The University—Yesterday, Today And ?

MR. JUPP: The job of introducing our guest today has been made exceedingly difficult by the combined efforts of the Ford Motor Company of Canada and the C.B.C. Mr. Joseph McCulley is so well known as a TV personality that I am sure you feel you know him intimately. If so he has succeeded perfectly in the role he plays every Friday night in Graphic. Moreover, his career has been written up in such magazines as MacLeans and Saturday Night so that you probably know all the details. Born in Glasgow in 1900, the oldest of nine children of an Irish father and a Yorkshire mother he was brought to Canada in 1907 and received his early education in public and high school in St. Thomas, Ontario. After attending the Ontario College of Education he taught on the staff of Toronto Public Schools for three years before taking a degree in Honours Philosophy at University College in the University of Toronto. He was President of the University College Literary and Athletic Society in his final year. He then proceeded to Oxford University with a Massey Fellowship for two years at Christ Church where he got an M.A. in Modern History. His first year back in Canada 1926-7 he was Tutor-in-residence at South House, University College and then from 1927 to 1947 Headmaster of Pickering College for Boys at Newmarket. An interlude in the summer and autumn 1945 was an assignment as overseas civilian adviser of Khaki University. From 1947 to 1952 Mr. McCulley worked out of Ottawa as Deputy Commissioner of Penitentiaries in charge of education and rehabilitation. Meantime he served for ten years as Chairman of the Young Men's Committee of the National Council of the Y.M.C.A. In 1952 he was appointed Warden of Hart House, the appointment he still holds, but continued his former interests from 1952 to 1956 as President of the Canadian Penal Association and from 1952 to 1956 as a member of the FAUTEUX Committee of the Department of Justice.

Today we are privileged to hear this distinguished pedagogue, Mr. Joseph McCulley, speaking on: "The University Yesterday, Today and ?".

MR. McCULLEY: Some four months ago members of this Club listened to an address entitled "Education and the Cold War" by Mr. James S. Duncan. He posed some very real challenges to all thinking Canadians. May I summarize what he said.

We in Canada are suffering from an acute shortage of scientists, engineers, teachers and other professional leaders. We cannot import them from other sources. We

must produce our own. The overwhelming proportion of the monies required to finance the immediate and longterm expansion of our universities must still be raised from corporations and other sources which are the chief beneficiaries from the education given to our young people.

My remarks today must be considered more or less as a postscript to Mr. Duncan's masterly address,--the circulation of which has contributed so much to the current widespread debate on the subject of education.

We cannot stint on any phase of our Canadian educational program. The municipalities and the provinces must continue to struggle with the problem of new buildings, new facilities, an increased number of better qualified teachers for our elementary and secondary schools. No later than a week ago the Ontario government announced that it was increasing its grants to elementary school boards by $3.00 per pupil. The Provincial Treasurer and the Minister of Education said, "This special grant is being provided in recognition of the abnormal needs and conditions which have arisen with respect to the provision of adequate teachers' salaries as well as the need for improvement in the elementary schools of Ontario. This is just an indication of the enormous requirements of this province in the field of education alone." Premier Frost said that this will bring the total grants for elementary pupils to $104,000,000.

In the final analysis, however, the future of our own country and, in fact, the whole future of our western world and what we rather glibly describe as "our way of life," is dependent on our universities.

In my lifetime and in the lifetime of many in his audience, we have come through two world wars and a global depression. The Empire which our grandparents knew exists no more. At the present moment there are two major polarities of power in two titan nations. What the future will hold we know not.

Mr. Duncan mentions specifically the problem of China which in a period of the next thirty to thirty-five years may well have a population of 1,000,000,000 people. The colonial peoples of Southeast Asia, Africa and, in fact, of the whole world, are in revolt. Business and industry are already faced with new and frightening problems. Automation will displace labour and we are already discussing the possibility of a thirty-hour week. The development of nuclear power presents untold and unimagined new problems, which cannot be ignored, which have incredible potential, either for good or ill for the human race. All these and other problems confront us. They cannot be solved by a slide rule. It is only out of all the schools of this and other countries that there will come the men and the women who can provide the knowledge, the vision, the imagination, the courage, to solve these problems. In the universities we are very conscious of this tremendous responsibility. The only question is whether we can rise to the demands which have been made upon us; whether we are capable of an adequate response to the terrific challenge of our times.

