VIII

Imagine, then, three humanistic fates, each corresponding to what might be called the fundamental types of human experience, three different humanistic saints, each with a different gift of the spirit. A spectrum-but not a hierarchy— of possibility showing three distinct conditions of being.

At the intellectual or Apollonian end of the spectrum is the Scholar. His gift is quick, ready intelligence, an athletic mind and a vast memory; he is an orderer and conceptualist. He is the true intellectual of the academic world. When he errs, it is because his intelligence is too quick and too cruel, it bypasses experience.

At the opposite end, the Dionysiac or Titanic pole, stands the Teacher or the Activist, a man whose characteristic mode is his radiance of being. He is all experience, a man who visibly suffers for his experience, and who guarantees the truth of what he knows by being what he is. He is no great intellect perhaps, but he is totally persuasive, with the eloquence of a great mime. His body speaks. Between the Scholar and the Teacher stands the Artist, the man in whom vision Titanic and Apollonian meet, fused in a compelling tension. What in him is intellect emerges as formal power, exactly adapted to the chaos of his experience. These three types stand on a common level. Since all are necessary, none is higher or lower than any other.

The figurative and Nietzschean character of my metaphor renders it perhaps doubtful. But I am satisfied if my point is clear. Others will propose different definitions. There is a spectrum of different possibilities, and each variant fate deserves its honor and fulfillment. The sciences are basically, I think, all Apollonian; they must always seek knowledge-though the scientist's personal life may be no less creative than the humanist's. They offer only one kind of fate— that analogous to, but not identical with, the humanistic Scholar in my spectrum. But the humanities are more various and require, for a statement of the truth, that every possibility be realized, that every mode of the mind and body be set into full and loving use. That is not our present usage, but our present usage has demonstrated its bankruptcy.

I dream, then, of an Emersonian university where past and present can, and do, compete; where the great teacher has equal honor with the great scholar; where creative emulation, even at the graduate level, might mean either great scholarship or creative work that competed with the classic; and where human greatness would again be in real repute with humanists.

There is no reason why this metaphor of three possible fates should not be translated into academic practice. I find no difficulty in imagining a program of study for each type, nor in imagining a man who incarnates the type. We can even invent degrees for them if we must. But until we realize a university in which these types can emerge as men, with equal dignity of opportunity and fate, until we can divise a curriculum in which men can use the whole of their natures and the whole of their knowledge and passion, "academic" will remain a synonym for the incomplete and futile man of great possibility.

COMMENTS ON STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM ARROWSMITH, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AUSTIN, TEX., BY W. P. LEHMANN, ASHBEL SMITH PROFESSOR IN GERMANIC LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS, AND CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AUSTIN, TEX.

I appreciate the opportunity of commenting on the remarks of Professor William Arrowsmith given at the Hearing on S. 3098 conducted on March 29, 1968 in Austin. My own remarks are directed primarily at the charge of inadequacies in Graduate Schools, such as professionalism and exploitation of graduate students, which presumably can only be removed by pressures from outside. I agree that Graduate Schools have erred in these and other areas, but I also think they have made considerable efforts to remove any such errors. And I would object strongly to any legislative requirements attached to appropriations for support of graduate education.

Graduate education is largely individual. Graduate degrees are awarded primarily on the demonstration by students that they have attained intellectual maturity. They demonstrate their maturity through passing examinations set by the graduate faculty in certain areas, and by writing a thesis. Most graduate

programs require some courses. But in general the course work is determined largely by the individual student. His thesis is written under the direction of a committee, but in practice the direction is generally entrusted to one member of that committee. It would be difficult to devise a freer form of training. Few students take more than three courses per semester; many take less work. Their course load accordingly leaves them ample opportunity for initiative and freedom. Graduate students are mature citizens, among the upper members of college classes. If after they have completed a college degree they still need departmental encouragement to "look beyond their own field," they must be relatively mediocre, scarcely worth further education. And it is somewhat unlikely that subsidies from Washington encouraging innovative explorations will do much for these students. Rather, any legislative requirement, whether for conservation or innovation, invariably damages the areas of education which it is designed to

save.

