Page images
PDF
EPUB

great university, in a well-balanced and justly equalized way. But the excessive estimate which it is the present scholastic tendency to place upon the details of physical science is as much a hindrance to the most efficient exercise of that part of the function of the university which calls for the highest professional training and talents as was the similar tendency to overemphasize the petty details of grammar and philology in the past service of the teachers of the classical languages. Not that nicety of scholarship and accuracy of information are not valuable. On the contrary, it is these, and the qualities and habits of mind and of character which they train and necessitate, that are the really valuable factors in the function of the university as the producer of trained minds. And all science, all scholarship, all art, all literature, and all philosophy exist and should be carried forward and more highly and grandly developed not for their own sake, but for man's sake. The service which the university renders to humanity by way of advancing the sciences and arts, literature and philosophy, is also a function exercised in behalf of the higher ideal ends of human life. These ends every man serves who engages in any work of patient and skilful research; and this is true whether the instrument of research be the alembic or the microscope, the chalk of the mathematician, the philologue's analysis and critical exposition, the reflective thinking of the philosophic mind, or the disciplined judgment and heart of the moral sage. Any teacher, or even any pupil, connected with the university circle, who carries forward to an advanced point of standing, or lifts up to a higher level of sunlight clearness, any of these interests which are especially committed to the living work of the university, assists in the improved exercise of this function.

Have the universities of the United States, up to this time, produced men of the highest character in science, art, scholarship, literature, philosophy, in a manner commensurate with their opportunity and with the demands justly made upon them by the size of their faculties and by the wealth of their endowments? They have not. Nothing could have seemed more impressive to the thoughtful observer in attendance at those celebrations of our great Eastern universities which have occurred within the last twenty years, than the contrast between the magnificence of the physical show and the meagreness of the list of names of men connected with these institutions who, by any stretch of courtesy or uplift of institutional pride, could be enrolled among the socalled great for what they have done to advance the very highest scholastic and yet public interests of mankind. The fact of this meagre

ness cannot be called in question. About its causes there may be a difference of opinion. And doubtless it will not seem altogether clear just what these causes are. Many of the critics who have more or less hesitatingly admitted the deficiency at least to themselves - have been accustomed to attribute it to troubles the cure for which does not lie within the grasp of the university itself. The nation is The nation is young, immature, necessarily and properly busy about "conquering nature," accumulating material resources, etc. For my part, I do not believe that any of these reasons, however operative to a certain extent they may be, can be assigned as the chief causes of the failure of American universities in general to contribute their reasonable share to the advancement of the world's science, literature, scholarship, philosophy, and art.

Why are not our universities even now properly fulfilling this second function among the three which are, joined together, fitted to describe their complete duty? The full answer to this question would take us far afield. To give it, and especially to enforce and to illustrate it, would be an invidious task from which any university man might not unnaturally shrink. Yet no one but a thorough university man can possibly be competent to undertake the task. The real reasons why educational institutions in this country are doing so relatively little in the foremost ranks of the world's university work are chiefly these four:

First, the great majority of the teachers and advanced pupils in these institutions have never themselves been trained so as to be interested in, or capable of, the higher kinds of research, discovery, and productive activity. Second, the administrative officers the presidents, treasurers, and trustees of these institutions are in too many cases either unable or unwilling to lend the necessary encouragement and support to the relatively few members of their faculties who are interested in, and capable of, this higher work. Third, the patrons and the so-called educated public, including the alumni of these institutions, do not appreciate this kind of work; they neither know nor care enough about it to reward it with even the scantiest show of respect. In many cases the alumni do not even know the names of the men on the faculties of their alma mater who stand highest in the eyes of their peers as the benefactors of the world in this their most appropriate way. To these three reasons must be added a fourth, which is as difficult both to describe and to resist as is an atmosphere. Indeed, it is itself a kind of atmosphere. I refer to that American temperament which is eager to learn and swift to form opinions, but is as fickle and as gullible in matters of science,

art, and philosophy as it is in respect of its attitude toward the prima donna of the opera or the danseuse on the vaudeville stage.

Until, then, we have a secondary and college training that is more severely disciplinary, while at the same time modern in methods and in the balancing of its scholastic interests, and have also presidents, trustees, and treasurers who can and will give more of their devotion to the really high work of the university and less to merely increasing the. numbers of the students and the magnificence of external appearances; and until patrons and alumni became fond and proud and "cherishing" toward those of their faculties who are entitled to all this because of their services in adding to the world's stock of knowledge; and until we witness an improvement in that temper of the American people which raves to-day over the crack golfer or football player, to-morrow over the opera singer who can trill most trippingly or can strike a high C, and the day following over the last novel that has reached a hundred thousand, but cares little and understands less about the solid and permanent accessions to science, philosophy, and art, that are won only by patient toil, high thinking, and a clear and candid mind—until these changes come, I say, we have no right to expect much improvement in this second function. of our universities. Building larger buildings, multiplying students and "paper" courses, and advertising advantages in other attractive ways will make no particular difference here. I very much doubt whether our great National University will alone be able to lift us up to a much higher level, unless such changes in our estimates of educational values can be secured.

