Les Universites canadiennes aujourd'hui / Canadian Universities Today 9781487574048

Citation preview

CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES TODAY LES UNIVERSITES CANADIENNES AUJOURD'HUI

ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA "STUDIA V ARIA" SERIES

1. Studia Varia: Literary and Scientific Papers-Etudes litteraires et scientifiques (1956). Edited by E.G. D. MURRAY 2. Our Debt to the Future: Symposium Presented on the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary, 1957-Presence de demain: Colloque presente au Soixante-quinzieme Anniversaire, 1957. Edited by E. G. D. MURRAY

3. The Canadian Northwest: Its Potentialities,· Symposium Presented to the Royal Society of Canada in 1958-L'Avenir du Nord-Ouest Canadien; Colloque presente a la Societe Royale du Canada en 1958. Edited by FRANK H. UNDERHILL 4. Evolution: Its Science and Doctrine; Symposium Presented to the Royal Society of Canada in 1959-L'Evolution: La Science et la Doctrine; Colloque presente a la Societe Royale du Canada en 1959. Edited by THOMAS W. M. CAMERON

5. Aux sources du present: Etudes presentees a la Section I de la Societe Royale du Canada-The Roots of the Present: Studies presented to Section I of the Royal Society of Canada ( 1960) . Sous la direction de LEON LORTIE et ADRIEN PLOUFFE 6. Canadian Universities Today; Symposium Presented to the Royal Society of Canada in 1960-Les Universites canadiennes aujourd'hui,· Colloque presente a la Societe Royale du Canada en 1960. Edited by GEORGE STANLEY and GUY SYLVESTRE

Canadian Universities Today Symposium presented to the

ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA in 1960

Les Universites canadiennes aujourd'hui Colloque presente a la

SOCIETE ROYALE DU CANADA en 1960 EDITED BY

GEORGE STANLEY & GUY SYLVESTRE PUBLISHED FOR THE SOCIETY

BY UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS

1961

Copyright, Canada, 1961 University of Toronto Press Printed in Canada Reprinted in 2018 ISBN 978-1-4875-8555-6 (paper)

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE CANADA COUNCIL TOWARDS THE PUBLICATION OF THE STUDIA VARIA SERIES IS GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA. THE FACT THAT A GRANT HAS BEEN MADE DOES NOT IMPLY, HOWEVER, THAT THE CANADA COUNCIL ENDORSES OR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STATEMENTS OR VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE PARTICULAR VOLUMES

PREFACE

PROBLEMS OF EDUCATION have always engaged the attention of enlightened citizens. In these later years, however, they have occupied the minds of a growing number of Canadians in the universities, governments, and among the public at large. Thus it is not surprising that the programme committee of the Royal Society of Canada selected "The Responsibilities of Canadian Universities" as the theme of the Society's annual symposium in 1960. The immediate pertinency of the theme gave it a special appeal, if only because of the widespread agreement on the part of all those interested in education in Canada, that education, higher education in particular, has entered a new and exciting phase of its development since the end of the war in 1945. The startling scientific discoveries and new techniques of warfare, the rivalry of Eastern and Western power blocs, the competing philosophies of politics and education, the antithesis of science and humanism, the pressures of increasing population, the declining purchasing power of money, all these factors have imposed new and pressing problems upon the schools, colleges, and governments of Canada. Broadly speaking, those Fellows who contributed their thoughts and ideas to the Society's symposium were in agreement that the responsibility of the university in Canada is primarily to itself, not to the state, or to industry, or to any group within society; that its responsibility is to remain true to its purpose and to its traditions. That purpose, in its simplest terms is, or should be, education rather than training. And the object of education is, or should be, human freedom-veritas liberavit vos. Not merely, or even necessarily freedom in the political sensealthough that is a helpful condition of the good life-but freedom in the personal sense. Plato put it: "education consists in giving to the body and the soul all the perfection of which they are susceptible." Wisdom and knowledge, rather than training, should be the net result of the university teacher's efforts. Or, in other words, the responsibility of the universities is "to remove hindrances from those who are called to the quest and to help others to go as far as their capacities allow them to go." And neither teachers nor taught should expect too much. Dean Inge once wrote: "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth to the Temple of the Muses as well as to eternal life, and few there be that find it."

