University Bulletin. Series 5, No. 3, 
 
 LIBRARY 
 mE 
 UNIVERSITY of ILLINOIS, 
 
 The State 
 
 and 
 
 Education 
 
Annual Address 
 
 at the 
 
 Commencement Exercises 
 
 of the 
 
 Ohio State University 
 
 by 
 
 President William Oxley Thompson 
 
 June 13, 1900. 
 
 Printed by the Ohio State University 
 Coiajmbus. 
 
The State and Education 
 
 By the very gracious courtesy of my colleagues in the Fac- 
 ulty of the Ohio State University — I have been invited to deliver 
 the annual address at this Commencement and have the privilege 
 of transforming what is ordinarily an arduous task into a de- 
 lightful pleasure. I appreciate the honor that has thus been 
 conferred upon me and express my pleasure in having the op- 
 portunity, at the close of my first year's work, of speaking to 
 my fellow laborers in the Faculty and to the assembled friends 
 of the University and of higher education upon the work in 
 which we are engaged. I shall not attempt any thing new or 
 sensational but invite you to think along with me for a half hour 
 or more while I give expression to some thoughts on the familiar 
 theme — The State and Education. 
 
 Some years ago while waiting in turn for my baggage in 
 the splendid triumph of modern architecture used for a railway 
 station in the city of St. L,ouis, I fell into conversation with an old 
 gentleman who was returning homeward after 
 having crossed the continent. The only re- The Interest 
 
 mark that left an impression upon me was — in Education. 
 
 ' ' This system of checking baggage is beyond 
 my comprehension." He could not understand how the world 
 of traffic and business had been organized so as to make travel 
 for him a luxury without responsibility. L,ike many other 
 people he had not seen that the inventive genius of our people 
 and the business sagacity had combined in the interest of the 
 public comfort and welfare. There is nothing more characteristic 
 of our civilization than the evident intention to make everything 
 serve the interests of the people. There are opposing forces, to 
 be sure, but the net result will show that the greatest advance 
 civilization has made is in the increasing dominion over the 
 world that has carried with it the culture, the comfort and the 
 convenience of man together with the greater efficiency in 
 his service. 
 
 Among these forces education is, perhaps, the most wide- 
 spread and far reaching. The close observer in his travel gan- 
 
 T w-\ 
 
not fail to be profoundly impressed with the universal interest in 
 education. In every class of society he will find embedded the 
 belief that it is of the highest value. All believe in it and all 
 are willing that it shall be supported. One pursues it because 
 he unites it inseparably with any considerable success in life, or 
 because his desire for place and position is so controlling an am- 
 bition that he sees an education necessary to meet the require- 
 ments of the position to which he aspires. Others believe that 
 education leads to mastery over poverty and many of the 
 unpleasant features of life. Some regard it as the escape from 
 drudgery. Others are lured on by the hope of a fuller and richer 
 life to which it invites. — The culture it brings, the power it de- 
 velopes and the growth it insures, all unite to make the picture 
 attractive. From one cause or another all people of all classes 
 unite in the support of education. The Church and Christian 
 men for very evident reasons have shown a commendable en- 
 thusiasm in the work. Those who apparently lack in the appre- 
 ciation of purely Christian work are equally eager to push on the 
 work of education. 
 
 It happens therefore that the public mind is as clear on the 
 necessity of education as on the necessity of government. That 
 education is desirable, valuable and necessary is a fundamental 
 proposition now past the point of debate. 
 
 As we trace the development of the interest in education we 
 cannot fail to notice the increasing place that public education 
 occupies in our history as a result of the active interest and sup- 
 port of the State. The time was when even 
 The Growth Of Edu- an elementary education was a private or fam- 
 cational Sentiment ily matter. It so continued for a long period 
 in the Southland. Higher education was the 
 result of endowment by private benevolence or the privilege of 
 the few who were able to pay well for instruction. It is almost 
 within memory when the private select school was the special 
 privilege of the few. There was a certain aristocracy that at- 
 tached itself to those who enjoyed the opportunity of the school. 
 
 The advent of the free public school gradually brought the 
 advantages to all and changed the sentiment of the people. 
 Special taxation, at first supplemented by subscription papers, 
 made it possible to reach larger numbers. Steadily the free 
 school made its way against all obstacles. It is not entirely false 
 to say that the adoption of our Constitution was celebrated by 
 large grants of land in which provision was made for public edu- 
 