Meanwhile every university teacher who can honestly feel that he has in some measure discharged this function may possess his soul in patience. He may remain satisfied that he has really helped to lift up mankind. He has worshipped no fetish called "Science." But he knows that all truth-truth of fact and truth of reflection, fact of nature and fact of the mental and moral realm, principle of physics or principle of religion is good for man to know. is good for man to know. And it is for human good, mental and moral, as interpreted in this broad and genial way, that his labors in connection with the university are designed.

[ocr errors]

The third function of a truly great university is still more difficult both to define and to enforce than is either of the other two. But surely these institutions, designed for the highest and best culture, ought to be sources from which flow forth the strength, sweetness, and light that are the distinguishing characteristics of such culture. The resources of the colleges and universities of this country have all been derived from

the fruits of the toil and self-denial, whether voluntary or enforced, of the common people. To this same common people the outcome of these resources should be, so far as this is possible, constantly paid back. With regard to the principles of politics and finance, in the framing and executing of the laws, in the application of the discoveries of science to the amelioration and improvement of the conditions of living, in the shaping and criticism of the popular literature, in the uplifting and broadening of the system of public education, in the dissemination of the truths of morals and religion, and in the guidance of reflection over the profounder problems of life and destiny-in all these, and all other similar interests, university men ought to be the most trustworthy and the best trusted counsellors and guides of the nation. They ought to command, and to receive, the deference of the public in all these and other like matters.

Certainly, however, this particular important function of the institutions of the higher education in this country is not satisfactorily performed at the present time. To whose fault is this failure due? To the fault both of the institutions themselves and of the public at large; for it must appear at once on reflection that such a service as I am now describing cannot be made practicable without the active coöperation of both parties. The universities can control their own students and the use of their own means for the advancement of the arts and sciences; but they cannot control the public appetite for knowledge or the public willingness to hear and tolerate not to say, seek and honestly receive the truth. the truth. In respect of the present unsatisfactory discharge of this third function, the public and, more especially, the patrons of the universities have themselves chiefly to blame. And yet I cannot believe that the officers and teachers in the universities themselves are without responsibility and blameworthiness.

I will illustrate my position in a way which few can fail to understand, even if they cannot appreciate the full force of the illustration. There is no doubt that the great majority of men connected as officers with our universities are now intelligently and conscientiously opposed to the policy and practices of the national Government, as respects its system of taxation, its foreign so-called "imperialistic" policy, and the method actually employed in making its official appointments. If their voices were to ring out — with the clear and high note which only intelligence and a good conscience can give to opposition all over the land from every institution of the higher education, who can predict that the result would be inferior to that produced by the philosopher Fichte's

[ocr errors]

Addresses to the German Nation"? But now, on the one hand, prudential considerations, which in some cases amount to an immoral timidity, are restraining the administration of these institutions. In plain words, they are afraid of checking the flow of funds into their hands. and of diminishing the number of students sent to them. Moreover, it is not all our professors of whom anything can be said to compare with what is authoritatively declared to have been true of Schleiermacher: He was not only the "greatest theologian" since the Reformation, a churchman of "grand ideas," a "gifted preacher," a "philosopher,” an "investigator of antiquity," but a "man who coöperated honestly in the work of Prussia's and Germany's political regeneration." On the other hand, it must be said that far too many of those who are leading the business, politics, and social and religious life of the nation do not wish to know what the truth is; much less do they propose, if they could learn the truth from authoritative sources, to shape their conduct accordingly. On the contrary, it is altogether likely that not a few of them clergy and teachers prominent in the public schools, as well as manufacturers, merchants, bankers, and politicians - would not by any means confine themselves, in their resistance to such instruction, to the attempt to answer arguments with counter-arguments.

In respect of other and less disagreeable and dangerous ways of discharging this third function of a truly great university the case is much better. Through books and magazines of various kinds and grades, the institutions of the higher education are continually contributing to the enlightenment and uplifting of the common people. It would, I think, be an additional advantage if the personal presence of the instructors could accompany, to enliven and enforce, more of this serviceable instruction. Perhaps the time is not far away when a revival, in an improved form, of the custom of lyceum courses of lectures will assist in accomplishing this desirable end. Perhaps, too, a larger number of the wealthy who really desire to have what they are so often ready to affect namely, an improved culture for themselves, and a real influence over others for the improvement of their culture will become willing to spend upon parlor lectures from recognized authorities a tithe of the money and time which they now spend upon afternoon teas and the opera. But especially do I think it desirable to bring about somehow that attitude of the "laboring classes" toward the college professor which any one who has addressed these classes, both in England and in the United States, feels to be so much more favorable to their real helping over there than here.

« PreviousContinue »