Legislative requirements on the curricula of various universities can provide examples. In past periods of hysteria, requirements were instituted in our state for American history and American government. The required courses became routine courses. Students were bored, especially since they had already taken courses in American history and government in their preivious schooling. Students could have learned far more about their own institutions if they could have studied those of other areas of the world. And in being required to devote a tenth of their college work to history and government, they had little time for courses in other social sciences, such as economics and sociology, which might have given them added breadth in understanding their political institutions of the past and present. If now a legislative requirement is attached to innovation, we will see every new graduate school in the country outdoing another in instituting Ph.D. programs in the History of Consciousness, possibly literary, religious, psychedelic, and so on through the rich class of English adjectives.

Rather than admit any stipulations on the use of funds, I would like to urge that the Committee follow the principle that all decisions on academic matters be made by faculties.

Academicians are already among the most tolerant of men in offering a platform to non-specialists and to non-professionals. From an occasional poet in residence a generation ago, universities now swarm with poets. Similiarly, artists, musicians, even actors. Labor leaders, politicians, exponents of various causes may lecture freely on campuses. I have occasionally wondered why legislators don't invite outsiders into their halls to write their procedural rules if they consider the practice so salutary for academics.

When such rules are proposed by outsiders. they are often contradictory. Professor Arrowsmith on p. 18 deplores the practice that the graduate assistant is "treated as a person whose mediocrity or relative inferiority adapts him to the teaching of undergraduates." On p. 6 he asks that graduate programs should "stress the importance and relevance of practical experience." Most graduate students are being prepared for teaching. Teaching assistantships are the sole means of giving them pratical experience. I know of few departments that fail to give their graduate teaching assistants advice and training. Adequate training can scarcely be less than a year. If then 25% of the graduate students in a university are teaching assistants, the figure is approximately correct for allowing each graduate student to gain teaching experience in one of his four years of graduate work.

I do not mean to imply that Graduate Schools are not without their problems. Or that they could not provide more guidance for other educational institutions, or that graduate students do not need improved support. It is fairly clear when a complex machine like a computer can be made from an assortment of plastic. wires and intrinsically inexpensive materials that education is far more important than are raw materials. If the Congress agrees, it should not view support for training as a subsidy to graduate schools. Nor should it impose restrictions on an institution which is highly flexible, and responsive to new forms of training. The computer was scarcely known twenty years ago; today, most graduate schools have departments of computer science. Other new fields, like linguistics, are being widely recognized. Interdepartmental programs have become so commonplace that to achieve any status today a program must be transdepartmental. Most graduate students are as flexible as are the graduate schools. Thirty years ago only the fortunate graduate students could travel abroad to countries of their interest. Today language departments rarely receive applications from students who haven't been abroad during their undergraduate years or earlier.

Much of the increase in quality of our graduate schools and much of the improvement in preparation of our graduate students has resulted from federal support-Fulbright fellowships, NDEA programs, fellowships arranged by other federal agencies. Since education is increasingly important in our complex society, all citizens, from students to legislators, should be concerned with it. Even if graduate schools wished to carry on their activities in quiet, they can scarcely expect to do so in our vocal society; instructors who escape evaluation of their classes conducted through complex questionnaires evaluated by computers, cannot readily escape questions from students who have lost any shyness while picketing a president. Members of graduate schools would also welcome criticism from others. But please don't hamstring them with legislative restrictions. PANEL CONSISTING OF DR. JOHN T. KING, PRESIDENT, HUSTONTILLOTSON COLLEGE, AUSTIN, TEX.; DR. L. H. McCLONEY, PRESIDENT, PAUL QUINN COLLEGE, WACO, TEX.; AND DR. MARVIN L. BAKER, PRESIDENT, SOUTH PLAINS COLLEGE, LEVELLAND, TEX. Senator YARBOROUGH. The next on our list of witnesses this morning is a panel of those who will discuss the problems of the developing institutions and the Professors Emeritus suggestion, and Dr. John T. King, we will ask this panel to come around.

PROFESSORS EMERITUS

Dr. John T. King, the president of Huston-Tillotson College, Dr. McCloney, president of Paul Quinn College of Waco, Tex., and Dr. Marvin Baker, president of South Plains College, Levelland. Gentlemen, you will identify yourselves. You are listed here in a certain sequence, and I understand you will present your testimony in that sequence. I order your prepared statement printed in the record preceding your oral remarks.

