You are on page 1of 33

Title: (Old) Science Hall (1901-1999) - West Entrance

Description Subject: A view of the west entry of (Old) Science

Building. A concrete sidewalk and walkway are in front with a metal
post and chain-link fence around the grass. Four ionic fluted pillars
adorn the entry way. Completed in 1901, Science Hall absorbed
UND's museum and laboratories from Main. Science Hall originally
held Engineering in the basement, Physics and Mathematics on first
floor, Chemistry on second floor and Biology with the museum on
the third floor. On September 26, 1905, The School of Medicine
opened its doors and occupied portions of the building's second and
third floors until 1948. After that, Science Hall provided a home for
the Public Health Laboratory (1949-1973) and UND's radio station
KFJM, besides other entities. After some debate it was decided that
Old Science be razed in 1999 due to structural concerns. Its fluted
ionic columns are displayed in the Barnes and Noble bookstore and
the pair of inner doors from the main entry provide entry to the
Elwyn B. Robinson Department of Special Collections , Chester Fritz
Date Created: 1915
Type: Photographic print
Format: Silver gelatin, 7 X 9 in.
Photograph Number: UAP 4,877
Relation Is Part Of: University Archives Photograph Collection,
1909 Rights: Elwyn B. Robinson Department of Special Collections,
Chester Fritz Library, University of North Dakota

Series Introduction

he goal of this series is to recover and republish pieces of The Quarterly Journal of the University of North Dakota. The selection of Doves Type
for the first volume in the series intentionally evokes the
rediscovery of things lost as well as the traditional craft
of printing and publishing at the core of both higher education and the founding mission of North Dakota

Subscriptions to the Quarterly

o Subscribe to North Dakota Quarterly for

the old fashioned price of $32.00 per year, visit:


About the Type

his reprint from The Quarterly Journal of the

University of North Dakota (later North

Dakota Quarterly) is set in a modern reconstruction
of the famed Doves Type font. T. J. Cobden-Sanderson
commissioned the type from engraver Emery Walker
in 1900 for use in The Dove Press which the two men
ran as a partnership. Cobden-Sanderson was a friend of
William Morris and active in the Arts and Crafts movement. The font reflects William Morris's fondness for
the fifteenth-century types of Nicolas Jenson and preserves some of the premodern elegance absent in popular
fonts of the day.
When Cobden-Sanderson and Walker dissolved their
partnership between 1909 and 1913, Walker systematically deposited the matrices in the Thames river a short
distance from their printing office. Over four months in
1916 and 1917, Walker discarded the entire type set. In
2015, however, Robert Green was able to recover 150
pieces of the type from the Thames river and reconstruct
the font.


his essay is a lightly edited transcription of John Gillettes University Lecture from June of 1915. The speech
evokes a moment in the history of both University of North
Dakota and universities in the United States, and Gillette endeavors to articulate the role of higher education in both the
state and the American society. The few years preceeding this
speech had been challenging for UND. In December 1914,
UND President Frank McVey had to reassure students that
the university would remain open after a very unfavorable
response to his request for $300,000 in state funding during
the 1913 legislative session. While McVeys budget was better
received in the 1915 legislative session, he nevertheless chaffed
under the limited resources and, at times, interventionist policies of UNDs Board of Trustees.
Gillette was also writing amidst the ongoing reverberations of Joseph Lewinsohn affair. In 1914, Lewinsohn had
resigned his position in the UND Law School under pressure from the politically conservative chairman of the UND
Board of Trustees and President McVey. Lewinsohn had
campaigned on behalf of Theodore Roosevelts progressive
Bull Moose Party in 1912 and offended conservative elements
on the universitys board of trustees. Many on campus saw
the Lewinsohn affair as a serious threat to a growing sense of
academic freedom, and this concern prompted Gillette and
history professor O.G. Libby to found UNDs branch of
the AAUP (American Association of University Professors).
Lewinsohns resignation drew national attention with editovii

