The Decline and Renaissance of

Universities Moving from the Big

Brother University to the Slow
University Renzo Rosso
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-decline-and-renaissance-of-universities-moving-fr
om-the-big-brother-university-to-the-slow-university-renzo-rosso/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

University Community Relations in the UK Engaging

Universities Carolyn Kagan

https://textbookfull.com/product/university-community-relations-
in-the-uk-engaging-universities-carolyn-kagan/

The University in its Place: Social and Cultural

Perspectives on the Regional Role of Universities 1st
Edition John Brennan

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-university-in-its-place-
social-and-cultural-perspectives-on-the-regional-role-of-
universities-1st-edition-john-brennan/

Geographies of the University Peter Meusburger

https://textbookfull.com/product/geographies-of-the-university-
peter-meusburger/

Becoming a World Class University The case of King

Abdulaziz University 1st Edition Osama Tayeb

https://textbookfull.com/product/becoming-a-world-class-
university-the-case-of-king-abdulaziz-university-1st-edition-
osama-tayeb/
Innovation and the Entrepreneurial University Dirk
Meissner

https://textbookfull.com/product/innovation-and-the-
entrepreneurial-university-dirk-meissner/

Rising dispatches from the new American shore First

Paperback Edition University Of South Alabama

https://textbookfull.com/product/rising-dispatches-from-the-new-
american-shore-first-paperback-edition-university-of-south-
alabama/

A History of the Indian University System: Emerging

from the Shadows of the Past 1st Edition Surja Datta
(Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-history-of-the-indian-
university-system-emerging-from-the-shadows-of-the-past-1st-
edition-surja-datta-auth/

The Future of University Education 1st Edition Micha■

Izak

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-future-of-university-
education-1st-edition-michal-izak/

Collaborative Translation: From the Renaissance to the

Digital Age Anthony Cordingley

https://textbookfull.com/product/collaborative-translation-from-
the-renaissance-to-the-digital-age-anthony-cordingley/
Renzo Rosso

The Decline
and Renaissance
of Universities
Moving from the Big Brother University
to the Slow University
The Decline and Renaissance of Universities
Renzo Rosso

The Decline
and Renaissance
of Universities
Moving from the Big Brother University
to the Slow University
Renzo Rosso
Politecnico di Milano
Milano, Italy

ISBN 978-3-030-20384-9 ISBN 978-3-030-20385-6 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20385-6

# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Freedom in research and training is the
fundamental principle of university life, and
governments and universities, each as far
as in them lies, must ensure respect for this
fundamental requirement.
Magna Charta Universitatum, 1988
Acknowledgment

Grateful thanks are due to all my students who endured me with patience and
mildness. They gave me back more than I have given them. And the single greatest
cause of happiness is gratitude.

vii
Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 The Resistible Rise of Utilitarian University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The End of the Traditional Academy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Utilitarian Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Primacy of Management Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3 The Big Brother University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The Evaluation of Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Prize and Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
The Atrophy of Decision-Making Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
The Evaluation of Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The Focus on Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
The Rise of Conformism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
The Focus on Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
The Educational Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
The Rise of Authoritarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
The Value of Loyalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
In the Power of Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
University Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Is the Utilitarian Turn Reversible? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4 The Fall of the Utilitarian Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
The Labor Chimera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
The Challenge of Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Bureaucracy and Stupidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5 The Renaissance of Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Transdisciplinarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

ix
x Contents

6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Magna Charta Universitatum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
The Slow University Manifesto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
About the Author

Renzo Rosso has been a Professor at the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the Politecnico di Milano, Italy, since 1986. He received the Borland
Award for Hydrology in 2005 and the Henry Darcy Medal from the European
Geosciences Union in 2010 for his research contributions to water science and
engineering. He has been an advisor to national and international scientific agencies,
an elected member of the Academic Senate and the head of the Faculty of Environ-
mental Engineering at the Politecnico di Milano, and director of an interuniversity
Doctoral Program in Water Engineering and of an International Master’s Program in
Water Resources Management. The author of 8 research books, 3 university-level
textbooks, 5 essays, 1 novel and over 400 papers (more than 100 in SCI journals) in
the fields of hydrology, water resources, river engineering, climate and glaciology,
fluvial geomorphology, reliability analysis, stochastic processes, nonlinear dynamics
and fractals. His current activities include science and higher education communica-
tion as a columnist for national newspapers and magazines.

xi
Introduction
1

Culture is not a well-stocked warehouse of news, but it is the

ability that our mind has to understand life, the place we hold,
our relationships with other men.
Antonio Gramsci

The ninth centennial of the oldest university in the Western world, the Alma Mater
Studiorum or the Universitas Bononiensis, fell 30 years ago. It was 1988, and on that
occasion, the rectors of almost 500 European universities met in Bologna to sign the
Magna Charta Universitatum, the solemn summa of the European principles of
knowledge.1 From then on, these principles were to have addressed educational
policies. After six decades, have the universities, European or otherwise, moved in
the wake of these principles?
I am not really sure. During the last 30 years, the traditional model of universities,
under allegation because of being old-fashioned and inadequate, has been
demolished. This was replaced by a more “modern” model, in tune with global
markets and its needs. Is it a good outcome for humanity? Has the new model kept its
promises? And does it respond to the needs of the future? This essay rejects the
positive answers—often taken for granted by both experts and ordinary people—to
these three questions.

1
One must not confuse the Magna Charta, signed in Bologna in 1988, with the Bologna Declaration
in 1999, i.e., the Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education convened in Bologna on
June 19, 1999. The latter is the main guiding document of the Bologna process, adopted by
ministers of education of 29 European countries in order to establish a European Higher Education
Area in which students and graduates could move freely between countries.

# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 1

R. Rosso, The Decline and Renaissance of Universities,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20385-6_1
2 1 Introduction

The idea that inspired this book comes from a paper2 by David West published by
demosproject.net and a collection of essays on the subject of academic tenure,3
published by a scientific journal that zoologist Ferdinando Boero sent me. Cries of
pain that have flooded a glass already full, exceeding the threshold of addiction and
retreat. The brilliant book published by Federico Bertoni on the Italian university
crisis,4 of which I subscribe to every page, keeps me from lingering on the incidents
of my country, always poised between the farce and the tragedy; thus allowing me to
lengthen our gaze on the planet. As I adhere to many arguments by Juan Carlos De
Martin5 in his effort to design a less somber academic future than the present
grieving.
To them all, I owe the starting ideas for the reflections of this essay, initially
entitled “Big Brother University.” This title was taken from the name of the occult
antagonist of the prophetic novel by George Orwell.6 Then I discovered, while
surfing the web, that the idea was not original at all, after the first editions of the
reality show conquered the sofa audience and oriented most university reforms of the
new millennium. Many columnists and scientists shared this metaphor. Not only was
“Big Brother in the Academy” the title of a Jack Grove’s article published by Times
Higher Education in 2014, but several authors had married George Orwell’s dystopia
to paint the evolution of universities in different countries, climates, and cultural
skies.7 All contributions aimed at deepening above all the question of transparency
and the role of technology in controlling the system. Let alone that someone had also
created a casual wear brand: Big Brother University, established in 2009.
The current academic dystopia does not only deal with transparency and technol-
ogy but is more complex as Orwell’s visionary fresco shows a surprising capability
to represent today’s reality in its various facets, as it describes both the practice and
the cultural foundations of the modern university. Privacy threatening and telematics
intrusion are the façade of the prison that jails the universities. One can replace the
dominant social system, which Orwell identified in contemporary socialism, with the
current one; and every page of “Nineteen Eighty-Four” acquires a fantastic capabil-
ity to describe the complexity of the university system that has imposed itself
everywhere in the last 30 years.
Reflecting on the multifaceted consequences of the dystopia that has been
conquering the universities, the hardest ones are the triumph of conformity, the

2
West, D. (2016) The Managerial University: A Failed Experiment? “Demos,” April 14
3
AA.VV. (2016) Academic freedom and tenure, “Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics,”
Vol. 15: 1–5
4
Bertoni, F. (2016) Universitaly. La cultura in scatola. Bari: Laterza
5
De Martin, J.C. (2017) Università futura. Tra democrazia e bit. Torino: Codice Edizioni
6
Orwell, G. (1949) Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Secker & Warburg
7
Chomsky, N., Academic Freedom and the Corporatization of Universities, Talk at the University
of Toronto, Scarborough, April 6, 2011. Swain, H., In the library in the gym, Big Brother is coming
to universities, “The Guardian,” January 19, 2016. https://iso.org.nz/2017/05/28/oppose-big-
brother-university/ (April 18, 2018) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼_NpSVu0o-00 (April
19, 2018)
1 Introduction 3

decay of creativity, and the loss of academic freedom. I emphasize the need to save
this precious good. Not just for professors like me, who perhaps do not deserve so
much grace, but for both the students and for ordinary people: today society lacks the
awareness that the loss of academic freedom prefigures the loss of freedom on the
part of everyone.
I do not deny that this book presumes to awaken some academic from lethargy
and submission to the radical changes that have upset the universities, thus polluting
a millennial mission. Edgar Morin wrote that:

we are experiencing a crisis of civilization, a crisis of society, a crisis of democracy, into

which an economic crisis entered, the effects of which exacerbate the crises of civilization,
society and democracy. The crisis of education depends on other crises, which in turn also
depend on the crisis of education.8

It is the accurate description of a complex system, dominated by wicked feedback

effects. A period of human history in which modernity has been declined by power
in a sneaky and subtle but total and extreme way, with tones and shapes that neither
the Protestant reform nor the Counter-Reformation or the Enlightenment, the many
fascisms and communisms were able to do. I immediately ask the reader to forgive
my excessive arrogance, when in the final pages I try to outline a different goal,
trying my hand at utopia.
Some indications of a feasible crisis of “modern” universities, as reshaped on the
prototype of commercial enterprises, are already visible. Let us observe the rapid
overturn of the trajectory of the modernist revolution. After the creative evolution—
all aimed at sanctifying the paradigms of economic efficiency and effectiveness
along a futuristic path under the paradigm of speed—the university is progressively
wrapping itself up. The bureaucratic involution introduces rigidity that in the long
run will fail to meet the requirements of globalization, the beacon that displayed the
route in the last 30 years. This regression can lead to the decline of the “modern”
academic paradigm, as life is full of uncertainty as well “we always run in one
direction, but what is its meaning nobody knows9”.
The road to build a “new” model, by all means alternative, with a focus on
education of citizens and progress of knowledge, are impervious. The new university
can sprout up with struggle, among a 1000 inconsistencies, after hard labor and
multiple trials and errors, but culture and education will be the essential gears to face
with the clash against the physical limits that the history of the Earth will sooner or
later put in front of mankind without making discounts.
Will the Slow University be able to play the role of the substitute paradigm for the
Big Brother University archetype, the current Fast model? It is not an impossible
mission.

8
Morin, E. (2014) Einseigner à vivre. Manifeste pour changer l’éducation. Paris: Actes Sud/Play
Bac
9
Guccini, F. (1972) Incontro. In: Radici. Milano: Emi Italiana
The Resistible Rise of Utilitarian University
2

Ignorance is never better than knowledge

Enrico Fermi

Abstract
The decline of the traditional university model, labeled as old and outdated, is the
result of prevailing utilitarianism, focused on the production and consumption of
material goods, under a novel ideological impetus since the beginning of the
millennium. Based on the axiom that education and training are synonyms,
“modern” universities have progressively turned into businesses, further assum-
ing that this transformation was essential to meet the needs of the community, to
use public and private resources in the best way, and to meet current employment
requirements from agriculture, industry, and tertiary. The primacy of manage-
ment control plays the major role in ruling the change, as it occurred in parallel
with what happens in other professions that are deeply modifying the
organizations they work for, such as health services. Managers control the system
under the commitment of centralizing decisions without any effective opposition
by professors and students due to job insecurity, precarious jobs spread out, and
the need for increasing the workload, part of a misunderstood race for
productivity.

In the last 30 years, there has been a continuous, prolonged, brutal assault on the
traditional university model, labeled as old and outdated. Which stronghold first
launched this attack is unknown: some Chicago economists or the Royal Society?
The National Science Foundation and the National Academy jointly? Or the
Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, or any Masonic lodge? I do not
believe in conspiracy theories, unchallengeable axioms, and thus lacking of any
scientific basis like chemtrail affairs and most safety concerns about vaccination.

# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 5

R. Rosso, The Decline and Renaissance of Universities,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20385-6_2
6 2 The Resistible Rise of Utilitarian University

What’s more, it does not matter where and when everything started, because this is
simply the sign of the times.

Just stop your crying

It’s a sign of the times
Welcome to the final show
I hope you’re wearing your best clothes.1

Milton Friedman—Chicago’s economist who wrote “Capitalism and Freedom”

(1962) and acted as an advisor to Republican US President Ronald Reagan and
Conservative British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher—claimed that: “Universities
exist to transmit knowledge and understanding of ideas and values to students not to
provide entertainments for spectators or employment for athletes2”. Then, things
went on rapidly, as Noam Chomsky noted: “If you have to control people, you have
to have an administrative force that does it. So in US industry even more than
elsewhere, there’s layer after layer of management—a kind of economic waste, but
useful for control and domination. And the same is true in universities3”.
The muggers were quite successful, as the annihilation of the “old” model was
accurate and systematic; and it ran with Teutonic application through Stalinist
purging methods, this time less bloody but more sophisticated. After all, it was
only academic staff to be put in line or marginalized, if too stubborn. One should
have removed the most obstinate by hook or by crook but without bloodshed.
The overpowering rise of managers and management doctrines should have made
universities more efficient and productive, more lean and transparent, and, above all,
more “modern.” The new model got the full support of the “call-to-action
politicians” in search of consensus; the ovation of the corporates that aimed at
gaining slices of power in the area of professional training; and the enthusiasm of
land rent, supported by creative finance, which made university estate an element of
great charm and a compulsory asset for those who had mastered the management of
the universities.
The supremacy of economy and finance is certainly not the only driving force
behind the story, but one cannot neglect it either. Major universities such as Harvard
have annual budgets in order of 4.5 billion dollars. Harvard, Stanford, MIT, and
Princeton together have a total budget of 93 billion dollars. At a lower scale, the
budget of a broad-spectrum university such as Rome’s La Sapienza exceeds 700 mil-
lion euros, while that of a very narrow-spectrum university such as the Luigi
Bocconi Business University of Milan still exceeds 270 million euros. The turnover
of academic institutions is certainly larger, because of their influence on society,
enterprise, and politics.

1
From: Sign of the Times, Harry Styles, Columbia, 2017
2
V. Zernike, K. (2002) At Rutgers, Foes of Sports As a Priority Win a Round, “The New York
Times”, August 6, 2002 (November 17, 2017)
3
Chomsky, N. (2014) How America’s Great University System Is Being Destroyed, “Alternet”,
February 28 (November 17, 2017)
2 The Resistible Rise of Utilitarian University 7

The charming economy issues won over in theory and application. In practice,
reforms have given rise series of serious diseases, producing serious side effects.
Academic bullying has spread, bureaucracy is rampant, and many university
workers are unhappy, even though they are more and more closed in their personal
sphere of incommunicability. The bubble of managerialism is also threatening the
historical role of universities as institutions where the commitment to teaching,
unbiased study, and critical research were the undisputed founding values. No one
has the courage to examine the actual and tangible effects of the management
experiment, which has been continuing to live and flourish under the banner of
objectives as striking as thick-skinned to any criticism and, above all, almost
never subjected to proper, unbiased verification.
If the dogma of management control borrowed a few but clear leading ideas, the
line to follow was established by a simple axiom, borrowed from economic science
and reinforced by politics. It is a postulate that springs from a pessimistic view of
human nature, since it assumes that individuals and officials, elected or appointed or
even just as public servants, actually behave as rational, selfish actors. As a conse-
quence, academics can only behave in a self-referential, egocentric way. At best they
do their own business; at worst they do not pursue any reasonable duty.
Under this viewpoint, the old idea of universities as communities of autonomous
scholars who administrate themselves, committed to humanistic standards of knowl-
edge, truth, and education of young people, is an outdated thought. In theory, it
would have been a good idea indeed, but it turned out to be totally unrealistic in
practice. Like many publicly funded organizations that developed in the golden age
of welfare society during the glorious thirty,4 universities proved to be increasingly
inadequate in pursuing their mission, which should consist in providing a useful
service to the community. On the contrary, the academies had focused on the
perennial and exclusive adoration of their navel. Scholars had become lazy and
sluggish because of their privileged and anachronistic status: job security, the
coveted role of job guarantee by the ancient institution of tenure.
As encouraged by a massive media endorsement and further claimed by govern-
mental policies, the common people no longer tolerated the teachers allowing
themselves statements such as: “I am a Professor of . . . ” rather than “My job is
university teacher of . . . ”. Is “Professor” a noble title? When they taught, these
slackers had become quite annoying, neglecting the students’ need and taking care of
their own business only, regardless of the issues of actual interest for job application.
When doing research they were used to beating a dead horse, resting on those
honors, often out-of-date, which had allowed them to acquire the tenure once and
for all.

Many pointed out that it is difficult to define academic life as “work”, because so many
people enjoy what they’re doing. If someone is obsessed with Victorian literature and is

4
The period from year 1946 to 1975 under the statement by Jean Fourastié (1979) Le trente
glorieouses, ou la révolution invisible da 1946 à 1975, Paris: Fayard
8 2 The Resistible Rise of Utilitarian University

lucky enough to have a job that pays her to research that topic, does reading Oliver Twist in
the evening really count as work?5

According to this fiction, such an unacceptable habit had been authorized,

favored, and cherished by the political powers of the past, because the old politics
had always been culturally subjugated by the academy. Moreover, the rules of
academic self-government had prevented to intervene even to those politicians
who did not perceive the cultural halo hovering over academies. The managers’
squad, well aware of the underlying weaknesses, took the bull by the horns by
overturning these rules, established by ancient laws and even by the Constitution of
some nations.

