different lines of educational work. If actively engaged in teaching
at some reputable college or university, their chances of success are
greater, and the character of their work is of a better grade. It
promises well for the future of university extension to record that
some of America's most popular and celebrated professors have added to
their already heavy duties the burdens of some line of extension
teaching. But all college professors are not adapted to this work. The
successful extension lecturer must be of a versatile nature--a good
lecturer, an earnest student, a practical teacher. It is his duty to
interest a mixed, popular audience in an educational subject, and to
inspire numbers of his hearers with a determination to enter upon a
systematic and thorough course of study. The teacher who can do so
must have within him the spirit of the reformer, and the earnestness
that will enable him to arouse and to enthuse to action the numbers
that are dying of lethargy and ennui. The teacher who can do this has
here a field of labor extensive enough for the highest ambition, and
may be repaid by a success grander than can be attained in the limited
circle of the college or the university.
The work of the lecturer arranges itself into unit courses. The unit
course consists of a series of six related lecturers, so arranged that
they will cover a definite field of study. Though less comprehensive,
the unit course may be compared to a course of study in a college
curriculum. As extension students are the busy people of this world,
these lectures occur only at intervals of one week, thus giving the
student time for the extra reading and study that he is asked to do. A
unit course, then, will cover a period of six weeks; and four unit
courses, extending over a period of twenty-four weeks, constitute an
extension year. It is superfluous to attempt to estimate how much the
earnest solitary student may accomplish in a year through the
assistance and the impetus thus given his efforts. Much, however,
depends upon the personal effort of the student, and the syllabus is
intended to direct his private study.
The syllabus is much more than a carefully prepared outline of a unit
course. It must form a skeleton for the student's diligent work; it
must recall and elaborate the points brought out in each lecture; it
must give a comprehensive list of reference books upon the course--a
bibliography of the subject--with information as to the best editions
and as to how to use the books to the best advantage; it must suggest
lines of research--comparisons and parallelisms; it must outline for
the student paper work with full instructions as to how to write upon
the subject; it must, in short, be a sort of teacher, full of methods
and of suggestions, supplementing the work of the class.
The class immediately follows the lecture and is conducted by the
lecturer himself. It is here that the student comes into the most
direct contact with the educator. Just as the lecture is for the
popular audience, many of whom seek pleasure rather than information,
so the class is preeminently the earnest student's workshop. It is
here that he has the privilege of turning questioner and of putting to
the lecturer such queries as have puzzled him in his private work. The
papers that have been prepared during the week are criticised and
discussed, and experienced lecturers claim that some extension
students can and do prepare papers which show as deep an insight and
as broad an understanding of the subject as are manifested by the
ordinary college student. The class then is, from the student point of
view, the select portion of the audience, and still it often happens
that only a small proportion of this class even can be induced to do
systematic and thorough work; they are regarded as the fruit of the
lecture and measure the speaker's ability to interest a popular
audience.
As an adjunct to class work, the travelling library is proposed. In
order to do effective work, the student must have books, and
university extension proposes to arrange with public libraries so that
the necessary volumes can be furnished the isolated student at a cost
little in excess of that of transportation. There is such competition
among express companies that there will be little trouble in getting
rates of transportation which will render this feature of extension
teaching practicable. What Mudie's Circulating Library is to England,
the extension travelling library may be to America. The result will be
to place in the reach of all the best copyrighted books, and to
strangle the reprints of worthless publications that are bought only
because they are cheap.
Finally there comes the examination. For the assurance of timid and
sensitive persons, it may be stated that extension work is optional,
and may be carried to any desired stage of completion. The many enter
upon the work because it is popular and interesting; and as soon as it
assumes the character of study, the class will often dwindle down to a
small portion of the audience. The requirements for an examination
will weed this remainder until there is found but a handful that will
submit to the test. These workers are usually mature, and often prove
themselves to be thorough and proficient students. The examination is
intended to be a thorough test, and if it proves the work to have been
creditably done, a certificate to that effect is awarded.
Any community that arranges for one or more unit courses is termed a
local centre. In order to introduce and conduct this plan of work,
there must be some kind of a local organization. Often there already
exists, even in a small town, some literary club or other society
organized for purposes of education or culture. Such societies, if in
a thrifty condition, may be utilized for extension purposes. If they
prove to be responsible for the expense of one or more unit courses,
no further organization is needed; but in towns where no such society
exists, a local centre may be formed by the co-operation of a few
citizens. A public meeting may be convened or other means taken to
elect a local committee consisting of a half dozen members, with at
least a chairman, a secretary, and a treasurer as its official board.
