The opinion of the committee on academic freedom and academic tenure, of the American Association of University Professors, is as follows:1

It is a grave abuse of the power of dismissal when it is used to deny to members of the university faculties the enjoyment of their fundamental constitutional rights as citizens; and an institution in which dismissal is possible upon such a ground as was officially put forward in this case is one in which adequate guaranties of academic freedom are manifestly lacking. It is in some respects a still graver abuse of power when administrative officers or governing boards attempt by their official declarations publicly to attach the stigma of treasonable or seditious conduct to an individual teacher because of acts of his which are in fact neither treasonable nor seditious.

When charges are brought against a member of a college or university faculty upon any ground, the proceedings should, as a matter of course, be strictly judicial in character, and should be in accord with the principle of faculty responsibility. In other words, the person accused should be entitled to have the charges against him stated in writing in specific terms, and to have a fair trial on those charges before either the judicial committee of the faculty or a joint committee composed of an equal number of professors and trustees, which should render definite finding, stating in case of a decision adverse to the accused the precise acts on which the decision is based. The importance of maintaining these procedural safeguards against hasty or unjust action is, if possible, even greater at a time of popular excitement and heightened passions than under normal conditions.

One of the most helpful statements made this year bearing on the question of academic freedom is that found in President Lowell's annual report for 1916-17. The following quotations are of special interest:

The war has brought to the front in academic life many questions which are new, or present themselves to many people in a new light. One of these is liberty of speech on the part of the professor; and it seems a not unfitting time to analyze the principles involved, and seek to discover their limitations. In so doing I shall deal only with higher education, that is with universities and colleges.

Experience has proved, and probably no one would now deny, that knowledge can advance, or at least can advance rapidly, only by means of an unfettered search for truth on the part of those who devote their lives to seeking it in their respective fields, and by complete freedom in imparting to their pupils the truth that they have found.

The teaching by the professor in his classroom on the subjects within the scope of his chair ought to be absolutely free. He must teach the truth as he has found it and sees it. This is the primary condition of academic freedom, and any violation of it endangers intellectual progress. In order to make it secure it is essential that the teaching in the classroom should be confidential. This does not mean that it is secret, but that what is said there should not be published. If the remarks of the instructor were repeated by the pupils in the public press he would be subjected to constant criticism by people not familiar with the subject, who misunderstood his teaching; and, what is more important, he would certainly be misquoted, because his remarks would be reported by the student without their context or the qualifications that give

1 See Bulletin of American Association of University Professors, April, 1918.

them their accuracy. Moreover, if the rule that remarks in the classroom shall not be reported for publication elsewhere is to be maintained, the professor himself must not report them. Lectures open to the public stand on a different footing, but lectures in a private classroom must not be given by the instructor to the newspapers. That principle is, I believe, observed in all reputable institutions. *

Every professor must, therefore, be wholly unrestrained in publishing the results of his study in the field of his professorship. It is needless to add that for the dignity of his profession, for the maintenance of its privileges, as well as for his own reputation among his fellows, whatever he writes or says on his own subject should be uttered as a scholar, in a scholarly tone and form. This is a matter of decorum, not of discipline; to be remedied by a suggestion, not by a penalty.

In troublous times much more serious difficulty and much more confusion of thought arises from the other half of our subject, the right of a professor to express his views without restraint on matters lying outside the sphere of his professorship. This is not a question of academic freedom in its true sense, but of the personal liberty of the citizen. It has nothing to do with liberty of research and instruction in the subject for which the professor occupies the chair that makes him a member of the university.

* ** *

The university or college is under certain obligations to its students. It compels them to attend courses of instruction, and on their side they have a right not to be compelled to listen to remarks offensive or injurious to them on subjects of which the instructor is not a master, a right which the teacher is bound to respect.

In spite, however, of the risk of injury to the institution, the objections to restraint upon what professors may say as citizens seem to be far greater than the harm done by leaving them free. In the first place, to impose upon the teacher in a university restrictions to which members of other professions, lawyers, physicians, engineers, and so forth, are not subjected, would produce a sense of irritation and humiliation.

'In accepting a chair under such conditions a man would surrender a part of his liberty; what he might say would be submitted to the censorship of a board of trustees, and he would not be a free citizen. The lawyer, physician, or engineer may express his views as he likes on the subject of the protective tariff; shall the professor of astronomy not be free to do the same? Such a policy would tend seriously to discourage some of the best men from taking up the scholar's life. It is not a question of academic freedom, but of personal liberty from constraint; yet it touches the dignity of the academic career.

It should be noted in passing that a number of American institutions have been obliged to take action on the unpatriotic activities and utterances of teachers of German origin or avowed German sympathies. The dismissals resulting in these cases have nowhere been regarded as breaches of academic freedom.

THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND ACADEMIC TENURE OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS.

During the past two years the committee on academic freedom and academic tenure of the American Association of University Professors has had brought to its attention over 30 cases of alleged infraction of the principles of academic freedom of speech and academi

tenure. The opinions and decisions of this committee and its subcommittees, some of which have been quoted in former reports of the Commissioner of Education, have grown in weight and importance in the academic world. The committee, by its conservative attitude, has been able to eliminate from public discussion and criticism a large proportion of the cases brought to its doors, and it has also been able to help in the solution of many problems by dealing privately with the institutions and individuals concerned.

The committee has centered its attention on a limited number of cases which led to the exposition of principles underlying academic freedom of speech and permanency of academic tenure. It has in no sense sought publicity. The rulings of the committee have been largely based on the principles stated in the 1915 report of the association. Taken together, the decisions of the committee, already covering a large variety of cases, lay the foundation of a new type of educational law which should prove to be of great value in solving equitably the complex problems of academic freedom of speech and academic tenure.

