Like our political society, the university is under severe attack today and perhaps for the same reason; namely, that we have accomplished much of what we have set out to do in this generation, that we have done so imperfectly, and while we have been doing so, we have said a lot of things that simply are not true. For example, we have earnestly declared that full equality of opportunity in universities exists for everyone, regardless of economic circumstance, race, or religion. This has never been true. When it was least true, the assertion was not attacked. Now that it is nearly true, not only the assertion but the university itself is locked in mortal combat with the seekers of perfection. In another sense the university has failed. It has stored great quantities of knowledge; it teaches more people; and despite its failures, it teaches them better. It is in the application of this knowledge that the failure has come. Of the great branches of knowledge—the sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities—the sciences are
applied, sometimes almost as soon as they are learned. Strenuous and occasionally successful efforts are made to apply the social sciences, but almost never are the humanities well applied. We do not use philosophy in defining our conduct. We do not use literature as a source of real and vicarious experience to save us the trouble of living every life again on our own.The great tasks of the university in the next generation are to search the past to form the future, to begin an earnest search for a new and relevant set of values, and to learn to use the knowledge we have for the questions that come before us. The university should use one-fourth of a student’s time in his undergraduate years and organize it into courses which might be called history, and literature and philosophy, and anything else appropriate and organize these around primary problems. The difference between a primary problem and a secondary or even tertiary problem is that primary problems tend to be around for a long time, whereas the less important ones get solved. One primary problem is that of interfering with what some call human destiny and others call biological development, which is partly the result of genetic circumstance and partly the result of accidental environmental conditions. It is anticipated that the next generation, and perhaps this one, will be able to interfere chemically with the actual development of an individual and perhaps biologically by interfering with his genes. Obviously, there are benefits both to individuals and to society from eliminating, or at least improving, mentally and physically deformed persons. On the other hand, there could be very serious consequences if this knowledge were used with premeditation to produce superior and subordinate classes, each genetically prepared to carry out a predetermined mission. This can be done, but what happens to free will and the rights of the individual? Here we have a primary problem that will still exist when we are all dead. Of course, the traditional faculty members would say, “But the students won’t learn enough to go to graduate school.” And certainly they would not learn everything we are in the habit of making them learn, but they would learn some other things. Surely, in the other three-quarters of their time, they would learn what they usually do, and they might even learn to think about it by carrying new habits into their more conventional courses. The advantages would be overwhelmingly greater than the disadvantages. After all, the purpose of education is not only to impart knowledge but to teach students to use the knowledge that they either have or will find, to teach them to ask and seek answers for important questions.
applied, sometimes almost as soon as they are learned. Strenuous and occasionally successful efforts are made to apply the social sciences, but almost never are the humanities well applied. We do not use philosophy in defining our conduct. We do not use literature as a source of real and vicarious experience to save us the trouble of living every life again on our own.The great tasks of the university in the next generation are to search the past to form the future, to begin an earnest search for a new and relevant set of values, and to learn to use the knowledge we have for the questions that come before us. The university should use one-fourth of a student’s time in his undergraduate years and organize it into courses which might be called history, and literature and philosophy, and anything else appropriate and organize these around primary problems. The difference between a primary problem and a secondary or even tertiary problem is that primary problems tend to be around for a long time, whereas the less important ones get solved. One primary problem is that of interfering with what some call human destiny and others call biological development, which is partly the result of genetic circumstance and partly the result of accidental environmental conditions. It is anticipated that the next generation, and perhaps this one, will be able to interfere chemically with the actual development of an individual and perhaps biologically by interfering with his genes. Obviously, there are benefits both to individuals and to society from eliminating, or at least improving, mentally and physically deformed persons. On the other hand, there could be very serious consequences if this knowledge were used with premeditation to produce superior and subordinate classes, each genetically prepared to carry out a predetermined mission. This can be done, but what happens to free will and the rights of the individual? Here we have a primary problem that will still exist when we are all dead. Of course, the traditional faculty members would say, “But the students won’t learn enough to go to graduate school.” And certainly they would not learn everything we are in the habit of making them learn, but they would learn some other things. Surely, in the other three-quarters of their time, they would learn what they usually do, and they might even learn to think about it by carrying new habits into their more conventional courses. The advantages would be overwhelmingly greater than the disadvantages. After all, the purpose of education is not only to impart knowledge but to teach students to use the knowledge that they either have or will find, to teach them to ask and seek answers for important questions.
...
