the higher learning in america-第14部分

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！





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　any　function　other　than　a　bootless



meddling　with　academic　matters　which　they　do　not　understand。　The



sole　ground　of　their　retention　appears　to　be　an　unreflecting



deferential　concession　to　the　usages　of　corporate　organization



and　control；　such　as　have　been　found　advantageous　for　the　pursuit



of　private　gain　by　businessmen　banded　together　in　the



exploitation　of　joint…stock　companies　with　limited　liability。（1*）



　　　　The　fact　remains；　the　modern　civilized　community　is　reluctant



to　trust　its　serious　interests　to　others　than　men　of　pecuniary



substance；　who　have　proved　their　fitness　for　the　direction　of



academic　affairs　by　acquiring；　or　by　otherwise　being　possessed



of；　considerable　wealth。（2*）　It　is　not　simply　that　experienced



businessmen　are；　on　mature　reflection；　judged　to　be　the　safest



and　most　competent　trustees　of　the　university's　fiscal　interests。



The　preference　appears　to　be　almost　wholly　impulsive；　and　a



matter　of　habitual　bias。　It　is　due　for　the　greater　part　to　the



high　esteem　currently　accorded　to　men　of　wealth　at　large；　and



especially　to　wealthy　men　who　have　succeeded　in　business；　quite



apart　from　any　special　capacity　shown　by　such　success　for　the



guardianship　of　any　institution　of　learning。　Business　success　is



by　common　consent；　and　quite　uncritically；　taken　to　be　conclusive



evidence　of　wisdom　even　in　matters　that　have　no　relation　to



business　affairs。　So　that　it　stands　as　a　matter　of　course　that



businessmen　must　be　preferred　for　the　guardianship　and　control　of



that　intellectual　enterprise　for　the　pursuit　of　which　the



university　is　established；　as　well　as　to　take　care　of　the



pecuniary　welfare　of　the　university　corporation。　And；　full　of　the



same　naive　faith　that　business　success　〃answereth　all　things；〃



these　businessmen　into　whose　hands　this　trust　falls　are　content



to　accept　the　responsibility　and　confident　to　exercise　full



discretion　in　these　matters　with　which　they　have　no　special



familiarity。　Such　is　the　outcome；　to　the　present　date；　of　the



recent　and　current　secularization　of　the　governing　boards。　The



final　discretion　in　the　affairs　of　the　seats　of　learning　is



entrusted　to　men　who　have　proved　their　capacity　for　work　that　has



nothing　in　common　with　the　higher　learning。（3*）



　　　　As　bearing　on　the　case　of　the　American　universities；　it



should　be　called　to　mind　that　the　businessmen　of　this　country；　as



a　class；　are　of　a　notably　conservative　habit　of　mind。　In　a　degree



scarcely　equalled　in　any　community　that　can　lay　claim　to　a



modicum　of　intelligence　and　enterprise；　the　spirit　of　American



business　is　a　spirit　of　quietism；　caution；　compromise；　collusion；



and　chicane。　It　is　not　that　the　spirit　of　enterprise　or　of　unrest



is　wanting　in　this　community；　but　only　that；　by　selective　effect



of　the　conditioning　circumstances；　persons　affected　with　that



spirit　are　excluded　from　the　management　of　business；　and　so　do



not　come　into　the　class　of　successful　businessmen　from　which　the



governing　boards　are　drawn。　American　inventors　are　bold　and



resourceful；　perhaps　beyond　the　common　run　of　their　class



elsewhere；　but　it　has　become　a　commonplace　that　American



inventors　habitually　die　poor；　and　one　does　not　find　them



represented　on　the　boards　in　question。　American　engineers　and



technologists　are　as　good　and　efficient　as　their　kind　in　other



countries。　but　they　do　not　as　a　class　accumulate　wealth　enough　to



entitle　them　to　sit　on　the　directive　board　of　any　self…respecting



university；　nor　can　they　claim　even　a　moderate　rank　as　〃safe　and



sane〃　men　of　business。　American　explorers；　prospectors　and



pioneers　can　not　be　said　to　fall　short　of　the　common　measure　in



hardihood；　insight；　temerity　or　tenacity；　but　wealth　does　not