vi

PREFACE

In a society such as the Royal Society of Canada, which contains both humanists and scientists, some of the undertones of the conflict between science and humanism were bound to be heard. But, after all was said and argued, it was agreed that the conflict was more apparent than real, more smoke than fire. Fellows recognized the unreality of the clash. If the humanist was disposed to charge the scientist with undue concern with training rather than with education, the scientist could, with truth, reply tu quoque, that there were possibly as many technicians in the faculties of Arts as in those of Science; or could ask if humanists could really claim a monopoly of the world's philosophers; or if science, in its broad human aspects, was not a truer preparation for life than an arid intellectualism. Was it not Thomas Huxley who said that in his concept Science and Art were simply the two sides of nature's medal? Scientists and humanists both have their roles to play in the universities; both must avoid becoming "careerists"; both must endeavour to save the student from specialism and to reintegrate his world after it has been dissected by the specialists. Aristote, qui avait une vision globale de la vie, refusait d'admettre que l'Etat dut assurer ases sujets une formation qui serait restreinte al'un des trois aspects intellectuel, moral ou utilitaire. Pour preparer les hommes a la vie, l'education devait etre, selon lui, ala fois speculative, morale et pratique. Comme on le verra en lisant les textes qui suivent, ceux qui ont pris part au colloque n'ont pas ignore les problemes materiels : financement, recrutement, construction, tous problemes d'administration qui se posent aujourd'hui comme bier - et qui se poseront encore demain - aux universites, petites ou grandes, que leurs professeurs enseignent en anglais ou en fran~ais. II faudrait eviter toutefois d'accorder a ces problemes administratifs une importance trop grande ou de penser que tous les problemes universitaires peuvent etre resolus avec de l'argent, de meme qu'il est faux de croire que le manque de fonds est la cause de tous les maux. Les administrateurs et les professeurs de nos universites savent qu'ils ont aussi d'autres sources d'inquietude; les uns et les autres ne doivent jamais confondre efficacite technique avec principes fondamentaux, gigantisme avec grandeur morale, enthousiasme ephemere avec valeurs etemelles. Le Canada, a bien des egards, se distingue par la variete de ses colleges et de ses universites. Certaines institutions relevent de l'autorite religieuse; d'autres, d'une direction la'ique. Les unes vivent a meme les dotations de particuliers; les autres, a meme les tresors des provinces. Quelques universites constituent une federation de plusieurs colleges; d'autres ont un caractere plutot monolithique. Bon nombre de nos

PREFACE

vii

universites et de nos colleges utilisent l'anglais comme langue d'enseignement; plusieurs se servent du fran~ais; quelques-unes emploient Jes deux idiomes. Every state is right in seeking unity within its frontiers. It is wrong when it assumes diversity means disunity, or when it confounds uniformity with unity. Unity is a living thing; it has the quality of spirit, and demands variety and co-ordination. Uniformity is a dead thing; it is dull and inert and monotonous. Unity in Canada is not to be achieved by a uniformity of curricula or of educational organization; it is to be found in the common faith, common bond of knowledge, common moral and intellectual discipline that is the heritage of our western culture, a culture which Gilson describes as "essentially the culture of Greece, inherited from the Greeks by the Romans, transfused by the Fathers of the Church with the religious teachings of Christianity, and progressively enlarged by countless numbers of artists, writers, scientists and philosophers .. . ." Hitherto our culture has derived from the philosophia perennis of Christendom. What of the future? GEORGE STANLEY

GUY SYLVESTRE

CONTENTS Preface

Head, Department of History, Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston GUY SYLVESTRE, M.S.R.C., Bibliothecaire-adjoint de la Bibliotheque nationale du Canada

v

1. The Task of the University Today: Science E. W. R. STEACIE, F.R.s.c., President, National Research Council, Ottawa

3

2. The Responsibility of the Universities JAMES s. THOMSON, F.R.S.C., Formerly Dean of the Faculty of Divinity, McGill University, Montreal

9

GEORGE STANLEY, F.R.s.c.,

3. A l'aube d'une ere nouvelle

Directeur de ['Extension de l'enseignement de l'Universite de Montreal

LEON LORTIE, M.S.R.c.,

4. The Critical Discipline NORTHROP FRYE,

Toronto

F.R.S.C.,

Principal, Victoria College,

16

30

5. Trends in University Research in Science J. W. T. SPINKS, F.R.s.c., President, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon

38

6. The Responsibilities of the French Universities of Canada in Science L. P. DUGAL, F.R.s.c., Head, Department of Biology, University of Ottawa

45

7. L'Orientation nouvelle des universites quebecoises de langue fran~aise LEON LORTIE, M.S.R.C., Directeur de !'Extension de l'enseignement de l'Universite de Montreal

55

8. Projet de refonne de l'enseignement des humanites a l'universite Laval ARTHUR TREMBLAY, M.S.R.C., Adjoint executif, Ministere de la jeunesse, Province de Quebec

61

X

CONTENTS

9. The University and Its Finances J. J. DEUTSCH, Vice-Principal, Administration, Queen's University, Kingston

80

10. The University and Business H. J. FRASER, F.R.s.c., President, Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd., Toronto

87

11. The Australian Universities: A Comparison G. DE B. ROBINSON, F.R.s.c., Professor, Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto

94

CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES TODAY LES UNIVERSITES CANADIENNES AUJOURD'HUI

THE TASK OF THE UNIVERSITY TODAY: SCIENCE

E. W. R. Steacie, F.R.s.c.

IF WE ARE TO mscuss the educational responsibility of the universities the first and the most important question is to whom should they be responsible? There are various possibilities, the first being the general public. I doubt if the universities can delegate their responsibility or expect much guidance from the public, although they should certainly feel a responsibility to the public to do the best they can for them. The university must lead rather than follow, however, and I can think of nothing worse than for the university to follow the direction of public opinion as it drifts aimlessly about under the influence of periodic pressures. A second possibility is responsibility to the government or governments. In most cases there is financial responsibility. However, nothing could be more detrimental to the real purpose of the university than to follow blindly the wishes of the government of the day. Certainly it is not the function of the university to turn wholeheartedly to the production of fascists in a country which heads in that direction, or of communists if it heads the other way. It may, of course, be very difficult to resist such pressures; but it is noteworthy that when a blow-up occurs in a totalitarian state it is usually precipitated by students, and that a dictatorship is often followed by the closing of universities. Certainly a university may often have the duty of opposing the government of the day. In a less extreme example one would certainly not expect economics to be slanted one way or the other as governments change, although occasionally even this type of pressure has been exerted. On the other side of the picture, there are certainly many indications that parliamentary institutions do not work well in countries which do not have a background of academic and educational freedom. Again, there is the responsibility to industry. Certainly, since most graduates will take their place in industry, there is a responsibility not

4

E. W. R. STEACIE

to ignore the needs of industry. A direct responsibility to produce the kind of graduate industry wants would, however, be a degradation of the university to the level of a vocational school. It is frequently stated that the real responsibility is to society. This, however, is a rather amorphous term, and means nothing without further specification. The only real responsibility of the universities is to remain true to their purpose and traditions, and to decide for themselves what will best fit the needs of government, of industry and of society over the long haul. Surely the universities should regard themselves as the most enlightened and objective fraction of society--even if, in some cases, they are not! This is not to suggest that universities should be ultra-conservative, should refuse to move with the times, or should ignore the needs and demands of society. I agree strongly with Ashby when he points out that the ability to move with the times and to adjust to the changes in society has been the major characteristic of universities over the last 800 years, and that it is this ability to "roll with the punch" which has enabled the universities to survive almost unchanged in form and in basic principles over eight centuries. The important thing is that in such adjustments the university remain true to its own basic principles. In this connection one of the more disturbing slogans of the day is "Education is everybody's business." The implication that everyone should support education is, of course, undeniable; the theory that everyone should regard himself as an expert in education is, however, a most unfortunate one. The last few years have seen many conferences on higher education, often attended by a very peculiar collection of people whose only common bond has been ignorance of the subject under discussion. Such conferences have often resulted in resolutions of a high degree of irresponsibility, but fortunately also of a high degree of ineffectiveness. Universities, of course, have always had patrons and patrons are always difficult, but today's multiplicity of them is a new and perhaps particularly difficult experience. One of the problems which the universities have to face in dealing with the demands of society is that of training as opposed to education. This is often coupled with criticisms of specialization; one famous Canadian document says that scientists are often "only glorified technicians, lacking any broad understanding of the field in which they labour." The arguments for this point of view are very dubious, and I reject them emphatically, but there is an aspect of specialization which needs to be watched, and that is the one which verges on training. Training for

THE TASK OF THE UNIVERSITY TODAY: SCIENCE

5

the tasks of life is not necessarily incompatible with a real educationalways provided that such training is based on the acquisition of knowledge of fundamentals. If, however, the curriculum is overloaded with practical odds and ends the process becomes purely training and ceases to be real education. There is no question that this is a serious problem and it is becoming more serious. In particular we must guard against university courses which lead to mere professional qualification. Engineering has been a source of worry from this point of view, but there are signs of an encouraging trend back to principles. I must confess also that I object strongly to the recent interest in "manpower." The tendency to regard manpower as a commodity bought, sold, produced, and consumed is objectionable when applied to the end-product of an institution of higher learning. It is also a dangerous concept in that it implies the unimportance of quality and the importance of mere numbers. It is also dangerous from a university point of view in that shortages can become surpluses with the greatest of ease, given a slight financial recession. The major problem in all this is professionalism, and the modern university can, I think, be justly criticized for permitting an excessive infiltration of courses aimed at a narrow phase of technology or of a profession. There is a curious attitude of superiority on the part of arts faculties in this regard, which overlooks the fact that most such courses are not in engineering or science. Technology is by no means confined to engineers and scientists; it is merely the sum total of what most of us do. Arts graduates are as much concerned with technology as engineering graduates, and a course in the economics of fish marketing is just as technological in content as one in fisheries engineering. In fact, courses in business administration are much more technological in content than courses in engineering, and courses in education are probably more narrowly professional than anything else that the university has to offer. In a technological society, of course, the university can hardly remain aloof, but it is certainly open to criticism when it allows itself to be made the instrument of mere professional qualification. The important point is whether the student leaves an institution of higher education with a basic education in the principles of his subject, or merely with a professional qualification to take his place in industry or government with a minimum of difficulty and expense to his employer or to himself. This is the distinction between education and vocational training. The difficulty, of course, is that there are many bogus professions as well as real ones, and there are many pressures, local and otherwise, on universities to give courses with a specific professional aim. It appears

