taught in the schools. Parents may not be acquainted with the methods of
teaching so that they can be intelligent critics of schoolroom
procedure. Never mind. That is not necessary. You do know boys and
girls. Many of you could give us teachers valuable suggestions on the
best ways of dealing with boys and girls. And there isn't one of you who
could not assist the teacher in the work with your own children. And
then there is another way to look upon it. It is altogether possible
that this closer acquaintance with the school and with the
teachers--with men and women who have made a careful, scientific study
of boys and girls and of the art of teaching--it is altogether possible,
I say, that this contact might react helpfully upon you and the home.
You might possibly get suggestions from us that would help you in the
home. The closer contact might be mutually helpful.
And so, in this necessarily hurried manner we have passed in review
these three great age-old yet very modern institutions--the home, the
church, and the school. We have seen whence each has arisen, have noted
the pathway trod, and caught a glimpse of its present-day function. And
the close relationship, too, must have become plain as we passed along.
No one of the three, we have seen, could stand alone. Each depends upon
both the others and likewise lends them both assistance. For sane,
all-round, constructive work in any one field, the contributions of all
are seen to be needed.
Let us, therefore, take an account of stock, as the business man says,
and note our individual attitude and responsibility. As representing the
home, let us look upon the other two as creatures of our own building
still requiring direction and fostering care. Let our attitude toward
them be neither patronizing nor coldly critical. As representing the
church and the school, let us not forget the source of our being. We
should not ignore the home nor attempt to dominate it. Let us, rather,
seek to carry out its program, rendering a good account of our
stewardship. Thus and thus only can the great work originally entrusted
to the home be accomplished.
VI
NOBLESSE OBLIGE
_A Convocation Address delivered at the University of North Dakota,
January 29, 1916_
There is no audience before which a speaker should have greater reason
for apprehension than an audience made up largely of university
students. There is no audience for which a speaker should more carefully
choose his thoughts and the words for their expression than a university
audience, nor one more worthy of earnest treatment. On the other hand,
there is no audience that a speaker can address more inspiring than an
audience made up of young men and women in the heyday of young life
preparing for better and larger usefulness.
All this is true because there is no other audience that can be gathered
together whose future work can begin to compare, in far-reaching
consequences, in possibilities for usefulness, with that of such an
audience. There is no other company of people of equal number within
whose keeping there is more of potential weal or woe for coming
generations. And these things are true because university students of
to-day are the world's leaders of to-morrow.
This is not so trite a saying as the one that declares that the boys and
girls of one generation are to be the men and women of the next, but it
is just as true and just as significant. Indeed, I suppose it can not be
called a trite saying in the true sense of the term. It has not been
uttered so many times, is not now being used so commonly, as to indicate
its universal acceptance. It is not so obviously true as to preclude
challenge and argument. It is my purpose very briefly to examine the
statement and from the conclusion reached connect the same with the
thought of a beautiful proverb that has come down to us thru a long
lapse of years--_Noblesse Oblige_--our privileges compel us.
So far as I know there is no way of seeing the future save thru a study
of the facts of the past and the indications of the present. The
university students of a generation ago--where are they to-day?
Positions of leadership to-day--filled by whom?
Exhaustive and thoroly satisfactory statistics are not at hand, but such
as we have speak eloquently in favor of the statement in question.
Practically our only reliable statistics touching the matter are
gathered from our biographical cyclopedias. A few years ago a very
interesting study was made of the data found in the current issue of
_Who's Who in America_. This book, you know, is made up of short
biographies of such persons living at the time in the United States as
have become real factors in the progress and achievement of the age, in
other words, of men recognized as leaders in thought and action in the
educational, political, military, and business realms.
Of the whole number mentioned in the issue studied educational data were
given of 11,019. Of that number 1,111 had enjoyed only elementary school
advantages; 1,966 had added to these only the advantages of secondary
education, but 7,942 had come from the colleges and universities. In
other words, more than 72% of these leaders are shown to have received
their final preparations for leadership within college walls.
Figures as interesting have been gathered thru a use of _Appleton's
Cyclopedia of Biography_. A few years ago careful study was made of an
edition just then out and it was found that of the college graduates of
America one out of every forty had gained sufficient distinction to
merit recognition in that cyclopedia, whereas only one out of 10,000
non-graduates, the public at large, had received such distinction. In
other words, the college graduate had 250 chances to the other man's one
for achieving leadership.