rials in the Los Angeles Times and responses by McVey and

others. The Lewinsohn affair and McVeys legislative rebuke
spoke to the larger issues of the role of the university in public
life both in North Dakota and nationally.
Gillette rose to prominence with his publication of the
landmark text, Rural Sociology, in 1913. Gillette had come
to UND in 1907 with a two doctorates, one from the Chicago Theological Seminary and another from the University
of Chicago after serving for three years as the president of
Chadron State Normal School in Nebraska and another six
at the Valley City Normal School in North Dakota. He was
committed to progressive politics and recognized the key role
of the university in promoting social change particularly in
rural states like North Dakota. This essay captures both his
studied perspective on the role of the modern university as
well as the trying times that he and his colleagues had experienced over the past year at UND. Despite the controversies
and disappointments, Gillette and McVey shared progressive
attitudes and sought to modernize the University of North
Dakota. In 1917, McVey departed the University frustrated
with the pace of change. Gillette continued on at the University and was offered the office of president after McVeys predecessor Thomas Kane retired in 1933. Gillette declined, but
his recommended candidate, John C. West, accepted the post.
The historical and political context for this essay provides
an avenue for understanding the particular arguments and
tone in Gillettes prose, but does nothing to detract from the
value of his argument for the present day.


The Quarterly Journal

The University of North Dakota
Volume 7
January 1917
Number 4

The University in the Service of Society

John Morris Gillette
Professor of Sociology, University of North Dakota
Given as the annual
University Address at the University of North Dakota,
June 16, 1915


choosing a subject for this occasion, I have selected one which during several years has possest a strong interest for me. I have chosen to dicuss the
university in the service of society just because of this
interest, and not because I can hope to make any contribution which is destined to become renowned. Indeed,
in my own life work, I am committed to the saying of
Marcus Aurelius: As for life it is a battle and a sojourning in a strange land; and the fame that comes afterward
is oblivion.
What I shall say emanates from my own peculiar
store of knowledge, however restricted, and from my
particular point of view, however warped it may be, and
is in no sense the result of an extended investigation of
what others have published on this topic. In fact, I have
not been concerned with whether or not this especial
subject has ever been discust, but I have been far more

concerned with making a statement of certain relationships which the university as a social institution sustains
to society at large. As a consequence I am compelled to
take a speculative risk in dealing with it and to assume
all responsibility for those characteristics which eventuate from my own personal equation as well as for the
omission from the discussion of some items, the inclusion of which might have given the discussion a superior
form and symmetry.
Relative to both the terms, university and society, the
idea of the common man is none too clear and he would
be greatly bewildered were he called on to explain the
functions of the university. The average man thinks of
the university in a very vague way. He has a hazy conception that it is located somewhere, that it has grounds,
buildings, and some professors, that it is supported by
taxes or subscriptions, and that it is a good deal like the
nearby high school or normal school. Thus, a visiting
legislator, after being shown through our own humble
institution, confest his astonishment at what he found.
He had entertained an entirely inadequate conception of
the complex functions a university performs.
The hoary tradition that a university is a log, one end
of which is bestridden by a great teacher and the other by an absorbent and [329] worshiping student, is the
proper point of departure for every discussion of university and college. There are many good people who still
believe that represents the function and character of such
an institution today. It reminds one of the college professor of language who asserted that a college education

should consist entirely of the study of language, for in it

is contained thought, logic, and discipline. Such cases are
useful to demonstrate that specialization may incapacitate the mind for perceiving the larger world of values
and that the traditional conception of college education
bears within it a strong tendency toward monopolizing
the educational curriculum. But fortunately for education, such a mental attitude represents an intellectual
bias from which society is gradually recovering, and
such additions of education may very well serve in our
museums of antique theories of training as exhibits of
vestigial ideas.
The older type of college and university was an institution whose chief function was to transfer certain more
or less carefully selected traditions from one generation
to the next. This traditional knowledge was that of a
special class which was composed of the youth of the
ruling and wealthy castes. Because utility and usefulness
were not in question, since the scions of nobility and
the sons of the wealthy did not have to look forward to
usefulness and service, this traditional information and
conventional polish was a quite proper disguise for education. And since there were only three learned professions at that time and two of those were concerned with
non-temporal and non-productive matters, humanity
was able to stumble along under the incubus of such a
system of higher education.
With the rise of the modern world, however, with
its great variety of important interests and its demand for insight into facts which were seen to affect

