A private and personal communication to the members of the Corporation and to the
permanent officers of Yale College.

NEW HAVEN, JUNE, 1881.

Dear Sir :

On the 27th of December, 1880, Pres. Porter wrote me a letter enclosing a copy of a paper read by him to the Corporation in June, 1880, about the disagreement between him and me arising from the use by me of Spencer's Study of Sociology as a text-book. Up to the moment of receiving this communication I had had no knowledge or suspicion that Pres. Porter had carried that matter before the Corporation on an *ex parte* statement, although the President stated that he had previously informed some other persons not members of the Corporation. I have, although suffering much annoyance from misrepresentation and public abuse, entered into no explanations either in public or private, not even in private conversation, until within a month, believing that public excitement and scandal could do no good. I have hoped that some change in my own position, or in circumstances, would cause the point in issue to solve itself. There are, however, very important interests at stake, as I will show in this paper, and I cannot allow the annual meeting of the Corporation to pass, and another academic year to open, without placing this matter before the college world as it stands in fact, and extricating myself from a false position. It will be seen that Pres. Porter's statement of the issue does not agree at all with my understanding of it.

The facts out of which the trouble arose are as follows: I am professor of political and social science. Four or five years ago my studies led me to the conviction that sociology was about to do for the social sciences what scientific method has done for natural and physical science, viz: rescue them from arbitrary dognatism and confusion. It seemed to me that it belonged to me to give my students the advantage of the new standpoint and method just as fast as I could win command of it myself, just as every competent professor aims to set before his students all the speculations, anticipations, efforts, extensions, reconstructions, etc., etc., which mark the growth of the sciences. Sociology is so new that only three or four persons in the world have written upon it as an independent science. It is so difficult that very few indeed prosecute it, or even know what it is. My studies have led me to independent convictions on certain points of detail in sociology, but I could not lecture upon it. If I should pretend to do so I could only cram a half dozen books and reproduce the material. It is a case for using a text-book. When I looked about for one, Spencer's Study of Sociology was the only one which could come into account. I considered it very faulty as a text-book, and I doubted if I could use it, but after considering the matter for more than a year I made up my mind that the right and interest of the students to learn something of sociology outweighed any faults or deficiencies in the book, and that, for want of something better, I could probably use this book as a means of giving the students the instruction to which they were entitled. In this judgment I did not take into account the religious character or tone of the book, which is not, so far as I can see, open to any fair objection. Mr. Spencer's religious opinions seem to me of very little importance in this connection, and, when I was looking for a book on sociology, the question whether it was a good or available book in a scientific point of view occupied my attention exclusively. Neither did I take into account the horror of Spencer's name, which, as I have since learned, is entertained by some people. If I had known of it, however, I should not have thought that it was a proper consideration to weigh much in the question which presented itself to me. I used the book for two years with the result of interesting and instructing the students, awakening their powers of observation and analysis as to social phenomena, and suggesting to them most valuable trains of thought as to practical questions in society. I have the amplest testimony that this was the most valuable and successful course ever given by me, and one of the most valuable given in the university. I have heard no word of complaint from the classes which used that book of any harm of any kind arising from the use of it, and to inquiries made by me and by others the invariable answer has been that no harm was done.

To all this Pres. Porter opposes in contradiction of the experience of two years his a priori judgment that Spencer's book cannot be used without corrupting the students.

Pres. Porter asserts that the Corporation did not intend, when I was appointed in 1872, that I should teach sociology in some sense which he says, he will not undertake to define. I was not aware that the Corporation had any intention in the matter except that I should bend all my efforts to study and teach political and social science according to the advance of sound learning in regard to those matters. I supposed that I was just as free as any other professor, no more and no less, and I did not know that I was limited by any intention. As sociology has taken shape as an independent science since I was appointed, the Corporation cannot have had any intention about it. It is not, therefore, of any importance that a definition of the kind of sociology from which I am debarred should be given, essential as such a definition would be if there were any such limitation as is asserted.

Pres. Porter affirms that sociology is inchoate and tentative. So is psychology; so are many new developments of physics, biology, and other sciences. To object to what is inchoate and tentative is to set up a closed canon of human learning.

He and I therefore came to an issue on which I was on the defensive. His position was that the students might better get no sociology than run the risk of getting agnosticism in getting sociology, and he even seems to maintain that they might better get no sociology than get it from a book by Spencer. I resisted this and maintained that they should have sociology anyhow,

from the best means available, and I would not submit to a restraint the motive of which was consideration for metaphysical and
theological interests. This is the only issue to which I have been a party. Pres. Porter has never prohibited the use of the book.
He has never distinctly claimed authority to prohibit it. He said that, if he had any authority, he wanted to be understood as
using all the authority he had against it. This left me to act on my own responsibility without coming into direct collision with
him. I did so act and I have stood and now stand responsible for using the book.

