own reason consents. It seems 

 unnecessary to argue that where this feel- 

 ing is absent some change is imperatively 

 demanded. As Mr. Balfour is reported 



to have said in a recent speech in parlia- 

 ment : ' ' Whenever you get to the point that 

 a class feels itself excluded, and outraged 

 by being excluded, then those who believe 

 that democracy, properly understood, is the 

 only possible government for any nation at 

 the stage of political evolution which we 

 have reached, must consider whether it is 

 not their business to try to see that the 

 government which is by hypothesis not a 

 government by consent, can be turned into 

 government by consent. ' ' The truth seems 

 to be that in the era of expansion through 

 which we have been passing we have been 

 concerned with problems of material and 

 organization, and have had no time to de- 

 velop that internal spirit of loyalty and 

 community without which bricks and mor- 

 tar, overflowing class rooms, and even 

 learned teachers and investigators can not 

 make a real university. In the universi- 

 ties as elsewhere, the era of expansion has 

 been attended by a certain loss of the an- 

 cient freedom. The demand has been for 

 men "who could do things," and the tend- 

 ency has been to measure efficiency in 

 terms of immediate and striking results. 

 Now, however, there seems to have come a 

 period of reflection, and we realize that the 

 spirit of a university can only spring from 

 a free soil, and flourish in an atmosphere 

 of fraternity. 



The working theory as to the division of 

 authority between the facility and trustees 

 has been that to the former belongs juris- 

 diction over all educational matters, while 

 the latter have the right of control over all 

 questions involving expenditure of money. 

 Now, this enunciation of the respective 

 powers of the two bodies has proved the 

 bulwark of our liberties, and has served to 

 prevent the direct interference of the trus- 

 tees with the work of teaching. The talk 

 of applying "business methods" to the 

 administration of the university is still 