cation. In the North-west territory where we now live the 
 ordinance of 1787 struck the key note that made a perpetual al- 
 legiance between the cause of education and the millions who 
 should inhabit this wide expanse. The words are — "Religion, 
 morality and education being essential to good government, 
 schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged. ' ' 
 No doubt we see larger things in this utterance than the writer 
 saw but it is worthjr of note that so liberal a sentiment should be 
 central in the first great charter of government for the new terri- 
 tory. In these days nearly every grant of public land sets apart 
 a portion of it for public and higher education. The land grant 
 colleges provided for in the Morrill Act are a logical result of the 
 earlier theory. All this has grown out of the doctrine that pub- 
 lic land should in some way minister to public need. It was 
 early seen that government was not the only need. The means 
 of education were such a need. To make the public lands per- 
 manently endow education was to perpetuate the people's inter- 
 ests. That Congress was so tardy in recognizing the right of 
 Higher Education to a liberal support is only proof that conserv- 
 ative legislators are not always as wise as they are conservative. 
 But it must not be assumed that this development has come at 
 light cost or without a struggle. The public school has always 
 been opposed and impeded in its progress. Ther e always have 
 been men who could find legal arguments , constitutional 
 grounds or a social philosophy that proved the folly of public 
 education. It was taxing the many for the few or it was a fool- 
 ish attempt at the impossible. It was plunging the S tate into a 
 benevolent agency or creating an institution whe re political 
 miasma would breed corruption and death to the State by way 
 of eventual bankruptcy. These educational obstructionists are 
 now face to face with the important truth that although we are 
 spending more money on public education than ou r fathers ever 
 dreamed of, the State was never so rich or so resou rceful as now 
 and no money has been so free from scandal as the educational 
 funds. If it be true that full many a flower is born to blush un- 
 seen it seems equally true that many a man has been born, like 
 the Presbyterian elder, simply to raise an objection. However 
 the great current has moved right on . 
 
 When the free public school has won its place a great victory 
 has been gained for the common people. The most democratic 
 institution of our country was fairly established and there were 
 some things of which the people could not be robbed . Gradually 
 
the High School appeared here and there in the more favorable 
 places. Then the debate was renewed. We were gravely told 
 that a common school education was all that was necessary and 
 all the State was bound to provide. That was enough to 
 make good citizenship and citizenship was the great concern of 
 the State. The debate continued. Occasionally a little I^atin, 
 Geometry or a show of worldly science made appearance against 
 a protest. A horrible nightmare disturbed the dreams of the 
 defenders of the old order of things. The schoolmaster per- 
 sisted. The boys who had enjoyed a taste of the High School 
 were in favor of improvement and progress. Gradually and 
 steadily the High School grew until it is now the most domina- 
 ting and far reaching force in public education. 
 
 Subsequently came the development of the State University, 
 especially in the newer West where long cherished traditions had 
 not full control. They came in response to a growing popular 
 demand. Ohio, the first state carved out of the North-west terri- 
 tory, was the last to join the ranks of the great sisterhood of 
 western states and organize such an institution. In the history 
 of education no phenomenon has been so remarkable as the 
 growth and development of these universities. They mark a 
 distinct era in the history of higher education. They have held 
 up new ideals and broken down old barriers. They have 
 destroyed many idols fondly worshipped. They are the first 
 great and systematic attempt to bring higher education within 
 the reach of all the people. They have been built by the people 
 and for the people. Democracy rather than aristocracy has been 
 the ruling idea. Under these ideals these institutions have been 
 planted and have grown to be determining factors in our civiliza- 
 tion. As they are better understood they are more appreciated. 
 In these schools nearly three thousand instructors are educating 
 over thirty thousand students. The wealth at their command in 
 view of their age, and the equipment now in use is without a 
 parallel in the history of education. In view of these things we 
 may well address ourselves to a study of the State's relation to 
 public education by consideration of a few propositions. 
 
 The New Theory First of f a \ let me f™ nd yo f u ° f «" ™P°r- 
 ... _ . . tance of the new doctrine of the state now 
 
 of the State . « -. 
 
 so universally accepted. 
 
 As the distance widens from the days of the Civil War some 
 of its results stand out in bolder relief. Among these is the new 
 theory of the state. The older writers seemed unable to get 
 
away from the doctrine of selfishness as underlying all combina- 
 tions of men. Rosseau's social contract assumes it as the basis 
 of Political Society. Hobbes openly avows the doctrine. Spinoza 
 reaffirmed it. The police theory of the state was a natural con- 
 quence. This in simple statement is, that the chief function of 
 government is to preserve order and protect the natural rights of 
 men by maintaining the peace. The policeman's club is not 
 only the symbol of authority but it is of the very essence of govern- 
 ment in that it represents force and enforced quiet. This ex- 
 plains why the policeman's club and liberty have never been the 
 best of friends. Under such a theory there was little opportunity 
 for education. The State's business was not to stimulate the 
 good but to repress the bad. The State had no interest in help- 
 ing a man to do the right thing. The delight was to hit him 
 when he had done the wrong thing. The state was neither in- 
 terested in, nor responsible for, ignorance. Its own harshness 
 took refuge behind the legal maxim that ignorance of the law 
 excuses no one. Under this condition it became necessary to 
 define very carefully the rights of men. As a matter of fact this 
 subject is elaborately treated by all the earlier writers on politics 
 and government. The reason is evident. All a man's dangers 
 did not arise from the thief, the robber and the highwayman 
 whom the police would punish. It was also necessary to have a 
 protection against the selfishness and ignorance of the police 
 power. Thus far and no farther had to be enacted in protective 
 statutes. 
 
