The University’s Compact with Society

  • Dael Wolfle


When Daniel Coit Gilman was invited to become the first president of the new Johns Hopkins University, he rejoiced that the Johns Hopkins trustees ‘are responsible neither to ecclesiastical nor legislative supervisors; but simply to their own convictions of duty and the enlightened judgment of their fellow men.... Their means are ample; their authority complete; their purpose enlightened. Is not this opportunity without parallel in the history of our country ?’1 Gilman’s experience as president of the University of California had already persuaded him to accept any good opportunity to escape further encounters with the California legislature. When Johns Hopkins offered that opportunity he did not hesitate.


High Education Faculty Member Political Economy Federal Government Political Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Fabian Franklin, The Life of Daniel Coit Gilman ( Dodd Mead and Co., New York, 1910 ) p. 179.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Richard J. Storr, Harper’s University: The Beginnings ( University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1866 ) p. 75.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    John S. Brubacher, ‘The Autonomy of the University,’ Journal of Higher Education, vol. 38, no. 5 (May 1967) 237–49, p. 239.Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure, Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors vol. I, part I (Dec. 1915) 17–43, p. 26.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    Robley C. Williams (and 110 cosigners whose names were not published), letter to the editor, Science, vol. 168 (May 22, 1970 ) p. 917.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    Theodore Roszak, ‘The Complacencies of the Academy: 1967,’ New American Review, no. 1 (Sept. 1967) 82–107.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Major developments in the social sciences during the twentieth century are analyzed in Karl W. Deutsch, John Platt, and Dieter Senghaas, ‘Conditions Favoring Major Advances in Social Science,’ Science, vol. 171 (Feb. 5, 1971 ) 450–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 11.
    Dwight Waldo, ‘The University in Relation to the Government-Political,’ Public Administration Review vol. 30, no. 2 (March/April 1970) 106–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 12.
    This proposal has been made by a number of writers, including Carl Kaysen, The Higher Learning, The Universities, and The Public ( Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1969 );Google Scholar
  10. Lewis B. Mayhew, Colleges Today and Tomorrow ( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1969 ); Ralph W. Tyler, ‘The Changing Structure of American Institutions of Higher Education,’ pp. 305–20 in The Economics and Financing of Higher Education in the United States Joint Economic Committee of the Congress, 91st Congress, 1st Session (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1969); and Robert Paul Wolff, The Idea of the University ( Beacon Press, Boston, 1969 ).Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    Eric Ashby, ‘The Future of the Nineteenth Century Idea of a University,’ Minerva, vol. 6, no. 1 (Autumn 1967) 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 15.
    Harold Orlans, The Effects of Federal Programs on Higher Education ( The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1962 ).Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    Charles V. Kidd, American Universities and Federal Research ( Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1959 ). In another publication, the same author has defended the proposition that the positive effects of federal research funds on academic freedom have ‘far outweighed restrictions on freedom.’ See Charles V. Kidd, ‘The Implications of Research Funds for Academic Freedom,’ Law and Contemporary Problems (Duke University School of Law, Durham, N.C.) vol. 28, no. 3 (Summer 1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 17.
    Harold L. Hodgkinson, Institutions in Transition ( McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971 ).Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    John Caffrey (ed.), The Future Academic Community ( American Council on Education, Washington, D.C., 1969 ).Google Scholar
  16. 20.
    Daniel S. Greenberg, ‘The Administration of Federal Aid: A Monstrosity Has Been Created,’ Science, vol. 157 (July 7, 1967 ) 43–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 23.
    Clark Kerr, ‘The Frantic Race to Remain Contemporary,’ Daedalus, vol. 93, no. 4 (1964) 1051–70.Google Scholar
  18. 24.
    Frederick deW. Bolman, ‘Fast or Famine for the Liberal Arts College,’ in Cooperative Long-Range Planning in Liberal Arts Colleges, Earl J. McGrath (ed.) ( Institute for Higher Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1964 ).Google Scholar
  19. 25.
    Robert S. Morison, ‘Some Aspects of Policy-Making in the American University,’ Daedalus, vol. 99, no. 3 (1970) 609–44, p. 617.Google Scholar
  20. 27.
    J. Kenneth Little, Survey of Federal Programs in Higher Education (United States Office of Education, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1962 ).Google Scholar
  21. 28.
    National Science Foundation, Government-University Relationships in Federally Sponsored Scientific Research and Development (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1958 ).Google Scholar
  22. 32.
    Homer D. Babbidge, Jr., and Robert M. Rosenzweig, The Federal Interest in Higher Education ( McGraw-Hill, New York, 1962 ).Google Scholar
  23. 33.
    Clark Kerr, The Uses of the University ( Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1963 ).Google Scholar
  24. 34.
    Harold Orlans, Science Policy and the University ( The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1968 ).Google Scholar
  25. 35.
    Homer D. Babbidge, Jr. and Robert M. Rosenzweig, The Federal Interest in Higher Education ( McGraw-Hill, New York, 1962 ).Google Scholar
  26. 36.
    Seymour Martin Lipset, The Politics of Academia,’ in David C. Nichols (ed.), Perspectives on Campus Tensions: Papers Prepared for the Special Committee on Campus Tensions ( American Council on Education, Washington, D.C., 1970 ).Google Scholar
  27. 37.
    Kingman Brewster, ‘Campus 1980,’ in Robert C. Connery (ed.), The Corporation and the Campus: Corporate Support of Higher Education in the 1970’s (The Academy of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, 1970).Google Scholar
  28. 38.
    Don K. Price, The Scientific Estate ( The Belknap Press of Harvard University, Cambridge, 1965 ).Google Scholar
  29. 40.
    Glen S. Dumke, ‘Is Freedom Academic?’ Vital Speeches, vol. 36, no. 9 (Feb. 15, 1970 ) 272–6.Google Scholar
  30. 43.
    Ibid., and also Kingman Brewster, Jr., ‘If Not Reason, What?’, American Scientist, vol. 58, no. 2 (March/April 1970 ) 171–5.Google Scholar
  31. 44.
    David Z. Robinson, ‘Government Contracting for Academic Research: Accountability in the American Experience’, in Bruce L. R. Smith and D. C. Hague (eds.), The Dilemma of Accountability in Modern Government: Independence versus Control ( St Martin’s Press, New York, 1971 ) pp. 103–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 45.
    Bertram H. Davis, ‘From the General Secretary,’ AAUP Bulletin, vol. 56, no. 4 (Dec. 1970) 357.Google Scholar
  33. 46.
    Eric Ashby, ‘The Future of the Nineteenth Century Idea of a University,’ Minerva vol. 6, no. 1 (Autumn 1967) 3–17, p. 16. For another discussion of this point see James A. Perkins, ‘Reform of Higher Education: Mission Impossible?’, inCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. W. Todd Furniss (ed.), Higher Education for Everybody? Issues and Implications ( American Council on Education, Washington, D.C., 1971 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Carnegie Corporation of New York 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dael Wolfle

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations