August 12, 1910] 



SCIENCE 



195 



occasionally heard in certain quarters, but 

 the right of the faculty to control the edu- 

 cational policies, is now generally conceded 

 by the trustees of all the more important 

 universities. And it would not be fair to 

 forget the important work that the presi- 

 dents have done to secure this result, in 

 upholding the rights of the faculties 

 against boards of trustees, and in prevent- 

 ing these bodies from meddling in educa- 

 tional matters. 



Nevertheless, it seems evident that uni- 

 versity faculties have not yet fully realized 

 all that their responsibility for educational 

 work implies. In the first place, it is clear 

 that this power can only extend a little 

 way, unless it includes a voice in determin- 

 ing how the funds of the university are to 

 be applied. Educational questions, and 

 questions regarding the proper expenditure 

 of money, can not be dissociated, and, as a 

 matter of fact, the apportionment of funds 

 among the different colleges and depart- 

 ments of a university is not now controlled 

 by the triistees, but is, largely at least, 

 determined by the president. The same is 

 true of appointments to membership in the 

 faculty and of promotions. It can not be 

 denied, I think, that control on the part of 

 the faculty of educational interests involves 

 and requires a voice in determining the 

 character of its own membership and in 

 electing its own officers, including its 

 president. This is the right and privilege 

 of every self-governing body, and it is only 

 under these conditions that a faculty can 

 develop that sense of unity and esprit de 

 corps which is essential for the most effec- 

 tive discharge of its functions. At present, 

 however, this power which is nominally in 

 the hands of the trustees is usually exer- 

 cised by the president. The truth, then, 

 seems to be that at least two important 

 matters, which are vitally connected with 

 the educational work of the university, are 



in many of the universities assumed by the 

 president, and exercised by him without 

 any official recognition of the faculty. In 

 practise it is doubtless true that the presi- 

 dent is influenced, both in his recommen- 

 dations as to the expenditure of money, and 

 in his nominations for positions in the 

 faculty, by the opinions and advice of cer- 

 tain members of the faculty, particularly 

 of deans and directors and heads of de- 

 partments. But neither the faculty as 

 a whole, nor any individual member, can 

 claim an official right to be heard or to have 

 a vote in such matters. The result is un- 

 questionably unfortunate, for both the 

 president and tlie faculty. On the one 

 hand, as the president has assumed sole 

 responsibility, and as there is no body be- 

 fore which he comes to explain the grounds 

 for his decisions, he becomes the target for 

 criticism, which, unfortunately, often fails 

 to understand the real conditions of the 

 ease. He thus suffers the loss of that sym- 

 pathy and support which rightly belong to 

 him in the discharge of his difficult duties. 

 This, as wise presidents know, is a great 

 source of weakness. "Bare is the back," 

 says the Gaelic proverb, "without brother 

 behind it." 



There is also another side to the matter 

 which can not be ignored: a system that 

 does not leave room for freedom affects 

 injuriously the ruler as well as the ruled. 

 The psychological effects of irresponsible 

 power upon the mind and character of 

 those who exercise it has always been a 

 favorite theme in literature. I have no 

 wish to dwell on this side of the subject, 

 but it can not be forgotten that a rational 

 and moral life is only possible where there 

 is a reciprocal "give and take" process 

 with one's fellows. The man who isolates 

 himself, thinking that he has the source of 

 authority within himself, pays the penalty, 

 as necessarily and inevitably as if he had 



