the higher learning in america-第17章
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页,按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页,按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部!
————未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!
it reflected the historical fact that the colleges of the early
days had been established primarily as training schools for
ministers of the church。 In their later growth; in the recent
past; while the chief purpose of these seminaries has no longer
been religious; yet ecclesiastical prepossessions long continued
to mark the permissible limits of the learning which they
cultivated; and continued also to guard the curriculum and
discipline of the schools。
That phase of academic policy is past。 Due regard at least
is; of course; still had to the religious proprieties the
American community; by and large; is still the most devout of
civilized countries but such regard on the part of the
academic authorities now proceeds on grounds of businesslike
expediency rather than on religious conviction or on an
ecclesiastical or priestly bias in the ruling bodies。 It is a
concessive precaution on the part of a worldly…wise directorate;
in view of the devout prejudices of those who know no better。
The rule of the clergy belongs virtually to the prehistory of
the American universities。 While that rule held there were few if
any schools that should properly be rated as of university grade。
Even now; it is true; much of the secondary school system;
including the greater part; though a diminishing number; of the
smaller colleges; is under the tutelage of the clergy; and the
academic heads o* these schools are almost universally men of
ecclesiastical standing and bias rather than of scholarly
attainments。 But that fact does not call for particular notice
here; since these schools lie outside the university field; and
so outside the scope of this inquiry。
For a generation past; while the American universities have
been coming into line as seminaries of the higher learning; there
has gone on a wide…reaching substitution of laymen in the place
of clergymen on the governing boards。 This progressive
secularization is sufficiently notorious; even though there are
some among the older establishments the terms of whose charters
require a large proportion of clergymen on their boards。 This
secularization is entirely consonant with the prevailing drift of
sentiment in the community at large; as is shown by the uniform
and uncritical approval with which it is regarded。 The
substitution is a substitution of businessmen and politicians;
which amounts to saying that it is a substitution of businessmen。
So that the discretionary control in matters of university policy
now rests finally in the hands of businessmen。
The reason which men prefer to allege for this state of
things is the sensible need of experienced men of affairs to take
care of the fiscal concerns of these university corporations; for
the typical modern university is a corporation possessed of large
property and disposing of large aggregate expenditures; so that
it will necessarily have many and often delicate pecuniary
interests to be looked after。 It is at the same time held to be
expedient in case of emergency to have several wealthy men
identified with the governing board; and such men of wealth are
also commonly businessmen。 It is apparently believed; though on
just what ground this sanguine belief rests does not appear; that
in case of emergency the wealthy members of the boards may be
counted on to spend their substance in behalf of the university。
In point of fact; at any rate; poor men and men without large
experience in business affairs are felt to have no place in these
bodies。 If by any chance such men; without the due pecuniary
qualifications; should come to make up a majority; or even an
appreciable minority of such a governing board; the situation
would be viewed with some apprehension by all persons interested
in the case and cognizant of the facts。 The only exception might
be cases where; by tradition; the board habitually includes a
considerable proportion of clergymen:
〃Such great regard is always lent
By men to ancient precedent。〃
The reasons alleged are no doubt convincing to those who are
ready to be so convinced; but they are after all more plausible
at first sight than on reflection。 In point of fact these
businesslike governing boards commonly exercise little if any
current surveillance of the corporate affairs of the university;
beyond a directive oversight of the distribution of expenditures
among the several academic purposes for which the corporate
income is to be used; that is to say; they control the budget of
expenditures; which comes to saying that they exercise a
pecuniary discretion in the case mainly in the way of deciding
what the body of academic men that constitutes the university may
or may not do with the means in hand; that is to say; their
pecuniary surveillance comes in the main to an interference with
the academic work; the merits of which these men of affairs on
the governing board are in no special degree qualified to judge。
Beyond this; as touches the actual running administration of the
corporation's investments; income and expenditures; all that
is taken care of by permanent officials who have; as they
necessarily must; sole and responsible charge of those matters。
Even the auditing of the corporation's accounts is commonly
vested in such officers of the corporation; who have none but a
formal; if any; direct connection with the governing board。 The
governing board; or more commonly a committee of the board; on
the other hand; will then formally review the balance sheets and
bundles of vouchers duly submitted by the corporation's fiscal
officers and their clerical force; with such effect of
complaisant oversight as will best be appreciated by any person
who has bad the fortune to look into the accounts of a large
corporation。
So far as regards its pecuniary affairs and their due
administration; the typical modern university is in a position;
without loss or detriment; to dispense with the services of any
board of trustees; regents; curators; or what not。 Except for the
insuperable difficulty of getting a hearing for such an
extraordinary proposal; it should be no difficult matter to show
that these governing boards of businessmen commonly are quite
useless to the university for any businesslike purpose。 Indeed;
except for a stubborn prejudice to the contrary; the fact should
readily be seen that the boards are of no material use in any
connection; their sole effectual function being to interfere with
the academic management in matters that are not of the nature of
business; and that lie outside their competence and outside the
range of their habitual interest。
The governing boards trustees; regents; curators; fellows;
whatever their style and title are an aimless survival from
the days of clerical rule; when they were presumably of some
effect in enforcing conformity to orthodox opinions and
observances; among the academic staff。 At that time; when means
for maintenance of the denominational colleges commonly had to be
procured by an appeal to impecunious congregations; it fell to
these bodies of churchmen to do service as sturdy beggars for
funds with which to meet current expenses。 So that as long as the
boards were made up chiefly of clergymen they served a pecuniary
purpose; whereas; since their complexion has been changed by the
substitution of businessmen in the place of ecclesiastics; they
have ceased to exercise an