period R.Vol. 41, No. 80 Z-149 /fw Dcdici THoAOCfiTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1940 Price Five CentsProfessors Woge WarOf Words In MaroonAttack, Counterattack inColumns of Supplement.With scholarly dignity being tossedto the winds in attack and counter¬attack, professors and Milton Mayerair their opinions of each other’s ideasin a special supplement of the Ma¬roon, available on campus and down¬town today.Mortimer J. Adler calls his cohorts“nihilists” and says that they are asmuch responsible for the plight of de¬mocracy today as Hitler.In retaliation, Sidney Hook attacksAdler, while Mayer, popular mag¬azine writer, rhetorically attacks theentire crew of pedants while logicallysupporting Adler.Asleep Since 1935The copies of the supplement bringback to life a controversy on educa¬tion which has been dormant on cam¬pus since 1936, when John Barden jedited the Maroon. During that year,Adler debated Carlson, Gideonse, andthe whole social science faculty afterPresident Hutchins had touched offthe academic match in a convocationaddress.This controversy will probably beas wordy and as vehement as its pred¬ecessor. In this supplement, vituper¬ation is rampant, and Mayer ends sodisgusted that he declares a plagueon the whole damn bunch.Available DowntownThe supplement will be available atthe large downtown bookstores andplans have been made for distributionat other colleges throughout the coun¬try. Faculty interest in the supple¬ment has already been evidenced. Ithas been the chief topic of conversa¬tion in the Quadrangle Club for twodays, and the Law School is in aminor frenzy waiting for copies to getover there. Fingers, Not KrmsExplain Boom-BoomFinancial pages of the daily pa¬pers glow with reports of a grow¬ing boom in the United States.Armament expenditures are gen¬erally credited with creating theupswing in business. Arms prob¬ably have something to do withit, but here at the University,fingers are believed to be respon¬sible.Over 50,000 fingers are busilyengaged in pounding several thou¬sand typewriters. About 250,000sheets of paper are being pouredinto the maws of the writing ma¬chines. These fingers are tappingout 250,000,000 million a’s, b’s c’sand d’s weekly.The result of it all? Well, whatdoes happen to those gosh darnterm papers? Boom! Major PartiesTo Struggle inPU Meeting TodayEast LynneFeatures Com,Animal NoisesOpera HourReviews SalomeBronzed Guest“Salome,” a Richard Strauss Opera,is to be reviewed at the second OperaHour in the Reynolds Club Loungethis afternoon.Scott Goldthwaite, of the depart¬ment of Music, is to be the lecturer.The Music Department has some newrecords of “Salome” with MarjorieLawrence, Australian soprano, sing¬ing, which will be played at the Hour.The Music Department has invitedas guests to the affair, Karin Bran-zell, great Scandinavian contralto ofthe Metropolitan and Chicago Opera,and George Czaplicki, famous PolishBaritone. Both are appearing at theChicago Opera production of “Salome”November 21.Barnett Plays at IFBall Despite Rumor“There is absolutely no foundationto the current campus rumor thatCharlie Barnett will not play at theInterfraternity Ball next Wednes¬day,” Greg Huffaker, IF Councilmember, told the Maroon yesterday.Barnett’s union difficulties havebeen cleared up. In addition to the IFBall the “White Duke” has six otherengagements with middlewestern col¬leges next week.IP Committee representatives ineach fraternity must turn in all mon¬ey to Bill Pauling at the Kappa Sighouse by Friday.Interclub CallDonna Culliton, President of In¬terclub, announced an Interclubmeeting today at 1:30 in Kelly,room 60. The villian gets hisses, the leadinglady gets sighs, and “East Lynne,”which gives its last performance to¬night, gets the most remarkable col¬lection of cat-calls and animal noisesyet heard in the Reynolds Theatre.On the opening night, Frank Ether-ton, began to lose his moustache in themiddle of the first act. Hanging byone thread, the moustache receivedthe neatest trick of the week awardfor seeming to float through spacewhile the audience howled and frontrow boys aimed deadly weapons try¬ing to hit it off.No SnowSnow from Hollywood could notbe shipped to DA because of Inter-State commerce laws, so instead ofsnow, soapflakes made their appear¬ance in the bitter “East Lynne” snowstorm. Again Etherton got in trouble.He forgot to get out of the way of the“snow” and got it directly in the face.Net result, two minutes of loud sneez¬es.Assistant director Betty Rosenheimcame to the rescue last night when aball of yarn got out of hand and rolledfootlight bound. Rosenheim took anearby broom, reached out from be¬hind a flat and took a pot shot atthe ball of yarn, sending it flyingback through space and plunk back onthe sofa where it belonged.In the first night audience was theEnglish Department’s Mr. Blair,famed as a student of American hu-ir-'r. Blair got a taste of two typesof humor, the broad burlesque cornand the University of Chicago’s trickof the suggestive innuendo.In spite of elaborate sets comingin the wrong places and Hattie Painedying with too loud a death rattle,“East Lynne” is successfully com¬pleting a noisy run. The Political Union meeting todaywill be the scene of another strugglefor supremacy between the two ma¬jor parties, the Liberals and Con¬servatives. The newly installed Con¬servative government held a caucusthis week at which the cabinet mem¬bers of the new government wereappointed and methods of staying inpower were formulated.David Ellbogen heads the Con¬servative cabinet as the self-ap¬pointed Prime Minister — self-ap¬pointed due to the fact that he wasthe only willing recipient of the posi¬tion. Robert Weedfall will act as theSecretary of State, Baxter Richard¬son as Secretary of the Treasury,Allen Garfinkle as Defense Commis¬sioner, John White as Secretary ofthe Interior, Richard Philbrick asSecretary of Commerce, RichardMugallion (Mr.) as Secretary ofLabor, and Stanley Claster as thePostmaster General.Present ResolutionAfter the introduction of the newcabinet members who will outline par¬ty policy in their respective fields.White and Garfinkle will present aresolution before the assemblage fora vote of confidence. Chosen with thepurpose of splitting the Liberal ranksand thereby sustaining the Conserva¬tives in power, the resolution pre¬sented will be, “Resolved that theGovernment Should not own and op¬erate the railroads.”The recent re-apportionment ofseats to the various parties standsas follows: Conservatives, 27 as overtheir former 22; Liberals 40 as overtheir former 43; Communists threeas over four; Socialists five over fourformerly; and Trotzkyites none overtheir two former seats.Lib;>rals RejuvenateThe Liberal party headed by BillHankla formulated plans for its re¬juvenation last Thursday at its cau¬cus. A drive for new and active mem¬bers is in progress and after threeweeks, the less active and inarticu¬late members will be purged from the(Continued on page two) Social OrientationGroup Plans Student-Faculty OutingsJoe Molkuppresides over PU struggleJolles DiscussesGerman TravelsTomorrow afternoon, at 4:30,“Deutsche Gesellschaft,” GermanClub on the quadrangles, will meet inthe alumni room of Ida Noyes. Dr.Jolles, sponsor of the group, will givean illustrated lecture on his travelsin Germany.Anyone who Is Interested is cor¬dially invited to attend. Refreshmentsare to be served. The club was organ¬ized for the purpose of promotingfellowship among German studentsand to sponsor the use of the Germanlanguage in various fields.CLUBSPro ConInter-ChurchSponsors FairA County Fair will be held in IdaNoyes Friday night at 8 under thesponsorship of Interchurch Counciland other neighborhood religiousgroups. In return for an admission feeof 20 cents, fair goers will be givenpaper money which will admit themto various side-shows.Outstanding booths and concessionswill be a fudge-kitchen where thosewho wish to, may make fudge and eatthe results. There will also be a ChapelUnion booth, and one of the high spotsof the evening will be a pie eatingcontest.At ten-thirty, refreshments will beserved in Ye Olde Red Lion Inn, thetheater in disguise, and a floor showwill be presented. Clubs help a girl to get the utmostenjoyment and benefit from her uni¬versity experience. Therein lies, theirvalue. This is no empty statement forupon consideration it will be seen thatthey encourage and sponsor every¬thing which goes to make up a fulland valuable university life.Being among a group of friends,knowing that the group is interestedin her and backing her, gives a gpi'la warm feeling of confidence. Thistends to increase her poise and tobring out her personality which mightotherwise be restrained. Furthermore,joining a club broadens a girl’s pointof view for she is exposed to thevaried opinions and ideas of all ofher sisters. Too often the independentlimits her friendship to one or twogirls similar to herself, thereby nar¬rowing her outlook.Learns to CooperateWorking with the club as a wholealso gives the club girl valuable ex¬perience. She learns to co-operatewith a group and to do the best thingfor the whole group. She is respon¬sible for keeping up the club’s reputa¬tion and