198 



SCIENCE 



IN. S. Vol. XXXII. No. 815 



only of democracy within a department; 

 but it is obvious that there is a demand for 

 a wider application of the principle. At 

 Yale, and also at some of the smaller uni- 

 versities, the faculty has an official voice 

 in determining the character of its own 

 membership. At Cornell University the 

 faculty of the college of arts and sciences 

 have more than once in recent years made 

 recommendations which were accepted by 

 the trustees regarding the establishment of 

 new chairs in that college. And during 

 the last year the faculty of the graduate 

 school at Cornell adopted an important 

 series of resolutions which formulated, 

 among other things, certain principles to 

 be observed in making appointments to the 

 faculty and in promotions, as well as in the 

 apportionment of funds to the purposes of 

 elementary and advanced teaching. There 

 was no thought of raising any question as 

 to the constitutional force of these resolu- 

 tions; but I feel sure that I can say that 

 they were adopted with the president's 

 hearty concurrence and approval and are 

 accepted by him as the voice of the faculty. 

 I mention these things because they seem 

 to point in a significant and encouraging 

 way to the happy solution of our problems. 

 The growing sense of the duties and re- 

 sponsibilities that are laid upon members 

 of faculties by their commission to "dis- 

 cern, recommend, and carry out the educa- 

 tional policies of the institution" will give 

 rise to a new feeling of loyalty and esprit 

 de corps that will lead to something better 

 than a "class" feeling on the part of uni- 

 versity teachers — a consciousness of the 

 dignity and value of their own profes- 

 sion which will make them more iiseful 

 members of society. No one can doubt 

 that the university president who works 

 quietly and patiently towards this result 

 will have a far more enduring title to fame 

 than if he had covered the campus with 



marble buildings or had been the inventor 

 of a much-heralded "elective" or "pre- 

 ceptorial" system. 



That university presidents and other 

 administrative officers have felt and will 

 continue to feel the new drift of things 

 there is no serious reason to doubt. It 

 woi;ld not be fair to assume that they are 

 unwilling to cooperate in a democratic 

 movement as soon as faculties show a dis- 

 position to assume their proper responsi- 

 bilities and rise to "the point of view of 

 the whole." Indeed, the strength of the 

 president's position has consisted in the 

 fact that he has attempted to represent, 

 however inadequately, the interests of the 

 university as a whole, while members of 

 faculties have often failed to see beyond 

 their own departments. The objection, 

 therefore, that a democratic movement can 

 look for nothing but obstruction from ad- 

 ministrative officers seems unduly pessi- 

 mistic. There may indeed be such cases, 

 but patience and good feeling will do much 

 to dispose of them. And, after all, no man 

 or set of men can long obstruct this move- 

 ment. Stephenson's reply to the objection 

 regarding the danger of the cow getting 

 on the railway track seems to fit the case — 

 "it wad be verra' bad for the coo." 



No changes in external organization can 

 compare in importance with the birth of 

 the new spirit that I have ventured to 

 predict, or be properly regarded as a sub- 

 stitute for it. Nevertheless, it seems likely 

 that this new spirit will demand, as time 

 goes on, new and more adequate forms for 

 its expression. The multitude of distract- 

 ing duties that the presidents of the larger 

 universities are called upon to perform 

 prevent them from keeping in touch as 

 closely as is desirable with the educational 

 work of the faculties. It is also unfor- 

 tunate that university presidents are no 

 longer teachers, and that no leisure is af- 