The End of the Traditional Academy

Academic freedom, tenure, and shared governance are the three pillars holding up
the traditional model of the university, consolidated across a millennium.6 First of
all, the market challenge has engaged the governance, breaking the traditional self-
government scheme, albeit subtly and often using internal forces of the academic
system. After taking the power by establishing a “modern” governance framework,
the market revolution faced the autonomy of teachers and academic freedom,
narrowing their boundaries. A slow, progressive erosion is finally destroying the
last pillar, tenure.
Since the three principles are mutually dependent, like supports of an ideal
isostatic system, breaking of one causes the whole structure to collapse. Let’s
imagine an old fisherman intent on ruling the fishing rod, sitting on a three-legged
stool perfectly balanced on the pier. If a joker comes who, with a swift kick, brutally
breaks one of the legs without any warning, the old man tumbles without mercy,
winding up in the sea. Academics who point it out are blamed as old owls by the
administration and the public, especially if they are aged. And the public claims:
“Throw old barons out from universities!” with a few voices of disclaim, since the
belief that professorate is a herd of slackers is popular among the people.
According to the ordinary Disney vulgate, the owls are the wisest and shrewdest
creatures in the forest. However, Owl—the mentor and teacher to Winnie the
Pooh—is so wise that when he was speaking one cannot understand anything, as
he is fixed on its ancestors. He does nothing but boring the unfortunates who listen to
him; and they just shake it off without the good Owl noticing it. In short, when they
are not harmful, owls are useless birds, providing that the owls are not assimilated to
the jinx bird described by Ovidius and John Keats, as it happens every time the
serious intonation of their birdcall becomes annoying. The criticism by the owls is

5
McKenna, L. (2018) How hard do professors actually work? “The Atlantic”, February 7 (March
12, 2018)
6
Nelson, C. (2011) No University Is an Island: Saving Academic Freedom. New York: NYU Press
Prize and Punishment 21

strategy of institutional development4” cannot overlook some questions, because

there is a “request for a new evaluation culture, which knows how to go beyond
rankings and numbers, to be able to grasp the true meaning of quality in research.”
And they recognize that the international academic world is deeply concerned about
the so-called third mission of the university. However, both research evaluation and
funding policies do not take into account any third mission, far from becoming tools
for achieving these goals but pursuing quite opposite objectives.

Prize and Punishment

Although monetary or pseudo-monetary figures are not capable of measuring most

of the multiform outcomes of academic activities, the distribution of prizes is
nevertheless based on quantitative data sets, manipulated to get a few parametric
indices. Further indexes count the number of scholarships, the amount of funding
and, essentially, the administrative support paid to the management. One should stay
on top of what’s current. By the global market era, free competition is an unchal-
lengeable value, because competition is the pillar of modern society, founded on the
struggle among individuals, groups, and species.

Computation (statistics, surveys, rates, GDP) invades everything. The quantitative approach
drives away the qualitative one. Humanism is in regression under the technical and eco-
nomic drive.5

In the regions less influenced by Lutheran or Calvinist ethics, like Latin countries,
manipulation of these numbers can grow exponentially. And not for nothing, Spain
and Italy are countries where the episodes of fake degrees and plagiarism scandals
affect national politics. The malicious owls hint at the “double standards” manager
who tends to run the rules severely and adamantly against his enemies, while he
generously accommodates the same rules when he must apply them to his friends
and protégés. Also, the decision-makers fail to acknowledge Plato’s message: “A
good decision is based on knowledge, not on numbers”.
In some countries, application of ranking under such an ethical vision can be
paradoxical. For example, with the economic crisis of the twenty-first century, there
is a strong cut to both teaching and research funding. In order to optimize the
available resources and extend meritocracy criteria, every Italian university had to
rank its professors according to a graded list similar to that of ATP, the governing
body of men’s professional tennis. Since the evaluation process is mainly focused on
ranking, its philosophy encompasses the mystique of Darwinian competition, where
someone wins and someone loses.

4
Zanazzi, S., Evaluating and financing research: a comparison among universities in Italy, France,
Germany, and Spain, “Italian Journal of Educational Research”, VIII(15): 151–166, 2015
5
Morin, E. (2014) opera citato
22 3 The Big Brother University

After all the scholars were listed on a spreadsheet column, from top to bottom,
those ranked in the first half of the list were entitled to get the pay rise that once was a
seniority-based automatic increase. Conversely, those ranked in the second half
received nothing: the median was the sword of Damocles. In short, the golden rule
was to postulate that one-half of the scholars are loafers and the other half excellent
scientists and teachers. Nobody raised a reasonable doubt that, maybe, the excellent
ones are no more than one out of five or the bad ones a poor 10%. On the other hand,
the chancellor of a mid-level Italian university had been less positive, publicly
stating that the good ones do not exceed 15% of the staff but the remaining 85%
are all bad scholars.
This odd system means that salary increases on only settled at 50% of the scholars
in each university and, because of the domino effect, it is paid to one scholar out of
two in each department. To deserve the prize, one must be much more excellent in
Milan than in Florence, based on QS World University Rankings. Also, a scholar of
the School of Architecture in Milan must be an starchitect to be rewarded, given that
this school ranked ninth in the world and sixth in Europe.6 On the contrary, scholars
of other schools are asked for a less salient excellence to be rewarded, given that
some of the schools are ranked beyond the 50th grade worldwide.
The assessment of academic performance results in a wide range of rewards and
punishments. Stick and carrot, in short. Carrots take the form of career promotions,
salary increases to a selected share of excellent, and forms of “relief” from teaching
to a crowded class. In assessing the many varieties of excellence, there are symbolic
prizes as well. Badges and laurels; gold, silver, or bronze medals, these including the
chocolate ones which the academic narcissus welcomes above all.
Punishments take on multifaceted figures, starting from the absence of the prize:
the penalty of deprivation. They continue with additional teaching loads, which are
openly treated as exchange assets between the manager and the professor. The
distribution of internal research funds is associated with the successful proposals
to external funding, therefore triggering a hellish loop. This aggressive “performance
management” is sometimes smuggled under a softer and more cogent reference:
“mentoring.” And the less excellent or the most seditious professors may be brutally
fired in the near future.
The range of prizes and penalties includes increased administrative and educa-
tional burdens, along with the removal of any automatic salary growth mechanism.
Last but not least, there is the expropriation of scientific topics: a subject first
mistreated as marginal, which later acquires some interest for the market and is
taken off and apportioned to a smug colleague who wallows within the magical
sphere of academic power. No matter if he does not get any specific skill, because a
respected university brand is enough for his reliability appraisal by the market,
jointly with the blessing of the supreme manager.
A colleague from Naples once claimed that “when the sea is quiet, every asshole
is a sailor.” He referred to the art of hiding his own inability by acting as a wonder

6
Vedi la classifica di QS Top Universities 2018
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Proclamation of Sept. 22, 1862.

I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America,

and Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy thereof, do hereby
proclaim and declare that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be
prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional
relation between the United States and each of the States and the
people thereof, in which States that relation is or may be suspended
or disturbed.
That it is my purpose, upon the next meeting of Congress, to again
recommend the adoption of a practical measure tendering pecuniary
aid to the free acceptance or rejection of all slave States, so called, the
people thereof may not then be in rebellion against the United
States, and which States may then have voluntarily adopted, or
thereafter may voluntarily adopt, immediate or gradual abolishment
of slavery within their respected limits; and that the effort to colonize
persons of African descent with their consent upon this continent or
elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the Governments
existing there, will be continued.
That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves
within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof
shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then,
thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of
the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof,
will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do
no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts
they may make for their actual freedom.
That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by
proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in
which the people thereof respectively, shall then be in rebellion
against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people
thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the
Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at
elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall
have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing
testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the
people thereof, are not in rebellion against the United States.
That attention is hereby called to an act of Congress entitled “An
act to make an additional article of war,” approved March 13, 1862,
and which act is in the words and figures following:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That hereafter the
following shall be promulgated as an additional article of war, for the
government of the army of the United States, and shall be obeyed
and observed as such.
“Article —. All officers or persons in the military or naval service
of the United States are prohibited from employing any of the forces
under their respective commands for the purpose of returning
fugitives from service or labor who may have escaped from any
persons to whom such service or labor is claimed to be due, and any
officer who shall be found guilty by a court-martial of violating this
article shall be dismissed from the service.
“Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That this act shall take effect
from and after its passage.”
Also to the ninth and tenth sections of an act entitled “An act to
suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and
confiscate property of rebels, and for other purposes,” approved July
17, 1862, and which sections are in the words and figures following:
“Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That all slaves of persons who
shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the Government of the
United States or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto,
escaping from such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the
army; and all slaves captured from such persons or deserted by
them, and coming under the control of the Government of the United
States; and all slaves of such persons found on [or] being within any
place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces
of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be
forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves.
 “Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That no slave escaping into any
State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, from any other State,
shall be delivered up, or in any way impeded or hindered of his
liberty, except for crime, or some offence against the laws, unless the
person claiming said fugitive shall first make oath that the person to
whom the labor or service of such fugitive is alleged to be due is his
lawful owner, and has not borne arms against the United States in
the present rebellion, nor in any way given aid and comfort thereto;
and no person engaged in the military or naval service of the United
States shall, under any pretence whatever, assume to decide on the
validity of the claim of any person to the service or labor of any other
person, or surrender up any such person to the claimant, on pain of
being dismissed from the service.”
And I do hereby enjoin upon and order all persons engaged in the
military and naval service of the United States to observe, obey, and
enforce, within their respective spheres of service, the act and
sections above recited.
And the Executive will in due time recommend that all citizens of
the United States who shall have remained loyal thereto throughout
the rebellion shall (upon the restoration of the constitutional relation
between the United States and their respective States and people, if
that relation shall have been suspended or disturbed) be
compensated for all losses by acts of the United States, including the
loss of slaves.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the
seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this twenty-second day of
September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-
seventh.
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:

William H. Seward, Secretary of State.

 Proclamation of January 1, 1863.

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of

our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation
was issued by the President of the United States, containing among
other things, the following, to wit:
“That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves
within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof
shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then,
thenceforward, and forever, free; and the Executive Government of
the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof,
will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do
no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts
they may make for their actual freedom.
“That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by
proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in
which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion
against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people
thereof, shall on that day be in good faith represented in the
Congress of the United States, by members chosen thereto at
elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States
shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing
testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the
people thereof, are then in rebellion against the United States.”
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United
States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief
of the Army and Navy of the United States, in time of actual armed
rebellion against the authority and Government of the United States,
and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said
rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my
purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one
hundred days from the day first above mentioned, order and
designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people
thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United
States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the parishes of St. Bernard,
Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension,
Assumption, Terre Bonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and
Orleans, including the city of New Orleans,) Mississippi, Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia,
(except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also
the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City,
York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and
Portsmouth,) and which excepted parts are for the present left
precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do
order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said
designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be,
free; and that the Executive Government of the United States,
including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize
and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to
abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I
recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor
faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known that such persons, of
suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the
United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places,
and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice,
warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the
considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty
God.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the
seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this first day of January, in the year
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the
independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

Abraham Lincoln.

By the President:
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.

These proclamations were followed by many attempts on the part

of the Democrats to declare them null and void, but all such were
tabled. The House on the 15th of December, 1862, endorsed the first
by a vote of 78 to 51, almost a strict party vote. Two classed as
Democrats, voted for emancipation—Haight and Noell; seven classed
as Republicans, voted against it—Granger, Harrison, Leary,
Maynard, Benj. F. Thomas, Francis Thomas, and Whaley.
Just previous to the issuance of the first proclamation a meeting of
the Governors of the Northern States had been called to consider
how best their States could aid the general conduct of the war. Some
of them had conferred with the President, and while that meeting
and the date of the emancipation proclamation are the same, it was
publicly denied on the floor of Congress by Mr. Boutwell (June 25,
1864,) that the proclamation was the result of that meeting of the
Governors. That they fully endorsed and knew of it, however, is
shown by the following
 Address of loyal Governors to the President.