therefore strives to do herbest not only for herself but for theclub.A well rounded social life comes moreeasily to the club girl than to the in¬dependent. In the first place her op¬portunities to date are likely to begreater than those of the average in¬dependent, for through her sistersshe meets more men than she wouldotherwise. Secondly, she has club andinterclub parties and dances to en¬hance her social life.Stimulates ScholarshipMoreover, clubs are an incentive tohigher scholarship. Before being ini¬tiated the pledge must maintain a(Continued on page three) i All Freshmen Invited to At¬tend Week-end Trips withProfessors.Without qualifications, the clubsystem at Chicago is the most vicious,unfair, system that it would be pos¬sible to create and to make antitheti¬cal to all the ideals of the University.Clubs offer none of the advantagesthat fraternities can give, they haveall of the disadvantages that fra¬ternities have, and they have otherdisadvantages all their own. They area complete waste of time, money, andenergy, and serve to create a wrongset of values among their members.In the first place, clubs do not evenoffer the advantages of feeding andhousing that can justify the existenceof fraternities. You eat with the samepeople you would eat with if you werenot in a club—a group of your closefriends—and you sleep either in thedormitories or at home. The clubs of¬fer you no special facilities.But, you say, you don’t eat withthe same people—you wouldn’t haveas many friends nor the same kindof friends. This, we think, is patentlyfalse. If there were no clubs, the peo¬ple with the same interests—in schoolas well as men—would still cohere,and would associate in healthier, moreinformal groups.But, you say, that might be the caseif there were no clubs at all. But withthe system, which we grant is vicious,what can a poor girl do? She will bea social outcast when all her friendsjoin clubs and she doesn’t.That is not necessarily the case anymore than it is necessarily the casethat a club girl will be a social suc¬cess.It is a time-hallowed precedent togive examples of women who havebeen social successes and successes inactivities. We will not appeal to ex¬ample; we will appeal to common(Continued on page three) The Social Orientation Council, agroup interested in providing a morethorough orientation of the averagestudent as well as promoting betterfaculty-student relations, announcedthat it will sponsor a series of weekend outings where students will beable to become better acquainted withmembers of the University faculty.The next trip will be held Thanks¬giving week end, November 23 and 24,in Palos Park. Invitations are beingsent out to freshmen to attend thistrip but the group invited any fresh¬man, boy or girl, to attend whetherhe receives an invitation or not.Past Outings SuccessfulSeveral trips have been held in thepast to try to have the praticability ofsuch outings and have been so success¬ful that the Council has begun its pres¬ent series. The general schedule ofthe outings includes hikes throughthe country, recreational games withthe faculty and fireside discussionsof the University and the problemspresented by college life.These discussions play a large partin the week end program as the Coun¬cil feels that there is definite valueto the student in being able to talkover his problems with other stu¬dents and faculty members. The fac¬ulty who have attended the outing^sso far include Mr. and Mrs. JosephSchwab, Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Buchs-baum, Mr. and Mrs. Zens Smith,Dean and Mrs. Leon Smith, Mr. andMrs. Arthur Compton and Dean andMrs. Charles Gilkey.Trip Limited to 25The charge for the next trip willbe $2.50 and a small amount for trar. s-portation. This will include all ex¬penses for the week end. Freshmeninterested in making this outing or ingetting further information of itshould contact Mr. or Mrs. John VanDeWater in Burton Court. As thistrip and all others will be limited to26 students those wishing to partici¬pate are advised to submit their nameas soon as possible.Student OfficeObtained ByPublicity Board“The Student Publicity Board nowhas an office of its own,” Baird Wallis,autumn quarter chairman, announcedyesterday.Like Lincoln who carried his officein his hat, the Student Publicity haslong carried on its important workwith no headquarters from which tooperate other than rooms in Cobb re¬served for special meetings.Old Radio OfficeThe recently-vacated Radio Office onthe second floor of Mitchell Tower wasturned over to the Board as the re¬sult of a long series of efforts bysenior members.The newly-decorated office will beopen from 2:30 to 4:30 Mondaythrough Friday.Services of the Board whose purposeis to interest desirable high schoolseniors in the University were ex¬panded recently when a plan to sendpress releases to high school publi¬cations was adopted. These releaseswill contain information on the ac¬complishments of freshmen and sopho¬mores at the University and will besent to the particular high school fromwhich they graduate.Ida Noyes CouncilFreshman women interested injoining Ida Noyes Council shouldleave their names with Mary Ham-mel in Foster Hall or at the maindesk in Ida Noyes Hall today.1 • Where do Bell telepnouco- Who purchases the thousands of ^products needed by the Bell System •. What distributor can make tele* ^O* phone supplies quickly available •almost anywhere4* Who installs telephone central offices ?Electric, WesternWestern Electric.3, perhaps, but theds of the telephoneto meet and beatatnrm—hasThe answers are : VT ^D«.Electric, Western ElectMonotonous?—the ansjob, never!Filling the day to daycompanies —helping tl~*""»'flfpnciea caused byTHE DAILY MAROON, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1940Page TwoIhe Oculcj IfkJtCfonPOUNDED IN 1901The Daily Maroon is the official student newspaper of the Uni>•rersity of Chicago, published mornings except Saturday, Sunday,and Uenday during the Autumn, Winter, and Spring quarters byThe Daily Maroon Company, S831 University avenue. Telephones:Hyde Park 9221 and 9222.After 6:30 phone in stories to our printers. The Chief PrintingCompanv, 148 West 62nd street. Telephones: Wentworth 6123and 6124.The University of Chicago assumes no responsibility for anyStatements appearing in The Daily Maroon, or for any contractentered into by The Daily Maroon.The Daily Maroon expressly reserves the rights of publication ofany material appearing in this paper. Subscription rates: $3 a year;$4 by mail. Single copies: three cents.Entered as second class matter March 18, 1908, at the jtost officeat Chicago. Illinois, under the act of March 3, 1879.MemberftssocidGd GDllG6iciie PressDittribulor ofColle6iate Di6estBOARD OF CONTROLEditorialWILLIAM HANKLA PEARL C. RUBINSERNEST S. LEISER JOHN P. STEVENS. ChairmanBusinessJOHN E. BEX, Business ManagerWILLIAM LOVELL, Advertising ManagerEDITORIAL ASSOCIATESJames Burtle, Mark Fisher, Chester Hand, Richard Himmel, DanielMezlay, Richard Philbrick, Robert D. F. Reynolds, and DanielWinograd.BUSINESS ASSOCIATESRobert Dean, George Flanagan, Lyle Harper, and Myles Jarrow.Night Editor: Bob Reynolds, Ernest Hil'ardControversy on NewsstandsAlong with the regular issue of the DailyMaroon today, we are selling a supplement.The supplement contains no Traveling Ba¬zaar (though Milton Mayer writes about phil¬osophers in a way that strangely resemblesBazaar style.)It contains no fraternity or club surveys—no witty little features, no news of the Inter¬fraternity Ball, or of Chapel weekends.Vital ArgumentsWe recommend, however, that students aswell as faculty members make it a point toread it. The arguments it presents are of vitalimportance in American education. As productsof the American educational system, we shouldhave at least enough interest in it, to try anddiscover what is wrong with it, if anything.V The articles in the supplement are, with theexception of Mayer’s of a scholarly nature.They will not be as enticing as our storiesabout what the Mortar Boards are doing in theBotany Pond. The Traveling BazaarBy DICK HIMMELQueen of the Week Dept... .not that we are the first ones, (Witness Iron Maskand Pulse), but Peg Flynn is our queen of the week... She can’t wear roses cause they clash with her hair... She is the first girl from one of the smaller clubsto be prominent in campus affairs since Laura Berg-quist...and, of course, she’s awful purty.Letters to a ColumnistDear Sir:I am a freshman at the University and it just seemsI’m not getting anywheres at all. I never go out, evento classes, I just stay in my room at the dorms andsulk. I have read every ad, but nothing just seems todo a thing for me. What would you do?Signed, Bewildered.Dear Bewildered:I have made a careful study of your letter line byline, word by word, and dangling participle by danglingparticiple. I have even taken your letter to my goodfriend in Billings who put it to a test to see if you hadused invisible'ink between the lines. This we found notto be true. So back I whipped to my little book to findwhere your trouble is really seated.Obviously you come from a small town and are yetbewildered by a big city. Do not be afraid of a big cityas a