Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1909-05-18

General Education Board (the Rookie
Teller Board) and it's allies to capture and
control the colleges of the country.
Since those articles were printed some
have sought to break their force by seek
ing to raise irrelevant and immaterial is
sues to the obscuring OF the main issue,
and both publicly and privately more
privately than publicly my motives have
been impugned and my position misrepTe-
scented. Repeated and protracted alb
sences from home have prevented my
pursuing the subject further until the
present moment. And now 1 do not care
to notice more than one or two pleas
which have been put forth in defense of
the Rockefeller Board and its plans and
purposes.
AS indicating the enormous and perilous
power OF that Board l quoted the follow
ing paragraph from the Outlook, Dr. Ly-
man Abbott's magazine:
with this financial power in its control.
the general board is in position to do what
no body in this country can at present, even
attempt. It can determine largely what insti.
lions shall grow, and in some measure what
shall stand still decay. 1t can look over
the territory Of the nation, note the places
where there is famine OF learning, and start
new educational plants Of any species II
chooses, or revive old ones. 1t can do in many
ways what the government does Tor edueati0 On
in France and Germany. Its power viii be
enormous; IT seems as If 1t might be able TO
determine the character Of American educa-
ton. The funds II holds represent only
fraction of the amounts which 1t will control;
by giving a sum to an institution on condi-
tion that the institution raise an equal or
greater amount, IL will be able TO direct much
larger amounts than 1t possesses,
II is now said that this utterance or the
Outlook is repudiated by the Board and
it's agents. But in the name of sense
what difference does the Boards repudia-
ton make? This expression of DR.. Abb
bolt never purported to be the utterance
of the Board 1t is DR.. Lyman Abbotts
opinion of the Board most deliberately
uttered and carefully expressed. Has he
repudiated Il? Is he not in position TO
form a correct opinion? Is he unfriendly
to this Board? On the contrary, is there
not reason to believe that he is entirely
friendly to the Board, and that he would
probably be glad to see accomplished
just what the Board proposes?
But simultaneously there appeared In
the New York World and the New York
Tribune the following announcement with
scarcely the variation of a punctuation
mark in both papers:
mo gift from this great fund is intended TO
be given to State educational institutions.
While certain colleges will be selected tor
contributions or endowments, forming chain
Of educational institutions across the continent
Others not so favoured will be left to their
fate by the Rockefeller Fund, ana many OF
them, it is expected will be forced 10 cIose
their doors in the face of such strong support
to their fortunate rivals. 1t will become
question of the survival or the uttest' -
said, from which Il is believed better anu
higher standard of education will result, and
on the maps of the williams street office OF
the Rockefeller Fund the little coloured pins
will probably seal the fate OF many 80. cor ~
lege and work out the destiny OF others &c
prosperous ends - - -,
Now, it is Incredible that two papers SO
widely different as the World and the TIL
bune. would have fallen on the same
form of words in stating the plans ana
purposes of this Board. Would some
member of the Board take the public
into their confidence" long enough to tell
us by whose authority this statement was
nader Will they dare repudiate this as
a correct statement of what they really
propose? Why so quick to "repudiate.
DR.. Abbott's editorial which they can not
repudiate and so slow to disclaim this
publication?
1t will be recalled that / printed in
The Journal sample contract contain
ing the conditions imposed upon the do
nations made. by this Board to colleges
seeking it's money. 1t is now affirmed
that the Board no longer imposed condi-
tions such as those to which 1 drew at
fention, and that now no such rigorous
and humiliating requirements are made
Of the college which accept its gifts.
/ do not regard the matter of these
conditions whether they be more or less
rigorous) as being of the first import
ance in this discussion. 1t is not de-
sirable for our colleges to accept the
doles of this Board under any sort Of
conditions. For one / would not like
any one of our colleges to come under
too great obligations to even one man.
and far less for all our colleges, or any
considerable number of them. to come
under obligations to one self-perpetuatlng
Board. organized and endowed as is this
Rockefeller Board. That very able pa
per the New York Journal of Commerce
has put this view far better than can
express 1t. 1t says:
"A system OF giving which has its own rules
and customs. which is governed by principles
of selection laid down in the beginning which
Families throughout the country and embraces
esneciaIIy those smaller institutions that are
hampered by narrow means, Is an infiniteiy
more powerful force in the shaping OF opinion
than any single capitalist who makes separate
and often unconditional gifts to be controlled
and invested by the institutions themselves
could be. AS mechanism IoT eontrollhs
academic opinion, there has perhaps never
been anything in the history Of education that
would compare with the board system OF SUD-
sidizing learning. , -
tributions in that they are best made IN reld
lively small amounts and from many sources.
Under such circumstances they are hkeIy 70
leave the recipients in position to choose thelI
own course in matters Of opinion and teach
ing"
on the grounds suggested by the quo
tation from the Journal Of Commerce.
and on other grounds not necessary tc
discuss I do not believe ii best for our
colleges to accept gifts from the Rookie
Teller Board.
But have the conditions of these gifts
really and truly been changed? l doubt
It.
A few days ago the president of a col
leee which is just now trying to raise
from it's home friends three dollars for
one of the Boards money, in order to
get a gift from it, sent me the contract
required by the Rockefeller Board TO De
accepted by his institution before giving
his college a cent. He sent 1t to me
most innocently to prove that such con
ditions as / had printed were no longer
required. 1 laid 1t aside for consideration
as soon as my time would permit Today
I took it up. and after reading 1t could
not see that the changes were so great
as he seemed to imagine. Then l took
his contract and the one which L pub
lished in The Journal some weeks ago.
10 a lawyer of ability in Atlanta, and
asked him to interpret them from legal
standpoint He read them and said they
were essentially the same. Another at
torney gave me a similar opinion.
The language is more cautious in the