6

E.W. R. STEACIE

to be the desire of almost every working group today to convert themselves into a profession, to have the profession closed by legislation, and to get a specific university degree in their own subject. As far as subjects go, it is instructive to compare biophysics with cosmetic chemistry. Neither are professions, but there is a fundamental difference between them. An interdisciplinary course like biophysics is in no sense a narrower specialty than physics or biochemistry. The subject merely covers an area that crosses traditional borders, but is a fundamental area of knowledge. It thus qualifies in every way as a proper subject for university instruction. The details of such a course may be difficult to arrange, but the principles are clear. Cosmetic chemistry on the other hand is in no sense a real field of knowledge; if such a course is given ( and it is given in some universities) it is merely a hodge-podge of odds and ends for the benefit of a specific industry. It is difficult to draw the line between real and bogus professions, and, as usual, dictionary definitions are not helpful. Certainly there are real professions such as medicine and law where the protection of the public demands a closed profession, legally regulated. Even these, however, have their dangers to the university, since the existence of an outside regulating body means that the university has, in principle, lost all real control of the content of courses. In fact, in both cases the problems have largely been avoided by informal action, but the dangers still exist. There are, on the other side of the picture, many professions which are more or less bogus and which cause vigorous debate. I am going to keep carefully clear of library science, education in quotation marks, and many others to avoid controversy, and say just a word about one for which I am presumably qualified-chemistry. There are those who would like to see chemistry equipped with all the trappings of a closed profession, including legislation, licensing, and outside control over university courses. Personally, I do not believe for a moment that chemistry should be regarded as a profession. There is certainly no need to protect the general public, and there is everything to be said for allowing any university to give the kind of course it wishes, and anyone to practice chemistry whether formally trained or not. Rutherford obtained the Nobel Prize in Chemistry without a degree in the subject, and Faraday, who had no degree at all, would certainly have been turned down by any licensing body. The point I want to make is that these licensing efforts constitute a very real danger to university autonomy and to academic and personal freedom, and should certainly be closely watched in the future.

THE TASK OF THE UNIVERSITY TODAY: SCIENCE

7

In connection with peculiar university courses I hope you will pardon a certain amount of levity if I give the result of browsing through the Commonwealth Universities Yearbook and American Universities and Colleges. There is a widely held, and unfair view that the United States leads the field in unusual degrees. This is quite untrue. The Commonwealth is far ahead. The two handbooks together list the titles of nearly a thousand different degrees. The Association of Universities of the British Commonwealth includes "Bachelor of Rural Science," "Master of Science in Glass" (which presumably leads to a Ph.D. in aspic), and "Bachelor of Expression." In the United States there is "Bachelor of Science in Group Work Administration," "Bachelor of Science in Practical Arts and Letters," or, since the B.Sc. has been pre-empted for so many things, the logical degree to end all degrees is "Bachelor of Science in Science."1 I will tactfully refrain from citing Canadian degrees, although the nicest one from a poetic standpoint is the B.Sc. (P.O.T.). 2 All this does emphasize how far the universities have travelled in thirty or forty years from the time when there were a mere handful of degrees available. Incidentally, it is noticeable that when an arts faculty wants to give a degree of which it is ashamed it always gives a B.Sc. with an appendage, rather than a B.A. This is gross discrimination against science! Whatever may be said about rather trivial or vocationally slanted degrees, I should like to emphasize that this is not a criticism of interdisciplinary courses. In fact these are of increasing importance in covering the gaps created by hard and fast boundaries between fields of knowledge. Such courses are not only needed within faculties, but more of them are badly needed between faculties, and one of the most effective developments of the last few years is the course in engineering physics. There are, also, possibilities for courses which bridge arts and science, and arts and engineering. In particular, many engineering graduates proceed directly to administration in large technically based industries. Is there not here a possibility for more courses which span economics and engineering, and for a considerable technical content to courses in business administration? Finally, of course, there is the perennial question of how to bridge the gap between science and the humanities. The need for people with a broad general education is as great, or greater, than it ever was; but !American Universities and Colleges (Washington, American Council on Education, 1948), p. 1013. 2Canadian Universities and Colleges (Ottawa, National Conference of Canadian Universities, 1958), p. 57.

