Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Series Introduction
he goal of this series is to recover and republish pieces of The Quarterly Journal of the University of North Dakota. The selection of Doves Type
for the first volume in the series intentionally evokes the
rediscovery of things lost as well as the traditional craft
of printing and publishing at the core of both higher education and the founding mission of North Dakota
Quarterly.
http://arts-sciences.und.edu/north-dakota-quarterly/subscribe.cfm
iii
Introduction
his essay is a lightly edited transcription of John Gillettes University Lecture from June of 1915. The speech
evokes a moment in the history of both University of North
Dakota and universities in the United States, and Gillette endeavors to articulate the role of higher education in both the
state and the American society. The few years preceeding this
speech had been challenging for UND. In December 1914,
UND President Frank McVey had to reassure students that
the university would remain open after a very unfavorable
response to his request for $300,000 in state funding during
the 1913 legislative session. While McVeys budget was better
received in the 1915 legislative session, he nevertheless chaffed
under the limited resources and, at times, interventionist policies of UNDs Board of Trustees.
Gillette was also writing amidst the ongoing reverberations of Joseph Lewinsohn affair. In 1914, Lewinsohn had
resigned his position in the UND Law School under pressure from the politically conservative chairman of the UND
Board of Trustees and President McVey. Lewinsohn had
campaigned on behalf of Theodore Roosevelts progressive
Bull Moose Party in 1912 and offended conservative elements
on the universitys board of trustees. Many on campus saw
the Lewinsohn affair as a serious threat to a growing sense of
academic freedom, and this concern prompted Gillette and
history professor O.G. Libby to found UNDs branch of
the AAUP (American Association of University Professors).
Lewinsohns resignation drew national attention with editovii
viii
IN
choosing a subject for this occasion, I have selected one which during several years has possest a strong interest for me. I have chosen to dicuss the
university in the service of society just because of this
interest, and not because I can hope to make any contribution which is destined to become renowned. Indeed,
in my own life work, I am committed to the saying of
Marcus Aurelius: As for life it is a battle and a sojourning in a strange land; and the fame that comes afterward
is oblivion.
What I shall say emanates from my own peculiar
store of knowledge, however restricted, and from my
particular point of view, however warped it may be, and
is in no sense the result of an extended investigation of
what others have published on this topic. In fact, I have
not been concerned with whether or not this especial
subject has ever been discust, but I have been far more
concerned with making a statement of certain relationships which the university as a social institution sustains
to society at large. As a consequence I am compelled to
take a speculative risk in dealing with it and to assume
all responsibility for those characteristics which eventuate from my own personal equation as well as for the
omission from the discussion of some items, the inclusion of which might have given the discussion a superior
form and symmetry.
Relative to both the terms, university and society, the
idea of the common man is none too clear and he would
be greatly bewildered were he called on to explain the
functions of the university. The average man thinks of
the university in a very vague way. He has a hazy conception that it is located somewhere, that it has grounds,
buildings, and some professors, that it is supported by
taxes or subscriptions, and that it is a good deal like the
nearby high school or normal school. Thus, a visiting
legislator, after being shown through our own humble
institution, confest his astonishment at what he found.
He had entertained an entirely inadequate conception of
the complex functions a university performs.
The hoary tradition that a university is a log, one end
of which is bestridden by a great teacher and the other by an absorbent and [329] worshiping student, is the
proper point of departure for every discussion of university and college. There are many good people who still
believe that represents the function and character of such
an institution today. It reminds one of the college professor of language who asserted that a college education
2
life profoundly, the need of higher institutions of learning, possessing other functions than those of transferring
harmless traditions to the sons of the respectable class,
arose. After the present agencies for furnishing power
and for manufacture and communication were fully ushered in, civilization, on its material side, became highly
differentiated and rushed forward like a torrent. With
the pressing demand which the new agencies made for a
better insight into the materials that nature furnishes for
industrial processes, science likewise branched out and
threw off multitudes of new sciences, many of which
were avenues to some of the industrial callings. The
human mind also was dissatisfied with the old philosophy, history, economics, medicine. As a consequence,
experimental psychology; history with a greater vision,
a more sympathetic [330] political economy, sociology,
comparative politics, bacteriology, hygiene, and sanitation, along with a list of other important new sciences, were developed. The emphasis was thrown on the
understanding of present conditions. The new theory of
evolution threw great emphasis upon the idea that life
is a survival from a struggle with environmental conditions. That individual organism survives which is able
to adjust itself to these conditions. A corollary is that the
better the conditions are understood, the greater chance
the individual concerned has of surviving. The further
development of the individual is contingent on a deeper
insight into the nature of the conditions which surround
it and press upon it. As a consequence we arrive at the
inference that an educational system not only cannot
4
its function unless it bestows upon its students the intellectual power and interest to submit all traditions to the
process of criticism in order that the valuable elements
may be conserved and the worthless ones discarded. Nor
does it do its duty in full except that the intellectual and
ethical interests of the student clientele are developed so
that all callings and professional equipment are viewed
as agencies to promote life in the largest sense.