 The refinements of this police theory are discoverable in the 
 French Revolution. It is easy to trace the effect of Rosseau, 
 Hobbes and DeTocqueville in the theories of early Americans 
 and in our own Constitution. It was as natural as the rising of 
 the sun that there should be opposing theories in the Constitu- 
 tional Convention, and that in our early history we should see 
 these forces often arrayed against each other. There was the 
 police theory of the state strongly opposed to all internal im- 
 provement and to every expansion of the functions of the State 
 through the agency of government. At the same time the Jef- 
 fersonian doctrine of liberty and equal rights of the people as 
 expressed in the Declaration of Independence had paved the way 
 for a popular sovereignty. The ideas of strength as represented 
 by Hamilton and of freedom as represented by Jefferson were 
 thought to be irreconcilably antagonistic notwithstanding the 
 fact that both men were in Washington's cabinet. Many are 
 
the inconsistencies that mark the pathway of all the distinguished 
 men whom we are proud to call ' ' the fathers. ' ' However the 
 contest continued and the first fifty years of our history under 
 the Constitution prepared us for a war that shook the country 
 from center to circumference — all because men were loyal to their 
 convictions. At the close of this war as the smoke cleared away 
 the nation rose to a new consciousness. As Mr. Garfield put it 
 the war settled the question that this was a nation. In this new 
 consciousness were the two elements of strength and liberty — 
 sealed in an indissoluble union and the people said — the Union 
 now and forever. The freedom, the liberty of the people is here 
 in all its simplicity while the strength and virilit}^ is preserved. 
 We have gathered up the best of both men's theories and 
 cemented them in a perpetual friendship and declared that a gov- 
 ernment of the people, by the people and for the people shall not 
 perish. This new theory of the state proposes to be true to 
 history and to hold on to the policeman's club for the sake of emer- 
 gencies while the major portion of our time and energy will be 
 used in teaching man how to live without it. The old theory 
 regarded war as the great business of the state. The new theory 
 says that peace is the normal condition of society. War is the 
 accident and the incident. Peace is the great occupation. The 
 great problem of government is not therefore how to provide for 
 war but how to promote peace. 
 
 It is not without significance therefore that just as this new 
 consciousness of the State was expressing itself Senator Morrill 
 was able to secure legislation which laid the foundations of the 
 land grant colleges and by that act forever committed the nation 
 to the pursuit of the peaceful occupations. It was the logical 
 result of the new theory of the State. Its importance will only 
 be appreciated when we discover that it is the foundation upon 
 which the future of public higher education will securely rest. 
 
 It is further significant that within this same third of a 
 century since the Morrill Act we should see the most remarkable 
 uprising in favor of popular education ever witnessed. I speak 
 now not merely of the state's patronage of all grades of public 
 education but of the wonderful benevolence of individuals as ex- 
 pressed in the increased gifts to Harvard, Yale and Princeton in 
 the East and all along the line to the Western coast where the 
 Stanford University stands as the latest expression of private 
 beneficence. This condition cannot be explained by the mere 
 increase of wealth. There has been a great change of sentiment. 
 
 8 
 
Public duty is imperative. Even the private citizen feels obliged 
 to take up the burden. 
 
 It is well therefore that we note these changes that have 
 occurred. The time was when the king was the state. Now the 
 people are the state. The time was when we went to the king's 
 court as the fountain of law and justice. Now we appear before 
 the peoples' tribunal where officers are sworn to support the 
 fundamental law which recognizes the people as the source of 
 both law and authority. From the divine right of kings we have 
 come to the divine right of the people. From this new and 
 broader conception of the State interesting themes arise. If I 
 had time to inject into this address a short sermon I would per- 
 suade you that in dethroning the kings we had enthroned the 
 Christ — but I must pass that. My purpose to-day is only to 
 emphasize to you that this new conception of the state furnishes 
 a most natural and rational basis for public education. The state 
 through the agency of government now undertakes to do its 
 duty by providing against the exigencies of war — the ravages of 
 disease — and by promoting the universal peace, prosperity and 
 welfare of the people. 
 
 When however the doctrine of education is fairly proclaim- 
 ed and when men recognize that the State has gone into the bus- 
 iness, the question will not rest until we have 
 found a satisfactory foundation on which to The Basis for 
 build the whole theory of public education. Public Education. 
 From what has been said it is clear that 
 the new conception of the state takes account of more than mere 
 defense and protection. It looks to a healthy, desirable develop- 
 ment of the people. The new belief is that the state's duty goes 
 beyond the narrow limits of earlier years and that as civilization 
 advances the sphere and duty of the state will correspondingly 
 widen. The old doctrine of rights was entirely satisfied with 
 mere existence. There was no belief that a person had any 
 right to help of any sort or that there was any duty of a positive 
 sort attaching to government. The functions of government ex- 
 hausted themselves in seeing that a man was not imposed upon 
 and his rights not invaded. 
 