8

E. W. R. STEACIE

the question is, who is broad? By refusing to take any interest in man's environment, there is no question that the humanists have surrendered their right to regard themselves as liberally educated and have left a gap which must be filled. The much talked about "whole man" must have knowledge of his environment as well as of himself, and it seems to me that the time has come to recognize the need for the whole man and to stop arguing about which part of him is the top half. Certainly today some knowledge of science and its methods is needed by the leaders of society, if only to enable them to stop scientists from putting something over on them. There were, of course, good reasons for the type of education offered by the universities in earlier days. The Oxford Dictionary ( written mainly 1900-20) defines a liberal education as education fit for a gentleman. Ashby remarks that this is still an acceptable definition; it is the idea of a gentleman which has changed. He then goes on to say: A century ago when Britain awoke to the need for technological education, a gentleman belonged to what was called the leisured class. The occupations of his leisure did not require any knowledge of science or technology. Modern gentlemen do not belong to the leisured class-and more and more of them are finding that their business requires expert knowledge. Even members of the House of Lords are being called upon to make decisions about radio-active fall-out, overheating during supersonic flight, and the strontium content of bones. Even such a gentlemanly subject as the state of the river Thames cannot be understood without some knowledge of oxidation and reduction, detergents and the biochemistry of sewage.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNIVERSITIES

James S. Thomson, F.R.s.c.

THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY of the universities, that determines their nature and function, is to themselves. They must be faithful to their inherited tradition of freedom-freedom to inquire, freedom to teach, and freedom to govern themselves. Only in this spirit will the universities be able to engage in the new human encounter which is the summons of our time. This self-fidelity is not a prescription for independence, much less for irresponsibility. Presumably, the present inquiry concerning the responsibility of universities arises from what must be apparent to every intelligent observer of the contemporary scene in human history. Gibbon observes that "there exists in human nature a strong propensity to depreciate the advantages and to magnify the evils of the present times." Nevertheless, it is no obsession with the contemporary that suggests civilization has come to a crisis of unprecedented gravity. Historical retrospect will not mitigate the urgency of our engagement. The superlative need is for fresh wisdom as a generative power in courageous action to cope with movements that agitate the entire life of mankind. In this situation the universities are compelled to display their freedom by a radical self-criticism as the first step in the recognition and acceptance of their contemporary responsibilties. The very cogency of this constraint emphasizes the need to reaffirm academic freedom. The excitements of the age that sometimes border on mass hysteria, and, even more, titanic struggles for power give rise to pressures that develop into demands. The payment of pipers can lead to the calling of tunes. The best defence against such exploitation is to be sure about the music we want to play, and in particular to give some thought to its orchestration so that we do not add to the discord of our time. Of course the universities must not sit in detachment fiddling away at their academic airs while Rome burns-as well it may. Freedom is no abstract virtue but can be realized only in action. Freedom must be positive and issue in creative novelty rather than in protesting isolation.

10

.JAMES S. THOMSON

Freedom and responsibility are correlatives and the acceptance of privilege can be justified only by dedication to duty. Responsibility is a moral category and can be exercised only by persons. Universities are communities rather than institutions. Their aims may be defined in general terms such as the advancement of learning or the growth of wisdom, but these objectives are realized only by persons and in persons. The responsibility of the universities is the education of human beings. This definition applies alike to teachers and to taught, to the work of research as much as to the communication of knowledge and the development of capacities for specific professions. Call it higher education, if you will. Indeed, we must pass from the comparative to the superlative and describe it as the highest education, because surely we must hold constantly before us, and never more than today, the attainment of academic excellence. The doctrine of excellence may appear to impose limitations alike on the range of interest and the number of students. On the contrary, the present danger is an excessive emphasis on restrictive procedures which make it a chief aim to develop what we call specialization of knowledge to the detriment of genuine education. The higher becomes the enemy of the highest. The conflict between education and training is as old as it is familiar in the academic world. It can be resolved, but not by pretending it does not exist. Today there can be little doubt that training holds the centre of the field, and education is banished to the side-lines. A new adjustment of interest and pursuit is imperative to direct the future of the universities, both as to their size and the character of their work. Pressure for the expansion of the universities arises from what is described as social necessity. They are urged to throw their gates more widely open and to multiply the paths that may be pursued by those who enter in. It is generally accepted, and universities have every interest in supporting the contention, that among the marks of civilized attainment is the extent to which educational opportunity is available to competent and promising youth. Who, indeed, can deny that the world has never had greater need of a powerful reinforcement of its resources for intelligent action through educated people? But they must be genuinely educated in the highest sense of the word. If we can combine a re-examination of what we mean by this higher education with a programme to make it accessible, the problem of numbers will take care of itself. The fittest should have at least the opportunity to survive. Universities will gain a proper view of their present responsibilities in the focus of two converging beams. There is the illumination that

