OXFORD AND THE EMPIRE

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 61, 9 September 1921, Page 10

OXFORD AND THE EMPIRE

EFFECT OF RHODES'S FOUNDATION

ENERGY AND INTELLIGENCE FROM THE DOMINIONS

AN INTELLECTUAL UPHEAVAL.

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) LONDON, 19th July. It is pleasing to be able to record that Sir Robert Stout was abtei after all, to go to Oxford for the Empire Universities' Congress. Nine years have passed since the last congress was held in London—much has in the meantime happened—and there was nearly 400 representatives of 59 v liversities from all parts of the world. Sir Robert Stout was well enough to attend most of the sittings of the congress, but in order to nurse his damaged leg, which latterly had caused him a good deal of trouble," he was obliged to absent himself from the garden parties, the receptions, and the other social functions, which were held in between. He presided at one sitting when "University Finance" was the subject for discussion, and he had the honour of receiving "the D.C.L. degree from the University. With Lady Stout, Sir Robert was the guest of Dr. L. R. Farnell, Rector of Exeter College and Vice-Chancellor of the University. The other delegates representing New Zealand were Mr. J. W. Joynt and Sir Ernest Rutherford, while Mr. W. J. Platt (Balliol College, an Undergraduate of Auckland University College and an N.Z.E.F. Scholarshipholder), was the New Zealand students' representative. Mr. H. F. yon Haast was also a delegate, but he did not arrive in time. . . ' . Prominent men at the congress included: Sir R. Falconcer (Principal of Toronto University, who also received the Hon. Degree of D.C.L.), Sir Gregory Foster (University College, London), Sir A. W. Currie (M'Gill University), Sir Theodore Morrison (Principal of Armstrong College, Newcastle), Sir F. Kenyon (Director of the British Museum> Sir Michael Sadler (Vice-Chancellor of Leeds), Professor Firth (Oxford), Professor Tout (Manchester). The only woman who read a paper was Miss Lynda Grier, who has just been appointed Principal of Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford. One or two other women, however, took part in the discussions. Much of the credit for. the organisation of the congress rests with Dr. Alexander Hill, secretary of the Universities' Bureau in London. . The object of these periodic conferences .of men and women engaged in educational work is to discuss both the subjects and the methods of university teaching and to endeavour, subject to local conditions, to arrive at the adoption of principles which shall provide that these shall be organised on a similar plan throughout the Empire. Ihe delegates met in the large examination hall, which was placed at their disposal bY the authorities of Oxford University. ..Notwithstanding the convulsion of a. world-war, the development of interest in edtucation goes on. As the Marquess Ourzon (Chancellor of the University) put it, "a new voice is calling aloud in every land," and a passionate desire is being expressed' by countries, provinces1, communities, cities, races, creeds, to possess universities of .their own, appealing to civic, or national, or sometimes religious patriotism, and satisfying local or. professional, or sectional needs. THE NEW SPIRIT. I Lord Ourzon remarked that in 1912 53 universities were represented at the congress; now, despite the1 hiatus caused by the war, the number was 59, and' he would not be surprised if, in the next half-century, it was. nearly doubled. "Shattered and melancholy as have been the results of the war in many spheres of p.ublic and political interest," he said, "I do not think it can be doubted that it produced, and has been followed by, an intellectual upheaval which will in time come to be regarded as its chief consequence, ■ perhaps its main justification. The world-mind is no longer content to be ironbound by old traditions; it seeks fiercely for new outlets and a fresh expression; and it is finding them, in the pursuit of knowledge, and in the eager training of the intellectual faculties of mam." Upon no part of the world, he continued, had this revelation struck him with more vibrant force than upon the British Empire, and none of their institutions had1 it more profoundly affected than ■ the older universities. " Vanished was the idea that sometimes found,expression in pre-war days that Oxford and Cambridge, though making a substantial contribution to the Government, the character, and the healthy manhood of the nation, were yet, as instruments of intellectual progress or national efficiency, negligible factors, picturesque survivals, content to doze peacefully by their tranquil streams. Even then it was a travesty of the real position. Long before 1914 this venerable fallacy had beer exploded. The Eho'des Scholar had already brought to Oxford a. refreshing stream, of youthful energy and intelligence from the Dominions, andi from America. Oxford was." already, catering for a wider class than tha Church, the professions, the squirearchy, and the Houses,of Parliament. Students, administrators, and teachers came there from distant lands to see what they were doing. .Oxford was already becoming a clearing house of intellectual andl educational ideas. Inside the United Kingdom, Oxford teachers and lecturers were carrying university education far and wide to the populous centres and industrial centres of every part of the Kingdom. The tranquil stream was moving with an accelerated and, at times/ eveni turbulent currency. . . THE UNIVERSITY IN WARTIME. When the thunderclap of war burst over the land the university was emptied of its youth, pouring to the front. The number of undergraduates fell from 3000 to 300, and it was even contemplated closing down. But better counsels prevailed. It was realised almost in a flash that Oxford, with its traditions, its ■' buildings, its teaching staff, the magic of its inspiration, provided an invaluable scene for a new and patriotic experiment. The university became a quasimilitary camp; 2500 young men lived in the colleges and passed through schools of instruction on their way to officer the armies in the field. The pens of the writers were engaged in informing the public mind; the brains of our men of science, in their studies and laboratories, were directed to researches and discoveries that had a material'effect upon the conduct of the war. Can it be imagined that four years of this experience did not leave an enduring impression both upon the life of the university and upon the mind of the State? The Government realised that in the university there was an invaluable reservoir of physical and intellectual force, a great agency in the future development of the life of the riation. The men themselves, who had passed through their training there, absorbed the spirit and ideals of the place, and either carried their affection for it, when they emerged unscathed, to their homes in distant lands or returned here to complete their courses when the war was over. The university itself instinctively realised its own enhanced responsibility. It became inspired with a noble