Moreover, the higher institutions of learning have furnished every one
of the Chief Justices of our Supreme Court, 75% of our Presidents, 70%
of the membership of our two highest courts, and more than 50% of all
our Congressmen. The last state-men is very significant when one recalls
our method of selecting Congressmen--our political machinery and its
devious modes of working. I have no authentic data of other fields, but
all that one needs to do to satisfy himself practically as to other
details is to call to his service his own knowledge of the general
situation. In the communities with which you are acquainted, among the
people whom you know either personally or by reputation, what are the
facts? Who are the leaders? Where college people are found, are they
leaders or followers?
There are exceptions, of course. There come to you at once the names of
men, a few of them, who, thru the exercise of their own inherent
strength, unaided by college or university, have risen to deserved
greatness. I have only to mention the names of our immortal Lincoln, or
England's present David Lloyd George, in the field of statesmanship, or
of Lord Strathcona or Sir William Van Horne, or James J. Hill, railroad
kings and empire builders, in the business world, or of Luther Burbank,
in the realm of science, to make the fact of exceptions perfectly clear.
But they _are_ exceptions--that's the point--and exceptions merely prove
the rule.
And even as to the few it is scarcely necessary to say that their
positions, tho of leadership, are, generally speaking, subordinate ones,
they themselves even while leading in certain limited fields, are
following the leadership of others in broader fields which include their
own--and the ones followed are they of the broader training. This is
especially true of men who have achieved success in the business world
or in the political field. Their success, their leadership, is often
more seeming than real,--depending as it does upon their
advisers--broadly educated men. Take Lord Strathcona, for example, or
Mr. Hill, as typical illustrations; with all their far-sightedness and
their recognized ability, what could they have done, even in their own
field of activity, had it not been for the trained physicist, the
skilled chemist, and the engineer--products of the university--who gave
them their rails, built their bridges, designed their engines, and in
many ways made it possible for them to realize their dreams? They would
have been powerless. Tho leaders, they followed, and their kind always
will follow, the university student. They may hire this student and pay
him his wage, but they are still indebted to him for leading them onward
and upward.
From a hasty survey, therefore, which, however, I am satisfied would
yield the same fruitage no matter to what extent pushed, our statement
seems to be justified.
But let us look at it from another point of view. How is the matter
regarded by those of the present time most deeply interested in the
future well-being of man and of the nations of the world? By those
people and those forces who feel the responsibility of providing
leadership for the next generation? What steps are being taken to reach
the end--to provide the leaders? On any hypothesis other than the one
assumed in my initial statement can you account for the lavish
expenditure for the endowment and maintenance of higher institutions of
learning that so characterize our generation? From one side to the other
of our broad land, aye, from distant lands and from the isles of the sea
comes the same testimony: benevolent individuals seem to vie with one
another in the munificence of their gifts for higher education. Even
soveren states and great nations, under the guidance of far-seeing
leaders, are planting these institutions and, in a truly generous
manner, providing for their present and future needs.
That the college is the only source from whence can come our supply of
leaders is a real conviction in the minds of men the world over, is
shown by a recent incident in war-stricken Europe. It was only a few
months ago and during the terrible campaign in Eastern Poland, even
while shells were bursting and men were dying, that the Central Powers
stopt, as it were, in the mad rush of wanton destruction, to
re-establish and reorganize the old University of Warsaw. More than
that, they added to the old institution two new faculties, or colleges,
as we would call them.
Strange, isn't it? In the incident I can see but this logic: a
recognition of the fact that, with the forces of destruction reaping
such an awful harvest, their civilization was doomed unless some step
could be taken, not, primarily, to check the present war but rather to
provide, at its close, an adequate supply of leaders. That seemed to
them the only way to prevent a permanent impoverishment and a dropping
back into a state of, at least, temporary semi-barbarism as was so
common during the early Middle Ages under analogous circumstances. And
the step taken by those shrewd, coldly-calculating war lords was the
strengthening of the forces of higher education. One reason why, during
the Middle Ages, there was this frequent dropping back is the fact that
this relationship between leadership and education was not recognized.
