being of course equal. If the president abuse his powers it will be when the directors neglect their duties. For popular ignorance or indifference, no system can offer a remedy. The control of American universities has been likewise successful in the degree to which it approaches this model. The freer the rein given the president, other things being equal, the more effective the work of the institution. But this free rein must take with it the watchful confidence of boards of trustees or of the alumni, or of the public for which the institution exists. The majestic work of Dr. Eliot at Harvard well exemplifies all this. With very definite, very wise and very advanced views of all educational problems, he has taken full rein in carrying them out. But he has sought at the same time to carry with him the confidence and co-operation of graduates, faculty and overseers. Without this confidence, freely given because fully deserved, Harvard University could never have been made what it is. In few branches of the public service is the spoils system so deeply intrenched as in the public schools. In no other place can it do a tithe of the mischief. It shows itself on the one hand in the wanton selection of incompetents or favorites; on the other, in the provision of life tenures for worthless persons its evil is equally prominent. No teacher should be chosen save for efficiency, no teacher should be retained unless this efficiency continues. If appointments are on the basis of merit only, there is no danger of wanton removals, and any law protecting a teacher from dismissal works against the interests of the children, a party whose interests in some of our great cities have been totally ignored. What with the strife on account of life tenures of teachers chosen by the trustees in the past, and with the desire of present trustees to provide similarly for their own indigent relatives, the public schools of at least one of our great cities are worse than no schools at all. To use positions in the schools for purposes of charity is to use them for corruption. If relieved from the great expenses now incurred better schools would arise under private control. The remedy for this condition is not to abolish public schools. It is not the institution which is discredited but our management of it; and this through our own lack of interest and our bad administrative methods. The former no doubt, is in part an outgrowth from the latter. Our duty is to repeal all statutes which limit responsibility, place the schools in the hands of a competent superintendent and adopt such forms as will hold this superintendent to a real and constant responsibility. Our varied failures in local administration are therefore in great part the results of efforts to make federal forms of government do the impossible and of our attempts to hold men to responsibility without giving them power. The affairs of no business corporation could be conducted in such a fashion without immediate disaster. If these are necessary methods of "Americanism," they are also methods of bankruptcy. No city, or county or state can be well governed that does not associate with exercise of authority, personal responsibility for its results. The first need in good government is to enlist the services of men who know what ought to be done, and who have the will and the virtue to do it. Such mer called forth when the people feel the need of them. As matters now are we do not need good men because we have no way of using them. In public office they can only watch and do nothing. This does not suffice for a man of action. So he will rather go on with his own affairs which he can control and for which he is actually responsible. Thus the public affairs fall into the control of co-operative associations of thieves, for which the city furnishes a figurehead. All constitutional checks and balances in administration are of but slight importance compared with the personality of men. Let us try men in our public affairs, and see if Americanism is not strengthened by the change. |