Part 10

It was unfortunately essential to the foregoing argument that the worst motives should be assumed on the part of college benefactors. Justice requires ample correction of this point. A conspiracy to influence the social doctrines of our colleges, as we have seen, is neither so inexpensive, so direct, nor so likely to succeed as to commend itself to business men looking for immediate results. No doubt there have been men of wealth who by large and well advertised benefactions to colleges and universities have sought not to influence college teaching but to rehabilitate themselves and their business methods in popular esteem. Conspicuous giving with this penitential purpose in view is not likely to prove very effective, however. The sharp insight as to motives and the half humourous cynicism peculiar to American character are sufficient safeguards against the purchase of undeserved sympathy by rich offenders. In spite of the enormous sums given in the United States not only to the higher educational institutions but also for many other educational and philanthropic purposes, it seems extremely doubtful that public opinion has been affected thereby favourably to plutocratic interests. Few of the great mass are directly touched and consciously benefited by such gifts, but all are able to see (and if not they are helped by radicals to see), the superfluity out of which the donations were made. Benefactors, prospective and actual, must face the certainty of much criticism and misinterpretation. So far as this criticism is unjust it is to be regretted; so far as it is just it contributes materially to social welfare. Investments in business are judged as to their wisdom by the ready tests of profits and permanence; investments in social work are not subject to tests so accurate and so easily applied. To some extent their place is taken by the advice and criticism of workers in the field. Still there is large possibility that gifts for social work may be applied in useless or even in harmful ways. A wise conception of the function of the philanthropist must therefore include a realisation of the value of criticism by specialists, and also a determination either to ignore misinterpretation and unjust criticism, or to await its reversal by a better informed, if somewhat belated public opinion.

Besides the possible but not always probable motives for making large gifts referred to above every other conceivable influence has affected educational benefactions. George Ade’s breezy Chicago magnate who slaps the college president on the back and says: “Have a laboratory on me, old fellow,” is slangy, to be sure, but not altogether fabulous. It is a very common misconception that financial assistance is the only thing needful in higher educational work. President Schurman of Cornell University expressed the views of many of his colleagues among the great university executives of the country when he lamented that “rich men who give their money to educational institutions cannot be induced to give also their time and energy to the management of them.”[49] So neglectful an attitude on their part, by the way, is hardly consistent with the theory that they are engaged in a conspiracy to pollute the wells of knowledge. When we consider the immense number of contributors, large and small, to the cause of higher education it is impossible to escape the conviction that behind many of their generous acts lay real sacrifice, an adequate conception of the great function of university teaching, and the purest and most humanitarian motives. Often, too, there has been full realisation that “the gift without the giver is bare,” and patient, unstinted, intelligent service has accompanied money benefactions. In the same fine spirit nearly all our colleges and universities have accepted and employed the resources so generously placed at their disposal.

While due weight should be given to the honourable influences ordinarily accompanying benefactions, candour also compels the frank discussion of those cases where constraint of professorial opinion has been attempted. There have been a few flagrant instances of the dismissal of teachers on account of utterances displeasing to men who have been drawn upon heavily for financial support. One can readily understand the feeling of the latter that, considering their large gifts, they have been most ungratefully and unjustly abused, and also the action which they accordingly instigate, although it is as silly in most cases as the Queen of Hearts’ peremptory command:—“Off with his head!” Men in other walks of life frequently behave in the same way. There is, for example, the very commonplace case of the church member who, disgruntled because of pulpit references—no matter how impersonal—to his pet sin, cuts down his contribution and seeks to drive the minister from his charge. The consequences of the dismissal of a professor because of conflict between his teachings and the outside interests of college benefactors are so widespread and dangerous, however, that they cannot be passed over lightly simply because occurrences of this sort are relatively infrequent in the academic world.