 As late as 1870 Mr. Herbert Spencer put himself on record 
 in his ' ' Social Statics ' ' as saying that the state had no more right 
 to administer education than to administer religion. He regards 
 taxation for either purpose as an infringement of the rights of the 
 person taxed and therefore wrong. He argues at length that the 
 
child has no right to education inasmuch as a neglect to edu- 
 cate did not actually invade any natural right with which the 
 child was born. 
 
 For a young man educated in the atmosphere of modern 
 thought and life to fall suddenly upon Mr. Spencer's chapter on 
 National Education, would render him unable to believe his eyes 
 in reading, so completely have we turned away from the earlier 
 position. At the vital point in his argument modern thought 
 takes issue. We now distinctly teach that society is a unit and 
 burdened with some responsibility. Children born into this 
 world without their consent but with the deliberate consent of 
 society have some rights that society organized in the state is 
 bound to recognize and respect. These are not simply the right 
 of existence as the child may be able to prolong it. The right to 
 a|healthf ul growth of the prophetic powers with which the child 
 has been endowed is sacred. This right involves a duty on the 
 part of society. I do not mean to say that rights grow out of 
 duties or that duties grow out of rights, but that rights and 
 duties are correlative so that where rights exist corresponding 
 duties are always found. The real issue therefore is whether 
 this fuller and broader definition of rights can be maintained. If 
 this can be done then the word duty shines out in clearer light. 
 We have come to believe that society cannot organize itself un- 
 der the forms of government and escape responsibility. The 
 state operating through the agencies of government is bound to 
 be ethical. Otherwise it cannot show any sufficient reason for 
 existence. The state cannot, like a corporation, plead that it 
 has no soul and no conscience. The whole basis for law both in 
 the local and the international spheres is an ethical basis. There 
 is no truth in the logic that would argue that the whole people 
 may be less moral than the individual. The truth is the state is 
 under obligations to be more so. The whole array of govern- 
 mental forces with which we are familiar is based upon the 
 necessity of ethics. There can be no escape from the conclusion 
 that the only state that can successfully maintain its right to ex- 
 istence is the ethical state. The history of war from whatever 
 point you view it will support this conclusion. 
 
 But now ethics is essentially a question of relations. There 
 is no such thing as ethics in the abstract and apart from the con- 
 ception of relations. The whole theory is based upon concrete 
 relations. This being true the state may not be indifferent to its 
 own members and yet maintain its ethical character. The truth 
 
 10 
 
is the state is under infinitely greater obligations than most 
 people have either believed or affirmed. It is often said that 
 hospitals, asylums and eleemosynary institutions of all kinds are 
 the outgrowth of Christianity. This is true and yet it is not 
 quite the truth. The truth is, that Christianity has taught a 
 new ethics for the state. Paganism was weak at this point. But 
 when Christianity had awakened a new conscience and a new con- 
 sciousness and had revealed the new relations between men, the 
 state that would govern such men was put under the bonds of a 
 new duty. To divorce the state from ethics is suicidal. You 
 cannot separate life into political, social, secular and ethical 
 sections. The truth is that ethics is a fundamental science that 
 emerges at the very first and simplest relations established be- 
 tween men or between men and the state. It must therefore 
 touch all questions — social, political or secular. 
 
 The new theory of the state recognizes the doctrine of duty. 
 There is an element of oughtness in the state's relation to the 
 real needs of the people. The state must do its duty according 
 to the measure of its ability. In other words the state exists for 
 the people. At this point we see that the fundamental question 
 is a question of fact. What are the real needs of the people? 
 To that question the state is bound to address itself, and having 
 discovered the needs, to do its duty in the premises. Our theme 
 today limits our inquiry therefore to one question, viz., whether 
 education is a real and universal need. Is this need of such a na- 
 ture as to call for the state's help as a matter of duty? To this 
 question I give a most cheerful and unhesitating affirmative. But 
 some one will immediately ask if there are not other needs. Most 
 assuredly. Education is not the only duty of the state. We 
 need however, to be on our guard against the sophistry that re- 
 sponds by saying that wealth is also a need. So also is a com- 
 fortable house and on through the list. The .fallacy reveals 
 itself when we remember that wealth is not a fundamental nec- 
 essity but that manhood and character are. The state is not or- 
 ganized for the purpose of creating wealth. Its greatest interest 
 is manhood. It is well to remember that no person was ever 
 born with a natural right to wealth. The most that can be said 
 is, that he was born with a right to acquire it honestly. On the 
 other hand the strictest interpretation of the doctrine of rights 
 has allowed the right of life and the protection of it. My con- 
 tention is that the right to growth and development is as secure 
 and sacred as the right to protection . There is no occasion for 
 
 11 
 
alarm at this doctrine. Public education has been called pater- 
 nalistic or socialistic for the lack of a better term. The truth is, 
 it is neither paternalism nor socialism. 
 