life profoundly, the need of higher institutions of learning, possessing other functions than those of transferring
harmless traditions to the sons of the respectable class,
arose. After the present agencies for furnishing power
and for manufacture and communication were fully ushered in, civilization, on its material side, became highly
differentiated and rushed forward like a torrent. With
the pressing demand which the new agencies made for a
better insight into the materials that nature furnishes for
industrial processes, science likewise branched out and
threw off multitudes of new sciences, many of which
were avenues to some of the industrial callings. The
human mind also was dissatisfied with the old philosophy, history, economics, medicine. As a consequence,
experimental psychology; history with a greater vision,
a more sympathetic [330] political economy, sociology,
comparative politics, bacteriology, hygiene, and sanitation, along with a list of other important new sciences, were developed. The emphasis was thrown on the
understanding of present conditions. The new theory of
evolution threw great emphasis upon the idea that life
is a survival from a struggle with environmental conditions. That individual organism survives which is able
to adjust itself to these conditions. A corollary is that the
better the conditions are understood, the greater chance
the individual concerned has of surviving. The further
development of the individual is contingent on a deeper
insight into the nature of the conditions which surround
it and press upon it. As a consequence we arrive at the
inference that an educational system not only cannot

afford to ignore or neglect a study of the contemporary

conditions of civilization but that its chief business is to
make its students acquainted with them. Upon the basis
of the adjustment theory of education which arises from
evolutionary conceptions, and which regards intelligence
as an adjusting function, the conclusion is inevitable that
the mind is best trained by an acquaintance with and a
consideration of the actual phenomena which are most
involved in the great process of articulating individual
and societal life with the present environment.
The modem university has been developed in response to such demands. The great modern social world
is knocking at its doors and asking aid. There are fifty
professions to be trained for today in place of. the three
of half a century ago. The city stage of civilization has
rushed upon us, bringing with it scores of new problems
that can only be met and solved by men and women
who have been trained for specific tasks. Industrial life
manifests itself in multitudes of directions. Expert physicists, chemists, biologists, and engineers are essential
to making life in those directions both profitable and
safe. Recent social and international development have
projected into the arena of public life many tremendous
governmental problems. To meet them successfully the
highest type of statesmanship is required. Constructive
statesmen must have knowledge and vision and must be
masters of the whole field of social science.
The critical nature of modern society makes peculiar demands on the university. That civilization is undergoing a severe test is obvious to thoughtful minds.

The most gigantic and intricate problems confront us in

America. The regulation and control of the most stupendous system of capital the world has witnessed, the adjustment of a race-conflict ever dynamic and menacing,
the peaceful assimilation of millions of backward aliens,
the adjustment of [331] life to the artificial conditions of a
developing city civilization, the insurance of employment
and a living income to the working men, the staying the
flood of degeneracy and human derelicts produced by
vice and the strains of maladjustment, the averting of the
increasing mortality of men and women in middle life
from diseases of the nerves and vital organs, the effective
readjustment of the educational system, the guaranteeing of the utmost publicity pertaining to matters affecting the common welfare, the establishment of immunity
from war and militarismthese are a few of the serious
problems. Were we not callous from perpetual contact
with them, or insensible of their import through our
ignorance, a comprehension of the situation would be
almost overwhelming. Evidently there are sufficient apparently insoluble problems and perils to capitalize the
imagination of, at least, the mildest agitator.
No rationally minded man can face these demands
and assert that the modem world is not placing a premium on that education which is founded upon a calm,
diligent, penetrating study of present conditions. If the
university is not able to respond to the demands of our
world for men who are trained for all the high and important missions of life, it is by that much derelict in its
duty. If it does not meet the issue, other institutions will

be established which will. But, happily, universities are

responding, although slowly. They are becoming microcosms of the social world. National universities exist to
meet the emergencies of great states. Municipal universities are now developing, as a democratic response, to
train the young men and women of the immediate municipality who have not the means to go away to school.
State universities, which are of recent growth, seek to
offer to the young people of the commonwealth access
to the great empire of learning and to give to the state an
intelligent, loyal leadership.
The complex and critical nature of our social order
places difficulties in the way of securing the right adjustment of a university to society at large, and of attaining
the utmost freedom in the exposition of universal truth.
One of the temptations or tendencies which possess faculties is to guide education in either of two directions:
either to perpetuate the traditional form of instruction
at the expense of a comprehensive and intelligent apprehension of present conditions and issues; or to over-emphasize the importance of the technical equipment of
the student to enter callings and professions before
broad and secure foundations have been laid in securing
a knowledge of the principles which lie at the basis of
our civilization. The one tendency shackles the mind
with the narrow bands of the past and [332] installs a
supreme but unilluminated contentment with the established order; the other tendency discounts the world of
intellectual and ethical values and promotes the spirit of
materialistic commercialism. A university does not fulfill