In the first instance, of course, the teacher himself may seem the chief sufferer from such controversies. Few of the clear cases of this sort, uncomplicated by any personal defect on the part of the man who is dismissed, have resulted, however, in the destruction of a promising career. On the contrary, positions have been opened up in other more liberal and often more important institutions to the teachers who have been persecuted for truth’s sake. Indeed there is some danger that the halo of false martyrdom, with its possible accompanying rewards, may mislead the younger and less judicious holders of professorships to indulge in forms of blatherskiting quite inconsistent with their office. In the great majority of cases, however, the effect of such individual assaults upon the tenure of academic position is to threaten the independence of every department in the same or related subjects the country over. Here we have the most serious evil resulting from such unfortunate occurrences. It is certainly great enough to justify the intervention of the national scientific association to which the professor belongs at least to the extent of the most searching and impartial investigation of all the circumstances involved in his dismissal, and their subsequent publication as widely as possible whether or not they justify the professor concerned. A powerful and most welcome auxiliary to the restraining influence which such investigations are bound to exercise is likely to be supplied by the Carnegie Foundation if one may judge from tendencies exhibited by its most recent report.[50] Thus in the last analysis the evil consequences of attempts to interfere with liberty of teaching are likely to fall most severely upon the institution which is so weak as to permit such manipulation. It risks exposure and loss of prestige, it loses men of worth and suffers in its capacity to attract others to take their places. All things considered there is every indication that the few institutions which have offended in this way have learned well their lesson, and are quite in the penitent frame of mind of the pious Helen:—

“... dies will ich nun Auch ganz gewiss nicht wieder thun.”

Amid the manifold influences that environ university teaching it is impossible for any one writer to set down all the guiding professional ideals. That they are easily corruptible and frequently corrupted is, as we have seen, absurd. Of both the press and higher education it may be said that they are in the grip of forces greater than themselves, of forces mighty to restrain any tendency to be unfaithful to their own better ideals. The rapidly growing attendance and influence of universities and colleges would appear to constitute a vote of confidence on the part of the public which may be interpreted as a general denial of the charges made against them. In the great majority of institutions the writer believes that the teaching of the social sciences is dominated by the ideals of scientific honesty, thoroughness, and impartiality. No instructor is worthy of university or college position who deliberately seeks to make converts to any party or cause, however free his motives may be from the taint of personal advantage. Rather is it his duty to present systematically all moot questions in all their aspects. Like the judge summing up a case he should attempt further to supply a basis for the critical weighing of testimony by the class,—his jury. He is by no means to be inhibited from expressing an opinion, indeed he should be strongly encouraged to express it, stating it however as opinion together with the reasons that have led him to form it. But active proselyting should be rigorously barred. It is certainly no part of the duties of a professor of political science, for example, to attempt to make voters for either the Democratic or Republican ticket in a given campaign. If he attempts to do so he will certainly and deservedly fail, and in addition cripple his own influence and that of the institution which he represents. The higher duty is his of presenting all the evidence and the opinions on the points at issue and of exhibiting in his procedure the methods which will enable his students to investigate and decide for themselves not merely the political questions of the day but also the political questions they will have to meet unaided throughout their later active lives. Not voters for one campaign or recruits for one cause, but intelligent citizenship for all time and every issue,—such as is the ideal which the teacher should pursue.

Naturally this attitude does not please everybody. All sorts of interests, not only corrupting but reforming in character, are constantly endeavouring to secure academic approval in order to exploit it in their own propaganda. When this is denied, recourse to the charge of corruption by an adverse interest lies very close to a hand already habituated to mudslinging. Although the prevailing opinions of college teachers on labour legislation, to cite a specific example, are certainly not those of the manufacturer’s office, just as certainly they are broader and more progressive than the opinions of the man in the street. Of course radical labour leaders will take up still more advanced positions. In the partisanship natural to men in their situation they may even regard academic suggestions for the solution of the question as mere palliatives. It is difficult for them to appreciate the motives or the value to the cause of labour of the tempered advocacy of disinterested persons who are able to appeal to the great neutral public which in the end must pass on all labour reforms and all labour legislation. And the socialists are accustomed to go much farther than labour leaders, insinuating that capitalistic influence lurks behind every university chair in economics. Mr. W. J. Ghent puts their view of the situation as follows:

“Teachers, economists, in their search for truth, too often find it only within the narrow limits which are prescribed by endowments.”

“The economic, and, consequently, the moral, pressure exerted upon this class [_i.e._, “social servants,” including college teachers] by the dominant class is constant and severe; and the tendency of all moral weaklings within it is to conform to what is expected from above.”

“Educators and writers have a normal function of social service. Many of these, however, are retainers of a degraded type, whose greatest activity lies in serving as reflexes of trading-class sentiment and disseminators of trading-class views of life.”