big city is just a group of little cities like theone you must have come from.That you have read all the ads convinces me thatyou can read. This is not necessarily the case. I suggestperhaps the magazines you read are not of the rightcalibre. I suggest you try Pulse, Miss Bewildered.Now your hair. You should do something with yourhair. Take for example Miss Bleached, as we shall callher although this is not her name. Miss Bleached wroteme a letter similar to yours. I immediately analyzedher case in tenns of bleached hair and found the caseto be true. She did not tell me she was bleached. Icalled on my sixth sense, that is reading from left toright, and found that to be the case.So I think you, too, are having hair trouble. Putyour hair up high over your head. Now sweep it downover your face. Make like a Saint Bernard. That’s right.Now if you follow this exciting new “hair-do” yourtroubles will be over. I suggest you make your firstappearance at the kennel club show. From then onsailing will be fast for you. Your friends will not be,perhaps, what you might expect, but you’ll be able toromp and play with them just all day long.You are no longer a sad case.Signed: Your friend. Informed.Future of EducationBut they will have real merit. They are ofvital importance for the future of Americaneducation. And if it is true that students cometo the University primarily to get an education,it is certainly not unreasonable to expect thatthey try to find out what that education islike, and is going to be like in future years.It is not a new controversy that the Maroonis bringing before the campus—but it is acontroversy as important as it is ageless. Wehope that students will give it the attention itdeserves.Intercollegiate Six-ManAthletic Director T. Nelson Metcalf hassaid that having petitions signed by studentswho were not participating in six-man foot¬ball would not cause the Uni'^ersity to inaugur¬ate a program of intercollegiate competition inthe sport.He made a right decision. All that the peti¬tions we have gathered so laboriously in thepast week can indicate is a significant intereston the part of the students on campus in sucha program. But because students are interestedin being entertained does not justify the exis¬tence of any extensive scheme. If whatever stu¬dents desired was put into effect there wouldbe intercollegiate eleven-man football on cam¬pus at present. We are agreed that that wouldnot be desirable.Up to AthletesIf the athletes themselves would prefer toplay intercollegiate six-man football, however,to continuing the present intramural schedule,then there is reason for inaugurating intercol¬legiate competition.We are quite convinced that the boys whohave been playing six-man football amongthemselves all fall quarter will be eager to en¬gage in new, and tougher competition. To vali¬date our convictions, we are polling the foot¬ballers. We anticipate that their reactions willbe favorable. If it is, then we can see no furtherobjection to instituting an intercollegiate pro¬gram. If it is not, then our plan should bescrapped.At any rate, we think it is not unreason¬able to expect complete co-operation with theathletic Department in this project. Candles and Garlic Today on theQuadranglesBy GEORGE T. PECKOperatic pageant is so lush that it is hard to pickout any highlights. Certainly Enya Gozales, Filipinosoprano, made a noteworthy debut last week in the titlerole of “Madame Butterfly”. Petite, subtle, and cute,she carried the show and was able to rise to greatheights of dramatic singing in the last act. In theduets, able support wa.s given by Carlo Morelli’s Sharp¬less and Elizabeth Brown’s Suzuki, and the whole pro¬duction, lighting, sets, acting etc. showed great finish.Repeat performance next Tuesday.Everything promises well for the opening of “DonGiovanni” as next Saturday’s matinee. If great old war-horse Ezio Pinza is in form if Karl Breisach’s direction,imported from Munich, Vienna, and Berlin, is as fineas it is supposed to be, and if the stage direction main¬tains its present level the production of this most dif¬ficult piece should be most memorable.Golden Jubilee goings-on at the Symphony becomeever more surprising. Of the list of new compositionsfor the occasion, several have appeared already andhave reached a wider audience via radio. Milhaud’s greatnew symphony was the first to be given, followed byCarpenter, Harris, whose “American Creed” was notquite up to the usual Harris form, and last week, Stra¬vinsky, Enesco Casella and Kodaly who were also toappear will not be able to do so, although their musicwill probably be played.Also on the Anniversary program is the Symphony’sfirst Eastern trip in twenty-one years. Beginning nextweek, it will hit Boston, New York, Philadelphia, andPittsburgh, and in the meanwhile Barbirolli and thePhilharmonic will take over the boards here. Beforeleaving on this killing schedule Dr. Stock will conducttonight and tomorrow Brahms third and the well de¬served Stock favorite Strauss’s “Thus Spake Zarathus-tra”.* * 4:A new organization. The Fine Art Society of Music,has taken over the old Saidenberg stamping ground inGoodman Theatre, presenting their selections at 6:30 onSunday afternoons. Solomon is to be heard next Tues¬day evening with the Woman’s Symphony and TenorRobert Topping in a program which partially counter¬acts the shameless and blatant mediocrity of that or¬ganization’s radio presentations. William Vaughn Moody FoundationLecture, “Salt Water and Fog in theAnglo-Saxon Temperament,” Chris¬topher Morley, Mandell Hall, 8:30.Public Lecture, “Silver as Money—the World War and its Aftermath,”Dickson Leavens, Social Science 122,4:30.Worship Service, Joseph BondChapel, 11:56.Alpha Phi Omega (Scouting Club)Meeting, Reynolds Club, Room D,12:30.Phonograph Concert, Social ScienceAssembly Hall, 12:30.Political Union, Law North, 3:30.Psychology Club, Psychology Build¬ing, 4:16.Opera Hour, Strauss’ “Salome”,Reynolds Club Lounge, 4:30.PU Meeting—(Continued from page one)party. Due to the fact that it wasn’tknown at the time just what resolu¬tions the Conservatives would raise,the party couldn’t devise any particu¬lar means of divesting the former oftheir new-found glory.The meeting is scheduled for 3:30in Law North.C-G Holds MeetingFor Picture StaffThere will be a meeting of theentire photography staff of Cap &Gown at 3 Friday. Planned pri¬marily to acquaint the staff withthe photographic requirements ofthe Annual, the meeting will beheld in Cap & Gown Lexington of¬fice. Bacteriology Club, Ricketts North4:30.Sociology Club, “The Effect ofPreparation for War on Social Life,”William T. Ogburn, Social Science203, 8.8000 FOOD, WELL COOKED"Atfraefhra Md Immaca-lato** MVt Dbrcot Htaat,• afliart "Advaafarot laGREGGSECRETARIAL TRAININGAdequately prepares young menand women for the better typestenographic, secretarial and ac¬counting positions.ENROLL NOWIday and EVENING SESSIONSC«ll, writ* or t*l*phen* Stat* IMIfor BullatinFREE EMPLOYMENT BUREAUThe GREGG CollegeHome of Gresg ShorthandB N. MICHIGAN AVE., CHICAGOSTUDENTSYou save 20% to 40% dis¬count on all laundry broughtin and called tor.CASH and CARRYMETROPOLELAUNDRY1219-1221 East 5Sth St.Between Woodlawn and Kimbark Ave.—Open 7 A. M. to 8 P. M.—THE DAILY MAROON, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1940CLUBSPro Con(Continued from page one)average prescribed by theDean’s office. Then once in the clubshe is encouraged to help keep up theclub’s scholastic average.Likewise, the club girl has a doubleincentive to participate in activitufor she is urged to do so for 1^’ ■sake as well as her own. Too* ■has her work within he-pared her for work inties, but also she can gtion and advice -activities. Club girfa'lCuve partic.,.a-tion in activities is illustrated by thefact that the Senior Aide and theheads of Mirror, Ida Noyes Counciland the Federation of UniversityWomen are all club girls.Lasting FriendshipsPerhaps the most important benefitreceived from clubs is the lastingfriendships they establish. Throughher close association with a group ofgirls whose interests are similar tohers, the club girl makes friendshipswhich bring her lasting pleasure.There is a claim that clubs limit agirl’s friendships and opportunitiesto meet people. This may be true ofsororities where the members livetogether in a sorority house and thuswould not get to mix with as manyoutside girls. But the club girl hasunlimited opportunities to makefriends with independents and mem¬bers of other clubs. In addition shegets to know her club sister’s friends.During rushing too, she makes muchmore effort than the independentwould, to meet and know the incominggirls. Hence the club girl reallyhas a wider range of acquaintance¬ship and friendship than the indepen-den :.A final point is the fact that afterleaving school the club girl keeps herinterest in her club and thereforefinds it easier to keep in contact withthe University. (Continued from page one)Errata-GunSfButter ForUnited StatesYesterday’s issue of the Marooncarried a story concerning a pamphletpublished by four members of theKconomics Department. This storycontained two errors.The article stated that Henry Blochsaid that “Costs of the new arma¬ment will be met by forced use ofidle capital and controlled inflation.”It should have read that the programwill be financed by large scale borrow¬ing until full employment is reached.A statement of H. Gregg Lewis,“Some form of self government forindustry will have to evolve or elsethere will be governmental control.”implies that Mr. Lewis favors “selfgovernment for industry” when allfour of the authors “are agreed thatgovernmental control is preferablewhen the choice has to be made.” sense. You know and I know that ifa girl has a charming personality, nn-usual talent, or is pretty she will getahead in her social life, she will havenice friends, and she will rise to thetop in activities.We also know that on the campustoday the only important woman’s ac¬tivity in which club women controlselection to higher positions is theInterclub Council. W’e know that if agirl isn’t outstanding a club won’t gether on the Mirror Board, or make herhead of Federation, or put her on theMaroon Board.We know that girls can be just aspopular if they are not club women,if they have the stuff from whichpopularity comes. Clubs may be ableto teach beauty hints, but a treatmentat a beauty shop is much more effec¬tive and a lot cheaper. If you aren’tpopular now—a club won’t get youmen; and if you are, a club will chan¬nel the kind of men you go with andlimit your fun.In addition, the club system is anartificially created class system whichis contrary to the ideas of democracy.'It admittedly serves no useful func¬tion—it merely creates a false feelingof superiority among its members,which give them a fool’s paradise tohide in for four years.Finally, since space forces us toeliminate consideration of expense—the money you spend for initiation feeand dues—and for which you have nosubstantial return), you will have lesstime to study, and will be less apt toget good grades. For we know thatif you spend more time in the CoffeeShop, you will have less chance forlearning.A last warning—if you’re likeableand friendly and charming, you canget in a good club. But then you don’tneed a good club for a good time. Ifyou’re not, no good club will wantyou—and an inferior club will cer¬tainly not enhance your social posi¬tion, get you dates, improve yourscholarship, or give you security. Page ThreeFour Year CollegeStudents StartScholarship DriveTags will be sold on the campus bystudents of the Four Year College to¬day and tomorrow to bolster their an¬nual scholarship drive, which will en¬able a girl to attend a public highschool who otherwise could not. Suchaid will include carfare, lunch money,clothes, and incidental expenses.Annual DriveThe Scholarship Drive is an an an¬nual event with the Four Year Col¬lege, sponsored by the Service Com¬mittee of the F.Y.C. Girls’ Club. Thisyear the drive is headed by HelaineMoses, chairman of the Service Com¬mittee.Irene, the girl who is being helpedthis year, is 14 years old and liveswith her parents and five youngerchildren in a congested neighborhoodon the near north side. The earningsof her father, who has been unem¬ployed on and off for the past nineyears, are insufficient to support thefamily. Irene’s whole interest in lifecenters around school, and I.Q.’s proveher to be a girl of superior intelli¬gence. Without assistance she will beunable to continue school.Press PublishesNels Anderson'sNew Volume Knisely ShowsMalaria EffectsHow a virulent form of malariastrikes down an animal was graphi¬cally presented before the SouthernMedical Association yesterday by Dr.Melvin H. Knisely, University anato¬mist now on loan to the Universityof Tennes.see.Presenting colored motion picturesof tiny blood vessels, he revealed thatthe disease turns the fluid blood intoa thick sludge which plugs up vesselsand literally works the heart to death.Formation of the malarial sludgecan be prevented by herapin, a newlypurified drug, but when herapin isused the parasites multiply and killthe animal by devouring its oxygen¬carrying haemoglobin. Herapin makesit possible, however, to differentiatethe mechanical and chemical effectsof the disease and study them separ¬ately, Knisely explained. Statistics InstituteIs Public ServiceThe Institute of Statistics is partof the University’s plan for benefitingthe Chicago Community. With classesheld at University College in the Loopand with most of the students drawnfrom the realms of business and pro¬fessional people, the Institute pro¬vides training for statistical tech¬niques and mechanisms which are avital part of peacetime production andwartime preparations.With a laboratory containing suchcomplex things as harmonic analyzers,integraphs, electric calculating ma¬chines and, more understandable, add¬ing machines; with a faculty of em¬inent Ph. D.’s most of whom havewritten books in their respectivefields, the Institute seems well auth¬orized to teach its subject. Most ofthe courses are concerned with com¬mercial fields, but sociology, psychol¬ogy and education are also included.Joel Dean, assistant professor ofstatistics and marketing is Directorof the institute, Frank A. Mancina isAssistant Director and Theodore 0.Yntema is Director of Research forthe Cowles Commission. Included onthe Faculty is Walter Bartky, Assoc¬iate Professor of Astronomy andLouis L. Thurstone, Charles F. GreyDistinguished Service Professor ofPsychology. Professor Thurstone hasdeveloped new methods of measuring intelligence and temperament whichhave profound importance for educa¬tion and vocational guidance. Each ofthe 141 members of the Institute’sfaculty has distinguished himself inhis own particular field of learning.The courses consist of one two-hoursession per week for 24 weeks, andthe tuition is $.30. Half courses arealso offered in which the period is12 weeks and the tuition $16. As aconvenience to students most of whomwork during the day, the classes areheld in the evening from 6 to 7:40.With living becoming increasinglycomplex every day, and with the dan¬ger of a war economy in the near fu¬ture, the Institute of Statistics as¬sumes a greater importance to thecountry daily.Law Review“We’re alert and on our toes,” theBoard of Editors of the Law Reviewsaid today. And apparently theyweren’t indulging in legal hyperbole,for their publication, one of th*e na¬tion’s “big three,” is at the press onschedule for the first time in fouryears. iCosting 75 cents and called the mostsuccessful review in recent years, thejournal will hit the newsstands Dec.1.University ObservesThanksgiving Nov. 21Greater coordination between pub¬lic and private agencies to meet theproblem of the nation’s wandering velt, instead of November 28, as pub-The University of Chicago will ob¬serve Thanksgiving Day on November21, 1940, as set by President Roose-Britain Is U.S.Bulwark—Platt“Britain is the chief bulwark of oursystem,” Robert S. Platt, professor ofgeography and foremost authority onSouth America, stated in a seminar on“Economic Co-operation with SouthAmerica,” yesterday. The meetingwas sponsored by the American Prob¬lems Council.We are now attempting to save atleast part of the old world economicsystem, especially that part concernedwith Britain, he said. He cited thefact that we receive more exportsfrom Argentina than all the rest ofLatin America put together and de¬plored the opposition of Americanfarmers to measures designed to helpArgentina. legions of migrant workers is urgedby Nels Anderson, author of “TheHobo,” in a new volume, “Men on theMove,” published by the Universityof Chicago Press.With vast expansion of war indus¬tries and the looming trough of post¬war days, Anderson characterizes thisnational problem as immediatelyacute.Anderson, now director of the Sec¬tion on Labor Relations of the WorksProgress Administration, wrote “TheHobo” in 1923 after spending a year“on the road” as research for thevolume. The present book is part ofthe University of Chicago SociologicalSeries, devoted primarily to publica¬tion of results of newer developmentsin sociological study in America. lished in the Announcements.m1"Post-War ProblemsTo Be Subject ofLauterpacht Talks“Problems of Post-War Reconstruc¬tion” is the title of a public lectureto be given by Professor H. Lauter¬pacht on Monday at 4:30 in the SocialScience Assembly Room.Mr. Lauterpacht is the leading in¬ternational law professor in England.He was formerly at The Universityof London but two years ago wasmade Whewell Professor of Interna¬tional Law at Cambridge University.He is in the country at present as avisiting Carnegie Professor. HAVE YOUSomething Old#Something New,Something Borrowed,Something Blue,Save It ForTHE STUDENT SETTLEMENTChristmas Fund 'BEST PULSE YETOUT TUESDAYPage Two . THE DAILY MAROON, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1940"%£ OcuLcj 'iHo/iOOtlroUNDED IN 1901 The Traveling BazaarBy DICK HIMMELThe Daily Maroon ia the official student newspaper of the Uni-•'ersity of Chicasro, published mornings except Saturday, Sund^,and Monday during the Autumn. Winter, and Spring quarters byThe Daily Maroon Company, 6831 University avenue. Telephones:Hyde Park 9221 and 9222._After 6:30 phone in stories to our printers. The Chief PrintingCompanv, 148 West 62nd street Telephones: Wentworth 6128and 6124.