President Atwood

Has He Destroyed the Co operative Spirit at Clark?

Clark University is a New England university located at Worcester, Mass. It has a small college, some famous graduate departments and a president. The college may be deleted from the sum, leaving the famous graduate departments and the president. The fame of the former goes back a great many years; that of the latter is more recent. The great department was that of psychology which, under G. Stanley Hall, achieved international note. There were also well known departments of biology, chemistry, physics, history, social science and education. And in general the university was known for the unselfish spirit of scientific research which there existed. This was all prior to the beginning of the present administration.

Three years ago a geographer named Wallace W. Atwood was elected to the presidency. He determined to establish the best university course in geography anywhere available. He discontinued the departments of biology and mathematics and reduced the staffs in psychology and sociology. Other departments were restricted. The department of geography of which Atwood was the head took the center of the stage.

Within a year or two professors in the university began to leave. A few weeks ago Dr. Arthur Gordon Webster, head of the Physics Department and a man of high standing, killed himself after stating that he feared dismissal and that his work was not appreciated. Finally, on May 31, a number of past and present members of the faculty made public charges against Atwood. They included: Dr. Edwin G. Boring, now associate professor of psychology at Harvard; Dr. Frank N. Hankins, now professor of sociology at Smith; Dr. Kimball Young, assistant professor of psychology at Clark who leaves next month for Oregon; Dr. Harry E. Barnes, professor of history at Clark, who leaves in a few weeks for Smith; Dr. Carroll C. Pratt, instructor in psychology and philosophy at Harvard. The gist of the charges published was that the president had purposely neglected and injured the famous graduate schools in favor of his own department of geography, and that the president had weakened the morale of the faculty and destroyed that of the student body by personal untruthfulness and shifty methods. At the same time a member of the family of the suicide, Dr. Webster, stated that Dr. Webster's depression began shortly after the new administration was installed and "steadily increased until the time of his death."

President Atwood's reply to the charges, as quoted in the Boston papers, begins with the inevitable counter charge that his critics are radicals, and then continues in the following vein : "It's all bosh. Clark's athletic life is just beginning. Hitherto Clark did not compete with other colleges in athletics. They would meet them in debating but not in baseball. Now we are having varsity teams and the college spirit is being fostered." Follows a disquisition on college spirit and discontent, and then: "Next year I think there will be no faculty members here but who are loyal to the Administration. They may be critical but we will not have to contend with such an antagonistic group as we have had in the past." The presidential defense then proceeds to admit the curtailment of famous departments, which is attributed to lack of funds, and to attribute the ill feeling to the fact that the president turned out the lights during a radical address by Scott Nearing.

The next day brought an expression of confidence from the trustees who favor concentration of the energies of the University upon geography.

A great deal can undoubtedly be said for the development of graduate work in geography. But neither that advance nor the happy progress of athletics in the College answers the most serious of the charges, viz. that President Atwood has destroyed the spirit of co-operative scientific re-search which formerly existed at Clark. And as to that charge there seems to be no possible defense. Whether or not Dr. Webster was driven to kill himself because of the attitude of the university toward his work the fact remains that there is now an open rupture and that the old relationships are quite obviously destroyed. If President Atwood is accurately quoted by Dr. Boring, het once replied to a warning that he was destroying the morale of the faculty, through his failure to announce a policy, by saying: " I want them to feel that way. I want them to feel insecure." If that was his attitude the responsibility for the result falls upon his own shoulders.

One inference from the statements of President Atwood himself seems justified. He is apparently the victim of the idea that his own opinions are sound and that the opinions of those who differ from him are radical and dangerous. Universities can be administered by such men but the result cannot be an atmosphere favorable to either learning or teaching.