Under the powerful impulse of this conviction, namely, that the
well-equipt college as a part of the broad university community is the
only source of leadership, men and states and provinces and nations are
sacrificing for higher education as never before. New institutions are
being founded and old ones strengthened. Magnificent buildings are being
erected with seemingly little thought of cost provided only that they
serve their purpose. Libraries so thoroly equipt as to leave nothing
desired, laboratories unsurpast in completeness, vast gymnasiums
containing every possible apparatus for bodily development, and other
facilities of every kind and description, all irrespective of cost, are
daily being added. And better than buildings and grounds, more vital
than equipment and endowment, are the trained minds and pure hearts
that, in ever increasing numbers, are being freely offered on the same
shrine. Abilities, and training, and attainments that in the world of
business would yield their possessors independent fortunes, or in the
fields of authorship or politics result in honor and fame, are here
freely offered. The material return rendered for such service is the
merest pittance absolutely needed for family support, and the
immaterial, but one's enshrinement in the heart of an occasional
grateful student plus the consciousness of having done one's duty. Can
such a generous outpouring of material and spiritual treasures be
accounted for on any hypothesis other than a recognition of the great
world's needs and a firm belief that those needs can be best satisfied
thru an educated leadership? Nay, verily, all these things are being
done because the best thought of the day feels, both instinctively and
with reason, that only thus can the kingdom of God come among men.
What unique, important, and responsible position the State or Provincial
University occupies among civic institutions! What splendid
opportunities for usefulness are his who is the executive head of such
an institution! Aye, and what weighty responsibilities rest upon him!
Fellow teachers, what manifold opportunities for usefulness are yours,
and what weighty responsibilities rest upon you by virtue of the fact
that you are teachers in such an institution! And my message to you is
the same as to the student body--_Noblesse Oblige!_ Freely have you
received, freely must you give. Tho the state does not, nor ever can,
adequately pay you for your best services, still you must not falter.
You must continue to live up to your own high ideals of your noble
profession. The very acceptance of such positions in such an institution
carries with it the obligation of performance--_Noblesse Oblige!_
But who are these college and university students who have such a large
and important future before them and for whose training and development,
because of that future, such elaborate preparations are being made? The
university man--who and what is he? Likewise the university woman? Let
us answer the question simply and briefly by merely saying that, tho
sometimes rude and crude because immature and undeveloped, they are yet
the keenest, the brightest, the most far-seeing, the most promising
young men and women of the land. They are the choice souls found, one
here, another there, one in the hamlet and another on the farm, one in
the city and another on the prairie, one in a palace, another in a sod
house. They are a picked lot selected not only from the so-called upper
ranks of thought and action, but as well from the highways and by-ways
of our broad land, chosen because of intellectual strength and moral
fiber, because of high ideals and lofty purposes; chosen by themselves,
it may be true, but chosen nevertheless, thru their equipment of mind
and heart. The very fact that you are here and others are not is
testimony sufficient to your greater worth. Exceptions, to be true,
there are, but none too many prove the rule. I am not saying these
things in a spirit of flattery, not at all. I am merely stating facts,
and thru these facts trying to help you catch the vision--to see your
opportunity and accept the responsibilities. But note the
significance--those already best equipt by the superior quality of
their brain matter and of their mental fiber and of their moral nature
and who therefore without further preparation would easily distance the
others, are here giving themselves even better equipment. There can be
no question as to the relative position of the two classes in the years
to come--the one class is to furnish the leaders, the other the
followers. The one is to form the ideals, to set the standards, to
decide upon policies, to mark out courses, the other to try to reach the
goals set. The two classes may be equally good morally, equally worthy
of respect and honor because equally faithful in the performance of
duties suited to their tastes and abilities, but yet, from the very
nature of things, the one going ahead, the other following behind. And
in the years to come your competitors will be not from among the
non-college men and women--you have already put yourself out of their
reach--but from among those who, like yourselves, ambitious for better
and greater things, are to-day, in this and other similar institutions,
using every means, straining every nerve, to attain the highest possible
degree of efficiency for future service. You are not only to be leaders,
but in some way you seem to know it instinctively and to be putting
yourselves in a state of readiness.