Adopted at a meeting of Governors of loyal States, held to take

measures for the more active support of the Government, at
Altoona, Pennsylvania, on the 22d day of September, 1862.
After nearly one year and a half spent in contest with an armed
and gigantic rebellion against the national Government of the United
States, the duty and purpose of the loyal States and people continue,
and must always remain as they were at its origin—namely, to restore
and perpetuate the authority of this Government and the life of the
nation. No matter what consequences are involved in our fidelity,
this work of restoring the Republic, preserving the institutions of
democratic liberty, and justifying the hopes and toils of our fathers
shall not fail to be performed.
And we pledge without hesitation, to the President of the United
States, the most loyal and cordial support, hereafter as heretofore, in
the exercise of the functions of his great office. We recognize in him
the Chief Executive Magistrate of the nation, the Commander-in-
chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, their responsible
and constitutional head, whose rightful authority and power, as well
as the constitutional powers of Congress, must be rigorously and
religiously guarded and preserved, as the condition on which alone
our form of Government and the constitutional rights and liberties of
the people themselves can be saved from the wreck of anarchy or
from the gulf of despotism.
In submission to the laws which may have been or which may be
duly enacted, and to the lawful orders of the President, co-operating
always in our own spheres with the national Government, we mean
to continue in the most vigorous exercise of all our lawful and proper
powers, contending against treason, rebellion, and the public
enemies, and, whether in public life or in private station, supporting
the arms of the Union, until its cause shall conquer, until final
victory shall perch upon its standard, or the rebel foe shall yield a
dutiful, rightful, and unconditional submission.
And, impressed with the conviction that an army of reserve ought,
until the war shall end, to be constantly kept on foot, to be raised,
armed, equipped, and trained at home, and ready for emergencies,
we respectfully ask the President to call for such a force of volunteers
for one year’s service, of not less than one hundred thousand in the
aggregate, the quota of each State to be raised after it shall have filled
its quota of the requisitions already made, both for volunteers and
militia. We believe that this would be a measure of military
prudence, while it would greatly promote the military education of
the people.
We hail with heartfelt gratitude and encouraged hope the
proclamation of the President, issued on the 22d instant, declaring
emancipated from their bondage all persons held to service or labor
as slaves in the rebel States, whose rebellion shall last until the first
day of January now next ensuing. The right of any person to retain
authority to compel any portion of the subjects of the national
Government to rebel against it, or to maintain its enemies, implies in
those who are allowed possession of such authority the right to rebel
themselves; and therefore the right to establish martial law or
military government in a State or territory in rebellion implies the
right and the duty of the Government to liberate the minds of all men
living therein by appropriate proclamations and assurances of
protection, in order that all who are capable, intellectually and
morally, of loyalty and obedience, may not be forced into treason as
the unwilling tools of rebellious traitors. To have continued
indefinitely the most efficient cause, support, and stay of the
rebellion, would have been, in our judgment, unjust to the loyal
people whose treasure and lives are made a willing sacrifice on the
altar of patriotism—would have discriminated against the wife who is
compelled to surrender her husband, against the parent who is to
surrender his child to the hardships of the camp and the perils of
battle, in favor of rebel masters permitted to retain their slaves. It
would have been a final decision alike against humanity, justice, the
rights and dignity of the Government, and against sound and wise
national policy. The decision of the President to strike at the root of
the rebellion will lend new vigor to the efforts and new life and hope
to the hearts of the people. Cordially tendering to the President our
respectful assurance of personal and official confidence, we trust and
believe that the policy now inaugurated will be crowned with success,
will give speedy and triumphant victories over our enemies, and
secure to this nation and this people the blessing and favor of
Almighty God. We believe that the blood of the heroes who have
already fallen, and those who may yet give their lives to their
country, will not have been shed in vain.
The splendid valor of our soldiers, their patient endurance, their
manly patriotism, and their devotion to duty, demand from us and
from all their countrymen the homage of the sincerest gratitude and
the pledge of our constant reinforcement and support. A just regard
for these brave men, whom we have contributed to place in the field,
and for the importance of the duties which may lawfully pertain to us
hereafter, has called us into friendly conference. And now,
presenting to our national Chief Magistrate this conclusion of our
deliberations, we devote ourselves to our country’s service, and we
will surround the President with our constant support, trusting that
the fidelity and zeal of the loyal States and people will always assure
him that he will be constantly maintained in pursuing with the
utmost vigor this war for the preservation of the national life and the
hope of humanity.

A. G. Curtin,
John A. Andrew,
Richard Yates,
Israel Washburne, Jr.,
Edward Solomon,
Samuel J. Kirkwood,
O. P. Morton,
By D. G. Rose, his representative,
Wm. Sprague,
F. H. Peirpoint,
David Tod,
N. S. Berry,
Austin Blair.
 Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law.

The first fugitive slave law passed was that of February 12th, 1793,
the second and last that of September 18th, 1850. Various efforts had
been made to repeal the latter before the war of the rebellion,
without a prospect of success. The situation was now different. The
war spirit was high, and both Houses of Congress were in the hands
of the Republicans as early as December, 1861, but all of them were
not then ready to vote for repeal, while the Democrats were at first
solidly against it. The bill had passed the Senate in 1850 by 27 yeas to
12 nays; the House by 109 yeas to 76 nays, and yet as late as 1861
such was still the desire of many not to offend the political prejudices
of the Border States and of Democrats whose aid was counted upon
in the war, that sufficient votes could not be had until June, 1864, to
pass the repealing bill. Republican sentiment advanced very slowly in
the early years of the war, when the struggle looked doubtful and
when there was a strong desire to hold for the Union every man and
county not irrevocably against it; when success could be foreseen the
advances were more rapid, but never as rapid as the more radical
leaders desired. The record of Congress in the repeal of the Fugitive
Slave Law will illustrate this political fact, in itself worthy of grave
study by the politician and statesman, and therefore we give it as
compiled by McPherson:—
 [22]
Second Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.

In Senate, 1861, December 26—Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin,