its function unless it bestows upon its students the intellectual power and interest to submit all traditions to the
process of criticism in order that the valuable elements
may be conserved and the worthless ones discarded. Nor
does it do its duty in full except that the intellectual and
ethical interests of the student clientele are developed so
that all callings and professional equipment are viewed
as agencies to promote life in the largest sense.
The second obstacle that stands in the way of the full
realization of its duty by the university consists in the
disinclination of the larger community to concede the
value of the utmost liberty of research and announcement of views in all lines of university endeavor. This is
especially pertinent wherever the views are those of men
who are called to treat questions which concern the organization of society, the principles of social justice, and
the ethics of collective life. Today we view with intellectual condescension that ancient social order in which
the innovators in the realms of chemistry, physics, and
astronomy were made the objects of attack and were
penalized for questioning the prevalent ideas. It is to be
hoped the age will come when the social scientists may
expect as large an immunity from odium when their
views run counter to what has been commonly held as
natural scientists now enjoy.
In order that the idea of certain of the services which
the modern university might perform may be advanced,
let us consider that institution in relation to certain fundamental sociological conceptions. And the first of these
conceptions is that of conservation.

In recent years we have witnessed a campaign in behalf of the conservation of the natural resources of our
nation, which only means that our mines, forests, and
water power should not be wasted nor used for purely
selfish purposes. The sociological use of the word conservation is not far dissimilar. We are to think of society
constituting a system of structural organizations, each
of which has its division of labor to execute. All parts
act in relation to every other part. It is a more or less orderly process of cooperative interdependence. This is the
social order in which all institutions and interests have
their place. However, it should be noted that conservation is distinct from conservatism. The conservative
man wants things left as they are. He insists that the
social order is good, that any modification would prove
injurious, and that the established [333] system is more or
less sacred. On the other hand true conservation places
a valuation on things. It constructs a scheme of values
which is hued on the experience of the past. What has
promoted the interest and welfare of the masses of men
is deemed valuable and should be conserved. Those processes and agencies which have injured humanity at large
are regarded as bad and should be eliminated. Hence the
true conservationist is an eclectic. He does not worship
the social order as a perfect and sacred theme of relationships. Recognizing many imperfections, he favors their
elimination out of justice to the largest number of human beings.
The service the university has to perform in this
connection is that of putting members of society in the

position of being able to carry on the process of evaluating social institutions and processes wisely and judiciously. But before students can be taught this, their instructors must learn the art of evaluation. Every course
of study and every study in the curriculum should be submitted to the criterion of social efficiency. We have been
using purely arbitrary criteria in the past to arrive at the
worth of the various subjects. The majority of educators
now are able to think only in terms of their subjective
tests. Such tests may be good for individual satisfaction
but they are almost worthless relative to the objective
demands of the age. When schoolmasters have learned
to evaluate educational processes in the measure of their
contributing power for the age we live in, we will hear
less of the mythical discipline and cultural arguments
and more of those of objective needs. If democracy is
to develop as it should, this is an important function.
By natural tendency men are conservative. The mass of
people are prone to accept things as they are, without
question. In their estimation all that comes down from
the past is to be conserved just because it is. Habit sets in
early in the career of the individual and binds his mind
fast to the ideas he has received. Imitation is the easiest
method of obtaining information and this means that
ideas are taken over from the past generation without
critical scrutiny. Consequently the old order of things
is continued, notwithstanding its imperfections and
The institution of slavery was conserved and the social order to which it belonged was continued so long

as men remained in the passively imitative attitude of

mind. Prostitution, the slums, alcoholism in the form of
the saloon, and pauperism have been conserved because
individuals have not been in the position, intellectually,
to estimate them in terms of social worth. That great
anachronistic vestige of the barbaric age war, persists
for the same reason, and [334] apparently intelligent men
seek to make it respectable by hedging it about with a
few so-called civilized rules. But war, together with the
system of militarism on which it is founded, is barbarism
through and through. To pronounce that a soldier may
be killed by stabbing him with a bayonet but not by asphyxiation, because the former method represents civilized warfare while the latter does not, is to perpetrate
a jest at the expense of civilization.
The university does not need to take up the work
of making men conservative. Most of the graduates of
universities today are conservatively minded. They have
met little or nothing in their curriculum which was fitted to make them intelligent about life values. But the
university as the agent of civilization does have a great
work in the direction of bestowing on its sons and
daughters the power and spirit of evaluating knowledge
and conditions.
A second sociological conception is that of social
interests. Eminent sociologists now view society as an
association of fundamental interests, some of which
arecooperating, others conflicting. The great organizations and institutions have grown up about and are the
expression of, these interests. The social order is not all