ardour, and, without losing the capacity for enjoyment or its love of sport, has never shown a better record of serious work accomplished than in the two and a-half years since the conclusion of the war. THE MECCA OF THE EDUCATIONAL WORLD. Within the -same period they had abolished compulsory Greek,.and had admitted women to full membership of the university—a reform in which Cambridge had still to follow their lead. They had somewhat reluctantly admitted the principle of State aid. After a reference to the work of the Congress Lord Curzon added: "There is a tide running which we cannot afford to lose. The war, which has removed from our path the spectre of German militarism, has .ilso removed, for the time being at any rate, the competition of German universities. A rare opportunity is presented for Britain to come forward and take the vacant place, becoming the recognised Mecca of the educational world. With the new spirit that is moving the souls of men, with the enhanced sense of unity and co-operation that imbues the minds of all those who were so recently fighting together and risking everything in the common cause, and with a conviction of the tremendous urgency of the task, it is our duty to address ourselves to it without delay. My work happens to lie for the most part in other channels. lam one of those who are unhappily engaged in the endeavour to find political solutions for largely insoluble problems. Treaties, frontiers, commissions, covenants, stipulations are the pieces that I see moved, not without much trepidation and anxiety, on the international chessboard from day to day. ' But amid the difficulty of some of these projects and the futility of others, the conviction grows upon me that it is not so much on paper conventions or signed documents, or even on political combinations that the peace of the world will| depend, as it is upon the growing commerce of knowledge and ideas, the freemasonry of intellectual ideals, the drawing together of the minds and consciences of educated and thoughtful men. This is easier among those who speak the same language and are to a large extent familiar with the same conceptions. I feel, therefore, that this association has it in its power to play a very important part in developing the organisation and drawing closer the bonds of • the British Empire. But I feel also that it- may aspire to a wider and more cosmopolitan range, of influence, and that, as it draws within its orbit the educated intelligence of other countries, and notably of America, it may exercise an appreciable influence on the,peace of the world." }' GREAT PROBLEMS-. Mr. Balfour deailt with the position of the universities in relation to the teaching of civics, politics, and social economics—subjects which in his opinion ought to be an essential, even if an informal, part of university work. Political economy in the narrower cense of the principle had been taught, and was a fitting subject for examinations, but when they came to civics and politics subjects were touched which seemed to spread out, and in truth did spread out, over almost the whole field of human activity, or at all events,1' human cooperative activity. It was, ■ therefore, difficult to see hpw these could be made the vsubject of either professional teaching or university examinations. Questions arose as to whether, if a particular nation or race had evolved a special •form of polity, could that' polity be successfully copied or imitated by men of a different race, with different innate ■and natural ca.paciti.es; because the course _of political and social development in any country was due tcv the innate qualities bred into a particular race, how or why science could give no information. The fact had to be accepted, and the problem always arose whether the course of development which •had been followed' by any race or in any country was due to innate qualities in the mind, or whether it was a matter of education—a : n artificial product which could be: cultivated with equal success in all men, wherever they might be born or whatever the race, to which they belonged, or whether, in truth, the 'institutions were only. likely to succeed at their best among people who had themsslves evolved them. That was the great problem, and it touched that other great problem, the innate differences of race among human' beings. People talked sometimes, about superior and inferior races, and he supposed there were races of which it would be correct to sa-ythey were inferior to the average of mankind. The aborigines of Australia- might be so described, but with regard to the great families of the human race he did not think the terms superior or inferior ought to 'be used. When they were used . they involved great confusion of ideas. What science taught and what observation- proved was that, though there could be no question of inferiority or superiority, unquestionably differences of great magnitude did exist, and the question was how social science and political science were to deal with these differences, and what modifications these differences ought to make in any theories or politics they might make for themselves, or which they might try to instiJ into others. Sir W. Beveridge (Director jf the London School of Economics, and successor to Mr. W.- Pember Reeves) thought economics ousht not to be' studied apart from politics, and neither should be studied without ample recourse to history and to the historical as well as the analytical method-. Secondly, there arose in many universities a question of form, which was not one of form merely, but might influencemethod. This was the question, whether economics and politics should form part of the' training for arts -degrees or for science degree3> or for something distinct from either. A third point to bear in mind In framing the curriculum, was to .be certain oF including a. fair proportion of studies sufficiently severe and intractable to afford a real mental gymnastic. A fourth point was that economics and politics are essentially a subject for co-operation between universities in different parts of the world by interchange of ideas, of students, and of teachers. There could .be no question either of the demand on- the part of students for extended teaching in civics, politics, and social economics, or of the need in the interests of humanity as a whole of advancing the study of these particular sciences.