The first work of the committee is to raise a guarantee fund to cover
the expense of one or more unit courses. Responsible persons are
willing enough to subscribe to such a fund upon the assurance that it
will not be used except in case of a deficiency caused by a limited
sale of student or course tickets. Experience in Philadelphia has
proved that, ordinarily, enough tickets will be sold to more than
cover the expense of the course.
The guarantee fund raised, the local committee is ready to secure the
services of a lecturer, and is brought into business connections with
the nearest branch, as the next higher stage in the system is
denominated. The branch is located at a railroad centre, and in the
vicinity of some college or university. For example, the Philadelphia
branch is the business centre for the entire region within a radius of
fifty miles. It draws its lecturers from the faculties of the
University of Pennsylvania, Princeton, Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and
Swarthmore. The branch acts as the middle man between the college and
the local centre. Its functions are to supply a competent corps of
lecturers, to systematize the work within its jurisdiction, and to
organize new local centres. Already the Philadelphia branch has formed
twenty-five local centres, some of which another season will give a
full year's work consisting of four unit courses.
Located in Philadelphia in the midst of colleges, this organization is
purely national in its aims. It brings with it system out of chaos.
While university extension was groping aimlessly about, it came to the
attention of one of the leading educators of our country. As provost
of the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. William Pepper has proved
himself to be a man of great executive ability. Comprehending to the
fullest extent the future of our educational system, with wonderful
foresight, he saw in the extension movement a future far more
important than for a mere matter of missionary diversion for certain
charitably inclined professors. He at once suggested plans for uniting
the efforts of those engaged in the work and of harmonizing them
throughout the country. Accordingly Mr. George Henderson was sent to
England to study the movement in all of its bearings, and to gain a
thorough insight into the English system. Upon his return the American
Society was organized with Dr. Pepper as president, and Mr. Henderson
as Secretary. But Dr. Pepper, already burdened with the executive
duties of a great university, as well as with the labors of an
extensive profession, was soon obliged to withdraw from the active
presidency, and Dr. Edmund J. James was elected to that office. Such,
in brief, is the origin of the National Society.
This American Society comes in as a helpmate to the local centre, the
branch, the college, and the university. Its functions are distinct
and various. Coming forward with the accumulated experience of a
quarter century in England, it can enable extension workers in this
country to profit thereby. It has employed a corps of practical
business men to systematize the work, and to attend to the necessary
details; it is publishing a monthly journal called _University
Extension_, for the purpose of gathering and disseminating information
regarding the movement; it publishes syllabi and furnishes them to the
student and to the public at the lowest possible cost; and employs
organizers to help in the formation of local centres, and to get them
in working order. It must be recognized at once that no single
educational institution can do this general work, and that the
American Society, instead of becoming a competitor with the university
in extension work, renders it practical for even the smaller colleges
to enter this field of usefulness.
In the performance of its functions, then, the National Society must
ordinarily deal with the greater centres of organization; still when
it is impracticable to form a branch, it may deal directly with the
local centre. Nor is its influence bounded by any conventional
barriers. It can enter the home where the solitary student sits by his
evening lamp, and direct his work. In this home work, of course, the
student rarely comes into direct contact with the educator, but
through systematized correspondence his work may be directed and
finally tested. It can thus be given a true educational value. It must
not be ignored that a startling proportion of our great business men
are what are termed self-educated. So will it be in the future; but it
is far from visionary to believe that university extension will open
paths whereby the solitary student need no longer employ an expensive
tutor nor waste his time, groping in the labyrinth paths of knowledge,
without a thread, at least, to direct his wanderings to pleasanter
fields of light and learning.
While this system of study is popular, and has all the glitter of
novelty, many insincere persons will enroll their names. Some will
seek only entertainment, and will be satisfied with the popular
lecture alone. Others, through timidity and lack of self-confidence,
may attend the class but will not attempt the paper work or the
examination. But in every community are scores of earnest, hungry
students anxious to learn but knowing not how to get the knowledge
that they crave,--mature students settled in homes and in
business,--to such university extension offers chances for improvement
and refreshing labor that were never known before. Then it is no
longer imperative to reside in the vicinity of the university, or to
forever remain ignorant of university learning, for wherever a score
or more of students may congregate, there can be brought from college
halls a master workman to direct the work.