The second obstacle that stands in the way of the full
realization of its duty by the university consists in the
disinclination of the larger community to concede the
value of the utmost liberty of research and announcement of views in all lines of university endeavor. This is
especially pertinent wherever the views are those of men
who are called to treat questions which concern the organization of society, the principles of social justice, and
the ethics of collective life. Today we view with intellectual condescension that ancient social order in which
the innovators in the realms of chemistry, physics, and
astronomy were made the objects of attack and were
penalized for questioning the prevalent ideas. It is to be
hoped the age will come when the social scientists may
expect as large an immunity from odium when their
views run counter to what has been commonly held as
natural scientists now enjoy.
In order that the idea of certain of the services which
the modern university might perform may be advanced,
let us consider that institution in relation to certain fundamental sociological conceptions. And the first of these
conceptions is that of conservation.
8
In recent years we have witnessed a campaign in behalf of the conservation of the natural resources of our
nation, which only means that our mines, forests, and
water power should not be wasted nor used for purely
selfish purposes. The sociological use of the word conservation is not far dissimilar. We are to think of society
constituting a system of structural organizations, each
of which has its division of labor to execute. All parts
act in relation to every other part. It is a more or less orderly process of cooperative interdependence. This is the
social order in which all institutions and interests have
their place. However, it should be noted that conservation is distinct from conservatism. The conservative
man wants things left as they are. He insists that the
social order is good, that any modification would prove
injurious, and that the established [333] system is more or
less sacred. On the other hand true conservation places
a valuation on things. It constructs a scheme of values
which is hued on the experience of the past. What has
promoted the interest and welfare of the masses of men
is deemed valuable and should be conserved. Those processes and agencies which have injured humanity at large
are regarded as bad and should be eliminated. Hence the
true conservationist is an eclectic. He does not worship
the social order as a perfect and sacred theme of relationships. Recognizing many imperfections, he favors their
elimination out of justice to the largest number of human beings.
The service the university has to perform in this
connection is that of putting members of society in the
9
position of being able to carry on the process of evaluating social institutions and processes wisely and judiciously. But before students can be taught this, their instructors must learn the art of evaluation. Every course
of study and every study in the curriculum should be submitted to the criterion of social efficiency. We have been
using purely arbitrary criteria in the past to arrive at the
worth of the various subjects. The majority of educators
now are able to think only in terms of their subjective
tests. Such tests may be good for individual satisfaction
but they are almost worthless relative to the objective
demands of the age. When schoolmasters have learned
to evaluate educational processes in the measure of their
contributing power for the age we live in, we will hear
less of the mythical discipline and cultural arguments
and more of those of objective needs. If democracy is
to develop as it should, this is an important function.
By natural tendency men are conservative. The mass of
people are prone to accept things as they are, without
question. In their estimation all that comes down from
the past is to be conserved just because it is. Habit sets in
early in the career of the individual and binds his mind
fast to the ideas he has received. Imitation is the easiest
method of obtaining information and this means that
ideas are taken over from the past generation without
critical scrutiny. Consequently the old order of things
is continued, notwithstanding its imperfections and
barbarisms.
The institution of slavery was conserved and the social order to which it belonged was continued so long
10
Progrese will, as a consequence, not be spasmodic. Human misery which eventuates because of conditions not
now controlled will be eliminated.
What Ward, in a masterly manner, has philosophically demonstrated, the world bas been proving in
an increasingly practical way ever since society began.
The growth of the state reveals a remarkable series of
developments in the direction of the control of the sociological conditions of life by means of state agencies.
Without possessing a theoretical insight into the nature
of society, the peoples of the successive ages have more
and more clearly seen that the evils and abuses which
arise could be removed only by the strengthening of a
central authority representative of the rights and interests of all classes of society by means of which the conflicting and menacing interests could be regulated. But
this work of regulation and reconciliation of interests is
as yet far from complete, largely because the social forces
are not yet thoroughly known, charted, and classified.
Both practical and scientific workers in the social field
are needed who will seek to perfect this knowledge and,
by it, make progress more possible.
The universities are as logically and naturally the
homes for the prosecution of the scientific aspects of this
task as for the development of insight into the processes of physical nature. The field of society is intricate,
complicated, baffling. The social forces and conditions
cannot be placed in a laboratory or test tube for experimental purposes. The laboratory of the social scientist is
the community and the collective life that lies without
18
university walls. The economist, political scientist, historian, and sociologist must study life as it is, and cannot help having opinions according to conditions as they
observe them. They may draw wrong conclusions and
make mistakes. But men in natural science have often
erred. It should be recognized that new fields call for
long and patient effort before positive and absolutely
demonstrable conclusions may be drawn. Meanwhile, it
is the function of universities to promote investigations
into community conditions, to counsel moderation in
the announcement of results until their certainty is reasonably assured, and to foster deeper insight into things
of the collective life. Only by pursuing this course can
they serve society to the full measure and perform their
service that lies in the plane of directing human progress.
19