It is appropriate, therefore, that we should examine the idea of "the university" on which so much of our future, and perhaps our very survival, may depend.

In its very simplest terms a university is a corporation (generally consisting of a group of schools, faculties or colleges) for the conservation, dissemination and advancement of learning. The university developed in Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries as a result of a great revival of learning,--not that revival of the 14th and 15th centuries to which the term is usually applied, but an earlier revival which historians now call the Renaissance of the 12th Century. Between 1100 and 1200 there came a great influx of new knowledge into western Europe, partly from Italy and Sicily but chiefly through the Arab scholars of Spain--the works of Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy and the Greek physicians,--a new arithmetic and those texts of Roman Law which had lain hidden through the Dark Ages. Universities were established at Salerno (Medicine), Bologna (Law), Paris (Theology). Following these early foundations other universities were formed by migrations of students (Oxford, Cambridge, Leipzig). The word "university" has no connection with the universe or the university of learning; it denotes only the totality of a group, whether of barbers, carpenters or students.

As a matter of historical fact the first universities were little more than guilds of students organized as a means of protection against the townspeople, for the price of rooms and necessaries rose rapidly with the crowd of new tenants and consumers, and the individual student was helpless against such profiteering. United, the students could bring the town to terms by the threat of departure in a body, secession, for the university, having no buildings, was free to move and there are many historic examples of such migrations. These early universities had no libraries, no laboratories, no museums, no endowments, no buildings, no board of governors, no student societies, except so far as the university itself was fundamentally a society of students. There was no college journalism, no dramatics, no athletics, none of those "outside activities" which are the chief excuse for inside inactivity in so many modern universities. And yet the fact remains that the university of the 20th century is the lineal descendant of mediaeval Paris and Bologna. The fundamental organization is the same, the historic continuity is unbroken. Over seven hundred years ago there was created the university tradition of the modern world, that common tradition which belongs to all our institutions of higher learning, which all college and university men should know and cherish.

It would be amusing, if time permitted, to discuss in some detail life in these early universities. As I have said, they were initially guilds of students and in some of the earliest statutes we read that the students made serious demands on their professors. These early professors lived wholly from the fees of their pupils and the threat of a collective boycott kept the professors very much in their place. In the earliest studies available (1317) we read that a professor might not be absent without leave; if he desired to leave town he had to make a deposit to insure his return; if he failed to secure an audience of five for a regular lecture he was fined as if absent; he must begin with the bell and quit within one minute after the next bell. He was not allowed to skip a chapter or postpone a difficulty.

But gradually this situation changed. Excluded from the "universities" of students, the professors also formed a guild or "college" requiring for admission thereto certain qualifications which were ascertained by examination. Ultimately the student came to seek the professor's licence as a certificate of attainment even though he might not plan to become a teacher himself. This certificate, this licence to teach, became the earliest form of academic degree and our higher degrees still preserve this tradition in the words "master' and "doctor," originally synonymous, and in the French word "licence." Growing out of these "colleges" there developed the basic form of standard academic degrees, of university organization, and university officials. Little by little the pattern crystallized and as early as the year 1200 the University of Paris received its first royal charter. Interestingly enough, this charter grew out of a town and gown row and in this early document King Philip Augustus recognized the exemption of the students and their servants from civic jurisdiction,--thus creating that special position of students before the courts which has not yet wholly disappeared from the world's practice, though generally from its law. The first Papal privilege was granted in the year 1231. This was occasioned by a two-year cessation of lectures growing out of a riot in which a band of students, having found "wine that was good and sweet to drink" beat up the tavern keeper and his friends. This document also recognized the right of the masters and students "to make constitutions and ordnances regulating the matter and time of lectures and disputations, the costume to be worn, the price of lodgings, and laid down rules regarding the carrying of arms and stated explicitly that student exemptions only applied to those who frequented the schools regularly,--the interpretation in practice being attendance of not less than two lectures a week!