 This basis on which I place the right and duty of public ed- 
 ucation is very much broader and more secure than many cur- 
 rent notions. It is often said that we educate in order to citizen- 
 ship, a very desirable result. But as every one knows the def- 
 inition of citizenship is very uncertain. No such narrow basis 
 would ever support present practices. All our education goes 
 beyond any conception of citizenship that would be introduced 
 into a discussion of this question. Besides it is absolutey im- 
 possible to do such a thing. Education never reaches the point 
 of citizenship. This whole theory puts it upon the basis of ex- 
 pediency — a position which cannot be successfully defended for 
 any extended system of education. Then too, the common doc- 
 trine is familiar that a democracy cannot be maintained witli an 
 ignorant constituency. This is too true to need debate. The 
 insufficiency of such a supposition for a basis of public education 
 lies in the fact that no man can determine the amount of educa- 
 tion necessary to maintain any given type of democracy. The 
 moment we assume such a position we are met with the fact 
 that the indefiniteness of the terms leads to an endless discussion 
 as to the amount of education the state may provide. In my 
 judgment the continued discussion of this question has largely 
 arisen from the false premises on which the doctrine of public 
 education has been based. But when we assume the state's duty 
 and the individual's right the problem becomes simpler and we 
 need discuss but the two propositions — the needs of the people 
 and the ability of the state to meet those needs. 
 
 I may pass now to a few remarks upon the quality of the 
 education the state provides. Very much anxiety has been felt 
 • about the secular and godless character of the 
 The Quality Of the state schools from the public school on 
 State's Education, through the university. All good people 
 must be in sympathy with those who are so- 
 licitous about the quality of the education afforded our young 
 people and the environment in which they are trained. There is 
 no question apart from the question of personal godliness more 
 vital to the individual and to society than the question of the 
 forces that predominate in life as a result of our training in 
 schools. 
 
 I^et me remark therefore that there is a different motive 
 
 12 
 
ruling in the state from that which rules in the church so far as 
 educational work is concerned. The state's motive is ethical. 
 The ethics by which the state is moved is, moreover, Christian 
 ethics. There is however, a distinction between Christianity and 
 ethics, and we need not confuse the Christian with the ethical 
 motive. The church engages in the work of education from 
 purely Christian motives. The state is moved by duty — the 
 church by love. The church would not conceal this motive than 
 which nothing can be nobler: I would not have her do so. 
 There need be, however, no conflict between the motives or be- 
 tween the methods of education that proceed from these motives;. 
 The difference in motive arises from the difference in fact. The 
 church is of necessit}^ a religious organization. Where they have 
 turned themselves into ethical societies they have failed as 
 churches and have usually lacked the enthusiasm for organiz- 
 ing educational movements except under state control. The 
 state is however, of necessity an ethical state else it cannot main- 
 tain its right to existence. Under the sway of Christianity the 
 church is a Christian institution and therefore moved by Chris- 
 tian motives while the state under the like influences is an eth- 
 ical state moved by ethical motives. The quality of the educa- 
 tion may differ and usually does, but ought not to be antagonis- 
 tic. 
 
 The mistake so often made in such questions is very evident. 
 There are those who assume that because they are teaching the 
 Bible they are teaching Christianity and religion and when they 
 are teaching science they are not teaching religion. 
 
 The truth is that oftentimes in neither case is much religion 
 taught. 
 
 It may be well for us to remember that all true teaching has 
 in it the same spirit. I care not what the subject taught may 
 be, every true teacher in his work looks ■' not only upon his own 
 things but also upon the things of others." The very act of 
 successful teaching requires that w r e enlist ourselves in the best 
 interests of our students. That is the working side of essential 
 Christianity. There is a very close parallel so far as the spirit 
 goes between the true teacher and the great teacher sent from 
 God. All true teaching ends in the enlightenment and uplift of 
 the Soul. This is redemptive work of a very noble type. 
 We may write on the doors of our class rooms and proclaim to 
 the world iu loudest terms that we are agnostics in religion, 
 doubters in politics and anarchists in society but every time we 
 
 13 
 
meet our classes we deny the record. We there engage in a con- 
 structive work that contradicts all our negations. True teaching 
 cannot end in the destruction of faith or life. It is rather faith 
 working by love. The profession of teaching embodies a great 
 host of men and v/omen engaged in essentially the same work 
 in essentially the same spirit. As w T e realize the scope of the 
 work we shall see that it is not a question of how little we may 
 do or of how few may engage in the work but rather a question 
 of how to multiply the agencies and increase the cooperation 
 among the workers. 
 
 From the remarks already made I may now add that the 
 education afforded by the state must so far as its method and 
 spirit be concerned be of the highest ethical character. No 
 defense can be made for a reckless or immoral method or spirit 
 in a state school of any grade. As state universities increase in 
 age the extremists of all parties become less influential and the 
 school recognizes its obligation to maintain a high character. 
 The ethical standards now maintained require no apology. 
 
