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！
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
accumulate in their han