#The University of Chicago assumes no responsibility for anystatements appearing in The Daily Maroon, or for any contractentered into by The Daily Maroon.jThe Daily Maroon expressly reserves the right: of publication ofany material appearing in this paper. Subscription rates: $3 a year;$4 by mail. Single copies: three cents.„ .Entered as second class matter March 18, 1908, at the post officeat Chicago. Illinois, under the act of March 8, 1879. Queen of the Week Dept... .not that we are the first ones, (Witness Iron Maskand Pulse), but Peg Flynn is our queen of the week... She can’t wear roses cause they clash with her hair...She is the first girl from one of the smaller clubsto be prominent in campus affairs since Laura Berg-quist...and, of course, she’s awful purty.Letters to a ColumnistMemberAssociated GollG6iatG PressDistributor ofCblle6iate Di6eslBOARD OF CONTROLEditorialWILLIAM HANKLA PEARL C. RUBINSERNEST S. LEISER JOHN P. STEVENS. ChairmanBusinessJOHN E. BEX, Business ManagerWILLIAM LOVELL, Advertising ManagerEDITORIAL ASSOCIATESJames Burtle, Mark Fisher, Chester Hand, Richard Himmel, DanielMezlay, Richard Philbrick, Robert D. F. Reynolds, and DanielWinograd.BUSINESS ASSOCIATESRobert Dean, George Flanagan, Lyle Harper, and Myles Jarrow.Night Editor: Bob Reynolds, Ernest HiljardControversy on NewsstandsAlong with the regular issue of the DailyMaroon today, we are selling a supplement.The supplement contains no Traveling Ba¬zaar (though Milton Mayer writes about phil¬osophers in a way that strangely resemblesBazaar style.)It contains no fraternity or club surveys—no witty little features, no news of the Inter¬fraternity Ball, or of Chapel weekends.Vital ArgumentsWe recommend, however, that students aswell as faculty members make it a point toread it. The arguments it presents are of vitalimportance in American education. As productsof the American educational system, we shouldhave at least enough interest in it, to try anddiscover what is wrong with it, if anything.\ The articles in the supplement are, with theexception of Mayer’s of a scholarly nature.They will not be as enticing as our storiesabout what the Mortar Boards are doing in theBotany Pond.Future of EducationBut they will have real merit. They are ofvital importance for the future of Americaneducation. And if it is true that students cometo the University primarily to get an education,it is certainly not unreasonable to expect thatthey try to find out what that education islike, and is going to be like in future years.It is not a new controversy that the Maroonis bringing before the campus—but it is acontroversy as important as it is ageless. Wehope that students will give it the attention itdeserves.Intercollegiate Six-ManAthletic Director T. Nelson Metcalf hassaid that having petitions signed by studentswho were not participating in six-man foot¬ball would not cause the University to inaugur¬ate a program of intercollegiate competition inthe sport.He made a right decision. All that the peti¬tions we have gathered so laboriously in thepast week can indicate is a significant intereston the part of the students on campus in sucha program. But because students are interestedin being entertained does not justify the exis¬tence of any extensive scheme. If whatever stu¬dents desired was put into effect there wouldbe intercollegiate eleven-man football on cam¬pus at present. We are agreed that that wouldnot be desirable.Up to AthletesIf the athletes themselves would prefer toplay intercollegiate six-man football, however,to continuing the present intramural schedule,then there is reason for inaugurating intercol¬legiate competition.We are quite convinced that the boys whohave been playing six-man football amongthemselves all fall quarter will be eager to en¬gage in new, and tougher competition. To vali¬date our convictions, we are polling the foot¬ballers. We anticipate that their reactions willbe favorable. If it is, then we can see no furtherobjection to instituting an intercollegiate pro¬gram. If it is not, then our plan should bescrapped.At any rate, we think it is not unreason¬able to expect complete co-operation with theathletic Department in this project. Dear Sir:I am a freshman at the University and it just seemsI’m not getting anywheres at all. I never go out, evento classes, I just stay in my room at the dorms andsulk. I have read every ad, but nothing just seems todo a thing for me. What would you do?Signed, Bewildered,Dear Bewildered:I have made a careful study of your letter line byline, word by word, and dangling participle by danglingparticiple, I have even taken your letter to my goodfriend in Billings who put it to a test to see if you hadused invisible'ink between the lines. This we found notto be true. So back I whipped to my little book to findwhere your trouble is really seated.Obviously you come from a small town and are yetbewildered by a big city. Do not be afraid of a big cityas a big city is just a group of little cities like theone you must have come from.That you have read all the ads convinces me thatyou can read. This is not necessarily the case, I suggestperhaps the magazines you read are not of the rightcalibre. I suggest you try Pulse, Miss Bewildered.Now your hair. You should do something with yourhair. Take for example Miss Bleached, as we shall callher although this is not her name. Miss Bleached wroteme a letter similar to yours. I immediately analyzedher case in tenns of bleached hair and found the caseto be true. She did not tell me she was bleached. Icalled on my sixth sense, that is reading from left toright, and found that to be the case.So I think you, too, are having hair trouble. Putyour hair up high over your head. Now sweep it downover your face. Make like a Saint Bernard. That’s right.Now if you follow this exciting new “hair-do” yourtroubles will be over. I suggest you make your firstappearance at the kennel club show. From then onsailing will be fast for you. Your friends will not be,perhaps, what you might expect, but you’ll be able toromp and play with them just all day long.You are no longer a sad case.Signed: Your friend. Informed.Candles and GarlicBy GEORGE T. PECKOperatic pageant is so lush that it is hard to pickout any highlights. Certainly Enya Gozales, Filipinosoprano, made a noteworthy debut last week in the titlerole of “Madame Butterfly”. Petite, subtle, and cute,she carried the show and was able to rise to greatheights of dramatic singing in the last act. In theduets, able support was given by Carlo Morelli’s Sharp¬less and Elizabeth Brown’s Suzuki, and the whole pro¬duction, lighting, sets, acting etc. showed great finish.Repeat performance next Tuesday.Everything promises well for the opening of “DonGiovanni” as next Saturday’s matinee. If great old war-horse Ezio Pinza is in form if Karl Breisach’s direction,imported from Munich, Vienna, and Berlin, is as fineas it is supposed to be, and if the stage direction main¬tains its present level the production of this most dif¬ficult piece should be most memorable.♦ ♦ ♦\Golden Jubilee goings-on at the Symphony becomeever more surprising. Of the list of new compositionsfor the occasion, several have appeared already andhave reached a wider audience via radio. Milhaud’s greatnew symphony was the first to be given, followed byCarpenter, Harris, whose “American Creed” was notquite up to the usual Harris form, and last week, Stra¬vinsky, Enesco Casella and Kodaly who were also toappear will not be able to do so, although their musicwill probably be played.Also on the Anniversary program is the Symphony’sfirst Eastern trip in twenty-one years. Beginning nextweek, it will hit Boston, New York, Philadelphia, andPittsburgh, and in the meanwhile Barbirolli and thePhilharmonic will take over the boards here. Beforeleaving on this killing schedule Dr. Stock will conducttonight and tomorrow Brahms third and the well de¬served Stock favorite Strauss’s “Thus Spake Zarathus-tra”.>l> * 4:A new organization. The Fine Art Society of Music,has taken over the old Saidenberg stamping ground inGoodman Theatre, presenting their selections at 5:30 onSunday afternoons. Solomon is to be heard next Tues¬day evening with the Woman’s Symphony and TenorRobert Topping in a program which partially counter¬acts the shameless and blatant mediocrity of that or¬ganization’s radio presentations. Today on theQuadranglesWilliam Vaughn Moody FoundationLecture, “Salt Water and Fog in theAnglo-Saxon Temperament,” Chris¬topher Morley, Mandell Hall, 8:30.Public Lecture, “Silver as Money—the World War and its Aftermath,”Dickson Leavens, Social Science 122,4:30.Worship Service, Joseph BondChapel, 11:56.Alpha Phi Omega (Scouting Club)Meeting, Reynolds Club, Room D,12:30.Phonograph Concert, Social ScienceAssembly Hall, 12:30.Political Union, Law North, 3:30.Psychology Club, Psychology Build¬ing, 4:15.Opera Hour, Strauss’ “Salome”,Reynolds Club Lounge, 4:30.PU Meeting—(Continued from page one)party. Due to the fact that it wasn’tknown at the time just what resolu¬tions the Conservatives would raise,the party couldn’t devise any particu¬lar means of divesting the former oftheir new-found glory.The meeting is scheduled for 3:30in Law North.C-G Holds MeetingFor Picture StaffThere will be a meeting of theentire photography staff of Cap &Gown at 3 Friday. Planned pri¬marily to acquaint the staff withthe photographic requirements ofthe Annual, the meeting will beheld in Cap & Gown Lexington of¬fice. Sociology Club. “The Effect ofPreparation for War on Social Life »T. Ogburn, Social Sciene'e8000 FOOD, WELL COOKEDAffractiv* «id Immocs.'••y* Daacm HIim."Advaafiroi bGREGGSECRETARIAL TRAININGAdequately prepares young menand women for the better typestenographic, secretarial and ac¬counting positions.ENROLL NOWIDAY AND EVENING SESSIONSCall, writ# or talophona Stata IMIfor BullafinFREE EMPLOYMENT BUREAUGRECG CollegeHome of Grecs Shorthand6 N. MICHIGAN AVE.. CHICAGOSTUDENTSYou save 20% to 40% dis¬count on all laundry broughtin and called for.CASH and CARRYMETROPOLELAUNDRY1219-1221 East 55th St.Between Woodlawn and Kimbark A»e.—Open 7 A. M. to 8 P. M.—1. WheredoBelltelcpnonca^■Who P"*'**!^2. ptodoett needed by IhWhat dUtributor ean m3. fhone .»PP««•linoat anywhere4. Whoinalallatelephoneeenl-- rtr.* ■Western Elc'Vr “^Western Eleetrie, We,I - *e answers, peitraloffic*®THE DAILY MAROON. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1940 Page ThreeCLUBSPro -Con(Continued from page one)7ertain average prescribed by theDean’s office. Then once in the clubghe is encouraged to help keep up the7ub’s scholastic average.Likewise, the club girl has a doubleincentive to participate in activity ffor she is urged to do so for h«>gake as well as her own. Toohas her work within he-pared her for work inties, but also she can gtion and advice toactivities. Club girbi'ccuve partic*,^-tion in activities is illustrated by thefact that the Senior Aide and theheads of Mirror, Ida Noyes Counciland the Federation of UniversityWomen are all club girls.Lasting FriendshipsPerhaps the most important benefitreceived from clubs is the lastingfriendships they establish. Throughher close association with a group ofgirls whose interests are similar tohers, the club girl makes friendshipswhich bring her lasting pleasure.There is a claim that clubs limit agirl’s friendships and opportunitiesto meet people. This may be true ofsororities where the members livetogether in a sorority house and thuswould not get to mix with as manyoutside girls. But the club girl hasunlimited opportunities to makefriends with independents and mem¬bers of other clubs. In addition shegets to know her club sister’s friends.During rushing too, she makes muchmore effort than the independentwould, to meet and know' the incominggirls. Hence the club girl reallyhas a wider range of acquaintance¬ship and friendship than the indepen-den c. (Continued from page one)A final point is the fact that afterleaving school the club girl keeps herinterest in her club and thereforefinds it easier to keep in contact withthe University.Ermta-GunSfButter ForUnited StatesYesterday’s issue of the Marooncarried a story concerning a pamphletpublished by four members of theKconomics Department. This storycontained two errors.The article stated that Henry Blochsaid that “Costs of the new arma¬ment will be met by forced use ofidle capital and controlled inflation.”It should have read that the programwill be financed by large scale borrow¬ing until full employment is reached.-A. statement of H. Gregg Lewis,“Some form of self government forindustry will have to evolve or elsethere will be governmental control.”implies that Mr. Lewis favors “selfgovernment for industry” when allfour of the authors “are agreed thatgovernmental control is preferablewhen the choice has to be made.” sense. You know and I know that ifa girl has a charming personality, ^jn-usual talent, or is pretty she will getahead in her social life, she will havenice friends, and she will rise to thetop in activities.We also know that on the campustoday the only important woman’s ac¬tivity in which club women controlselection to higher positions is theInterclub Council. We know that if agirl isn’t outstanding a club won’t gether on the Mirror Board, or make herhead of Federation, or put her on theMaroon Board.We know that girls can be just aspopular if they are not club women,if they have the stuff from whichpopularity comes. Clubs may be ableto teach beauty hints, but a treatmentat a beauty shop is much more effec¬tive and a lot cheaper. If you aren’tpopular now—a club won’t get youmen; and if you are, a club will chan¬nel the kind of men you go with andlimit your fun.In addition, the club system is anartificially created class system whichis contrary to the ideas of democracy, jIt admittedly serves no useful func¬tion—it merely creates a false feelingof superiority among its members,which give them a fool’s paradise tohide in for four years. IFinally, since space forces us toeliminate consideration of expense—the money you spend for initiation feeand dues—and for which you have nosubstantial return), you will have lesstime to study, and will be less apt toget good grades. For we know thatif you spend more time in the CoffeeShop, you will have less chance forlearning.A last warning—if you’re likeableand friendly and charming, you canget in a good club. But then you don’tneed a good club for a good time. Ifyou’re not, no good club will wantyou—and an inferior club will cer¬tainly not enhance your social posi¬tion, get you dates, improve yourscholarship, or give you security. Four Year CollegeStudents StartScholarship DriveTags wi” be sold on the campus bystudents of the Four Year College to¬day and tomorrow to bolster their an¬nual scholarship drive, which will en¬able a girl to attend a public highschool who otherwise could not. Suchaid will include carfare, lunch money,clothes, and incidental expenses.Annual DriveThe Scholarship Drive is an an an¬nual event with the Four Year Col¬lege, sponsored by the Service Com¬mittee of the F.Y.C. Girls’ Club. Thisyear the drive is headed by HelaineMoses, chairman of the Service Com¬mittee.Irene, the girl who is being helpedthis year, is 14 years old and liveswith her parents and five youngerchildren in a congested neighborhoodon the near north side. The earningsof her father, who has been unem¬ployed on and off for the past nineyears, are insufficient to support thefamily. Irene’s whole interest in lifecenters around school, and I.Q.’s proveher to be a girl of superior intelli¬gence. Without assistance she will beunable to continue school.Press PublishesNels Anderson'sNew Volume Knisely ShowsMalaria EffectsHow a virulent form of malariastrikes down an animal was graphi¬cally presented before the SouthernMedical Association yesterday by Dr.Melvin H. Knisely, University anato¬mist now on loan to the Universityof Tennessee.Presenting colored motion picturesof tiny blood vessels, he revealed thatthe disease turns the fluid blood intoa thick sludge which plugs up vesselsand literally works the heart to death.Formation of the malarial sludgecan be prevented by herapin, a newlypurified drug, but when herapin isused the parasites multiply and killthe animal by devouring its oxygen¬carrying haemoglobin. Herapin makesit possible, however, to differentiatethe mechanical and chemical effectsof the disease and study them separ¬ately, Knisely explained.Britain Is U.S.Bulwark—Platt“Britain is the chief bulwark of oursy.stom,” Robert S. Platt, professor ofgeography and foremost authority onSouth America, stated in a seminar onEconomic Co-operation with SouthAmerica,” yesterday. The meetingwas sponsored by the American Prob¬lems Council.\\e are now attempting to save atleast part of the old world economicsystem, especially that part concernedwith Britain, he said. He cited thei8ct that we receive more exportsfrom Argentina than all the rest ofLatin America put together and de¬plored the opposition of Americanfarmers to measures designed to helpArgentina. Greater coordination between pub¬lic and private agencies to meet theproblem of the nation’s wanderinglegions of migrant workers is urgedby Nels Anderson, author of “TheHobo,” in a new volume, “Men on theMove,” published by the Universityof Chicago Press.With vast expansion of war indus¬tries and the looming trough of post¬war days, Anderson characterizes thisnational problem as immediatelyacute.Anderson, now director of the Sec¬tion on Labor Relations of the WorksProgress Administration, wrote “TheHobo” in 1923 after spending a year“on the road” as research for thevolume. The present book is part ofthe University of Chicago SociologicalSeries, devoted primarily to publica¬tion of results of newer developmentsin sociological study in America. University ObservesThanksgiving Nov. 21The University of Chicago will ob¬serve Thanksgiving Day on November21, 1940, as set by President Roose¬velt, instead of November 28, as pub¬lished in the Announcements. Statistics InstituteIs Public ServiceThe Institute of Statistics is partof the University’s plan for benefitingthe Chicago Community. With classesheld at University College in the Loopand with most of the students drawnfrom the realms of business and pro¬fessional people, the Institute pro¬vides training for statistical tech¬niques and