It will be seen from this statement—

1. That I have had no controversy about the merits of Herbert Spencer's philosophy. Pres. Porter devoted a large part of his paper to stating his objections to that philosophy. This was quite irrelevant to any matter in which I am concerned, but I think it carried a suggestion that I had been teaching an infidel and pernicious philosophy, which is not true in fact. I have taught sociology as a science, from second causes only, and have not meddled with anything outside of my department. In my controversy with Pres. Porter I did not defend agnosticism; I resisted obscurantism.

2. I have had no controversy about the use of a book by Spencer, as an independent and substantive question. I should be very glad if I could obtain my ends by the use of a book to which no one could make either reasonable or unreasonable objection, but I have refused to sacrifice my ends to a silly horror of Spencer's name, or a prejudice against his works. Pres. Porter has used Spencer's books, as he stated in his paper. I had no reason to suppose that Spencer's writings were ruled out. Pres. Porter devoted by far the largest part of his paper to an elaborate argument to prove: 1. That he is glad to have the young men study Spencer's philosophical writings with him, because he is able, by using those writings to overthrow Spencer's philosophy; 2. That Spencer's non-philosophical works could not be used by another gentleman (me) without inculcating Spencer's philosophy. In this view of the matter the use of Spencer's books is a privilege of the President and his use of them does not, then, constitute a precedent for any body else; but I confess that this view of the matter never suggested itself to me. I may add, in regard to the "maturity" of the students to whom I taught sociology, that they were the same students, at just the same point in their course (second term of senior year) as those to whom Pres. Porter taught Spencer's philosophy.

3. I have had no controversy about the merits of this particular treatise: "The Study of Sociology." Pres. Porter has offered me such a controversy both in public and private. I have declined to enter upon it. I have my well settled opinion about the merits and faults of that book for my purposes, and I could give them, if I saw proper occasion. I think I am also in a position to estimate the correctness and fairness of Pres. Porter's strictures on the book, but what could be gained by an argument about that question? Where should it be carried on? Who wants to hear it? I thought that it belonged to me to consider and decide the practical question on my responsibility. I did it and I take the responsibility. Will the Corporation say that Spencer's Study of Sociology is such a book that I ought to be disciplined for using it, or is it such a book that public opinion would sustain them in so deciding? It certainly is not. Cases unfortunately happen very often in life where one has to do without the unanimous approval which it would be pleasant to possess. I suppose this is one of those cases.

4. I have had no controversy on the question whether the President has a veto on text-books. I do not admit that he has it, and I do not know of any college officer who admits it, but I have not raised that question. It is plain that if a professor is indiscreet, silly, negligent, incompetent, immoral, or otherwise unfit for his position, he ought to be disciplined, and it is plain that the President is the proper agent for bringing him to discipline. It requires no law to prove this. To use an improper text-book would simply be a case under this general principle. But it is plain also that the President can himself impose no sanctions whatever. He is only a reporting officer for that purpose. It is also plain that the Corporation cannot impose sanctions on the report of the President. They could not sustain him in a position of pure prerogative and sustain his authority at the expense of the rights of a professor. Hence if the law is asserted to mean more than that which understands itself, law or no law, it is ridiculous. If the law means only what everyone fully admits, then we come back again to what I have already stated. I used the book and I take the responsibility. If called on to answer to the President's charges I will not object to his jurisdiction within the only form which it can take.

Pres. Porter, in the paper read to the Corporation, represented me as having yielded the point, and he gave assurances that the book would not be used again. Candor compels me to say that he was in error in this matter. I have never yielded the point or authorized any assurances that I would not use the book again, if I should still find myself so situated that I could not teach sociology without it. In January, 1881, the question came up again, no book yet having been published which I could use in the place of Spencer's book. But a new factor now came into account. There was reason to fear that, if I used the book, the students and the newspapers would be on the *qui vive* to see what would happen, and also that the students would watch and weigh every word said by me about the book, and report the same to the newspapers, more or less incorrectly, according to the evil modern custom. The consequences of using Spencer's book which I could foresee were, therefore, unedifying and mischievous, and I could not take the responsibility of bringing on these consequences. I suspended the use of the book. The consequence of the outside excitement and uproar which was stirred up in the Spring of 1880 (I know not by whom, but certainly against my most earnest efforts) has therefore been that the class of 1881 has had no opportunity to study sociology. I appended to my annual report the following protest: "I now, therefore, append to this, my annual report, a formal and official protest against the interference with me in my rights and duty as an instructor which has led to this result, by which the students are deprived of a part of the benefits to which they are entitled in their course of study here, out of regard to metaphysical and theological interests which ought not to come into account in this connection." So the matter now stands. I have made no concession. I suspended the use of the book out of regard to major considerations, but the matter is not settled at all. I consider that it involves rights and interests which no honest teacher ever ought to concede.