introduced a bill to repeal the fugitive slave law; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
1862, May 24—Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, introduced a bill to
amend the fugitive slave law; which was ordered to be printed and lie
on the table.
June 10—Mr. Wilson moved to take up the bill; which was agreed
to—Yeas 25, nays 10, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Cowan,
Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris,
Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Simmons,
Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilson, of Massachusetts.—25.
Nays—Messrs. Carlile, Davis, Latham, McDougall, Nesmith,
Powell, Saulsbury, Stark, Willey, Wright—10.[23]
The bill was to secure to claimed fugitives a right to a jury trial in
the district court for the United States for the district in which they
may be, and to require the claimant to prove his loyalty. The bill
repeals sections 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the act of 1850, and that part of
section 5, which authorizes the summoning of the posse comitatus.
When a warrant of return is made either on jury trial or confession of
the party in the presence of counsel, having been warned of his
rights, the fugitive is to be surrendered to the claimant, or the
marshal where necessary, who shall remove him to the boundary line
of the district, and there deliver him to the claimant. The bill was not
further considered.
In House, 1861, December 20—Mr. Julian offered this resolution:
Resolved, That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to report a
bill, so amending the fugitive slave law enacted in 1850 as to forbid
the recapture or return of any fugitive from labor without
satisfactory proof first made that the claimant of such fugitive is loyal
to the Government.
Mr. Holman moved to table the resolution, which was disagreed to
—yeas 39, nays 78, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Ancona, Joseph Baily, Biddle, George H. Browne,
Cobb, Cooper, Cox, Cravens, Crittenden, Dunlap, English, Fouke,
Grider, Harding, Holman, Johnson, Law, Lazear, Leary, Lehman,
Mallory, Morris, Noble, Noell, Norton, Nugen, Odell, Pendleton,
Robinson, Shiel, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Vallandigham,
Wadsworth, Webster, Chilton A. White, Wickliffe, Woodruff, Wright
—39.
Nays—Messrs. Aldrich, Alley, Arnold, Babbitt, Baker, Baxter,
Beaman, Bingham, Francis P. Blair, Samuel S. Blair, Blake,
Buffinton, Burnham, Chamberlain, Clark, Colfax, Frederick A.
Conkling, Roscoe Conkling, Cutler, Davis, Dawes, Delano, Duell,
Edwards, Eliot, Fessenden, Franchot, Frank, Gooch, Goodwin,
Gurley, Hale, Hanchett, Harrison, Hooper, Hutchins, Julian, William
Kellogg, Lansing, Loomis, Lovejoy, McKnight, McPherson, Marston,
Mitchell, Moorhead, Anson P. Morrill, Justin S. Morrill, Olin, Patton,
Pike, Pomeroy, Porter, John H. Rice, Riddle, Edward H. Rollins,
Sargent, Sedgwick, Shanks. Shellabarger, Sherman, Sloan,
Spaulding, Stevens, Benjamin F. Thomas, Train, Vandever, Wall,
Wallace, Walton, Washburne, Wheeler, Whaley, Albert S. White,
Wilson, Windom, Worcester—78.
The resolution was then adopted—yeas 78, nays 39.
1862, June 9—Mr. Julian, of Indiana, introduced into the House a
resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to report a bill for the
purpose of repealing the fugitive slave law; which was tabled—yeas
66, nays 51, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. William J. Allen, Ancona, Baily, Biddle, Francis P.
Blair, Jacob B. Blair, George H. Browne, William G. Brown,
Burnham, Calvert, Casey, Clements, Cobb, Corning, Crittenden,
Delano, Diven, Granger, Grider, Haight, Hale, Harding, Holman,
Johnson, William Kellogg, Kerrigan, Knapp, Lazear, Low, Maynard,
Menzies, Moorhead, Morris, Noble, Noell, Norton, Odell, Pendleton,
John S. Phelps, Timothy G. Phelps, Porter, Richardson, Robinson,
James S. Rollins, Sargent, Segar, Sheffield, Shiel, Smith, John B.
Steele, William G. Steele, Benjamin F. Thomas, Francis Thomas,
Trimble, Vallandigham, Verree, Vibbard, Voorhees, Wadsworth,
Webster, Chilton A. White, Wickliffe, Wood, Woodruff, Worcester,
Wright—66.
Nays—Messrs. Aldrich, Alley, Baker, Baxter, Beaman, Bingham,
Blake, Buffinton, Chamberlain, Colfax, Frederick A. Conkling, Davis,
Dawes, Edgerton, Edwards, Eliot, Ely, Franchot, Gooch, Goodwin,
Hanchett, Hutchins, Julian, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Lansing,
Lovejoy, McKnight, McPherson, Mitchell, Anson P. Morrill, Pike,
Pomeroy, Potter, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Riddle, Edward
H. Rollins, Shellabarger, Sloan, Spaulding, Stevens, Train,
Trowbridge, Van Horn, Van Valkenburgh, Wall, Wallace,
Washburne, Albert S. White, Windom—51.
Same day—Mr. Colfax, of Indiana, offered this resolution:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to
report a bill modifying the fugitive slave law so as to require a jury
trial in all cases where the person claimed denies under oath that he
is a slave, and also requiring any claimant under such act to prove
that he has been loyal to the Government during the present
rebellion.
Which was agreed to—yeas 77, nays 43, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Aldrich, Alley, Arnold, Ashley, Babbitt, Baker,
Baxter, Beaman, Bingham, Francis P. Blair, Blake, Buffinton,
Burnham, Chamberlain, Colfax, Frederick A. Conkling, Davis,
Dawes, Delano, Diven, Edgerton, Edwards, Eliot, Ely, Franchot,
Gooch, Goodwin, Granger, Gurley, Haight, Hale, Hanchett,
Hutchins, Julian, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, William Kellogg,
Lansing, Loomis, Lovejoy, Lowe, McKnight, McPherson, Mitchell,
Anson P. Morrill, Justin S. Morrill, Nixon, Timothy G. Phelps, Pike,
Pomeroy, Porter, Potter, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Riddle,
Edward H. Rollins, Sargent, Shanks, Sheffield, Shellabarger, Sloan,
Spaulding, Stevens, Stratton, Benjamin F. Thomas, Train, Trimble,
Trowbridge, Van Valkenburgh, Verree, Wall, Wallace, Washburne,
Albert, S. White, Wilson, Windom, Worcester—77.
Nays—Messrs. William J. Allen, Ancona, Baily, Biddle, Jacob B.
Blair, William G. Brown, Calvert, Casey, Clements, Cobb, Corning,
Crittenden, Fouke, Grider, Harding, Holman, Johnson, Knapp,
Maynard, Menzies, Noble, Noell, Norton, Pendleton, John S. Phelps,
Richardson, Robinson, James S. Rollins, Segar, Shiel, Smith, John B.
Steele, William G. Steele, Francis Thomas, Vallandigham, Vibbard,
Voorhees, Wadsworth, Webster, Chilton A. White, Wickliffe, Wood,
Wright—43.
 Third Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.

In Senate, 1863, February 11—Mr. Ten Eyck, from the Committee

on the Judiciary, to whom was referred a bill, introduced by Senator
Howe, in second session, December 26, 1861, to repeal the fugitive
slave act of 1850, reported it back without amendment, and with a
recommendation that it do not pass.
 First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress.

