The Nashville globe. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1906-193?, 1913-03-28
By GEORGE EDMOND HAYNES. PHI. D" Professor Social scienc. Fisk University.

dren in grammar, high school and
college today as to be a serious him
drance to educational results7 The
play attitude toward school activities
is all right for the kindergarten but
the doctrine of interest does not de-
mand that it continue to other years
Of school and to the serious work of
after life. These are questions which
make us consider seriously whether
or not the dead ideas of the past are
not having too much influence in our
educational thought and practice of
the present.
You will see from the above, the
drift of my discussion, ladies and
gentlemen. Let me divide the sub
iect for further discussion into four
heads as follows: The relation of
past ideas in education
First, to the aim Of education;
Second, to the content of education.
Third. to the methods of education.
Fourth, to the organization of ed
ucation.
Taking up first, then, the question
of the "deadIhand" in the aim of
education, let us consider an idea,
which grew up in the Middle Ages,
namely, the idea of knowledge for
knowledge's sake; or culture for
cultures sake. At the time this
aim developed, the blanket of ignor-
ance was over all Europe and If a
man enjoyed any knowledge at all
he had to seek it largely for knowl-
edges sake, since the prevailing no
tions allowed little connection be-
tween knowledge and the needs of
the people. The pursuit of knowl-
edge. therefore, came to be an end in
itself. except where it became a hand
maiden to those who intended to
enter the holy orders Of the Church.
Now, in later centuries when there
came to be a closer connection be.
tween education and the people, be-
tween the learning of the schools and
the universities and the needs of the
community, this idea persisted and
even continues to our own timmc
Like a "dead-hand," It has hampered
us when we have attempted to formu-
late a new aim of education to meet
the new conditions. Do we want
knowledge simply for knowledge's
sake or do we want it for the power
of service to the people which its
possession gives?
We want culture for the sake OF
c%ultivating the masses Of the people;
we want knowledge and culture for
the sake of human welfareil Shall
we let the "dead-idea" of knowledge
for knowledge's sake hold us so tight.
lv in its grin that we shall not be
| able to grasp the greater idea and
formulate clearly the aim of kpowl
edge and culture for the sake of hui
man welfare?
There is another idea about the
aim of education which still letters
many of those who follow the path to
the Pierian spring. 1t is the notion
that culture and learning are suita
BILE only for selected classes OF the
people: that the masses of mankind
have little capacity for thinking anC
little aspiration for truth. This idea
in our democracy today has reshapet
itself to the extent of admitting thai
the people can learn the rudiment'
Of knowledge, but when it comes tt
the higher reaches of knowledge ant
| culture and achievement, they say
that the capacity for such has beer
vouchsafed of God Almighty to the
few only. In a word. there is a per
sistent notion that latent genius is
the particular possession of only the
few, "the talented tenth" of humani
ty. Like a "dead-hand" from out the
past this idea hampers much Of oul
activity and results. It is an error
that grew up out of the mediaeva
theology of predestination which was
nursed by aristccracv and monarchy
II persists today under the scientific
cruise of hereditary genius. Tt per
sists in our democracy in spite o.
cur profession of faith in the capacity
of the people.
But let me hasten to guard agains'
-