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNIVERSITIES

11

comes from the past and what Berdyaev describes as "the light that streams from the future." As to the past, we are carried back beyond the age of mediaeval scholasticism to the intellectual and spiritual inheritance that renewed its vigour in a fruitful union of faith and reason. The manifold achievement of the Greek genius had been collected into an architectonic structure by the synthetic mind of Aristotle, but it awaited the inspiration of a Divine meaning which broke into history as a creative force. This too required long centuries to reveal its power, not only in dogmatic statement but in a civilizing mission. Many factors converged, drawing their strength from diverse sources, to give rise to the universities. They became the base camps from which the human spirit has gone out to new and hopeful adventures in thought and life, carrying us forward to produce the modern world. It cannot be maintained that the universities have been the sole agents in the vast alteration in the life of mankind that has taken place within such a relatively short period in world history, but their contribution has been central and decisive. The adventurers have been men and women educated in the universities. There is no need to minimize the power of ideas and the influence of mental attitudes, but they become active only by engaging the thought and energy of individual human beings. What can be said of the universities is that they have provided germinating beds for the development of ideas and attitudes. They have maintained the intellectual soil which has been like a good earth amidst the circumstantial events that have transpired upon its surface. Of course, they have not been impervious to the changes of climate and weather, but by intelligent cultivation and wise husbandry, new fruits have been produced to provide fresh nourishment for the children of men in their long-drawn encounter with the engagement of life. As we look back at our intellectual history since the rise and growth of the universities, the most impressive single feature on the landscape is what still excites our main interest and activity. We are still immensely attracted by the endeavour to understand our physical environment. The rewards of the search have been great and our entire idea of what we call the natural world has been completely and radically changed. So careful a historian as Herbert Butterfield, who is by no means indifferent to the power of the spiritual element in human history, writes of the "so-called scientific revolution" that "it outshines everything since the rise of Christendom and reduces the Renaissance and the Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements within the system of mediaeval Christendom." Of course, it would be as foolish as it

12

JAMES S. THOMSON

would be prejudiced to ignore the manifest achievements during this same period of universal history in music, art, and literature, and actually within the study of history itself, not to speak of the doctrines of law and political association. Education has been humanized and broadened in scope and opportunity. But undoubtedly the scientific spirit has been dominant. Until fairly recently its chief inquiries have been directed to the investigation of the realm of the physical to produce a revolutionary change in ideas and a resultant growth in acquired knowledge and understanding. The effects on human civilization have been immense and farreaching, extending as they now do to the face of the entire earth and the whole life of mankind. The drive of this stupendous intellectual adventure and the manifest fruits it has reaped have tended to inhibit an examination of its latent dogmas. But the crisis of our age is an intimation that such an inquiry cannot longer be postponed. The task confronts the universities as a major responsibility, but not one to be undertaken as what we may call a detached research. The problem can be stated very simply, but its terms are as complex as human nature. Socrates is credited with maintaining the identity of knowledge and virtue. There is certainly no virtue in ignorance. But quantity of knowledge was not what Socrates had in mind-rather that quality which his interpreter Plato described as wisdom. If there is any agreement in the perennial discussion as to what we mean by education, surely there has been a consensus of opinion in this definition of its aim. Education means wisdom. But where shall wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding? Only by answering this question will the universities be able to reckon with their responsibilities. This question is not exclusively academic. It is indeed the grave question of our age. Contemporary philosophy is afflicted by the same disabling lack of assured direction that disturbs at least our western world. It concentrates attention on the bare problem of meaning, but often as an exercise to support the contention that existence has no meaning at all. The moral effect is bedlam let loose. One may ask if the universities have not contributed to the universal confusion, not so much by design as by neglect to ask themselves this fundamental questionwhat is our aim? The answer will not be an abstract proposition. It will find concrete statement in the kind of men and women universities produce-and this applies as much to teachers as to taught. The human centre of reference is the kindly light that will begin to lead us through the encircling gloom to a more hopeful future. We have

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNIVERSITIES

13

spent much energy on the investigation of physical nature. Perhaps the time has now come to devote a compensatory attention to human nature. Such a result is not to be achieved by throwing the sciences and the humanities into competitive opposition. The evil effects of such a schismatic division have already wrought enough damage to forbid such foolishness. As a first step, what is needed is that scientists should recognize and accept themselves as humanists. Theirs is no peculiar mission to be detached from the universal human quest for knowledge, to be pursued in the monastic seclusion of their own particular orders. Equally, the humanists should abandon a spurious imitation of the scientists. As for the wide territories regarded as the realm of the socalled social sciences, there the need for wisdom cries aloud! And there, it may be, that the most hopeful answers will be found. But only if scientists and humanists can achieve a fruitful union at this very point. The blessed word research, which seems to carry with it such an aura of academic sanctity, needs to be broadened out from its narrow limitations and restrictive methodology. The procedures of experimental science have proved their capacity to extend knowledge; nevertheless they can be tributary to the growth of wisdom only within the context of human values. The universities should provide a hospitable environment for this achievement. But where shall values be found? Along with the sciences, and not in detachment from them, we turn to philosophy, to the arts, to literature, to history, and to religion, as man's self-portraiture in reflected images. Here is a vast workshop calculated to yield results as exciting and profitable as the laboratory of the biologist and the physicist. But the methods of inquiry must be adapted to the material. The obsession of contemporary philosophy with logical analysis may return a negative answer to our quest for ultimate wisdom, but at least it will confirm the view that propositions of value do not yield to the inductive procedures or the experimental proofs of the scientific method. Values are grasped through insight and intuition, and can be stated only in the language and thought forms of the imagination, when feeling guides the processes of reason and is not banished from the academic household as unqualified to pass the entrance examination. To put the matter very briefly, the universities will be equipped to discharge their obligations to themselves, by which is meant the human beings who constitute them, in a new scholastic union of faith and reason. The paths of knowledge that have been so variously explored and the territories that have been won from the dominion of ignorance must now begin to converge to provide a