 At this point we may properly inquire whether the state's 
 right or duty in the work of education is exclusive. To this 
 there can be but one reply and that a negative. 
 Is the State's Right The right to voluntarily help our neighbor 
 or Duty Exclusive? who is in need can scarcely be denied. In 
 the cause of education a large amount of vol- 
 untary work has been done. It is perfectly clear also that the 
 state may exercise its right to supervise all educational work so 
 as to insure its character and quality. Whether such a supervi- 
 sion would be either necessary or expedient is a question of fact to 
 be determined from time to time. Individuals have from various 
 motives engaged in the benevolent work by endowing and main- 
 taining schools but the greatest movement has arisen within the 
 church. It is well for us to appreciate the Christian motives 
 that impel the church to this work. I doubt not there have been 
 times when other motives seem to have prevailed but as a general 
 statement we shall find in the last analysis that Christian and 
 beneficient motives lie at the base of all public education under 
 the auspices of the church and of benevolent persons associated 
 for such enterprises. The right to so engage cannot be denied. 
 The motives that prompt to the work may be relied on to prompt 
 to the right kind of work so far as ability would permit. For 
 this reason there never has been any serious doubt about the 
 church's spirit or method in the w r ork of education. 
 
 14 
 
The field of education seems therefore to be fairly and hon- 
 estly open to both church and state. The extent to which either 
 will engage in the work or the character of the work to be under- 
 taken are not questions to be settled by any a priori method. It 
 is purely a question of duty and wisdom to be judged in the light 
 of past experiences and present needs. 
 
 Most of us will recall that in the early days people expressed 
 the belief that education in the public schools should be con- 
 fined to the elementary work. We remember 
 equally well that no one was able to define an The Extent to Which 
 elementary education. We are quite sure that the State Shall En- 
 the kindergarten, the manual training now so gage in the Work 
 common in many of our cities and much else of Education, 
 now taught was not then thought of. About 
 all we can be sure of is that people believed in such an education 
 as fairly well met the conditions under which the people were 
 living. With the new development in modern life and industry 
 all have come to see that if education is what it ought to be it 
 will prepare for life. But life in all its surroundings and in matij^ 
 of its problems has greatly changed. As a result educators are 
 doing what they have always done and always will do — they are 
 trying to make the years of early education a preparation for a 
 larger, fuller and richer life. Under this conception the subjects 
 taught in the elementary and secondary or high schools have 
 multiplied and indeed have been greatly modified. The enlarge- 
 ment of the field of education which has brought to the doors of 
 all our people an opportunity in many respects better than was 
 offered by most colleges fifty years ago has been a great move- 
 ment in the interest of the people in which there has been a gen- 
 eral acquiescence. It would be a hopeless task now to undertake 
 to turn the thought of the people away from this system. 
 
 In the sphere of higher education the problem has been more 
 sharply debated. There have been those who stoutly opposed 
 any higher education at public expense and of course the higher 
 the education the more strenuous the objection. In general this 
 objection has been overruled on the ground that the higher edu- 
 cation was necessarily expensive and no one was so well able to bear 
 the burden of expense as the whole people. With the advent of 
 the modern curriculum the argument has been greatly strength- 
 ened. The introduction of the modern principle of electives in 
 education has not only increased the expensiveness of a college 
 or university but has added to the argument that the state should 
 
 15 
 
engage in the work. It has become manifest also in the past 
 generation that the progress of civilization has made higher edu- 
 cation quite as necessary as the elementary. As a matter of fact 
 and proof there never were so many people pursuing higher edu- 
 cation as now. In primitive society with its simpler life higher 
 education was a luxury but with the greater complexity of mod- 
 ern life many luxuries have become our every day necessities 
 and higher education is one of them. 
 
 The earlier idea of the college was based upon the fact that 
 it appealed to the few. There was a certain aristocracy about 
 the college bred man and indeed to this day certain eastern 
 colleges find this appeal to aristocracy more effective in certain 
 circles than any appeal to the superiority of educational 
 advantages. 
 
 When the state entered the field of higher education it did 
 so with precisely the same motives that prompted the public 
 school — the interest of the people. The state college or univer- 
 sity is then democratic in life and method. It is built and main- 
 tained by the people for the people. It does not and ought not 
 to appeal to classes of people as such. It comes directly to all the 
 people. It asks no favors and will not grant any. Its aim is to 
 serve the people by holding before them the best ideals and de- 
 manding of them in turn the best service. 
 
 In entering the field in the middle and newer West the state 
 university found a large field unoccupied or poorly occupied. 
 This was especially true in the departments of agriculture and 
 the mechanic arts — the whole field of technical education and to 
 a considerable degree in the field of general science and profes- 
 sional education. But even here there were many objectors. 
 Men said the state had no business to train men to be tradesmen 
 and mechanics as these things were to be a means of support and 
 profit to them. This objection was strongly urged against pro- 
 fessional .schools especially those of law, medicine, pharmacy and 
 the like. It was soon seen that the result of such theory if car- 
 ried into practice would be to rob education of all ordinary utility. 
 Under that theory the concrete could never be taught. The 
 abstract would be our sole delight. Against such theorizing the 
 common sense philosophy of the people steadily prevailed and the 
 cry for a practical education became so persistent that the teach- 
 ers of the most abstract subjects were soon on the defensive try- 
 ing to prove the eminently practical value of their instruction. 
 As a net result of the discussion the people saw that no particu- 
 
 16 
 
lar subjects could be prescribed as essential and that but few if 
 any, could be proscribed. As this discussion continued the pro- 
 priety of the state's effort in higher education became more and 
 more evident, and throughout the West and North-west the state 
 university became a characteristic force in public education. 
 