It is easy, then, to realize the scope of the American society. It can
stretch its influence into every corner of the country; it can enter
every town and city; it can enter even the isolated home. Ordinarily
colleges and universities of the country are anxious to work with the
National Society, for in this way even the small college becomes a
link in this great chain of organization, and the efforts of its
faculty may bear fruit, whereas unsystematized work is little better
than a failure. By such co-operation the work of extension teaching
may have come to have such a positive educational value that its
certificates, when awarded by the members of a college faculty, may,
in that institution, at least, pass current for a definite amount of
the work required for a degree. At Cambridge, England, students from
centres that are in affiliation with that institution can thus save
one year's residence at the university. Is it, then, visionary to
expect as much here?
University extension, however, offers no royal road to learning; it is
as yet, as it were, laying the ties for a broad gauge track where only
those that have the strength to work their passage may travel. But
when operated by the American Society, it is far in advance of the
overland or Panama routes of the forty-niners in extension travel.
This society seems to have solved the problem, and promises to become
the great American University that Washington proposed, Jefferson
planned, and scores have, since the founding of our government,
prophesied and awaited.
POPE LEO ON LABOR.
BY THOMAS B. PRESTON.
In reading the encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII. on the condition of
labor, one is chiefly struck by his earnest desire for the welfare of
all mankind, his clear recognition of the existence of a grave social
problem, and the singular want of logic which he exhibits in his
attempt to solve it. His views on this subject certainly deserve
careful and thoughtful analysis on account of the influence which they
are bound to exert in the world, owing to his peculiar position as
head of the largest of the Christian churches. They should be read
without bias, each argument being given its due weight irrespective of
any conclusions but those of common sense and right reason.
Unfortunately there is much division of opinion as to the value of the
document. Those Catholics who are superstitious give to these opinions
of the Pope the force of a revelation from God. And on the other hand
there are many so-called liberals who regard these utterances as the
words of a crafty old man, ambitious of acquiring wealth, power, and
fame in the world for himself and for the hierarchy of his Church.
Putting aside all prejudice of either kind, let us examine what Pope
Leo says in the light of reason, having faith enough to believe that
the interests of true religion cannot suffer in the slightest degree
from such an examination.
In his opening sentences the Pope speaks in a tone of regret of the
"spirit of revolutionary change" predominant in the nations, and seems
to connect it with "a general moral deterioration." He does not appear
to have considered that the change may be evolutionary rather than
revolutionary, and that the "general moral deterioration" is quite as
much due to the efforts of reactionary politicians and churchmen who
aim to retain for the classes all the constantly increasing
wealth-producing power of the world, keeping the masses down to the
same bare level of subsistence as formerly, while their capacity for
enjoyment has been vastly enlarged through the increased general
average of civilization and refinement. This naturally produces on the
one side the piled-up accumulations of individuals garnered by the
few, an inordinate display of wealth and luxury, and the vices of
intemperance and immorality; while on the other, maddened and starving
crowds are likely to resort to violence, and the poorer population to
indulge whenever they get a chance in the same pleasures as the rich.
But with all these disadvantages in the modern economic situation it
may fairly be questioned whether the general moral deterioration is as
great as in the good old times, the "ages of faith," when the
Inquisition flourished along with the Borgias, the _droit du seigneur_
was a recognized custom, and bribery and violence were everywhere
prevalent.
"Public institutions and the laws," says Pope Leo, "have repudiated
the ancient religion." But is not this repudiation in large part due
to the refusal of the ministers of the ancient religion to accommodate
themselves to new conditions in the world's history, so that with the
growth of modern civilization the world has moved more rapidly than
the Church, and the latter has become dissociated from the masses,
chiefly owing to the ignorance and intense conservatism of her rulers
and their entirely unnecessary distrust of the discoveries of science?
Pope Leo admits that this is "an age of greater instruction, of
different customs, and of more numerous requirements in daily life,"
but he cannot divest himself of the trammels of ecclesiasticism which
seem to mould his thoughts and lead him to consider it "essential in
these times of covetous greed to keep the multitude within the line of
duty." With him it is "the multitude" who seem possessed of an insane
desire to break out of the line of duty. His theory is like that of
the man who accounted for the overcrowding in large cities on the
ground that the poor and unfortunate had a strange and uncontrollable
propensity for swarming in tenement-houses. He does not give
sufficient force to the influence of conditions upon human acts, and
apparently is chiefly anxious that "strife should cease," forgetting
that until justice be done the worst thing that could happen would be
the cessation of strife.