pacific within its boundaries, because the interests strive

for supremacy. But the social order should evolve toward a larger reconciliation of warring interests and a
more extensive cooperation of all associated factors.
In seeking to view the function of the university in
relation to this social situation, it is clear that it may perform at least two distinct services. First, it has a specific
duty to prepare men to participate actively in these interests. Every great interest is prosecuted and furthered
by individuals who are versed in its processes, and each
legitimate interest represents a magnificent field of work
and endeavor. Hardly any of these interests could be
abolished without seriously crippling the mechanism
of society and destroying life and property. They will
and ought to be continued and the good of the world
demands that those who enter their service should have
the highest equipment. Since I have already noticed the
tendencies which make a demand for trained men in
the various technical, scientific, and professional callings, further observation here is superfluous. But it may
be stated that the training functions of the university
should mirror the life of the larger community and that
it should conduct training courses for all of the higher,
professionalized interests.
Second, the university has another duty relative to
the vast and intricate social interests. We remember
that these interests tend [335] toward conflict and discord. General social welfare is best promoted wherever
a just basis of cooperation obtains. The ideal for future
social development lies in the direction of effecting a

reconciliation among the contending interests. Much of

the reconciliation thus far secured during the past has
been of a compulsory nature. Agreements and settlements frequently have emerged solely because the strongest interest dominated the situation, not because a just
basis of settlement had been reached.
Obviously what is required, in order that a fairer day
may dawn, is the genesis of a conciliating attitude and
the cultivation of fair minds and the love of justice. In
order to equip a man for a profession, it is not sufficient
that he be given the technical details and the principles
at the basis of his calling. Schools of technology, professional schools of all kinds, and universities have been
accomplishing those results very efficiently. But the invaluable work of seeking to bestow upon every candidate
for a calling the knowledge and significance of its larger
background, its relationship to society, and the just and
fair functions it ought to perform for society, have been
too generally omitted. As a consequence, many of our
trained men begin life either insensible and indifferent
to the calls of social justice, or as positively committed
to the predatory and exploiting view of life. Setting out
to win success at whatever cost, they jeopardize the interests of others, engender antagonisms, and postpone
the day of reconciliation. To a large extent, because of
this, we have trust against people, capital against labor, sect against sect. Is it not time that the university
should demand and establish broader foundations for
the professions?
A third sociological view emerges when we conceive

society as a progressive process. The collective life of

humanity has moved far away from the stage of development that was in vogue with the first men. As we
look back at the crude beginnings of cooperative effort,
as we survey the many interesting stages of evolution
since then, and as we note the bewildering diversity of
processes now represented which have in some manner
sprung from that ancient past, we are sensible of a most
remarkable development in social matters. The human
race has had a million years in which to develop collective life and, during the earlier nine-tenths of that great
stretch of time, men marked time, for the most part, and
took only the slightest step in advance but once in a millennium. Yet, the remarkable thing is that the steps were
taken and that society has really evolved.
In order to denote the relationship of the university
to human [336] advancement, let us inspect two items
of that aspect of the social process which we call progress. These features are the cause and the directibility of
While there may be many aspects of the cause of
progress, there is only one great sociological condition
which is ultimately able to account for it. That fundamental and indispensable condition is the expansion and
development of the intellectual faculties. The human
understanding is the key which unlocks the door of all
the causal mysteries that surround the subject of social
advance. We note as we inspect the ethnological records
of that advance that social evolution has been most rapid
at those times when the intellect moved forward to new

insight and attainments. Such new insight manifested

itself in fresh inventions and achievements. Every invention and discovery that afforded the race a larger mastery over nature was especially fruitful in the direction of
progress. The great epochs in human improvement have
been ushered in by the discovery of the larger forces of
nature and of the methods of utilizing them. The discovery of the means of using domesticated animals for
food and for motor power, the discovery of methods of
utilizing wind power, water power, steam power, and
electricity, have constituted the great eras of human advance. But the discovery of certain social contrivances
have been necessary conditions and safeguards of social
welfare. The building up of a language, of a system of
notation, of the state and of other social organizations,
were indispensable agencies of communication and cooperation. By means of all these agencies human interests have become diversified, multiplied, intensified, and
their satisfaction has been placed on a regular and stable
Now, after society has developed into its higher stages, the university is the indispensable agency for securing
progress. In the beginning of society, improvements and
inventions might be stumbled on by the average man.
No special process of intellectual training was then
needful to make minds keen on the scent of principles.
But our collective life is now built on such a colossal and
intricate plan, and the fields of knowledge are so vast
and profound, that the possibilities of further discovery
no longer lie on the surface. They are now potentially