“Rightly, it may be said that it is to his [the minister, writer, or teacher’s] economic interest to preach and teach the special ethics of the traders; that the good jobs go to those who are most eloquent, insistent, and thoroughgoing in expounding such ethics, while the poor jobs or no jobs at all go to those who are most backward or slow-witted in such exposition.”

“It may even be said that the net result of many of their [_i.e._, trading-class] benefactions is nothing less than the prostitution of the recipients—in particular of writers, preachers, and educators.”[51]

By way of contrast with this thoroughgoing arraignment, the opinion of Mr. Paul Elmer More may be quoted:

“Of all the substitutes for the classical discipline there is none more popular and, when applied to immature minds, more pernicious than economics. To a very considerable degree the present peril of socialism and other eccentricities of political creed is due to the fact that so many young men are crammed with economical theory (whether orthodox or not) when their minds have not been weighted with the study of human nature in its larger aspects. From this lack of balance they fall an easy prey to the fallacy that history is wholly determined by economical conditions, or to the sophism of Rousseau that the evil in society is essentially the result of property. The very thoroughness of this training in economics is thus a danger.”[52]

The positions both of Mr. Ghent and of Mr. More are extreme. As for the special ethics of the trading class, of which the former makes so much, it is doubtful if anything exists more foreign to current academic ideals. So marked is this aversion that it is distinctly difficult for the ordinary professor to estimate correctly the real value to the community of the service of the business man. That equal difficulty exists on the other side is apparent from the openly expressed conviction of many business men that the college teacher is a thoroughly unpractical sort of person. The latter attitude, by the way, is a most remarkable one for a client to assume toward his social apologist,—taking Mr. Ghent’s view of the situation. A prisoner at the bar who should rail at the abilities of his counsel is certainly not putting himself in the way of acquittal. As for “moral weaklings,” no profession can honestly deny the existence of some examples of this pestiferous species in its ranks. If academic promotion depended upon moral weakness, however, the bankruptcy of the profession would have been announced long ago. As a matter of fact, the system of selection and advancement employed by colleges is admirably adapted to their requirements. In spite of the machinations of occasional cliques, chiefly of a personal or churchly character, it usually succeeds in placing the best prepared and most capable men in desirable and influential positions. Certainly college administration as a whole deserves the reputation of success which it enjoys, a reputation, by the way, much superior to that of most of our governmental machinery. If, for example, an equally effective system could be employed in the selection of the administrative heads of American city governments it is safe to say that many of our municipal problems would find a speedy solution.

As between Mr. Ghent and Mr. More, the latter is much nearer the truth in his main contention. It is hardly the case, however, as Mr. More would seem to imply, that thorough training in economics is more likely to produce half-baked agitators than is a mere smattering of the subject. Here as elsewhere “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” and the students who afterwards run amuck in radicalism are drawn to a very slight extent from the ranks of those who acquire a really thorough knowledge of economics or the other social sciences. Without recourse to the old classical discipline, as proposed by Mr. More, the study of history and of the theory of evolution should furnish an excellent corrective to the excessively _a priori_ processes employed in some fields of economics. Apart from these exceptions Mr. More is clearly right in maintaining that the net result of college instruction in this subject is radical rather than reactionary. However, the impress finally given to the overwhelming majority of college students is not that of radicalism but rather that of willingness to work patiently, constructively, and progressively for social betterment. In either event the sweeping assertion that college teachers are the hirelings of capitalistic conspirators finds little ground for support.

* * * * *

One who attempts a survey of the whole field of corruption is apt to be impressed at first with its hopeless complexity and heterogeneity. There are many petty forms of evil, the shady moral character of which is as yet hardly perceived. The spirit thus revealed is, however, identical with that which expresses itself in the major forms of corruption which are so obvious and threatening that they have become subject to public criticism. It cannot be denied that some abuses of a grave character make their appearance in the learned professions, journalism, and higher education. In all such cases, however, vigorous reform work is in progress. A very gratifying feature of the situation is that the most effective and sincere efforts for improvement are being made from the inside. Our “men of light and leading” are sound at heart. It is not necessary to prove to them, as unfortunately it sometimes is to those in other walks of life, that corruption does not pay. Rehabilitated by some of its more recent forms journalism exercises an alert and resourceful influence upon the opinion of the day. More hopeful still is the fact that our institutions of higher learning are moulding both the men and the measures of to-morrow into nobler forms.

