No Friendly Voice
Robert Maynard Hutchins
(University of Chicago, 1936)

passages selected by Adam Kissel
                      more passages selected by Don Levine

It does not necessarily follow that as numbers rise standards must fall. In many places as numbers have risen standards have fallen. But this is rather because we have not had time to think than because of any inevitable connection between numbers and standards. If we had time to think about education, instead of being forced to provide something that would look like it for the multitudes who suddenly demanded it, we should direct our attention in the first instance to the achievements of individuals. In order to test those achievements we should work out criteria applicable at the various levels. Instead of asking how many years in high school a student had had, we should determine what kind of training we should require for entrance to a college. We should next have to determine what accomplishments a man leaving the junior college should possess to show that he has finished his general higher education. As a person sought entrance to the university . . . he should be required to submit evidence of his power to deal with it, and should be graduated only after he had met tests indicating that he had the knowledge and ability that reflected the criteria previously established for graduation. 184-85

I can think of no greater service . . .than the study . . . of the organization of education and research, in the effort to recommend to the administration and the faculty methods by which their efficiency may be increased without reducing their effectiveness.
     The present economic crisis is certain to produce great changes in the resources of our universities. It is important that you [professors] who have long safeguarded the professor should safeguard him still by seeing to it that we do not meet this crisis by reducing his income and lowering his status. Only the professors can save him from this fate. 154

... a preoccupation with facts, which can seldom be fully knows and which are always in change, will lead to nothing but confusion unless ideas, which are immutable and which can be understood, receive their roper share of attention. 155

Education needs nothing so much as to have a group of experts studying it who are not parts of the system and who will examine it with the same cold and penetrating glance that the professor directs at the world about him. 157-58

... our alumni can be of the greatest assistance to us by suppressing the inferiority complex in themselves. They must realize that they cannot test the standing of their Alma Mater by many notions prevalent in the East. We have different functions, different duties, different opportunities. Why should we assume inferiority if we are not like a model which we should be foolish to imitate? James Bryce said that the most depressing feature of American cities was their uniformity. Still more depressing is the uniformity of our universities. The western universities must now strike out and be themselves. 86

Nevertheless, although the depression may be the occasion for self-criticism, the plans that result from it should be long-term plans, and not merely short-run devices to tide us over a financial emergency. 133

It is the perpetual task of professional leadership to direct the mind of the public and of boards of trustees to the real function for which such institutions were established. . . . Professional leadership must demonstrate to lay boards that what is "sound" finance in business may not be sound in philanthropic activities. It must insist upon the maintenance of the excellence of the institution and present that ideal as a foil to the constant insistence of the business man on the conservation of assets. 134

In general the forces that go to make up public opinion in this country are narrow and selfish. They can be called Christian only by courtesy. Yet, no one will venture to express a doubt that the message of Christ is more necessary to the world today than at any earlier period in our history. Issues must be discussed precisely because they are controversial. 137

A good deal needs to be done, in spite of the great advances already made, to work out a general education in the College. Some of the divisions and professional schools have failed to take complete account either of the advances in the College or of the opportunities offered by their own organization. But changes in these respects must come as the result of unremitting effort through the years. They are the product of the normal activity of any faculty that has any interest in its work; they should not involve a general upheaval . . . 168

The scholars in a university which is trying to grapple with fundamentals will, I suggest, devote themselves first of all to the rational analysis of the principles of each subject matter. They will seek to establish general propositions under which the facts they gather may be subsumed. I repeat: they would not cease to gather facts, but would know what facts to look for, what they wanted them for, and what to do with them after they got them. . . . They would realize that without some means of ordering and comprehending their material they would sink deeper and deeper beneath the weight of the information they possessed . . . [contra Dewey's challenge] [cf. McKeon] 31-32

. . . the result of general education should be clear and distinct ideas; the end of university training, some notion of humanity and its destiny; and the aim of scholarship, the revelation of the possibilities of the highest powers of mankind. 32

The university should renounce any ambition to increase the ability of its graduates to acquire external goods and should relax its desire to train them in the moral virtues. Instead, it should see to it that in the college or in the university itself students might first learn how to deal with ideas. This means an education in disciplines designed to teach the student how to discover, analyze, and utilize ideas. At the same time he should become acquainted with the principal ideas which have directed the activities of mankind. These are to be found in books. 67-68

That balance which is so difficult to obtain [is] among an interest in the private lives of students, a concern for their physical well-being, and the paramount object of the college, their intellectual development . . . 94