But does some one raise the objection that this theory of leadership
does not seem to be in harmony with the spirit and genius of our
American institutions; that under a democratic form of government all
are equal; that all men, irrespective of intellectual attainment, share
equally, not only before the law but in the very making of law; that in
America all men are rulers? All this is true theoretically and, to a
certain extent, practically, but it does not lessen the need of
efficient leadership; it increases that need, or, at any rate, it makes
it necessary that the number capable of efficient leadership be greatly
increased. The very fact that all have a voice in the government, that
all do share, consciously and potently, in its exercise and in its
responsibilities, speaks more loudly than anything else can of the need
of wise leadership. If the great mass of people were not factors, they
would not have to be taken into account. They might need drivers but not
leaders. But being factors and yet, in the main, not being capable of
adequate analysis of our most complex and highly intricate problems,
they must be provided with safe and efficient leaders. I believe in the
honesty, in the good intentions, and in the good sense of the common
people. But I do not believe in their ability to detect relations, to
draw wise conclusions, and to formulate policies touching the
complicated political, social, and economic conditions of our times.
It is a well-recognized fact that, as some one has said, "speaking
broadly, the striking disadvantage under which a democracy labors, as
contrasted, let us say, with certain types of autocracy, lies in its
inability to plan effectively with reference to remote goals.... What we
call 'far ahead' thinking is difficult for the individual, but it is
vastly more difficult for the group, and its difficulty is intensified
in both cases if it demands large measures of present sacrifice." No,
democracy must be led. Leaders they must have. If honest and
disinterested ones are not at hand, selfish and dishonest ones will be
accepted. I grant that leadership is not the greatest need of
democracy, that, of course, is a higher level of knowledge and
intelligence, but I do claim that leadership is, and always will be, the
greatest _present_ need of democracy, since it is only thru that
leadership that the higher intelligence can be reached, without loss,
and in the shortest possible time.
But again, do you point out certain great victories of the common
people, so-called, when they have risen in the power of their might and,
in the exercise of their right, have put down men who had assumed the
right to lead them and were leading them astray? Do you point to the
State of Missouri of a decade ago, and to New York City again and again,
and to England a generation ago, as illustrations? True, in all these
cases and in many others, notable victories had been gained by and for
the people. But is it not also true that in every such case the people
won victories because wisely led? Think you that corruption and
violation of law would have been so checked in Missouri a decade ago and
the breakers of law been so thoroly punished, had it not been for the
clear-headed work of that fearless, public-spirited Joseph W. Folk? Does
not Charles S. Whitman come to your mind when the great struggle in New
York City is mentioned? And Hiram W. Johnson in California? And when we
recall the victories of the people in our own Motherland across the
sea, do we not have at once a mental picture of the "Grand Old Man,"
William Ewart Gladstone? Had it not been for these leaders or others who
might else have taken their places, half of the people whose votes
helped win the victories would never have known that there were such
victories to win. They would never have realized the extent to which
they were being wronged and mis-ruled.
Certain conditions were not quite satisfactory. All people felt, half
unconsciously, that rights were not being respected, that justice was
not being done--that something was wrong somewhere--but that was about
all, about as far as they went or could go. But these leaders, who, in
years gone by, in the colleges and the universities, had been trained to
search for causes, to see relations, and to draw conclusions, had
scented danger from afar. And to the task of ferreting out the evil and
of finding remedies they devoted the strength of their splendidly equipt
minds and the purity of their strong hearts. Following up the lead of
surface manifestations they finally unearthed corporate greed, political
domination, and Satanic selfishness in such kinds and amounts as to be
really appalling. But they did not stop there--they searched for
remedies and then went before the people and told them a plain simple
tale of what they had found--of how grossly the people were being
wronged--and they outlined programs of reform. The people believed them;
they rallied to their standards, accepted their leadership, and won the
victories. And such victories, in greater or less degree, are being won
all over the land, thank God! And back of every one of them you can
find, if you search, a smaller or larger edition of Folk, Whitman, or
Gladstone.
And how about the future? Are all the victories won? No more such work
to do? Ah! the question does not need an answer. Then who are to be the
leaders? Why not you? and you? and you? Depend upon it, they are going
to be college men and college women, and who more capable or worthy than
yourselves?
There are two ways in which I want you young people to look upon this
matter; in the first place, from the point of view of your own personal
interests. Here are opportunities for advancement, openings the filling
of which will bring to you worldly success, and honor and fame. Both by
natural endowment and by special training you are fitted for the work.
Seize, then, the opportunities and make the most of them, because the
world and they that dwell therein belong to him who knows how to use
them. From one point of view this is perfectly legitimate, and I urge
it. It is not only one's right but one's duty to make the most of
himself--to advance his own interests. The program becomes censurable
only when it absorbs all else--when one's own interest is sought at the
_expense_ of the interest of other people instead of in connection with
it or as a step in its realization.