Certain misunderstandings have, unfortunately, been included in this matter. In his letter of Dec. 27, Pres. Porter said: "The communication was framed designedly so as to preclude the asking of any questions, the necessity of any discussion or passing any resolutions. A written resolution affirming or confirming the oldest form of the law was prepared by Pres. Woolsey, but, at my request, was not presented." I saw nothing ambiguous in this statement, and I proceeded to make my arrangements accord-

ing to my understanding of it. On the first of May it became evident that the plans I had in mind would not be matured at pres-
ent, and, in view of what it might be necessary to do, I called on Pres. Woolsey, to find out accurately the scope of his resolution.
He said he did not recollect having prepared any resolution. In answer to an inquiry from me, Pres. Porter wrote: "The written
resolution which Pres. Woolsey proposed to offer, or not, as I should prefer, related to the power of the President in respect to text
books and did not concern either your conduct or my own." I then wrote again to Pres. Porter as follows: "I understood from
yours of Dec. 27, 1880, that you read to the Corporation, at their June meeting, 1880, a paper containing, with other things, an ex
parte statement of facts about the use of Spencer's Study of Sociology as a text book, and about conversations between you and me
in that regard. I understood that, thereupon, Pres. W. proposed to offer a resolution which he had written, affirming the 'old
rule' (which I supposed to be, as you now state, an alleged rule that the President has a veto on the use of all text-books in the
Academical Dep't). I understood that this was intended as a solution of the subject which your paper brought before the Corpora-
tion, and that it would have been a vote of censure on me, but that you protected me from it by asking Dr. W. to withhold it. I in-
ferred that you had done this by the assurance which you gave that the book would not be used again. . . . I politely and re-
spectfully beg you to point out wherein I am in error in the understanding of your letter which I have above recited." To this he
answered: "Allow me to correct what seems a misunderstanding on your part. The resolution prepared by Pres. Woolsey I am
sure was not intended 'as a vote of censure on you,' but solely as a more explicit affirmation of the power of the President which
had been questioned by some members of the Faculty, and which Pres. Woolsey supposed I might desire should be phrased in
more positive terms." To this I replied: "I do not see the appositeness of any such resolution [as that which Pres. Woolsey pre-
pared] aside from the sociology question, although there may have been other occasion for it (and I do not know of any member of
the Faculty who admits the rule as claimed by you), but I do not see the point of informing me of Dr. W.'s resolution, especially in
this connection, if it had nothing to do with the subject matter of the paper of which you were sending me a copy. I do not argue,
I only justify my inference." Here the correspondence ended. It had, at any rate, corrected the impression derived by me from
Pres. Porter's letter of Dec. 27 that the Corporation had reached a decision about the sociology matter, which they had been pre-
vented from recording in a formal vote framed by Pres. Woolsey, only by the interposition of Pres. Porter. My position, therefore,
was by no means such as I had supposed from January to May. The case was not closed and the way was open for such further
steps as I thought proper. I have seen nothing more proper than the present communication.

I have always considered that the Corporation did me great honor when they elected me, a young and untried man, to this
important chair. I have tried to justify their confidence. I threw myself into the work of my department and of the college with all
my might. I had no other interest or ambition. I have refused (until within six months) to entertain any proposition to go away, or to
go into other work. It is impossible, however, for me to submit to interference in my work. So long as I am interfered with, my
relations to the college are constrained, unsatisfactory, and precarious. I have already lost ground in my work which I had won by
great exertion, and I have been forced to suspend further plans on account of the interference to which I have been subjected.
While my personal relations to the college are in this uncertain condition I cannot cooperate with my colleagues in planning about
the institution as I have been accustomed to do. I seek no action and I deprecate none. I simply seek to place myself on the same
plane in regard to this matter on which Pres. Porter placed himself a year ago, and to correct any false impressions which may
exist as to my position in the minds of members of the Corporation who heard his paper. I also think that my colleagues ought
to know about this matter, for I have been in a false position in respect to them for a year, and as I do not know how or why to
select some for my confidence I include all.

Yours Respectfully,