The flattering surroundings and aristocratic training of Pope Leo
cannot, however, dull the generous sympathies of his heart, or blind
his clear vision of "the misery and wretchedness which press so
heavily at this moment on the large majority of the very poor." He
says: "The condition of the working population is the question of the
hour." This will be a rude awakening to those conservative Catholic
churchmen who have in recent years been insisting that things as they
are were altogether lovely, and that the talk about the misery of the
poor was only the exaggeration of a few cunning agitators who wanted
to excite the people so that in a general upheaval these agitators
themselves might personally profit. Pope Leo's voice of sympathy is
heard declaring that there is a social problem, and that "it is
shameful and inhuman to treat men like chattels to make money by or to
look upon them merely as so much muscle or physical power."
Charity, as Pope Leo frequently understands it, would indeed effect a
wonderful amelioration in the world. But it is that charity "which is
always ready to sacrifice itself for others' sake" and the chief
characteristic of which is the love of justice. It has been degraded
in these later years into the sense of alms-giving, so that the
Christian pulpits of every denomination have too often thus been
preaching charity while ignoring justice.
Is it any wonder the world rebelled? The victories of the Church were
won when she possessed the sublime strength of weakness, and when her
martyrs and saints in language only matched by that of the radicals of
to-day were proclaiming the essential liberty, fraternity, and
equality of all men, and denouncing the iniquities of imperial Rome.
But when she took the fatuous step, and placed on her own brow the
crown of the Caesars, then she too became conservative, then the words
of her popes began to be regulated by policy, then charity became
alms-giving, and piety degenerated into ecclesiasticism. Authority was
strained until it snapped, and a suffering world revolted from the
outrageous assumptions of ecclesiastical power. A return to
Christianity is, indeed, needed, but the Church will have quite as
much of a journey to go as the world, so far as her methods are
concerned.
With regard to the position of the family in the state, Pope Leo is
the advocate of freedom as against the interference of public
authority in domestic affairs. He admits, however, that the state
should interfere in cases of family disturbance "to force each party
to give the other what is due," herein differing from the
philosophical anarchists. He discerns clearly that the interests of
labor and of capital are not antagonistic, but what he does not see is
that the interests of labor and capital may both be antagonistic to
the interests of monopoly, and that until the latter is destroyed the
two former will be continually forced into positions of seeming
antagonism. He denounces "rapacious usury," and says that it was "more
than once condemned by the Church," conveniently overlooking the fact
that the _usuria_, which was condemned, was not only "rapacious" but
was all taking of money for the use of money, all interest on loans--a
condemnation which, if insisted upon by the Church to-day, would soon
empty her sanctuaries. He refers to the "greed of unrestrained
competition" but does not grasp the idea that under conditions of
justice unrestrained competition would be an advantage, constantly
leading men to emulate each other, and becoming a sure guarantee of
progress. It is the competition of those who have nothing but their
labor, or their brains, or their capital to sell with the owners of
vast monopolies who exact from production an ever-increasing toll that
needs to be restrained, and this not by abolishing "the custom of
working by contract," or by state interference and legislative
tinkering, to which the Pope leans in spite of his protests against
socialism, but by the abolition of the monopolies or their absorption
into the functions of the state.
The Pope is almost a Spencerian in his bias towards individualism, but
he forgets that individualism can never be maintained in practice
except through the assumption by the state of those monopolies which,
if left in private hands, would benefit the few at the expense of the
many. True individualism requires equality of opportunity. The instant
the idea of monopoly enters, equality of opportunity becomes
impossible, and individualism is destroyed. It is through want of
seeing this fact that the Pope, in common with most political
economists, goes floundering round in a sea of contradictions, now
proclaiming principles almost like those of the anarchists, and again
favoring extreme socialism, while all the time imagining himself an
individualist. Their theories remind one of the labored attempts to
explain the solar system by the old Ptolemaic method of epicycles and
deferents, when the one simple law of centripetal and centrifugal
force was enough to account for all the majestic movements of the
universe. What other outcome can there be of this want of a regulator
in economics--like a governor in machinery--than an endeavor to patch
up the machine of humanity, adding a little here, taking off a little
there, doing the best that occasion seems to allow, and all the while
impressed with a profound and sad conviction that the machine is in a
bad way, and certain to smash up, whatever is done? Consequently we
have just such weak documents as this encyclical letter, emanating now
from an eminent agnostic scientist, now from a millionnaire
"philanthropist" and now from the Pope--all conflicting with each
other, the first denying that man has any more rights than a
rattlesnake, the second lauding a "triumphant democracy" which has not
the courage to attack the monopolies through which he has acquired his
millions, the third writing a long paper full of pious platitudes and
injunctions to the rich to give to the poor, and to the poor to be
contented, and then everything will be lovely.