mechanisms which are avital part of peacetime production andwartime preparations.With a laboratory containing suchcomplex things as harmonic analyzers,integraphs, electric calculating ma¬chines and, more understandable, add¬ing machines; with a faculty of em¬inent Ph. D.’s most of whom havewritten books in their respectivefields, the Institute seems well auth¬orized to teach its subject. Most ofthe courses are concerned with com¬mercial fields, but sociology, psychol¬ogy and education are also included.Joel Dean, assistant professor ofstatistics and marketing is Directorof the institute, Frank A. Mancina isAssistant Director and Theodore 0.Yntema is Director of Research forthe Cowles Commission. Included onthe Faculty is Walter Bartky, Assoc¬iate Professor of Astronomy andLouis L. Thurstone, Charles F. GreyDistinguished Service Professor ofPsychology. Professor Thurstone hasdeveloped new methods of measuring intelligence and temperament whichhave profound importance for educa¬tion and vocational guidance. Each ofthe 141 members of the Institute’sfaculty has distinguished himself inhis own particular field of learning.The courses consist of one two-hoursession per week for 24 weeks, andthe tuition is $30. Half courses arealso offered in which the period is12 weeks and the tuition $15. As aconvenience to students most of whomwork during the day, the classes areheld in the evening from 6 to 7:40.With living becoming increasinglycomplex every day, and with the dan¬ger of a war economy in the near fu¬ture, the Institute of Statistics as¬sumes a greater importance to thecountry daily.Low Reviev/“We’re alert and on our toes,” theBoard of Editors of the Law Reviewsaid today. And apparently theyweren’t indulging in legal hyperbole,for their publication, one of th*e na¬tion’s “big three,” is at the press onschedule for the first time in fouryears. iCosting 75 cents and called the mostsuccessful review in recent years, thejournal will hit the newsstands Dec.1.// Post-War ProblemsTo Be Subject ofLauterpacht Talks //“Problems of Post-War Reconstruc¬tion” is the title of a public lectureto be given by Professor H. Lauter¬pacht on Monday at 4:30 in the SocialScience Assembly Room.Mr. Lauterpacht is the leading in¬ternational law professor in England.He was formerly at The Universityof London but two years ago wasmade Whewell Professor of Interna¬tional Law at Cambridge University.He is in the country at present as avisiting Carnegie Professor HAVE YOUSomethingSomethingSomethingSomething Old,New,Borrowed,Blue,THE Save It ForSTUDENT SETTLEMENTChristmas FundBEST PULSE YETOUT TUESDAYr IN ORIGINALi .wPage four THE DAILY MAROON, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1940Maroon Conductsvey Among Rlayers for Opin¬ions. important 'factors must beconsidered before-final action‘can betaken;' Many.'of the" eastern schools; By WERNER BAUMAlthough, ^a ..considerable responsewas given" to the Maroon six-manfootball petitions, Athletic Dir.ectorMetcalfe ha^ announced that the opin¬ion of the student body will‘not be;considered in the.iquestiqn of iiftercol-legiate six^man ball. The decision willbe up .tO'the players-'themseves. ' • .The Maroon will therefore conducta survey among .the players to-gettheir opinions. , _ „ the‘ easternhave claimed; that the .gfafne is'tooPhi Gams BeatAlpha belt "BifBraying;;the ;frigid tbmperatu|resthat have caused "several <six and elev¬en man games to- be cancelled; twogutty touchball teams fought it outin an exhibition of brilliant play, PhiGam finally'ending the fray by wrest¬ing a 23-7 victory from inspired AlphaBelt B. ' '; •PaM Through GalePlugging all the way with a bar¬rage of passes'through the wintry air.Phi, Gam managed,to score only sev¬en points in^the first half, on Dpnian’slong' aerial;to ace Art Lopatka andMcCracken’s; catch of a flat pass forthe point. • Opening up its big guns.Phi Gam' shot over two niore touch¬downs in quick succession, both- onheaves to, Allen Wisely who played* agrand game'. Lopatka’s-, short- runscored one* extra, and McCracken sal¬vaged the'm other with a circus- catchof a short heave. Wisely’s alertnessin pouncing on a trapped ball back inthe A. p. .end zone finished the PhiGam scoring. Credit must be given thecourageous Alpha sDelts, who, though,outclassed, never gave up and finish¬ed with rally, scoring a last-minutetouchdown -with -ace-receiver LinLeach toting the ball over., Phi Gam Marches OnStill undefeated, Pbi Gam is pre¬cisely'where it was" last year at thistime—a top-heavy; favorite.. That asmall,, .fraternity ,can make such agreat • showing serves as an inspira¬tion, to less heavily numbered houses.In.a bitterly contested Dorni game.Burton “600” licked its “^00” neigh¬bors, ^19-6. Segal and Atkins starredin this tilt, passing and running “800”into-defeat. McNicholls played a stel¬lar game for “800.” strenuous. There have been.'no seriousinjuries in competition at the Univer¬sity, but most'of ,the--players'feel thatsix-ma’ri' football is harder and faster,than the 11-man game.May Play’ Eastern Schoolsj Expense,* is' an; 'important .factor.,.Equipment is’ already owned by theUniversity and .can be left out of thisconsideratidn,^^ but traveling .expenses'must ;be considered. .Tliis ,.’would 'be.quite appreciable if '^competition wereto. 'exist between eastern.* and midwestern schools. If, however; compe¬tition w.ere -limited ’ to neighboringschools-such as'"'Armour, Loyola,'andDe Paul there Avould. be no .noticeableexpense.The Maroon- survey will begin atonce. If the players respond'-positive-ly, as is hoped, the Athletic" Depart¬ment can take steps pver the' winter,to contact other schools and arrangeschedules. If-'^this is' done students EvashevskiTopsHarmonnn Rough-Tumble Football”'i/ T j i?'By C'R.4IG LEMAN, “Harmon is fast, shifty, and pow¬erful. He'-’has everything, but’pound'for'Vpdund ' of j rough-and-tumbletfoot;take/* Evashevski,”ball playdr. I’ll;says Hugh Rendleman, ; two-hundredpound...bujwark? of Mardoh’s',last"- BigTen team;. ' ;> ; ■Burly. Iowa-bred Rendleman played-two years of varsity-competition' inthe roughest toughest ^college loop inthe country. His line-play earned the’big tackle the respect ^'pf .'every, op¬ponent. V-/ ^ .i',’T?layed With Franck,isAt Davjenport High in.the.HawkeyeState, Rendleman occupied the lefttackle post, .shoulder to; shoulder . withGeorge-Franck,-left end,.who'.has:de-;Veldped "into one of Minnesota’s all-time heroes. Russ Parsons, reg^ularMaroon flanker last year 'held theother wing position. -’“•Sonny Franck was a great end,”,Rendleman recalls,;.' “a .. dangerous■pass-receiver and a brilliaht^irunneroh.rhis game-breaking' end'-around;Sonny handled our -punting in his lastyear, averaging.’fifty-five yards abqo^t, better than-any ..Big Ten kicker-may .see inter-collegiate''football--on,[ did; . .the Midwav next fall. my/opinion "the 'player‘of theyear is Forrest’’-Evashevski. -Our lineWilkins Moves toPing: Pong Ti.tleOne more step in his steady majehtoward the All-campus ping-pong titlewas taken yesterday by outstandingfavorite J. Ernest -.Wilkins aa -’hetrounced,highly rated Dave Schefferto enter the, quarterfinals.; Wilkins,seeded'first, dispatched his opponent■in two games and is expected tp.an^nex first honors without ’much' trou¬ble.Only other contestant to'preach. thequarters is Bob Stein, who beat eighthseeded Jack Davidson in'vhis thirdround match. -In the consolation.quar¬ters is Bill Herstein, who ’defeated'Demarest Polacheck. ,Others in the third round.^are UenSwee, number 4, who; will meet DickKadesch, last spring’s consolation vic¬tor; George , Balia,;, ranked sixth;Ralph Fearing, No. 3 oh the" ReynoldsClub ladder; S e y m'o u r’Lozansky,fourth on the ladder; Bob Moore andHerb Renberg. Advanced to'the thirdround' in the consolation bracket • hi-eJohn. Zurawic and Harry Tully.Cancel )Vheaton GameThe eleven man football squad’sgame with Wheaton w a s' Cancellfed-yesterday. Adverse weather condi¬tions necessitated the move. took several terrific*, beatings .’lastyear, but'-that bby really pulverizedeverybody'.' His-'blocking is devastat¬ing in power, and, precision.'fOn - de¬fense, handle’s d tough- assighrhenfsuperbly in backing up'the Michiganline. Big, • powerful, tough'^^always - ateam player—the Wolverine Captainis'a' Coach’s dream come true.”Rendleman-Praises Scott-■ Hugh "rates ' the renowned CTommyHarmon -/a marvelous^- ball-carrier,,fast, clever, and; rugged,-second^onlyto his running mate in Too'tball abil-;ity. Recalling the Marpon-WolVerinetilt last “year, he-praises ■ the\ Mich-,igah ace' for his less-publicized, butequally-effective defensive prowess. (Almost on a par with 'Harmon andEvashevski, Don Scott; Ohio; State’scrack triple-threater arid field-general,ranks third in, Hugh’s list of.