In House, 1863, Dec. 14.—Mr. Julian, of Indiana, offered this

resolution:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to
report a bill for a repeal of the third and fourth sections of the “act
respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the
service of their masters,” approved February 12, 1793, and the act to
amend and supplementary to the aforesaid act, approved September
18, 1850.
Mr. Holman moved that the resolution lie upon the table, which
was agreed to—yeas 81, nays 73, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Ancona,
Anderson, Baily, Augustus C. Baldwin, Jacob B. Blair, Bliss, Brooks,
James S. Brown, William G. Browne, Clay, Cobb, Coffroth, Cox,
Cravens, Creswell, Dawson, Demming, Denison, Eden, Edgerton,
Eldridge, English, Finck, Ganson, Grider, Griswold, Hall, Harding,
Harrington, Benjamin G. Harris, Charles M. Harris, Higby,
Holman, Hutchins, William Johnson, Kernan, King, Knapp, Law,
Lazear, Le Blond, Long, Mallory, Marcy, Marvin, McBride,
McDowell, McKinney, William H. Miller, James R. Morris,
Morrison, Nelson, Noble, Odell, John O’Neil, Pendleton, William H.
Randall, Robinson, Rogers, James S. Rollins, Ross, Scott, Smith,
Smithers, Stebbins, John B. Steele, Stuart, Sweat, Thomas,
Voorhees, Wadsworth, Ward, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Joseph W.
White, Williams, Winfield, Fernando Wood, Yeaman—81.
Nays—Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Arnold, Ashley, John D.
Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd, Brandegee,
Broomall, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clark, Cole, Henry Winter
Davis, Dawes, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eliot,
Farnsworth, Fenton, Frank, Garfield, Gooch, Grinnell, Hooper,
Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Hulburd, Jenckes,
Julian, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Loan, Longyear,
Lovejoy, McClurg, McIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill,
Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Norton, Charles O’Neill, Orth,
Patterson, Pike, Pomeroy, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice,
Edward H. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Spalding, Thayer,
Van Valkenburgh, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn,
Whaley, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Woodbidge—73.
1864, June 6, Mr. Hubbard, of Connecticut, offered this resolution:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to
report to this House a bill for the repeal of all acts and parts of acts
which provide for the rendition of fugitive slaves, and that they have
leave to make such report at any time.
Which went over under the rule. May 30, he had made an
ineffectual effort to offer it, Mr. Holman objecting.

REPEALING BILLS.

1864, April 19, the Senate considered the bill to repeal all acts for
the rendition of fugitives from service or labor. The bill was taken up
—yeas 26, nays 10.
Mr. Sherman moved to amend by inserting these words at the end
of the bill:
Except the act approved February 12, 1793, entitled “An act
respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the
service of their masters.”
Which was agreed to—yeas 24, nays 17, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Collamer, Cowan, Davis, Dixon,
Doolittle, Foster, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson,
Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Nesmith, Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury,
Sherman, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey—24.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Clark, Conness, Fessenden,
Grimes, Hale, Howard, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy,
Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner, Wilkinson, Wilson—17.
Mr. Saulsbury moved to add these sections:
 And be it further enacted, That no white inhabitant of the United
States shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or held to answer for a
capital or otherwise infamous crime, except in cases arising in the
land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of
war or public danger, without due process of law.
And be it further enacted, That no person engaged in the
executive, legislative, or judicial departments of the Government of
the United States, or holding any office or trust recognized in the
Constitution of the United States, and no person in military or naval
service of the United States, shall, without due process of law, arrest
or imprison any white inhabitant of the United States who is not, or
has not been, or shall not at the time of such arrest or imprisonment
be, engaged in levying war against the United States, or in adhering
to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, nor
aid, abet, procure or advise the same, except in cases arising in the
land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of
war or public danger. And any person as aforesaid so arresting, or
imprisoning, or holding, as aforesaid, as in this and the second
section of this act mentioned, or aiding, abetting, or procuring, or
advising the same, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and, upon
conviction thereof in any court of competent jurisdiction, shall be
imprisoned for a term of not less than one nor more than five years,
shall pay a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5000, and
shall be forever incapable of holding any office or public trust under
the Government of the United States.
Mr. Hale moved to strike out the word “white” wherever it occurs;
which was agreed to.
The amendment of Mr. Saulsbury, as amended, was then
disagreed to—yeas 9, nays 27, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, Hendricks,
McDougall, Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury—9.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Clark, Collamer, Conness, Doolittle,
Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harris, Howard, Howe, Lane of
Indiana, Lane, of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Ramsey,
Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle,
Wilkinson, Willey, Wilson—27.
 Mr. Conness moved to table the bill; which was disagreed to—yeas
9, (Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Conness, Davis, Hendricks, Nesmith,
Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury,) nays 31.
It was not again acted upon.
1864, June 13—The House passed this bill, introduced by Mr.
Spalding, of Ohio, and reported from the Committee on the
Judiciary by Mr. Morris, of New York, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., that sections three and four of an act entitled
“An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from
the service of their masters,” passed February 12, 1793, and an Act
entitled “An act to amend, and supplementary to, the act entitled ‘An
act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from their
masters,’ passed February 12, 1793,” passed September 18, 1850, be,
and the same are hereby, repealed.
Yeas 86, nays 60, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Arnold, Ashley, John D.
Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Blair, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd,
Brandegee, Broomall, Ambrose W. Clarke, Freeman Clark, Cobb,
Cole, Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Daavis, Dawes,
Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Fenton, Frank,
Garfield, Gooch, Griswold, Higby, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W.
Hubbard, John K. Hubbard, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian,
Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, O. Kellogg, Littlejohn, Loan, Longyear,
Marvin, McClurg, McIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill,
Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Norton, Charles O’Neill,
Orth, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John H.
Rice, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Sloan, Spalding, Starr, Stevens,
Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Webster, Whaley,
Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge—86.
Nays—Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Ancona,
Augustus C. Baldwin, Bliss, Brooks, James S. Brown, Chanler,
Coffroth, Cox, Cravens, Dawson, Denison, Eden, Edgerton,
Eldridge, English, Finck, Ganson, Grider, Harding, Harrington,
Charles M. Harris, Herrick, Holman, Hutchins, Kalbfleisch, Kernan,
King, Knapp, Law, Lazear, Le Blond, Mallory, Marcy, McDowell,
McKinney, Wm. H. Miller, James R. Morris, Morrison, Odell,
Pendleton, Pruyn, Radford, Robinson, Jas. S. Rollins, Ross,