There are preserved to us from the somewhat later Middle Age student letters, by far the largest element of which consist of requests for money, as for example this one: "B. to his venerable master A., greeting. This is to inform you that I am studying at Oxford with the greatest diligence, but the matter of money stands greatly in the way of my promotion, as it is now two months since I spent the last of what you sent me. The city is expensive and makes many demands; I have to rent lodgings, buy necessaries, and provide for many other things which I cannot now specify. Wherefore I respectfully beg your paternity that by the promptings of divine pity you may assist me, so that I may be able to complete what I have well begun. For you must know that without Ceres and Bacchus, Apollo grows cold." It would appear that students in the Middle Ages were beset by much the same problems as afflict the students of the 20th century and that in the intervening seven hundred years human nature has not changed much.

The basic point I wish to make is that even at this early date the university had acquired certain basic characteristics which have persisted ever since. "The university was devoted to inquiry. Furthermore, this has always been free inquiry. The university has always been independent. The education of the university student depends primarily on himself. He does not have to accept the views of his professors, nor do he or his professors have to conform to any social, religious or political creed. As Cardinal Newman pointed out, the primary object of a university is intellectual, not moral. Universities were founded as places where scholars and their students might develop or exercise their intellectual powers. It is universities and only in universities that this may be done on the highest level."

"A university is a community of scholars. It breathes the spirit of the social order; it is constantly engaged in an attempt to understand the meaning of the age. A university is fundamentally and primarily dedicated to the freedom of the human spirit, to the improvement and advancement of culture and the liberalizing of the human mind through the learning and the search for knowledge."

I wish that time permitted adequate discussion of the development of universities during the 18th and 19th centuries. Speaking of the ancient English foundations alone, it must be admitted that there were low spots. Some of the colleges were extremely wealthy and position and preferment under the aegis of the colleges was easily obtained by indifferent scholars whose chief claim to eminence was noble birth or high connection. But even during this period there were individuals who nobly maintained the very finest aspects of the university tradition. For example, you have the renowned Dean Aldrich of my own college at Oxford who, in addition to his theological eminence, had great gifts as an architect and designed what is still one of the finest classical quad rangles in all England. During the latter part of the 18th century the Wesleyan movement protested vigorously against the sloth and indifference that marked so much of the college life. In the 19th century Cardinal Newman offered further protest and wrote at that time his famous book, "Idea of a University," which is perhaps the finest single expression in the English language of the university idea. But to discuss all these things in detail would exhaust a whole series of lectures and I must trust the general awareness of my audience, merely reminding them that during dark days as well as bright, the basic idea of the university was never completely lost.

It is of particular interest to us in Canada to note that the American colonies emulated the educational pattern with which they were familiar in England. As in the land from which they had come, liberal education became a necessity primarily for the preparation of teachers and clerics and many of the early foundations in the colonies were either directly sponsored by or closely associated with religious groups. The "college" pattern so familiar at Oxford and Cambridge became the prototype of most of the early American institutions of higher learning. American colleges, too, had their depressed periods when they failed to contribute in full measure all that they might have done. But once again, the idea persisted and at no time did the concept of liberal higher education ever completely disappear.

