July 28, 1911] 



SCIENCE 



119 



students: Nathorst, Bartholin and Halle, of 

 Stockholm; Benson, Eoyal HoUoway College; 

 Berry, Johns Hopkins; Cockerell, University 

 of Colorado; Gordon, Edinburgh TJniversity; 

 Hartz, Copenhagen; Hickling, Stopes, "Wat- 

 son and Weiss, of Manchester; Holden, Not- 

 tingham; Hollick, New York Botanical Gar- 

 den; Jeffrey, Harvard; Kidston, Stirling; 

 Knowlton and White, of Washington; Lewis, 

 Liverpool; Maslen, Oliver and Mr. and Mrs. 

 Clement Keid, of London; Moller, Sweden; 

 Mr. and Mrs. D. H. Scott, Oakley, Hants; 

 Arber and Thomas, Cambridge; Wieland, of 

 Tale. 



Judging by the protests one hears in the 

 United States and the accounts of the Bot- 

 anical Congress, it would appear that a good 

 many of the rulings which it adopted are very 

 far removed from being international in char- 

 acter or origin. Certainly its proposals re- 

 garding fossil plants, which emanated for the 

 most part from Berlin, did not display much 

 insight into the subject. 



Edward W. Berry 



executive responsibility 



To THE Editor of Science: May I trespass 

 on your space to the extent of replying briefly 

 to the criticism by Professor A. D. Mead in 

 your issue of June 23, of my letter on aca- 

 demic tenure, which was printed in Science 

 on May 12? 



Professor Mead's criticism has such a mod- 

 erate tone, and there is so little in it that at 

 all affects the tenability of my position, that 

 it would not demand a reply were it not for 

 the fact that it seems to imply that the 

 " freedom of opinion and utterance " he de- 

 clares to be so well guaranteed to the Brown 

 faculty, should not extend to the columns of 

 Science as well; and that it has other impli- 

 cations which suggest the workings of the 

 theological rather than the scientific mind, by 

 a reliance on dogmatic assertion instead of 

 evidence. 



Professor Mead admits that men have been 

 removed from the Brown faculty, but declines 

 to enter into any " futile controversy " over 

 the cause. They must have been removed 



justly, he argues, because the charter forbids 

 such action for anything else than " misde- 

 meanor, incapacity or unfaithfulness," and 

 the present administration only enforces it for 

 such reasons. This may be the case, but we 

 have no evidence of its being so except Pro- 

 fessor Mead's opinion; and that is offset, in 

 my mind at least, by the assurance of several 

 present and past members of the Brown fac- 

 ulty, that tenure is extremely uncertain there, 

 and that arbitrary removals are frequent. 



There are always two sides to any question, 

 and it would be unjust to accept the state- 

 ments of men who have been removed from 

 the Brown faculty, as unbiased evidence. The 

 statements of such men, however, that I have 

 heard made with increasing frequency dur- 

 ing the last few years, go far to call into 

 question, if they do not disprove, the asser- 

 tion of Professor Mead that men of long serv- 

 ice in the university are not removed until 

 they are given a " reasonably fair chance of 

 readjustment in other positions." Of course 

 there is room for difference of opinion as to 

 what constitutes a reasonably fair chance; 

 but I question very much if, even after the 

 statements of these men had been much dis- 

 counted to allow for personal interest, an 

 ordinary jury would agree that they had had 

 much of anything in the way of a chance to 

 readjust themselves in new positions. 



Leaving out of the question, however, the 

 statements of men who have been removed, a 

 case is made out against the Brown admin- 

 istration by the very arguments with which 

 Professor Mead tries to justify its course. 

 He admits that men have been appointed to 

 various professorial grades and continued in 

 them for years, only to be removed afterwards 

 by the same administration that advanced 

 them. Such a course as that can not be justi- 

 fied, and the attempt to do so by statements 

 about " having reached the limit of growth in 

 the environment of the particular institu- 

 tion," should be very severely reprehended by 

 everyone who desires to save education from 

 serious discredit. Even in our largest insti- 

 tutions too much is said about the necessity 

 for rare and special talents, and in Brown, 



