Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

'the trustees can only propose; the University will dispose'. But when the trustees come, money in hand, and with their proposals backed by the nominees of the Council, by the general committee, and by the special committees of colleges, all under the aegis of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, it is to be feared that the last word' of the de iure government of the University will have little chance of disposing of anything except of itself. The danger of such a de facto initiative lies in its irresponsibility. Too little care has been taken in concocting Mr. Brassey's scheme, approved directly by the Chancellor's appeal, and indirectly by the meeting over which he presided. It was left, for example, to me to point out on the 6th how unjust is the proposal to turn the University Press out of doors into the street and locate a school of engineering on its site. In their answer of the 13th the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor replied that this proposal about buildings had formed no part of their appeal of the 2nd. But it had; for, under the head of additional buildings, it formed an integral part of the scheme, to the tune of £40,000 for the removal of the Press out of £250,000, the total sum solicited; and in their appeal of the 2nd the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, without excepting the buildings, accepted and recommended the scheme and the total of £250,000. Moreover, even in their letter of the 13th in answer to me, they did not withdraw the removal of the Press, but left it to the body of trustees to propose it or not to the University. Finally, the meeting approved the appeal approving the scheme, and the total sum of £250,000; and, further, Mr. Brassey himself said that they were now in a fair way of having £1,000 a year guaranteed for five years, which would justify them in starting the engineering school; but without saying where the school would be located, or that

Q

it would not be located on the site of the University Press. Thus this irresponsible de facto government has left the fate of the University Press in an indefinite haze to be somehow cleared up by the initiative of a body of trustees which forms no part of the constitution of the University.

The University of Oxford is a truly great institution; for that very reason it cannot afford to let its business pass out of its own hands, to be mismanaged by others who cannot hope to know so much as it knows about its internal affairs. It is for the University to decide whether the inanition of the present engineering diploma justifies it in starting an engineering school. It is for the University to decide whether there is a 'pressing need for a school of engineering to play the cuckoo in the nest of the University Press. It is for the University to decide whether it is safe to submit itself to the initiative of an unofficial government in connexion with the chief officers, the Council, and the colleges of the University, and yet apart from the constitutional government of the University.

The University ought to decide whether it will found the proposed school of engineering, whether it will remove the University Press, and whether it will pass the rest of the proposals of the scheme, the appeal, and the meeting; and it ought not to wait till its deliberations on the merits of those proposals are prejudiced by the temptations of money. At any rate, it should look first at its own resources. In my first letter I pointed out that the income of the colleges in 1905 as compared with 1902 had increased £15,000. The accounts for 1906 are now published, and show a further increase of £10,000; while the University had a balance of £4,000. There is a hope then that Oxford may both decide and provide its own needs. But, should it fail,

begging does not follow. To get money is a pleasant thing, but not right at all hazards. Least of all should Oxford University sell the birthright of its authority for a mess of pottage.

C.C.C., Oxford, May.

CHANGES AT OXFORD AND THE

CHANCELLOR'S SCHEME

Lord Curzon, the Chancellor, actually did bring out the scheme of reform to which allusion is made in this letter. The scheme was a fairly substantial volume entitled 'Principles and Methods of University Reform (1909)'.

The changes indicated in Case's letter have been partially carried into effect. That is to say, statutes have altered the composition of the Hebdomadal Council, in the direction of making it more professorial', and of making Congregation a body of Masters of Arts who are not merely resident, but who actually hold official posts in the Colleges or in the University. But no change was made in the composition of Convocation (which consists of all Masters of Arts) except by the admission of women to the Degree of M.A. since 1920.

FROM The Times, JANUARY 25, 1909.

On Friday, the 15th, you published a special article entitled 'Oxford at the beginning of Hilary Term ' from your Oxford Correspondent, who says that 'we are still awaiting the Chancellor's promised scheme of reform, delayed, unfortunately, by his bad state of health', and then proceeds to discuss the reform of Congregation, or the assembly of all members of Convocation, resident in Oxford. He alludes to a proposal, which is to come in the form of a resolution before Congregation on the 26th inst.: That it is desirable that Congregation should be limited to members of Convocation who hold or have held University or College appointments, or are directly concerned with the studies, teaching, or administration of the University.' As this proposal seems likely to be part of the Chancellor's pro

[ocr errors]

mised scheme of reform', perhaps you will allow me to make a few criticisms on it, and on the treatment of it by your Correspondent.

[ocr errors]

1. It is a proposal to convert Congregation from a residential into an official body, and to make a bureaucracy of teachers and administrators the practical government of the University. But in order to ensure that end it has to disfranchise about 150 out of about 500 resident members of Convocation, and reduce them to passive spectators of what is going on in their own University in which they reside. A few curates and chaplains, and one or two others, will be disfranchised', says your Correspondent. But he is misinformed. Statistics have been collected and show that more than two-thirds of about 150 who would be disfranchised are laymen. Many are honour-men-men who have distinguished themselves either in their academical career or in after-life. All of them are well qualified to judge by the experience of residence, and at the same time ensure the variety of opinion calculated to correct the prejudices of a profession.

2. A more serious objection is that the proposal is a fragment of a larger scheme for changing the whole government of the University, which theoretically consists of Council, Congregation, and Convocation. The Vice-Chancellor proclaimed this constitutional programme in his speech of October 6, in which, after alluding to the Chancellor's scheme, he spoke as follows:

Quae ante alia corrigere, me iudice, conandum haec sunt: Concilii Hebdomadalis, Congregationis constitutio; Convocationis ipsius forsan serius aggredienda recensio.' There is then a project in the background for altering the composition of the Council, which will probably end in trying to make it, as well as Congregation, more official by making it more professorial. More sweeping is a further project to alter the

composition of Convocation, or the assembly of all paying Masters of Arts, resident or non-resident. The present proposal to change Congregation and the further project to change Convocation are nearly connected, because both mean disfranchisement, and the former will encourage the latter. The real interest of the proposal', says your Correspondent about the former proposal, lies in the measure to which it would logically lead-a limitation of the "irresponsible vote" in Convocation.' By the 'irresponsible vote' he appears to mean the vote of non-residents, from whom, on his own responsibility, he proposes to take all control of the curriculum of education in the University of Oxford. Finally, the whole aim of these so-called reforms of the government of the University is oligarchy, disfranchisement, bureaucracy, officialism, professionalism, narrowness-for even learned men may be

narrow.

3. There remains the still greater objection-that the proposal to change Congregation, whether followed or not by other proposals to change the whole constitution of the University, is a preparation, if not a part, of a still more general scheme to introduce all manner of changes, which your Correspondent calls the Chancellor's promised scheme

of reform'.

Among these projected changes, he says, it is urged that the University should appoint a delegacy or a committee to do officially the work now done by the Association for the Education of Women'. More officialism; but the real question is whether there is any ulterior purpose which ought now to be stated. Far more important, however, is the Correspondent's reference to working-class education, now being started under the Delegates for the Extension of Teaching beyond the limits of the University, and managed by a Committee, half of

« VorigeDoorgaan »