A university is either in education or out of it. The maintenance of educational work, and especially the Freshman and sophomore years, cannot be justified on the theory that it provides preliminary training for research workers. . . . The education of Masters is, with few exceptions, as much an educational problem as the education of Freshmen. They are not going into research any more than the Freshmen are. The education of Ph.D.'s is, as to 75 per cent of them, as much an educational problem as the education of Masters. They are not going into research either. If a university is to devote itself exclusively to research, it must eliminate its undergraduates, its professional students, its prospective Masters, and the greater part of its Ph.D.'s. 176-77

You will remember that those objects are, in ascending order of importance, first, to do a good job of teaching the university's own students; second, to provide some leadership for American education; and third, to advance knowledge. 178

[Professors] enjoy all rights of free speech, free thought, and free opinion that other citizens have. No university would permit them to "indoctrinate" their students with their own views. No university would permit them to turn the classroom into a center of propaganda. But off the campus, outside the classroom, they may hold or express any political or economic views that it is legal for an American to express or hold. 10

Until it can be made clear that education is a profession, that the profession has standards, ideals, and traditions which it is prepared to enforce, education will at intervals be at the mercy of politicians, large taxpayers, and cranks. 103

. . . we must regard the school, not as a place where classes are taught, but as a center of community life, reflecting the community's interest in music, art, the drama, and current affairs, as well as in what we have been accustomed to think of as "education." 113

The first duty of the school, therefore, is to see to it that the pupil understands the society in which he lives. . . . Moreover, the object of education at higher levels will not be primarily to enable the student to earn a living or to adjust him to the political environment. Free from these obligations, the teacher and the school may devote themselves to developing the intellectual powers of the student. We must remember that it is through the intellectual virtues that the statesman orders means to ends and achieves the common good. The free and independent exercise of the intelligence is the means by which society may be improved. Proficiency in that exercise should be the crowning achievement of the American educational system. 114

The course of study is framed by experts, people who have devoted their lives to the difficult problems of general cultural education. These men and women have been selected because of their interest in undergraduates and their ability to supply the kind of education that undergraduates need. The old days when the Freshman classes were handed over to the youngest instructors to give these immature teachers experience are gone forever. Today the colleges appreciate the basic character of the first two years and realize that students during these years cannot be put at the mercy of amateurs or novices. The staff is, then, experienced, able, and interested in introducing the student into the world of ideas. 21

I used to be opposed to permanent tenure for university professors. I thought it was an invitation to mediocrity and had a debasing effect on salaries. I am now convinced that the greatest danger to education in America is the attempt, under the guise of patriotism, to suppress freedom of teaching, inquiry, and discussion. Consequently, I am now in favor of permanent tenure, with all its drawbacks, as by far the lesser of two evils. We cannot expect to get good teachers without decent salaries and security. 121-22

The trivial results of vocationalism have given rise to the exaggerated view that in a university nothing useful should be taught. And this is not an exaggeration if what it means is that the pursuit of truth for its own sake is the most useful occupation in which we can engage. Attempts to encumber the higher learning with vocational techniques, moral lessons, and political dogma will all end in triviality. 171

When a man secures an appointment in a university, he is made to believe that he must "produce," as the saying is, in order to be retained or advanced. The result has been trivial research. Since any kind of information about anything is regarded as an addition to knowledge, the collection of miscellaneous, insignificant information is called independent investigation; of course, it is really trivial. 172-73

We should continue the process of elimination [of courses] until we are sure that every course in the catalogue is worth giving. 173

An anti-intellectual attitude toward education reduces the curriculum to the exposition of detail. There are no principles. The world is a flux of events. We cannot hope to understand it. All we can do is watch it. This is the conclusion of the leading anti-intellectuals of our time. Since the fact that certain things went by us once is no guaranty that they will go by again, there is really not much use in watching them, except that we may be able to discover certain patters of behavior which will enable us to tell sometimes what is going to happen next. In this view our object, in so far as we have one, is prediction and control, the exploitation of the universe.
       I may point out that this anti-intellectualism will mean the end of pure science and of education. The driving power behind science has not been merely the desire to master nature; it has been the desire to understand it. If we cannot understand it, we may as well abandon pure science and betake ourselves to engineering. If we cannot understand it, we can give our students nothing but evanescent facts selected on the basis of the kind of experiences we think they will have when they graduate. The multitude of facts, as well as their evanescence, and the tremendous number of possible experiences mean that education in this view is a hopeless task. If we want to give our students experiences, we should go out of business. The place to get experiences is in life.
       Nor can education in this view include any contact with the intellectual inheritance of the race. So to anti-intellectuals, rational values are worthless; they are based on the past. They cannot be valid for the future, because man and his world are changing. A curriculum of current events, without reference to the intellectual and artistic tradition that has come down to us from antiquity, is the only possible course of study which anti-intellectualism affords. 37-38