Please identify yourselves to the people here as you present your positions on this phase of this higher educational legislation.

(The prepared statement of Dr. King follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN T. KING, PRESIDENT, HUSTON-TILLOTSON COLLEGE, AUSTIN, TEX.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my Colleagues in College Administration, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am pleased indeed to give testimony in behalf of Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and to give my opinion regarding the proposed "Professors Emeritus" amendment No. 526. It was my good fortune to be present when President Johnson signed into law this Act in November, 1965. That was a great day for America. That was a great day for the young people of our beloved country. Generations yet unborn will benefit from this Act and they will rise up and call us blessed because we sought to provide for them through this advance in education.

Education is our best hope for continuing our way of life. Training the mind has always been an important part of our function as a nation since the initiation of the American ideal. In the early days of settlement on our American shores, one of the basic concerns was instruction of the settlers, with provisions— meager and unsatisfactory perhaps—but training nevertheless, in how to work to survive. This eagerness to survive in a new land with its many hardships, challenges, and yet opportunities, led invariably to the achievement of a better way of life, and a reason for surviving.

I need not recount to you the historical development of American education, for you know the many phases through which its development has proceeded. You know that chiefly through education we have come to realize that only through eradication of ignorance and the exposure of myths has the elevation of

standards of living been achieved. We today are keenly conscious of the need for even the most basic training-reading, writing, and arithmetic-as a means of reducing the huge number of illiterates who still people our land. The efforts to alleviate poverty, to provide education for the culturally and economically disadvantaged, are but facets of the total program neded to safeguard our land and preserve a way of life which has become an ideal, if not a reality.

Our colleges and universities today face the greatest challenge in the history of American higher education. They must deal effectively with the explosions of knowledge and population. They must raise the quantity and quality of education to new heights. Tomorrow's college students will live their adult lives in a world vastly more complex than the world of today. Accordingly, they will need considerably better education. The best possible education occurs when the interests and abilities of our young people are carefully matched with quality programs to prepare them for useful and rewarding lives in their personal, civic, and professional careers.

Higher education is not, and must not be, a one-track, one-goal effort. It must recognize and make provisions for the many and diverse needs of the people who live and work in our complex society. It is not enough to educate the planners, the inventors, and the innovators. We need skilled and effective workers and citizens in depth. This requires increasingly higher levels of education for greater numbers of people. There will be a need for all of our existing institutions, those which are considered to be elite as well as those still in need of substantial development. However, an institution should not be continued simply because it exists, but rather for its potential and progress which can take it through its developmental processes succesfully to a point of substantial contributions to intellectual stability and human dignity.

Huston-Tillotson College is a Developing Institution in every sense of the term. As its name implies it is a merger of two small, church-related colleges of arts and sciences located in Austin, Texas. Samuel Huston College was founded as Andrews Normal School in Dallas, Texas, in February 1876, by two Methodist ministers. In subsequent years its development was slow and it faced many hardships and changes in its effort to survive effectively. It was relocated in Austin where it began operations as Samuel Huston College in 1900 under the sponsorship of The Methodist Church.

Tillotson College, founded as Tillotson Collegiate and Normal Institute in Austin in 1877 by the American Missionary Association of the Congregational Church, faced turbulent years in its process of development. Inadequate financial support, continuous community pressures, advancing standards of education and a multitude of other problems combined to produce stress, anxiety and frustrations for both of these institutions as they struggled to provide opportunities to youth who were otherwise denied this kind of academic training.

Neither institution was endowed, and neither developed through the years an affluent alumni on whom it could depend for financial support. Nevertheless, both institutions produced great leaders for Austin, for Texas, and for the nation.

Realizing that in union there could be strength, in 1952 a merger of the two was consummated, resulting in the new institution known as Huston-Tillotson College, which retained the ideals of both antecedent institutions. Although they were founded to provide educational opportunities for Negroes, neither had clauses of exclusion in its charter. Similarly the charter of Huston-Tillotson College makes no reference to such mundane irrelevances as race, creed, or ethnic origin of students, faculty, nor trustees.