FOOTNOTES:

[40] Corruption in the professions might also be dealt with as a subdivision of economic corruption. All professional services, it could be argued, must be remunerated, and the abuses which have grown up in connection with them are the outgrowth of a commercial spirit antagonistic to professional ideals. While this is doubtless true, the persistence of the older ideals and the efforts to rehabilitate and extend them are facts of sufficient importance, in the opinion of the writer, to justify the separate treatment of corruption in the professions. Even if this distinction did not exist convenience would make a division of the fields for the purpose of discussion highly desirable.

[41] _Cf._ G. W. Alger’s “Generosity and Corruption,” _Atlantic_, vol. xcv (1905), p. 781.

[42] Even if it be sneered at in certain quarters as a mere counsel of perfection, the following statement of the principles underlying “the lawyer’s duty in its last analysis” is of great significance:—“No client, corporate or individual, however powerful, nor any cause, civil or political, however important, is entitled to receive, nor should any lawyer render, any service or advice involving disloyalty to the law whose ministers we are, or disrespect of the judicial office, which we are bound to uphold, or corruption of any person or persons exercising a public office or private trust, or deception or betrayal of the public. When rendering any such improper service or advice, the lawyer invites and merits stern and just condemnation. Correspondingly, he advances the honour of his profession and the best interests of his client when he renders service or gives advice tending to impress upon the client and his undertaking exact compliance with the strictest principles of moral law.” The “Canons of Professional Ethics,” adopted by the American Bar Association at its thirty-first annual meeting at Seattle, August 27, 1908, are conceived in the spirit of the foregoing, taken from Canon 32. Canons 2, 3, 6, 26, 29, and 31 also declare specifically and unqualifiedly against various forms of corruption.

[43] Quoted in Lester F. Ward’s “Pure Sociology,” p. 487. Professor Ward himself says: “The newspaper is simply an organ of deception. Every prominent newspaper is the defender of some interest and everything it says is directly or indirectly (and most effective when indirect) in support of that interest. There is no such thing at the present time as a newspaper that defends a principle.”

[44] _Cf._ “Is an Honest Newspaper Possible,” by “A New York Editor,” in the _Atlantic_, vol. cii (1908), p. 441.

[45] “Orations and Addresses,” vol. i, p. 303.

[46] “Journalism, Politics, and the University,” _North American Review_, vol. clxxxvii (1908), p. 598.

[47] It is perhaps worth noting that the debatable subjects of to-day are not those of a generation or so ago. Geology and biology were then the dangerous chairs, the occupants of which frequently found themselves in conflict with straight-laced followers of various religious sects. Occasionally professors of philosophy and ethics became involved in similar controversies. At the present time conflicts of this character are much less frequent and are confined for the most part to theological seminaries and those smaller colleges which are still dominated by narrow denominational influences. Nearly all our leading universities have so far emancipated themselves from sectarian control that controversies with their professors on this basis are virtually impossible. In such institutions the chairs which present difficulties nowadays are those in economics, political science, and sociology, although, as we shall see, these difficulties are greatly exaggerated in popular estimation. It is hardly necessary to add that (with the exception in some small measure of sociology) the area of friction in these subjects is not at all in their contact with religious, but almost exclusively in their contact with business and political activities outside university walls.

[48] “Leviathan,” pt. ii, ch. xxx.

[49] _Cf._ his annual report for 1904-05, pp. 19-20, for a brief but very interesting reference to the “tainted money” charge.

[50] “The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Third Annual Report,” 1908, pp. 82-91.

[51] “Mass and Class,” pp. 14, 82, 83, 105, 243.

[52] _Bookman_, p. 652, August, 1906.

CORRUPTION IN BUSINESS AND POLITICS

V

CORRUPTION IN BUSINESS AND POLITICS

No form of corruption can exist without reacting upon the life of the state. Pollution of the sources of public instruction defiles individuals and all the manifold non-sovereign social organisations, but it culminates in an infection of public opinion which directly contaminates the body politic. Even more immediately corrupt business practices lead to corrupt political practices. This is so conspicuously the case that separate discussion of the two subjects is virtually impossible. It is feasible, however, and should prove profitable, to distinguish the various subdivisions of economic and political corruption and to point out certain lines of the development which have bound the two so closely together in our modern life.