June 30, 1905.] 



SCIENCE. 



983 



remaining free to deal with the problem by 

 methods under our own control. With that 

 high regard for the spirit of university life 

 to be expected from a body of men more 

 than half of whom, as is the case with this 

 Faculty, have received their training from 

 colleges and universities, rather than ex- 

 clusively from technological schools, we are 

 nevertheless firmly . convinced that the ef- 

 fect of direct contact and intermingling of 

 our student body with the dormitory, social, 

 and athletic life of college undergraduates, 

 under the conditions obtaining in this ease, 

 would be more harmful than beneficial, and 

 that it would be little less than totally de- 

 structive of the established character and 

 atmosphere of the Institute. 



A successful and valuable school quite 

 different -from ours might no doubt be de- 

 veloped under university conditions, but 

 that would much better be done indepen- 

 dently, from such beginnings as already 

 exist, rather than upon the basis of our 

 reputation and at the cost of our individu- 

 ality. With institutions, as with men, 

 character is a thing which may be under- 

 mined and destroyed, but which can not be 

 bought or sold or transferred. The success 

 of the Institute thus far has surely not been 

 due to its wealth, to its superior equipment, 

 or to large salaries paid to its instructing 

 staff. Its success has been and still is a 

 success mainly of character and morale; 

 and it is precisely these vital qualities 

 which the Faculty believes would be de- 

 stroyed by the changes called for under the 

 terms of this proposed agreement. For it 

 is not merely proposed to remove the Insti- 

 tute to a new site, but to graft it upon 

 another institution. 



Very grave questions of policy would at 

 once confront the new Executive Commit- 

 tee in the problems arising from removal 

 and from the establishment of an entirely 

 new type of life among our students, and 



from the adjustment cf working relations 

 with the University. The controversies 

 and differences within the Conunittee to> 

 which these questions would give rise, and 

 ought to give rise, might under this agree- 

 ment lead at any time to one of two 

 things : — the rupture of the agreement, or 

 the transfer to the University of a complete 

 control over the wording Institute by the 

 election of a majority instead of a minority 

 of the joint Executive Committee from the 

 membership of the University Corjjoration. 

 The adoption of this agreement would 

 therefore plunge the Institute at once into 

 a condition of uncertainty concerning the 

 preservation of its individiiality and con- 

 trol,— an uncertainty probably more preju- 

 dicial to its organic development than an 

 immediate and entire surrender of control 

 would be. Even the full assent of the 

 Institute to the proposed agreement would 

 not make it certain that the project is to 

 be carried out. It would have still to 

 receive the sanction of the University, the 

 ratification of the Overseers, and to await 

 indefinitely various legal proceedings and 

 decisions. All these contemplated delays 

 and uncertainties woi;ld be further aug- 

 mented by such other contingencies and 

 delays as must necessarily arise in carrying 

 out so vast and complex an undertaking. 

 This period of uncertainty, extending in- 

 evitably over five or six years, would be 

 most prejudicial to the educational work 

 and to the educational prestige of the In- 

 stitiite. 



In closing, the Faculty is glad, in ac- 

 cordance with a request made by the Presi- 

 dent, to take this opportunity to state that 

 it fully believes in the possibility of co- 

 operation in effort between Harvard Uni- 

 versity and the Institute, and trusts that 

 this may be secured in the future to as 

 great an extent as practicable. There are 

 necessarily limitations to such cooperation, 