Huston-Tillotson College has enjoyed an excellent relationship with The University of Texas at Austin through the years. At a time when more strained relationships existed between whites and Negroes, many faculty members and students of that University displayed open-mindedness, magnitude of heart, and genuineness of attitude. It was quite natural that a formal "Memorandum of Agreement" be executed to replace the informal spirit of cooperation as a result of the passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965. The Chancellor of The University and those appointed by him to assist Huston-Tillotson College in thi program were most enthusiastic from the outset. As a result of this cooperative venture two grants under Title III of this Act have been awarded the College and the programs developed as a result of this aid have been most meaningful and have been a real success. These programs are as follows:

1. Visiting Scholars Program which enabled Huston-Tillotson College to invite outstanding scholars throughout the nation to the campus for mind-stretchin

sessions with faculty and students. The University has assisted in identifying these scholars from other distinguished institutions as well as from The University itself. Curriculum development is a component of this program. These visits have been a motivating factor for faculty and students.

2. The Visiting Scholars and Lecturers Program in Fine Arts has made possible a program which includes an "Artist in Residence" to give leadership in developing a curriculum in art; a noted Music Theorist to provide instruction in music theory; consultants to assist the music faculty in planning space and equipment needs for a Fine Arts Building, to plan with the architect in the design of the building, and to assist the music faculty in writing a proposal to a Texas-based foundation for a grant to provide a Fine Arts Building. This program has been coordinated by the Dean of Huston-Tillotson College and the Dean of the College of Fine Arts of The University of Texas at Austin.

3. Faculty Improvement has been made possible by both Title III Grants. Several faculty members were released from teaching assignments to pursue doctoral study full-time at full salary. It is anticipated that at least two of these persons will receive the Ph. D. degree by August, 1968. It is most essential that the College secure additional doctorates in order to maintain its membership in the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

4. The College has been provided with four National Teaching Fellows. These young, energetic faculty members have brought new vitality and freshness to the campus. They are an asset to the College.

5. The area of Development is most vital to any institution but especially to a small one. Huston-Tillotson College has been excluded from the grants-giving community through the years. In order to survive and be relevant in the years ahead it is most essential that an adequate program of development be established at the College. Our second grant provided funds for the establishment of a Development Office. A Director of Development, and a secretary, both full-time, have been employed, and the office is now in operation. It is anticipated that significant contacts will be made in the immediate future. An endownment program is being planned at the present time.

6. Many high school graduates are deficient in the basic skills of reading, writing, and speech. To attack these deficiencies and provide solutions for the problems, the College requested funds to establish a Communications Center. This Center, now in operation, is staffed by members of the faculties of HustonTillotson College and The University of Texas at Austin. Consultants from other institutions are invited to assist in the operation of this program. Several faculty members of The University donate their services to this center. It is envisioned that within a few years techniques will be developed to alleviate these basic skills problems early in the student's academic career.

7. The placement of graduates is vital in this era of our history. Business and industry are now visiting the predominantly Negro colleges in search of talent. It was most essential that an organized channel of effectuating these visits be provided. Our Title III grant made possible a cooperative program in this area with College Placement Service, Inc. Two career day programs have been sponsored by the College for its students, and a wholesome relationship is developing between business and industry and the College. Several of our 1967 graduates were employed by national firms and by the Federal Government.

8. Funds were made available for administrative planning through Title III. It is important that each institution determine its role and scope, continuously review its purposes, reassess the value of its overall objectives and goals, and perfect its organization. Consultants have been available from the cooperating institution, and from other institutions, to work with the College in these areas. An organizaitonal chart has been devised, job descriptions for the various administrative functions have been prepared, and a faculty and staff handbook is in process of preparation. The Univeristy has been of tremendous assistance in every areas. The College is beginning to see clearly its role for the future.

9. A special Program Planning Grant was awarded the College under Title III, making possible visits to Washington for the purpose of contact with various governmental agencies regarding porgram possibilities, visits to other institutions to study certain areas of operations, and providing consultants to assist in developing long-range plans for the College. A "Long-Range Projection" has evolved extending through the school year 1976-77. The area of non-academic personnel has been sorely neglected through the years. Attention is now being devoted to this aspect of our program as well as to effective organization of the