14

JAMES S. THOMSON

base of operation for the most immediate and demanding of our contemporary necessities-a fresh and hopeful new beginning in the agelong task of human civilization. The call is urgent and the time is short. The choice is between education and disaster, and for such a decision only the highest education is of any relevance. At the heart and centre of such education, as its informing philosophy, we need an adequate doctrine of human nature. Contemporary voices tell us that this is the paramount question of our age. This view is confirmed by our incapacity to deal with the emergent problems which are dark with threatening to the whole future of the human adventure. Are human values to derive their sanctions from de-personalized pressures in dynamic mass movements of nation, race, and ideology? Or can we find assured social direction that can reconcile the larger good of mankind with the integrity of the human individual? Above all, how can we develop requisite moral energies to carry insights into action? The social sciences cannot stand aloof from such questions; but to provide answers, those disciplines must be enlarged both as to scope and method. So far, they have tended to work with categories derived from the physical sciences. The prevailing dogma has been the continuity of man with nature. This point of view has impressed itself on the study of sociology, economics, psychology, history, and even literature itself. Man is deemed to be the product of his heredity and the reflection of his environment. The result is an ethical relativity, if indeed any moral philosophy is possible on such premises. It is certainly no equipment for any courageous advance into the future. The most obvious neglect is the empirical material for the study of human nature in its individual capacity and social achievement that lies on the dust-laden shelves of university libraries. The accumulated record of human life in literature, philosophy, and historical writing is at least as illuminating as tables of statistics. The Greek dramatists, Shakespeare, and Goethe have as much to teach us about the springs of human action as experiments with rats. More startling still is the contradiction offered by the fact of science itself, as a most practical evidence that the mind of man is not a dubious addendum to his physical environment and that he is capable of genuine originality. He stands in a unique relation to the world that can bring it into understanding, and to that extent, must assign it meaning and value. In his most cherished value of fidelity to the truth, the scientist declares himself a humanist. But, even so, this supreme virtue must not be kept detached from life as a whole. We are brought back to the need for a union of the various branches of knowledge which we in the universities keep so detached and isolated.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNIVERSITIES

15

It is alleged that the ancient tree of knowledge has proliferated into so many branches that such a scholastic attainment is no longer possible. The old ideal of the universal scholar has been superseded by the dedicated specialist. The wide landscape of learning has become segmented into what are called "chosen fields." Division has become the accepted strategy of conquest. But the universities are still thought of as communities of scholars. They need not be assemblies of departments. All their members share a common intellectual faith to which each can bring contributory knowledge. This working creed can be simply stated but it is of immeasurable significance for a perplexed and distracted world. Universities must proceed upon the conviction that we inhabit an intelligible world and that it will yield its secrets to the inquiring mind. Can we not carry this fundamental article of faith into the human scene with the assurance that knowledge not only can be found but also acted upon? This is the light that shines from the past and beckons us into a hopeful future. Wisdom need not fail if we keep our eyes fixed on the goal, which is not simply increase of knowledge but an understanding of who we are and what we are here for. The search for an answer will carry us far, and the process of discovering it will constitute the highest of all possible educations. Scholar, investigator, and student may all participate in it. All alike will benefit. The kind of men and women produced by such education is the contribution the universities are equipped to make to the life of the world. It is their chief responsibility so to order their work that they can discharge it.

' A L'AUBE D'UNE ERE NOUVELLE

Leon Lortie,

M.S.R.C.