The 19th century was a period of tremendous development and expansion in the southern half of this continent, unparalleled in the history of the world. It very early became apparent that if trained personnel and adequate leadership were to be found for such an expansion, it must come from institutions of higher education. Religious groups, state governments, municipal authorities, vied with each other in the foundation of institutions known variously as academies, colleges, universities. If, however, there is any quality which marks the American temperament it is the quality of pragmatism, and bit by bit there were added to the historical functions of the university, others which were much more immediately and closely related to the practical demands of the economic growth and development of the country. Some of the state institutions and indeed some of the private ones which were developed, focussed not so much around a core of the liberal arts and sciences but rather around the more practical subjects of engineering and agriculture. Here it must be observed that while the university may in some respects set the basic tone and the character for a developing culture, on the other hand it cannot escape reflecting the demands our society makes upon it. Traditionalists may deplore this trend but it is an inevitable trend. Education in any society will in some measure or in some form reflect the basic ideas and ideals of the society in which it operates. In fact, all education, all knowledge, which at some point or other does not become relevant to human need is barren, sterile, futile and useless.

It is an awareness of this type of expanded function of the university which led Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University, to say, "The modern university does not exist to teach alone. It does not even exist to teach and to extend the boundaries of human knowledge alone. It exists also to serve the democracy of which it is a product and an ornament. The modern university must be conceived of as a public service institution. Its men, its books, its influence, its information, must always be at the service of the public when a good and unselfish end is to be served. The university rests on the public will and on public appreciation. To shut itself up, cloisterlike, in its own sufficiency, or to turn all its energies and resources inward, are alike to be false to its own ideals and to waste its most valuable opportunities. Columbia University was never so effective a public servant as it is today. It not only holds aloft the lamp of learning, but it touches the practical life of New York and of the nation at a hundred points. So long as it pursues this course, Columbia will be worthy of its history and of its name."

Thus the American university became extraordinarily varied in its character, in its curriculum, in its organization. And Canadian universities, confronted with problems basically similar, have tended to follow a somewhat similar line of development. Without endeavouring to give an historical sketch of the development of all the Canadian universities, I can perhaps refer to what happened here in our own Province. King's College was founded by Bishop Strachan. It was closely associated with the Anglican Church and included religious tests. Other religious groups formed their own institutions at about the same time: Victoria, as a result of the labours of Egerton Ryerson and the Methodist Church, Queen's University, as an expression of the strong belief of the Scot and his church in the importance of education,--St. Michael's College, similarly on behalf of the Roman Catholic communion. During the middle of the century, however, a strong movement towards the democratization of education resulted in the secularization of King's College and its reestablishment in 1850 as the University of Toronto. Three years later University College was founded as the teaching unit of the University, open to all races, creeds and colours. (By its critics it was promptly dubbed "the godless college.") In the meantime the recalcitrant and fighting John Strachan had proceeded to found the University of Trinity College, in which his own particular ideals of higher education could be expressed in terms more suitable to himself. (It is of passing interest that John Strachan married a wealthy widow by the name of McGill and it is not at all impossible that the foundation of McGill University by James McGill, brother of his wife's first husband, can be in some degree attributed to the influence of Bishop Strachan.) The educational activity of the 19th century in this country was considerable, and violent, vigorous and vituperative were the debates

which raged around this subject. You will perhaps recall that the cornerstone of University College was laid secretly and that the location of this stone is to this date unknown, though it has been most ardently sought.

But enough of past history. The picture in Canada has changed in much the same way as I have suggested

it changed in the United States. Inevitably other subjects than the traditional liberal arts, sciences and humanities had to find some expression in higher education. The newer universities of this country have accepted this broader concept of the university from their very foundation. Here in Ontario an act of educational statesmanship took place which has few parallels on this continent. Colleges which at the time of their foundation had bitter differences were federated into the University of Toronto. Little by little other institutions, initially independent (as for instance our own Faculty of Engineering which was originally known as the School of Practical Science), were added to the federation. The Faculty of Dentistry was originally the Royal College of Dental Surgeons, equally independent in its origin. It is only in recent years that the College of Pharmacy has been accepted into the federation. Queen's University, in a rather different way, paralleled this development with the creation of the modern faculties. And today McMaster University, originally a Baptist institution, is finding ways and means of extending its program beyond the pattern visualized by the late Senator McMaster when he founded the institution.

