The San Francisco call., 1897-02-13
IN INTERCOLLEGIATE
CARNOT DEBATE
French Educational System
the Subject Under
Discussion.
Is It More Conducive to the
States Welfare Than Would
Be Our Own
II. A. Overstreet, U. C, in the Af-
frmative, Wins the Decision
of the Judges.


ia good-natured college crowd filled
the chapel to overfowing this evening.
Even the top windows were occupied by
some students, who risked a serious fall
rather than miss one of the college events
of the year. The event which caused all
the excitement was the annual Stanford
Berkeley Carnot debate.
DIR. J. NJ. Sullman presided and intro
duced the speakers. He prefaced his first
introduction by explaining the conditions
which governed the judges in their choice
of speakers. According TO the rules spon-
taneity, excellence of reasoning, scholar
ship, style and delivery were to be con-
sidered, as well as acquaintance with
French politics. Speeches were not to be
read or recited from memory.
At the close of the debate the judges,
Mayor J. d. Phelan, Attorney Charles
Page and Rev. Il. L. Parsons, announced
their decision after deliberation OF fifteen
minutes. II. a. 0verstreet, U. c., one OF
the speakers on the affirmative, was Sc
lected by the judges as most nearly salts
flying the conditions of the debate. In
making the decision Mayor Phelan said
that the choice rested between A. B.
Morgan of Stanford and H. A. Oyerstreet.
A majority vote was necessary to arrive
a a decision.
Before the decision Of The judges, Pro-
fessor Gayley of Berkeley said he had no
doubt but that Mr.. Morgan would be
awarded the decision.
The question for discussion was: "Is
the French system of education more con-
ducive TO the welfare of the State than
would be system like that OF the United
States p The speakers appeared in the
following order: Charles E. Fryer, U. c.,
affirmative; A. B. Morgan, Stanford, mega
tive; Mrs. N. G. Hood, Stanford, affirma-
tive; A. G. Marks, U. e., negative; II. A.
OverstIeet, U. c., affirmative; S. W.
Charles, Stanford, negative.
G. Z. Fryer showed the difference be-
tween the attitude OF the French Govern
ment and that of the United States to-
ward education. In the former there is
state control; in the latter state support.
10 take away state control in France
means to cast the education of the masses
upon religious organizations, which would
be hazardous. The system trains the
peasant children for the high duties of
citizens. In the last century there was
need for concentration. Hence the sys-
tenn is in entire harmony with the state
government. Politically it is raising the
average state of intelligence OF the citi-
Zens.
In his rebuttal sreech he brought out
more clearly some of the arguments
which had been attacked by the opposi-
ton.
A. B. Morgan showed the influence of
the French system in politics. The Prime
Minister Is often at the n cad of education
IN France. The great aim of the Prime
Minister is TO be returned to power. and
in his position an angel could scarcely re-
sist the tenn ptation OF using hundreds of
thousands of the brightest minds in
France to accom- plish his ends. The most
dangerous phase of the system Is the anti
religious sentiment which predominates
in the French schools. Mr.. MORGAN also
brought out the fact that there is a strong
tendency to oveTstock the different trade
professions. Mechanics are turned ont of
the schools when The office is already over
stocked.
Mrs. M. G. Hood, IN reply to Morgan's
statement of the corruption existing in
France, called attention to a similar State
existing in our educational institutions.
In America the children are not allowed
religious instruction. In France the
children of all denominations SIT side by
side without thought of creeds. This in.
duces spirit of toleration which is yalua-
bic Tor stale interests. When the schools
are in the hands of local control, ignorant
members are elected to office. Often they
are unfit to decide on what is best TO teach
the growing children under their control.
A. Z. Marks mentioned the evil effects
OF the system on political institutions
Teachers were chosen not because of their
ability. but because OF political influence
The system paves the way for a materi-
alistic religion. The decentralization of
education would meet the needs of France.
1t has been tried in other countries and ia
no experiment.
III. A. Overstreet pointed out the fallacy
one falls into il he reasons that because
one system suits one country it will neces-
sarily suit another. Decentralization
must be universal to be successful. Cen
tralization alone makes possible the pas
sage OF an effective law whIoh requires
compulsory education. Thanks to the
severity of the state education is made to
be something desirable. In his rebuttal he
showed that France had been centralized
from top to bottom and asked If it wa.
reasonable 10 suppose that decentraliza-
ilon in one department would work in
such a state
). w. Charles made a point of the at
tendance OF students at private schools.
Fully one-ffth graduate from private
schools. Prominent authorities agree that
their standard is up 10 those directed by
the state. The French Governm ent is con-
stantly changing. With each change
comes corresponding change in the
political education OF the people. Ii is
dangerous for a people to become depen-
dent upon the state; they lose their indie
pendence and their character. Such de-
pendence exercises an equally baneful in
huence upon educational institutions.