 But we have not yet done with the objections. The fact is 
 not to be overlooked that in the early settlement of our country 
 the church was particularly active in the field of higher education. 
 She established many colleges which served a most useful and 
 honorable part in the development of the new country. As al- 
 ready intimated the motive in much of this work was the purest 
 and noblest. The heroic service rendered in many of these col- 
 leges commands our hearty appreciation. But with the advent 
 of the state university some fears were awakened as to the future 
 of these same colleges. It may as well be remarked at this point 
 that occasionally the state institutions conscious that they 
 were the child of the state assumed they were the only 
 children and proceeded to reveal the well known char- 
 acteristics of such infants. The truth is, they sometimes reveal- 
 ed anything but the proper spirit. On the other hand existing 
 institutions seemed to think that their rights had been invaded. 
 They seemed to assume a kind of preoccupation of the territory 
 that gave them exclusive jurisdiction. The truth is, that both 
 parties have often been wrong. There is not, and ought not to 
 be, any such thing in a free country as an exclusive right to 
 direct the interests of higher education. There is an open ques- 
 tion always debatable as to the policy to be pursued. Is it wise 
 for the state, the church or the individual to patronize learning 
 and higher education, and if so, to what extent ? What work 
 shall be attempted ? These are often very perplexing questions. 
 
 A broad, and in my judgment, a truthful view is that the 
 entrance of the state university has been a great good to the 
 cause of education. The presence of the Christian colleges with 
 their ideals and lofty motives has made the character of the state 
 institution better than it would otherwise have been. It is 
 equally true that the presence of the state university with its 
 considerable revenues has been the occasion of increased benev- 
 olence upon the part of friends of the private and of the denom- 
 inational college. May the good work continue! If I were to 
 take Ohio as an illustration I should say that the cause of high- 
 er education was never in a more prosperous condition and the 
 last five years have seen the greatest advances ever made by 
 
 17 
 
both state and non-state institutions. The facts would seem to 
 warrant the conclusion that the results in higher education 
 abundantly justify the existence of these institutions. No a 
 priori theory can ever settle the questions of popular or higher 
 education. In fact they never will be settled. Education is a 
 process and for that reason alone its problems can never be 
 finally settled. Experience must prove the wisdom of our 
 theories. No line can be arbitrarily drawn to fix the boundar- 
 ies. The democratic idea that rules in the state university will 
 logically lead it to look to the people and study their needs. It 
 will adapt itself more and more to these needs. It will always 
 feel the pressure of necessity to serve the people — not by listen- 
 ing to the demagogue, nor by following the leadership of unsafe 
 men, but by persistently holding its face to the right and to the 
 light with the uplifted banner of service in full view. 
 
 I may now speak for a moment of the relation of the state 
 university to other schools. Manifestly the state university is a 
 
 part of the system of public education. It 
 The State Univer- has no legal or formal relation of this char- 
 sity and Other acter but it springs from the same and is sup- 
 
 SchOOls. ported by the same people. In .some states 
 
 the university is provided for by the consti- 
 tution; in others, as in Ohio, it is the creature of the statute. 
 Naturally therefore its relation to the high schools of a state 
 should be at once inspiring and helpful. The leadership is not one 
 of form or dictation, but no other institution comes into so close a 
 relation to the whole system. The people who provide for and 
 support such an institution have a right to insist, if they will, 
 upon the cooperation of the university with the high school or of 
 the high school with the university. I regard this principle of 
 more importance than any question of standards however im- 
 portant they may be. The university by virtue of its place and 
 opportunity may scarcely justify its existence unless its helpful 
 work shall reach the schools of the state and inspire them to 
 better things. It is operated not simply in the interests of its 
 own students but in the interests of public education. At this 
 point men have not always agreed but as the work of education 
 becomes better understood there will be greater unity. The 
 state schools virtually, if not formally, constitute all there is 
 at present of a public system. The interests of the youth will 
 soon reveal the necessity of a more careful supervision by the 
 state of all the teaching done within its borders. There is no 
 
 18 
 
justification of the presumption that any education is a private 
 enterprise. All true education must look to the good of the 
 people and the welfare of the state. The time will never come 
 in a free country like ours when the state may become arbitrary 
 in these things but the growing public sentiment will increasing- 
 ly demand that all schools meet the reasonable requirements in 
 the interest of the people. To do this the state without any in- 
 fringement of rights will see that all education shall recognize 
 certain standards as binding. The state's institutions will need 
 the supervision as well as others. The increasing vigilance of 
 the state in the interests of the people will hold us all to duty. 
 No institution will domineer over others but all alike will re- 
 spond to the call of an enlightened and cultivated sentiment. 
 The supervision may not be formal but it will be none the less 
 effectual. The state will some day insist on honest and right 
 methods from the kindergarten to the university. It will insist 
 that fraudulent practices may not continue. There is no power 
 so effective in maintaining educational standards as the state. 
 Its own institutions should be the first to respond to this demand. 
 The effect of this supervision will eventually make all education- 
 al institutions more public and more vitally related to the state's 
 educational enterprises than they are now conceived to be. They 
 will be more carefully coordinated. They will not be mutually 
 destructive but mutually helpful. 
 