Therefore, whether one likes it or not, the modern university, built in most cases around a college, colleges or a faculty of liberal arts and humanities, finds itself offering higher education in a bewildering variety, consonant with the extremely bewildering complexity of our modern life. The obligation thus to serve our community, our day and generation, is patently laid on our universities and we can deny this obligation not only at the peril of the institutions themselves but at incalculable loss to our whole society.

These are the facts of life as far as higher education in Canada is concerned. It is an awareness, conscious or unconscious, of these matters which is at the root of all our present discussion on the subject of higher education. It is these facts which have moved our governments to take positive steps to provide for a greater number of trained men and women in all fields of human endeavour to give adequate leadership to our country in this latter half of this 20th Century. In the title of my address I have indicated some uncertainty about the future of the university idea. I am ready to admit that there is still uncertainty about it but I must also assert that I have no lack of faith.

I have suggested in general terms something of the enormity of the problem which today is facing our universities. This has been presented in greater detail than I can possibly do today in the submission made by the Province of Ontario to the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects. (I recommend this study to you.) May 1, however, point out that the approximate full time undergraduate and postgraduate enrolment in Ontario's universities and colleges in 1955 was about 21,700. By 1965 this will have increased to some 45,300 and by 1975 to an estimated figure of 92,600. The annual operating cost for a university population of the size indicated will jump from a figure of some $.23,500,000 in 1954 to $54,300,000 in 1965 and $111,100,000 by 1975. In the meantime capital requirements in the ten years between 1955 and 1965 for all the universities and colleges in Ontario will amount to somewhere between $75,000.000

and $100,000,000. These figures are staggering but they are not beyond our resources. Mr. S. H. Deeks, Executive Director of the Industrial Foundation on Education, has recently pointed out that even today we spend twice as much on recreation as we do on education--that we spend nearly four times as much on smoking and drinking as we

do on education. In other words, it would seem reasonable to assume that the money can be found! The big problem, therefore, is whether we as a nation have the will to do what is required of us. If we of the free world are not prepared to accept the responsibilities which are laid upon us at this time we are derelict in our responsibility to our own generation and traitors to those who follow us. As I have tried to indicate, the idea of the university has persisted in our society for over seven

hundred years. It has undoubtedly been largely responsible for what we are and similarly it can largely create the good future towards which we are looking forward.

As everyone in this room is well aware, the University of Toronto (to speak only of that with which you and I are most familiar) is making bold and imaginative plans for its own future. Steps have been taken to obtain further space and every responsible officer is at present engrossed in planning. But the realization of all these plans depends on the enthusiastic, unqualified and continued support of individuals, of business, of government. Our society is becoming more and more complex; the larger proportionately, therefore, is the number of highly trained persons needed for its proper functioning. I can do no better in concluding my remarks today than to quote the closing paragraph of the Annual Report for 1955-56 presented by Dr. Smith, President of the University of Toronto.

"Ignorance matters more, now that science has given to human beings astonishing powers to use or misuse. Prejudice is more than a personal idiosyncrasy, now that it can bring untold and unwanted horrors to this newly, narrowly, and dangerously nationalistic world. Apathy--neither knowing nor caring--reduces mankind to an animal existence. In this war the lines of battle are not clearly drawn; ignorance, prejudice and apathy are in our midst. Our weapons are ideas which are invincible if only they be forged and tempered to their potential strength.

"'The gulf that used to exist between knowledge and action,' Lord Halifax said recently, speaking as Chancellor of the University of Oxford, 'is narrowed almost to vanishing point; and their closer contact between themselves and the world of action has created a wholly new set of problems for the universities.' Universities must reflect that closer contact in the training of experts for the world of action; at the same time they must be, in the words of the Governor General of Canada, not so much a mirror as a beacon, guiding the world of action to the right ends of action, the essential values of human life."

"We are all blind until we see That in the human plan Nothing is worth the making If it does not make the man; Why build these cities glorious If man, unbuilded goes?

In vain we build the work Unless the builder also grows."

THANKS OF THE MEETING were expressed by Lt. Col. W. H. Montague, Vice-President of the Club.