possible only to the ablest and best trained intellects. The

men who are willing to devote a lifetime to the work of
investigating one small section of the field of nature or
of society, with little or no thought of material rewards,
such men are now and are to be in future the essential
agents of further human progress.
As the institution for the discovery and training of
such men, and as the agent for furnishing the conditions,
the laboratories, the [337] equipment, the available time
and support without which none but the wealthy could
hope to enter the field of research, the university is the
prime agency for opening up the avenues to human advancement. The improvement of the conditions of society and the contributions to the advancement in the
welfare of the nation, the state, and the municipality, are
of a necessity centered in the proper functioning of the
The directability of social evolution is a consideration which vies in its importance, as a factor in social
progress, with that which we have just treated. Towards
what goal does the colossal caravansary of social evolution trend? How are we able to direct that intangible,
baffling, but ubiquitous condition that we term society?
The Austrian sociologist, Gumplowicz, said that it could
not be controlled or directed ; that the social forces, like
the forces of the solar system, lie outside. the reach of
human power; that human progress is therefore impossible, and that social misery must increase with time. The
lot of the masses of human beings, he claims, must become more intolerable because the development of their

capacity to enjoy, without the accompanying ability to

command the means to satisfy their expanding wants,
is inherent in the social process. Hence the human race
is doomed to an existence of increasing and inevitable
It is the glory of the United States that it developed
an intellectual giant who has administered a death blow
to this theory and has builded a scientific foundation for
a theory of progress. A soldier in the Civil War, he was
afterward for many years a renowned paleontologist in
the service of the United States Geological Survey, finally becoming the father of sociology in America, and
one of the worlds greatest and most constructive minds
in that field. The late Lester F. Ward developed, for the
first time, a system of social philosophy in which the
principles were firmly laid which demonstrate not only
the possibility of progress, but in which was indicated
the possibility of social control.
His demonstration consisted in showing that society
is a great field in which the phenomena are produced by
social forces, just as in nature the natural forces account
for natural events. And just as natural scientists have
obtained control over certain fields of nature, and can
predict in many fields what will occur because they have
discovered the nature of the forces at work in the respective fields, so in the field of society a thorough knowledge of the nature of the forces which move society and
produce collective events will place in mans hands the
ability to direct the stream of social activities. Then social [338] evolution will no longer be a matter of accident.

Progrese will, as a consequence, not be spasmodic. Human misery which eventuates because of conditions not
now controlled will be eliminated.
What Ward, in a masterly manner, has philosophically demonstrated, the world bas been proving in
an increasingly practical way ever since society began.
The growth of the state reveals a remarkable series of
developments in the direction of the control of the sociological conditions of life by means of state agencies.
Without possessing a theoretical insight into the nature
of society, the peoples of the successive ages have more
and more clearly seen that the evils and abuses which
arise could be removed only by the strengthening of a
central authority representative of the rights and interests of all classes of society by means of which the conflicting and menacing interests could be regulated. But
this work of regulation and reconciliation of interests is
as yet far from complete, largely because the social forces
are not yet thoroughly known, charted, and classified.
Both practical and scientific workers in the social field
are needed who will seek to perfect this knowledge and,
by it, make progress more possible.
The universities are as logically and naturally the
homes for the prosecution of the scientific aspects of this
task as for the development of insight into the processes of physical nature. The field of society is intricate,
complicated, baffling. The social forces and conditions
cannot be placed in a laboratory or test tube for experimental purposes. The laboratory of the social scientist is
the community and the collective life that lies without

university walls. The economist, political scientist, historian, and sociologist must study life as it is, and cannot help having opinions according to conditions as they
observe them. They may draw wrong conclusions and
make mistakes. But men in natural science have often
erred. It should be recognized that new fields call for
long and patient effort before positive and absolutely
demonstrable conclusions may be drawn. Meanwhile, it
is the function of universities to promote investigations
into community conditions, to counsel moderation in
the announcement of results until their certainty is reasonably assured, and to foster deeper insight into things
of the collective life. Only by pursuing this course can
they serve society to the full measure and perform their
service that lies in the plane of directing human progress.