« AnteriorContinuar »
recorded in the annals of higher education for two hundred years. have known successive boards, in the same institution, to flounder through an identical round of trials and failures. Still more conspicuously, in the case of State institutions, have successive Legislatures returned again and again to the same style of " tinkering" at the university. Every faculty in a State university will bear me witness that the meeting of the Legislature is an event which fills them with apprehension and dread. It is a public spectacle of ignorance and incompetency assuming to shape, or even to transform, the most delicate machinery of our civil institutions, and play at foot-ball with the dearest and highest interests of modern civilization. Fortunately, we have seen no ignorance so crass, and no vanity so scornful, in the proceedings of our corporate "boards; but, alas! there is too much of similarity. The annual or semi-annual meeting of the great, omnipotent "board" is generally anticipated as a period of convulsion and trial, if not of disaster.
I have indicated some of the evils in theory and in fact, which arise from constituting the corporate body the supreme and exclusive authority in university control. There would be no reason for denouncing evils, if there were no way to remedy them. I have some suggestions to make. Defenders of the existing system may pronounce my views but personal opinions like those enforced by our bodies of trustees. I shall, at least, venture to affirm that they are grounded in a larger experience, and more careful reflection, and accord better with the usages which have grown up in the Old World.
The knowledge requisite for the wisest exercise of university control consists of three kinds :
1. Knowledge of business principles and usages.
2. Knowledge of scholastic principles, usages and methods.
3. Knowledge of the local conditions and exigencies.
Business knowledge embraces the creation, augmentation and conservation of endowment, and the forecasting of income; the care of real and personal estate; attention to public legislation and to issues at law. Scholastic knowledge embraces the general history of universities, foreign and domestic; a general comprehension of the field of learning, ancient and modern; a philosophic appreciation of the relations of sciences and literatures to each other, and to the human powers and human needs; a comprehension of proper grades and successions of scholastic work, through which every man shall be kept busied in the employ of his best faculties, and every pupil shall build upon a solid, pre-formed foundation.
Local knowledge embraces an acquaintance with the antecedents, conditions and exigencies of the university; a knowledge of the strength and weakness of the several instructors; an acquaintance with the students, their capacities, antecedents and needs, and also, to some extent, with the conditions of the families from which they come.
Of these three kinds of knowledge, the first, or business knowledge, is the common possession of a large class of successful men of business. The duties for which it qualifies possess the first importance in the welfare of the university; and a body corporate may well be charged with these, and, perhaps, with other duties. Scholastic knowledge is not the common possession of the same class of men. They have no use for it in their operations; and, if ever possessed of it, the possession has gradually escaped from them, or become obsolete. The same knowledge is the peculiar accomplishment of the university professor; and his
daily work enlarges his possessions. Whatever duties this knowledge qualifies for, should, therefore, be devolved upon the teaching body exclusively. Now, the duties for which scholastic knowledge qualifies the person are the highest, the profoundest, the most delicate in the whole range of university control. Nothing short of profound scholastic knowledge can qualify a man, or body of men, to frame the conception of the university; to determine its location and choose its site; to draw up its courses of study and lectures; to select the most competent instructors, and assign their work and compensation; to fix requirements for matriculation and graduation; to purchase books, periodicals, apparatus and cabinets; to confer degrees, whether on examination or honoris causa. It is the extreme of absurdity to affirm that any of these functions can be more usefully performed by a body of men living remote from the university, and alien to university life. It is almost as absurd to affirm that a competent body exercising these functions, actually needs to be supervised by an incompetent body acting perfunctorily.
But the free cxercise of these functions implies control of university expenditures. I hold, therefore, that the teaching body shall be invested with the sole authority to expend the income of the university. In cases where a special character, or bent, or purpose, has been imparted to the university by its founders, this authority should be limited by fundamental law.
I am well aware of the existence of a belief in the business incapacity of educated men, especially collegiate professors; but I should not hesitate to pit their capacity, in the management of the scholastic interests of a university, against that of any body of inexperts.
I add a few words in reference to the third kind of knowledge-local knowledge. This, of course, must be possessed by the teaching body; and the duties for which it qualifies must be discharged by this body, or its executive head. It is disastrous to hold the decisions of the administration subject to revision by a board of trustees; but, in local administration, I apprehend that good would often result from taking counsel with the students. It is a mistake to view faculty and students as antagonistic bodies, having conflicting aims. Their aims are precisely identical; and the student possesses some advantages for forming judgments which the faculty never possess. But I make this suggestion only in passing.
To reduce these ideas to a practical form, I would propose to retain the body corporate to assume the business cares of the university, and to "sue and be sued." I would give the alumni a large representation in this body; and would dispense with all ex-officio members. I would invest the faculty with all the functions, whose exercise demands the possession of scholastic knowledge and experience; and would have their authority unrestricted and final in the constitution of their own body, and in the entire organization and operation of the university. In matters of administration, I would cautiously resort to a free interchange of views with members of the advanced classes; though I would not tolerate discussion and wrangling, nor even class-meetings, ou questions of university administration.
In conferring these new powers upon the teaching body, I would use needful discrimination. The liberty to vote is already restricted, in some universities, to full professors. This secures the influence of experience, coolness and wisdom in matters of administration. This liberty,
in the appropriation of money, might well be further restricted. I think it would be entirely safe in the hands of full professors of five years standing, or over.
