The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-02-07
STATE VS.. NONSTATE COLLEGES
Plain and Vigorous Remarks from
President Scot Butler.

To the Editor of the indianapolis Journal:
Your remarks on THE Real Issue" tend
to set right some matters about which the
public is in danger of being misled You
we'll define the question that is really at
issue and your exoneration OF the nonstate
colleges from sinister and Illicit designs
against the state educational institutions is
well put and timely. Allow me a word in
addition. During the past week l have re-
ceived letter from a student at one of the
state institutions in which he informs me
that their president has taken occasion to
speak Of the NATTER" j. e., the alleged con-
test between state and nonstate schools
before his classes and before the whole
body of students at the chapel exercises.
What he has to say, the writer continues,
leaves the impression that the denomina-
| tional schools are jealous of the state insti-
buttons and therefore desire their over
| throw He makes the denominatonal
schools responsible for the attack upon the
state institutions. :" He says it is an
attempt at ecclesiastical domination" The
| correspondent above quoted represents a
considerable body of young people studying
at the state educational institutions, and
with these l have no means of communica-
ton for the purpose of correcting wrong
| impressions. Perhaps some of these stu
dents may happen to see this. If such
should be the case, 1 want to say to them
| that the charges above quoted are false, and
! that he who is reported as having made
| them-unless, indeed, he wants TO accuse
| the nonstate college men of duplicity-to my
| certain knowledge knows that they are
| false. My young friend accepts these
| charges, which he says he has heard from
| his preceptor as gospel truth, and proceeds
| to read me q lecture on the wrongfulness of
my (assumed) position. He argues the
| question on grounds of policy, of principle:
| he urges the necessity of our public school
/ system; the desrability of the maintenance
| on the part of the State of institutions of
| higher education. He evidently takes me
| for plumb fool. 1t is very disappointing
| One would like to think that after living
| in the world for some fifty and more years
ones position on any given question or ones
| action i'm any given set of circumstances
| might easily be foreknown. What have l
| been doing the past thirty years to lead this
| young person to set me down as a narrow
| minded pedant and hide-bound sectaran?
| Does my past Justify such judgment? As to
| the present question, the nonstate college
| presidents, as represented in their associa-
| ton, are and always have been earnest
| friends of the state educational institutions
and favor liberal appropriations Tor their
maintenance. we OF the nOnStdle col
lege association are not to any great
! extent financially interested in taxes; We
| are not constitutional lawyers; we are only
| friends of education, and as such we are
| convinced that the interests of education
can in no way better be furthered in our
State than by liberal public support and
| tional institutions. AS to Ecclesiastical
| domination that is the mounting of a
demagogus. We seek no church . control
and patriotic citizens We are Americans
we both understand and love the spirit
| of American liberty We neither ask, nor
| tons; we neither ask, nor would we accept,
| representation of our institutions on the
| State Board of Education.
This is all we want. and all we ever have
| asked for: First reorganization OF the
State Board of Education. We claim that
| this board, as at present constituted, is
| simply a triumvirate OF the heads of the
| state Institutions, self-supervisng and hos
| tile to the interests of our institutions and
| of our students. The fact that other
| methods of organization are in actual work
| ing elsewhere, without friction or detriment
| to any institution, public or private, is evil
| dence that what we desire is reasonable.
| We ask that the law governing the organ
ization of the State Board of Education be
| so amended as to no longer include among
| it's eX-officio membership the heads of the
three state educational Institutions.
! Second a change in the law regulating
| life license for teachers so that such license
| may be granted to only such graduates of
the State Normal as shall be graduated as
1
| that ii is unwise and unfair to grant life
| license to teach, without examination to
| one who may have completed what is little,
| If any, better than meager college pre-
| paratOry course, and at the same time re-
| quire examination of a college graduate.
| These two points embody our whole con-
tention. The one thing that the state pres
idents are unwilling to relinquish is their
| ex-officio membership in the state board.
| But they cannot meet US openly on this
| issue. So as is reported they purpose
misrepresentng us before their constitu-
ents. 1t is not--especially under present
| circumstances-it is not good policy for
| them so to do. SCOT BUTLER.
Irvington, Feb. 6.