During the period under review two reports involving questions of academic tenure not relating to freedom of speech have been made. by committees of the American Association of University Professors. The first of these was an investigation into the reasons for the dismissal of Miss Winona A. Hughes, dean of women at the College of Wooster, and the methods used by the board of trustees in severing her connection with the college. The committee found the action of the president and the board to be arbitrary, unjustifiable, and such as to jeopardize seriously the standing of the college among American higher institutions. It declared that "the methods of the present administration have not been such as to appeal to the loyalty. of a conscientious and self-respecting faculty, and it is equally obvious that they are not the methods which gain for a college the confidence and respect of the academic world."

On June 7, 1917, the State board of education of the State of Montana decided not to retain as president of the State university Dr. E. B. Craighead, who had acted in that capacity for three years. The State board also decided not to reemploy three professors of the university. The matter having been brought before the committee on academic freedom and academic tenure, it was the opinion of the committee after careful investigation that the dismissal of President Craighead and the three professors was not justified. The procedure of the board was criticized by the committee as being unsound in method and disastrous in its results to the interests of the university. (See Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors, May, 1917.)

TWO STATE INSTITUTIONS ATTACKED.

THE MASSACHUSETTS AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.

During October, 1916, the Massachusetts Agricultural College was criticized at a public hearing held by a commission appointed by the governor of the State to investigate the institution and to see whether its present policies should be continued. The college was charged with inefficiency because it did not turn out more practical farmers, and because it devoted more time than necessary to classical and humanistic studies, while neglecting the practical phases of farm life.

In answer to these objections President Butterfield and his supporters informed the commission that 65 per cent of the college graduates for the past 50 years were engaged in agricultural pursuits, the percentage having increased considerably during the past 10 years. About 80 per cent of the recent graduates are in agricultural vocations. The agricultural college aims to give a broad grasp of farm problems, combined with sufficient practical training. As to the relation between the humanistic and the agricultural subjects, the practice of the college is well stated in the published report of the commission, as follows:

The land-grant colleges were primarily established to promote the study of agriculture by the most advanced and scientific methods of instruction. In their courses of study one naturally expects that science will occupy the most prominent place, and that it should be taught by men well qualified for their work. The Massachusetts Agricultural College meets this expectation.

There are at present 228 courses in agriculture and the cognate sciences, and only 96 courses in mathematics and the so-called humanities. In the first year 48 courses are given in agriculture and mathematics, and only 18 in the humanities. In the second year 6 courses are required in the humanities, and 54 in agriculture and cognate sciences. After the second year a major course can be elected in one of the 17 departments; during the last year 75 per cent of the students elected major courses in agriculture and horticulture. There is no major course in the humanities, and only one-quarter of the students' time is required in these studies. Three-quarters of the students are giving threefourths of their time to distinctively agricultural subjects. Ten times as many courses are given in junior and senior years in agriculture as were given 10 years ago, and more agricultural studies have been introduced in the first and second years than ever before.

There has been no corresponding increase in humanistic studies. Of the faculty, 54 teachers are engaged in instruction in agriculture and the cognate sciences, and 14 teachers in the humanities and mathematics. Members of the faculty and representative students alike testify that there is a prevailing tendency among the undergraduates to elect studies according to their supposed commercial values and to neglect those studies which aim to strengthen and cultivate the mind. While there is a fair showing of humanistic electives in the curriculum, most of them are not required, as they are in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and in other colleges, and only a few of 111003-19

-5

the students elect them. Not only is there to be considered the number of courses, but account must be made of the order in which the courses are offered. The commission recommends that the college authorities consider readjustment of the courses so as to give larger place to practical work in the first two years; also certain courses, as, for example, that in rural journalism, might be carefully scrutinized to see whether they are really desirable and essential offerings of the college.

While the State in its acceptance of the provisions of the Morrill Act is bound to give special instruction in agriculture, it is no less bound by the language of the act to give a liberal education as an integral part of its distinctive work, and not to neglect or relegate to subordinate places those studies which experience has shown are best fitted to nourish and strengthen the faculties of the mind and which will enable men to do better work, whatever that work may be.

The college has been severely criticized because no larger proportion of its graduates become practical farmers, owing it is said to the lack of practical instruction which they receive. An examination of the curriculum shows that this criticism is no longer merited. Practical farm work is now given during the first two years, and is required of every student. Of the total hours assigned to instruction in the division of agriculture and horticulture, 32 per cent are given to classroom work, and 68 per cent to laboratory and field work. The field work should be considered as indispensable as is laboratory work in any science, so that students may apply practically the instruction which they receive theoretically. A summer session has also been recently introduced whereby such work can be carried on more readily. The lack of practical farmers, therefore, among the graduates does not appear to be due to a lack of practical work in agricultural instruction, and can be more readily explained from other causes.

Practical farmers the college does educate. They are found in all parts of the State, and are conducting farms which are profitable to themselves, and are profitable as object lessons.

ATTACK ON THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS BY GOV. FERGUSON.

During the early part of the summer of 1917, a serious controversy arose between Gov. Ferguson, of Texas, and President Vinson, of the State university. The cause of the trouble was due largely to President Vinson's refusal to dismiss certain college teachers to whom the governor objected. The latter, by way of retaliation, vetoed the appropriation for the State university, and consequently aroused a great storm of protest from all parts of the State. Inasmuch as the governor had acted unlawfully in the matter, and seriously threatened the financial resources of the university, the legislature in special session passed the necessary appropriation bill for the support of the university.

In August the governor was impeached and removed from office. The articles of impeachment included counts for alleged misappropriation of funds and the abuse of authority in his dealings with the regents and the president of the university.