The Soul of the University
DAVID J. VOLD
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA
David Vold is the immediate past President of the Alabama Conference of the AAUP
It seems fairly obvious, in the closing decade of the twentieth century, that while
many college and university professors worry about the requirements for tenure -
Probably, what renders those academic/professional standards most vulnerable to erosion
is the university's enormous appetite for money. The wealthiest institutions seek
more, and faculty members themselves, at virtually all institutions, are expected
to generate funds through grants. Because money is so important, universities will
accept it from just about anybody. And since money often comes with strings attached,
universities often find themselves in compromising positions. Worse yet, because
money is king, we tend to be blinded by it -
These "friends" began to have an especially large influence during the latter years of the nineteenth century. Following the Civil War, industry expanded markedly, and "along with the amazing growth of machine technology and largescale industry, the exploitation of the West proceeded more rapidly than ever; and the dominance of business and manufacturing classes in American life was assured."1 As capitalism boomed, more money became available for the expansion of education, and wealthy donors reached into their largess to endow certain fortunate institutions. A case in point was Stanford University.
Leland Stanford viewed his namesake as his personal property, and his money was used to build a fine campus and attract an able faculty, including in 1893, Edward Alsworth Ross. But Ross's developing social theory began to challenge the principles ofcapitalism, and in 1901, Stanford's widow brought about his departure. Professor Ross's misfortune was, in part, that Stanford had a weak president, who lacked the courage to stand up to "vested interests." President William Rainey Harper, of the University of Chicago, was far more bold. Harper declared, "No donor has any right before God or man to interfere with the teaching officers appointed to give instruction in a university."2 Likewise, President Charles Eliot of Harvard protested against unwarranted interference from financial donors. Nevertheless, Harper dismissed Professor Edward Bemis for his criticism of railroad operators, and Eliot conceded that "benefactors were entitled to some consideration."3
It was much the same story at other institutions. Professor Richard Ely ran into trouble at the University of Wisconsin because of his views on labor issues and corporate abuses, and President Andrews of Brown University was dismissed because of his free silver stance in the bimetallism controversy.
At the University of Pennsylvania, Scott Nearing was seeking a continuation of his appointment to the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce. Despite the faculty's support, Nearing was summarily dismissed by the board of trustees.
...the galling part of this and similar dismissals was the implication that professors were mere employees on contract who could be hired and fired at will. Time had been when professors....had enjoyed the status of a guild of scholars. It was painful to them to be reminded that as guild control had given way to control by a lay governing board, professors had settled into this subordinate position.4
Of course, American professors had the right to speak their minds -
If professors must temper their judgment and conclusions with the fear of offending influential people, professional integrity has no meaning. What's more, higher education cannot go beyond the level of inculcation of established doctrines; surely it cannot aim at the investigation and discovery of truth. Therefore both education and integrity require that university professors have academic freedom and tenure.
It was with this realization and commitment that Professors John Dewey and A. O.
Lovejoy called for a meeting in order to form "a `more comprehensive' professional
organization than that afforded by the individual subject-
Oppostition to the new organization came from college presidents and other powerful interests. The New York Times ran an editorialscoffing at "the organized dons" and defining academic freedom as "the unalienable right of every college instructor to make a fool of himsilf and his college by vealy, intemperate, senstional prattle about every subject under the sun, to his classes and the public, and still be kept on the payroll or be reft therefrom only by elaborate process"6
Still, the AAUP set about defining professional integrity and articulating the principles which are at the very haeart of the academic calling. The AAUP declared that a professor's commitment must be to knowledge and his or her responsibility must be to society, not to the administration or to the board of trustees. The AAUP defended the principle that while the university's governing board may "appoint" faculty, it does not "employ" them, and therefore cannot dictate to them or demand conformity to favored theories or doctrines.
These were bold positions to take in 1915 and they remain just as important in 1994.
Universities are as voracious as ever and contributors are just as jealous of their
money and how it is spent. What's more, the ideal of a professorial guild seems,
if anything, more threatened than ever by bureaucratic regulations, legal restrictions,
and a professoriate that identifies more with its subject-
Notes
1. R. Freeman Butts, The College Charts its Course (New York: McGraw-
2. John Brubacher and Willis Rudy, Higher Education in Transition, A History of American
colleges and Universities, 1636 -
3. Ibid., 315
4. Ibid., 313
5. Ibid., 319
6. Ibid., 320
_______________________________