Should the change which I have suggested appear too radical, a compromise could be effected by allowing the senior professors to sit and vote with the corporate body; or, the corporate and teaching bodies might be made co-ordinate-each with the power of a veto over the acts of the other.
In this paper I have ventured to raise my voice boldly for a reform which, unless I am greatly mistaken, many a professor has felt to be demanded by the best interests of our university life. I am led to hope that a well-considered and outspoken expression of opinion may be elicited—even if much more conservative than my own utterances; and that this Convocation may mark the commencement of a revolution, at which every friend of higher education will rejoice.
SYRACUSE, January 30, 1878.
DR. PRATT, Assistant Secretary, Board of Regents:
DEAR SIR- After returning from the Convocation last July, I noticed some opinions so aptly corroborative of the positions taken in my paper on "University Control," that I beg to append them to that paper with your approval.
You will find them inclosed.
Very sincerely yours,
At the meeting of school superintendents in Boston, in 1877, in discussing a paper by Superintendent Parker, of Quincy, Mr. Charles Francis Adams, Jr., declared that education had become such a science that, to express his idea emphatically and vulgarly, the school committeeman was played out, so far as his personal contact with teachers is concerned; because teachers were better informed in educational matters than members of school committees. *** Superintendent Philbrick spoke in praise of the ideas contained in the remarks of Mr. Adams. * * * He declared the school committees had exhausted their capabilities of carrying forward the work, and the time had come for scientific educators to have charge of the schools. * * * Mr. Adams offered the following resolution:
Resolved, That we suggest to the State Board of Education and to the school committees of other counties, the expediency of carefully considering whether a system of county supervision by trained specialists could not be devised, which, in practice, might be made productive of most beneficial results."-New York Tribune, July 19, 1877.
The editor of the Educational Weekly (Chicago) says, in speaking of the acceptance of Superintendent Philbrick's resignation in Chicago: "It illustrates the folly of the present methods of electing and selecting our boards of education, and some other high educational officials. What we need in such places is men, not politicians; high-minded, honorable men, and not tricky partisans and transparent demagogues. Only the best, wisest, and noblest should be placed in charge of our educational interests."-Educational Weekly, July 12, 1877.
The following remarks of Professor L. Agassiz, are found in the Report of the Commissioner of Education for 1872, p. xliii:
"The very fact that there is no university in the United States, the intellectual interests of which are managed by professors, but always by a corporation outside, shows that we do not understand what a university is. The men who are in it must know better what are the wants of an institution of learning than outsiders. I believe there is no scientific man who will concede that there can be a university managed to the best advantage by anybody but those interested in its pursuits; and no body of trustees can be so interested."
THE STUDY OF ROMAN LAW IN COLLEGIATE EDUCATION.
By Professor WILLIAM C. MOREY, A. M., of the University of Rochester. The education demanded by modern life is a combination of elements which are both liberal and practical. It seeks that knowledge which is most contributive to power, and that power which is most beneficial to society. It is certainly difficult to mark out any curriculum so broad and comprehensive as shall develop the highest culture in the individual, and yet shall recognize the claims which society may justly make upon its educated men. Neither the value of classical learning, nor the importance of the physical sciences, ought to be depreciated. But these studies are, to a certain extent, partial, in so far as they fail to recognize the relations of man as a social and political being. An appreciation of those facts which belong to the moral and social nature of man, and of those rights and duties which spring from this nature, will lead to a higher estimate of the political and legal sciences as a part of liberal education. The study of legal science in general, and of the Roman law especially, brings us into contact with the principles which have presided over the historical growth and the civil organization of society, and a knowledge of which is of the utmost importance to the scholar and to the citizen. The study of the Roman law has formed an important part of higher education, in Continental Europe, since the sixteenth century. The discovery of the "Republic" of Cicero and the "Institutes" of Gaius has given, during the last seventy years, an increased impulse to its study, especially in Germany. And, in England, the growing recognition of its value, as an aid to historical investigation and as a scientific system of jurisprudence, is now causing a greater attention to be paid to its cultivation. There are, moreover, certain indications, in our own country, that it may, at some time, receive the appreciation which it deserves. We desire to present here a few con-siderations which render its study worthy of a place in our higher institutions of learning.
In the first place, the study of the Roman law should form a part of liberal education, because it is the highest and most distinctive product of Roman civilization.
Any education, which recognizes the knowledge of man as one of its elements, must not ignore those features of human nature which are revealed in national life; and it ought, also, to interpret the spirit of any nation by those forms of its thought which are most essential and characteristic. Every people is stamped with certain traits which are peculiar to itself, and on account of which it lays a special claim to the attention of the world. Because a people is ancient, and its political organization has passed away-its thought, its culture and its institutions are none the less beneficial, and even necessary, to a comprehensive study of mankind. As Max Müller says: "In order to know what man is, we ought to know what man has been.
But in estimating the place which the "classic" nations of antiquity should occupy in the education of to-day, we may fail to recognize those essential characteristics which give to them their profoundest significance. If we do not distinguish these two forms of national life; if we discern nothing in the literature of Rome, not also discernible in that