Clearly a university . . . ought to provide every facility for the students to participate in the advancement of knowledge. But, sooner or later, it must take the position that the student should not be sent to the university unless he is independent and intelligent enough to go there. The university cannot undertake to give him character or intellectual interest. Parents whose children have neither should keep them at home or send them to another kind of institution. Whatever may be the responsibilities of a college, a university is not a custodial establishment, or a church, or a body-building institute. If it were free to stop behaving as though it were, it would be a better university. 82

Three things are necessary if the college is to do its job with any given student. They are a certain minimum intellectual equipment, habits of work, and at least a latent interest in getting an education. The college cannot give these things to the student; he must have them when he comes. 23

A university provides its students with rigorous intellectual training at the hands of stimulating individuals, surrounded by able, industrious, and intelligent contemporaries. It sets a standard of intellectual attainment that can only be achieved through those qualities that are commonly called "character." Character is the inevitable prerequisite and the inevitable by-product of university training. A System of education that produced graduates with intellects splendidly trained and no characters would not be merely undeserving of public support; it would be a menace to society. In a real university, however, such a result is impossible. The business of education in a real university is too exacting, too strenuous, and puts too high a premium on character for the student to be affected intellectually alone. 164-65

As long as the conversation of universities is exclusively about athletics, dormitories, and the social life of students, they can hardly expect the citizen to understand that these things are merely incidental to a university program and do not at all affect its principal task. Indeed, I should go so far as to say that the reason why the universities are successful in developing character is that they do not go about it directly. If a university informed the world and its students that it would improve the morals, inflate the physique, and enhance the social graces of all who entered there, it would in my opinion fail in these undertakings and it would also fail to provide a sound education. Character comes as a by-product of a sound education. The university method of developing it is to train intelligence. 165

Rigorous intellectual activity remains the best character education; and the less said about character in the process the better. 139

All attempts to teach character directly will fail. They degenerate into vague exhortations to be good which leave the bored listener with a desire to commit outrages which would otherwise have never occurred to him. Hard intellectual work is doubtless the best foundation of character, for without the intellectual virtues the moral sense rests on habit and precept alone. 93

The universities may develop ideas in higher education of striking symmetry and beauty; they are futile unless they penetrate the public schools. At seventeen, or eighteen, or nineteen, the student is, from my point of view at least, far too old to effect significant changes in his habits and attitudes. 95

Nor is the object of general education the development of personality or character. We trust that an integrated personality and a rugged character may result from it. But, if we place personality and character before us as the aim of education, we shall get neither personality, character, nor education. Character is a by-product--a by-product, as Woodrow Wilson used to say, or hard work well done. 129

The moral virtues are habits. The environment of education should be favorable to them. But only a diffused sentimentality will result from the attempt to make instruction in the moral virtues the object of education. And, in addition, resources that might go into intellectual training will he lavished on athletics, social life, and student guidance, a kind of coddling, nursing, and pampering of students that is quite unknown anywhere else in the world.
       If the object of general education is not scholarly, professional, or vocational; if its primary purpose is not the development of character or personality; if it should not be composed of current information about the status quo or imaginary information about the future, what is its object and of what should it be composed? Clearly, the object of general education is the training of the mind. Clearly, too, the mind should be trained for intelligent action. Or, to put it another way, the object of general education is to produce intelligent citizens. Facts, data, and information, present and prospective, cannot be ignored. But the emphasis must be on the training of the mind. Facts, data, and information should be used to exemplify and enforce the principles upon which intelligent action must rest.
       Such a program of general education proceeds on two assumptions: First, it assumes that everybody has a mind and that we must find out how to train it. Second, it assumes that it is a good thing to train it. Certainly I should be put to it to argue that a trained mind will result in a large income. I have no difficulty in holding that it will result in a happy and useful life. It will result in benefit to the individual and to the community.
       It will do more. A program of general education resulting in trained minds will facilitate social change and make it more intelligent. The educational system cannot bring about social change. It cannot work out and impose on the country a blueprint of the social order desired by the teachers colleges. But the educational system can facilitate social change; it can make it more intelligent. A program of general education which is based on ideas, which leads the student to understand the nature and schemes of history, to grasp the principles of science, to comprehend the fine arts and literature, and to which philosophy contributes intelligibility at every stage, is the kind of program that we must now construct. It may seem, at first glance, remote from real life, from the facts, and from the social order. On the contrary, if we can construct it, we shall find that it may give us at last a land fit to be free.
       I realize that the suggestions I have made are both vague and violent. What I have been trying to do is to hold before you the dazzling vision of millions of young Americans receiving an education adapted to their needs at the hands of teachers who are truly educated themselves. This is the goal before us. Only if we can achieve it will the sheep, when they look up, be fed. 130-31