 The demand of college education of a high grade if we may 
 judge by the enrollment has greatly increased in the last thirty 
 years. If the demand shall continue to increase it is entirely 
 reasonable to presume that for a still higher education than is 
 now afforded there will be a considerable demand. In this the 
 state will probably lead by reason of the ability to command the 
 resources necessary to carry it on. Even now there is a reason 
 why strictly university work and professional work should be 
 undertaken by the state institutions. They are best able to do 
 so. In following this suggestion the state will both stimulate 
 and complete the work done elsewhere. 
 
 A word now as to the state university and the public. It 
 may be well to emphasize the fact that the university is the 
 peoples' institution. To such a place we may 
 fittingly come with the statement that pub- The University 
 lie service is a manifest duty. No where else and the Public. 
 is there a better opportunity to develop typ- 
 ical citizenship. The state university does not often furnish the 
 
 19 
 
opportunity to develop and cultivate particular types of men as 
 other colleges do. It is perhaps well that is so. The democrat- 
 ic ideas that must always prevail in a state university will pre- 
 serve its spirit of freedom and protect it against the narrowness 
 developed where an aristocratic sentiment rules. The state uni- 
 versity must always be the university of the people, and keep its 
 heart close to their needs. More than any other it will be their 
 leader. The importance of a proper public spirit in such schools 
 cannot be over estimated. This spirit will cultivate and maintain 
 a proper respect for law — for authority, and will maintain a 
 proper sentiment upon questions of public morality and public 
 welfare. The best sentiment of our civilization should cluster 
 about the state university — not because the best students matric- 
 ulate there but because the public joins with the government of 
 the institution in bringing such sentiment to the student body. 
 Our duty in this particular seems clear. It is part of our public 
 service the scope of which cannot be better stated than in the 
 words of the beloved and lamented Dr. Orton in his address to 
 the first graduating class when he said, " It is to public educa- 
 tion that we must look for the chief power in welding and uni- 
 fying the discordant elements of our national life, and of that 
 public education the state university properly expanded and 
 equipped, is the summit and the crown." 
 
 One other word and I close. The great purpose of the ex- 
 penditure of public revenues is to foster and inspire the best in 
 men and women. It is a rational expectation therefore, that 
 these men and women when educated shall catch the best spirit 
 of the university, and be its best friends. It is unnatural that 
 the child forsake the mother and deplorable when the graduates 
 of any institution lose their interest in the college that has helped 
 to make them. There is a sense in which the alumni of a college 
 are the college. They are the best proof of its work. To them 
 we point as the fruit by which we are to be known. But above 
 the duty of loyalty to alma mater I place the duty of educated 
 men to the public. A state university supported by the people 
 has brought to young men and women at great cost the oppor- 
 tunities of an education. The school does infinitely more for the 
 boy than the same boy when he becomes a man can do for the 
 school, but his debt is not to the school so much as to his civili- 
 zation. The college graduate cannot serve his college better or 
 pay his obligation sooner than by a devoted service to the cause 
 of humanity. Here is the field for which he has been prepared 
 
 20 
 
and the end to which he has been educated. I am disposed to 
 say that the public may of right expect great things of those who 
 have enjoyed the privileges afforded. It is gratifying to know 
 that college men are recognizing this obligation. If our young 
 men and women shall respond to this opportunity with heart and 
 will the justification of higher education will be complete. In 
 the light of what has been done by the public in the interest of 
 education there would seem to be no obligation resting upon the 
 educated young man or woman greater than that of service to 
 his day and generation. This should be, not a drudgery, but a 
 grateful recognition of the common helpfulness of society. We 
 need to learn that what we are other people have helped us to 
 become. Not the least factor in our lives is the university where 
 we have had the time for study, reflection and a true measure of 
 our powers. It is here we have caught most of our ideals that 
 have lifted us into a better world. Shall I make the appeal in 
 vain to-day when I urge upon the alumni and students of the 
 Ohio State University the supreme duty of service ? Everything 
 in the past ten years in our history has put renewed emphasis 
 upon the importance of the educated man or woman. He who 
 looks to the future should see a growing opportunity for a noble 
 service. He who makes his college life a preparation for such 
 service hath chosen the better part which shall not be taken away. 
 
 21 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 
 3 0112 105552167