LES UNIVERSITES CANADIENNES sont relativement jeunes. Si, pour des raisons de prestige, on cherche a faire remonter la fondation des plus anciennes a des dates aussi reculees que possible, on a vite fait de savoir qu'elles n'avaient alors d'universite que le nom. Un siecle tout au plus nous separe du moment ou, cessant d'etre des colleges, les ainees de notre monde academique ont commence de se donner des airs d'institutions d'enseignement superieur. C'etait a peu pres l'epoque oil le cardinal Newman cherchait a preciser ce qu'est une universite. Le besoin se faisait deja sentir de clarifier, d'expliciter cette idee dans un monde et dans un temps que la Revolution industrielle avait rendus si differents de ceux qui avaient vu naitre les premieres universites. Apres plus d'un siecle la question se pose encore avec plus d'acuite car le monde ou nous vivons ressemble moins a celui d'il y a cent ans que ce dernier ne differait de la Renaissance ou du Moyen age. La liste est longue des ouvrages qui, depuis quelque vingt-cinq ans, traitent de la crise de l'enseignement universitaire et proposent des remedes qui consistent pour la plupart en un retour a la tradition humaniste ou a celle des arts liberaux. Avant de nous demander si, au Canada et en plein vingtieme siecle, cela est possible et, dans l'affirmative, de quelle fa~on ce retour pourrait s'effectuer, il n'est pas inutile de poser quelques questions prealables. La premiere pourra paraitre tres vaste mais si nous la reduisons a sa plus simple expression, la reponse pourra nous aider a delimiter le champ du debat. Qu'est-ce done qu'une universite ? Sans nous preoccuper de savoir ce que fut la longue histoire de ce type d'institution, nous constatons que, dans tous les pays du monde, il est consacre a l'enseignement superieur. Nous voyons aussi que, parmi ceux qui frequentent les universites, meme s'ils font preuve de la plus grande diligence, un bon nombre faillissent a la tache car il faut pour reussir des aptitudes speciales. C'est que l'enseignement qu'on y donne, ou qu'on doit y donner, n'est pas uniquement superieur parce qu'il est au-dessus des autres

A L'AUBE D'UNE ERE NOUVELLE

17

qu'il presuppose mais bien parce qu'il est, par nature, du niveau le plus eleve auquel !'intelligence puisse atteindre. Nous nous rendons compte enfin, mais le sujet est delicat, que toutes les matieres qu'on peut apprendre ne se pretent pas aux exigences rigoureuses d'un enseignement superieur. Le point delicat est precisement de savoir quelles sont celles qui meritent qu'on leur accorde un si grand honneur. Quelques breves references au passe pourront nous eclairer a cet egard. Nees au Moyen age, les universites furent durant des siecles fideles a la tradition des arts liberaux preparatoires a l'etude de la theologie, du droit et de la medecine qui delimitaient alors les frontieres du savoir humain. On realisait ainsi l'ideal d'une science universelle et d'une preparation utilitaire a l'exercice du ministere ecclesiastique ou d'une profession liberate. Les temps ont bien change mais ii reste quelque chose de cette conception des etudes universitaires. Que signifiait au juste le mot liberal dans le contexte ou nous le trouvons ? II qualifiait d'abord des etudes que seul pouvait aborder un homme libre, d'ou leur caractere aristocratique. Dans notre age feru de democratie tous les hommes sont libres sans doute mais ii n'en reste pas moins que tous n'ont pas les aptitudes voulues pour s'adonner a la poursuite de certaines etudes. II n'y a que Jes meilleurs qui puissent s'y consacrer. Quoi qu'on y fasse, Jes etudes universitaires conservent toujours un caractere aristocratique. On dit aussi de ces arts qu'ils sont liberaux parce qu'ils liberent !'intelligence des servitudes materielles et l'entrainent a ne considerer que l'essentiel. C'est par leur intermediaire que l'esprit concentre son attention sur les idees, Jes concepts abstraits, les theories et, que du particulier, ii s'eleve a l'universel. ll n'est plus possible, comme ce fut le cas jadis, d'acquerir une science universelle. Le savoir humain s'est diversifie a tel point depuis la Renaissance qu'on ne peut maintenant posseder dans tous ses details une discipline aussi complexe que la physique ou la biologie. On pouvait alors le faire puisqu'il suffisait, apres avoir decouvert les principes de la philosophie, de raisonner logiquement pour en deduire les connaissances particulieres. Pouvons-nous, de nos jours, avoir une vue d'ensemble sur le monde ? Certes, l'entrainement que procure la pratique de la methode scientifique, avec son retour constant et obligatoire a !'observation et a l'experience, permet au physicien de se trouver a l'aise dans n'importe quel chapitre de cette discipline. L'habitude qu'il a de se referer a des connaissances fondamentales facilite sa besogne. Mais celui qui n'a pas voue sa vie a la pratique de la science peut-il, devant les problemes humains, dont celui de sa propre destinee est a coup sur le plus important, ignorer certaines idees que la science moderne a mises

18

LEON LORTIE

en circulation? Cette science, pour plusieurs qui en soot d'ailleurs inconscients, tient lieu de philosophie. Cela implique la necessite d'etablir des jugements de valeur et, sans que nous devions pour cela posseder chacune des sciences particulieres, il est indispensable de connaitre leurs methodes, de savoir quelles sont leurs limites et comment elles contribuent fa