^greatbacks. Most pow;erful lunner-of thethree, Scott is also a star passer andheady signal-caller.Heikkinen Greatest lineman“The greatest lineman I ever ranup against? Well, I’d take RalphHeikkineri,-1938 Wolverine All-Amer¬ican guard, but Charley Anderson,.Ohio State’s colored end, is-one of-the,best. Sarkinnen, his teammate lastyear, was .good, but Anderson is' tops.'Tom Riggs, from-the Illini, and Char¬ley Maag, Buckeye pla'ce-^kicking spe¬cialist, are right ..up there.” ’ -Rendleman commented, on the dif¬ference be.tween football in the Eastand in the Big Ten. “With lighter Stenberg StarsFor Wolverines. Just to show people that we are-dill, reading our mail, we'-quote thefollowing found in • erday’s press'atch from the University of Mich-Employ Speed, Hustle in Pre-Season Inter-Squad. Tilts}--I—With the.'demise of football’s inter-:collegiate life on^the Quadrangles,it may, happen „.fhat ^basketball .willtake-lup'where football left off as themost; consistently losing sport wear¬ing, the .Maroon colors.'Not that thisseason’s Chicago ..bucketeers aren’tgood, but the squads they, will haveto' face' in j the Big ,'Ten race, ,s^peup as superlative.Banks on- Speed <,' Last.years.Maroon cage representa¬tives ;had'height and prestige. Thisterm\'gray Nels Norgren is bankingon, speed andi aggressiveness tossbringa presentable, record ' to‘.the Maroonathletic archieves at-,the-winters end.And if speed, .and„hustle;'can make forvictory,'the;cagers will have a :happyseason. ’ ' V "enberg, a Lane Tech productf^r from dhe ,Uni\?ersity’of.shown ^prospects of de->n outstanding'back buted throughout the|fall by a leg injury. Coach Weber ex¬pects Stenberg to come into hi.s ownduring-,the spring practice* sessions.”season.. ... the type of aggregationthat doesn’t look too good on paper butalways surprises .when, - the finalwhistle is blown.(^{fsiefftkees of 19401.American Artists Gi^up;Christmas Cardsa ■ . ;Stamp 'Wheelhorse " ;^ Joe “Stamp, at the pivot post, natur¬ally,-is the hub around which the cag-ers offensive;wheel,willibe builL'-Fonsand Shaver.seem to have earned start¬ing assignments, and the .other/twopositions '&Te^ still,\widc 'open^' to .anycapable enough tafiirtherii. Cal Sa'w-^yier,;/by his'deadly, hook "and hustle,may'take, the fourth.-.first string as-Msignrnent. The absence of Paul 'Zim¬merman, counted on to fill a regularspot, will be felt, Zimmerman, a dang/erbus "man on the: hardwood la.st year,left the classroom for the C; A. A,;Use Fire House Offense ■' r■ Norgren has shifted the em-;. asisof hi.s offense* from'’the use of "jeight,which^'brought.such dissapointing re¬sults jlast year, to'-fire-house, never-say-stop brand of offense.- There; is nodoubts that Stamp /has the best eyejand the most polished passing ..tech¬nique- on the sqad;/ so Norgren hasplaced ,him on the .^line ..pivot spot,:froni where the guards bringing -theball down will passJn and'break. Thusit looks as though the Maroons will be.playing thej'r'game,.under.*the opposi-'tions ..basket, if the ..offense click's;It will have to be. a White Sox sort;of outfit that represents the big C this-squads. Eastern teams stress a' fast,deceptive style of play, Vstrong,/ onpasses. Big .Ten outfits still rely^ onthe ability of lufnbering linemen,-toopen ^up gaps in the opposition longenough to send a powerful back; piledriving “back; either off. tackle/* oraround end. . , A colorful collection ofunusual Christmas cardscreated by America s most'famous artistsThesecards will say “MerryChristmas” for you withdistinction. They wilLgra-ciously compliment thegood taste of your friends.5^ to 25i each*Prompt rerriee on;#ImprtHltng your (Mm*.;,;U. of C. Bookstore i5802 EIUh AvenueFkomBARDEN Sc per copy$3.00 per 100To•Adler Fights Hook Fights AdlerMayer Taking On All ComersIs Knight Wright?READ THE MAROON SUPPLEMENT• ’’4'* 'Y riVIPERFECl■t-eiiOd ii. R. NOV 141940the Vcdlu THoiMxynTHE DAILY MAROON, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1940 Price Five Cents"THE NEW MEDIEVALISM"Robert Maynard HutchinsDuty to Inquire“Socrates used to say that the one thing he knew positivelywas that we were under a duty to inquire. Inquiry involves still,as it did with Socrates, the discussion of a^l iaportant problemsand of all points of view ... The scholars of America are attempt¬ing in their humble way to follow the profession of Socrates. Somepieople talk as though they would like to visit upon these scholarsthe fate which Socrates suffered. Such people should be remindedthat the Athenians mi.ssed Socrates when he was gone . . .“The battle for freedom of inquiry and teaching in the naturalsciences and religion has now been won. No sane citizen, how¬ever he may disagree with any professor, can wish that battle hadbeen lost. The scientific advance of the past century and the re¬lease from bigotry which we now enjoy can be traced directly tothe success of the universities in securing the right to study thesefields without interference.”Taken from a radio address made April 18, 1935.A Criticism ofAdler's ArticleAttacking TeachersBy SIDNEY HOOKSidney Hook is a professor ofPhilosophy at Columbia Univer¬sity, and an eminent Mar.xisttheorist. He is a frequent con¬tributor to the New Republic.Wo have just been told that Amer-ican democracy is in greater dangerfrom its professors than from Hitler¬ism. Such a statement is not merelyfalse but irresponsible, and at thepresent time, doubly so. I do notknow whether it has been uttered withan eye to making newspaper head¬lines; it cannot have been uttered byanyone who respects the truth. Con¬sider. for a moment, what that state¬ment implies. Hitlerism representsthe most ruthless system of physicaland spiritual terror sincl* the days ofthe crusade against the Albigensian*’eresy, and of the medieval inquisi¬tion. Hitler has crucified an entirepeople, uprooted and destroyed mil-lion.s of lives throughoL.t Europe, out-ra^red every value of ^’heral civiliz¬ation which we Americans hold dear.If our professors are worse than Hit¬ler. presumably they threaten us withworse than this—but the only crimewhich Mr. Adler has been able to con¬vict them of is differing with him(and President Hutchins). The con¬sequences of differing with Mr. Adlerare so gravi^, that ibey lea4assert that “until the professors andtheir culture are liquidated, the re.so-lution of modern problems will noteven begin.”Why should our differences withMr. Adler be so fateful? Because,for.sooth, our professors, like Hitler,are positivists. Now whatever thedefinition of philosophical postivismis, there is no evidence at all thatit is the cause, or even among thechief causes, of the rise of K.tlerismabroad and of the dangers of total¬itarianism at home. The question ofthe causes of fascism in Italy and(Jermany, and the question of thecauses of the present world-waragainst democracy (which btegan withthe anti-positivistic rebellion ofP'ranco, aided by Hitler and Mussolini,against Spanish democracy), areempirical historical questions. Theyare not questions of metaphysics ortheology, I am acquainted with noscientific hi.storian who has assertedthat the rise of Hitlerism is due to aphilosophical doctrine rather than tothe conjunction of economic depres¬sion, the consequences of the Treatyof Versailles, the errors in policy oftlemocratic parties within Germanyand of the democratic governmentswithout. After all, it is precisely thecultures which Mr. Adler himselfdamns as positivistic, England andAmerica, which are leading the fightagainst Hitler and Mussolini insteadof making concordats with them assome anti-positivistic organizationshave done.We have here a crass illustration ofhow, in the interests of metaphysicaldogma, Mr. Adler can subvert empir¬ical truth. And this despite his liprecognition of the autonomy of scien¬tific inquiry. Throughout his paper,wherever Mr. Adler touches uponquestions for which evidence is avail¬able, what he says is inadequate orclearly false.I have time for only brief obser¬vations on this point before going onto his main position. One of thereasons why Mr. Adler believes it“unnecessary as well as unwise tomake any effort in the way of reason¬ing” with this conference is the crit¬ical reception which the AmericanHcademic mind has given to the writ¬ings of President Hutchins. Accord¬ing to Mr. Adler, that reception wasabusive and ignorant, not intelligentlycritical in the slightest. Nothing canbe further from the truth. PresidentHutchins’ book received adequatehearing and review. Without defend¬ing current educational practices, thiscriticism established that President Hutchins’ views were historicallyfalse, badly reasoned in a successionof arguments containing undistributedmiddle terms, and pernicious in theirconclusions. Of several such crit¬icisms I cite only that of John Dewey,and the subsequent exchange betweenhim and President Hutchins, in whichI the latter literally abandoned the fieldafter failing to meet a single pointraised in Professor Dewey’s cour¬teous but searching analysis.Or take Mr. Adler’s charge that themodern professor “will not subjecthimself to the rigors of public dis¬putation.” If by disputation we meanthe public, critical analysis of ideasin order to achieve clarification andto determine what evidence would berelevant to the truth of meaningfulassertions, then I submit that Mr. Ad¬ler’s charge is plainly false. Althoughpractice may fall short of the idealin many respects, this is preciselythe aim of those professional associ¬ations and perfbdicals which carry onthe intellectual enterprise in Amer¬ican life. But if by public disputationwe mean denunciation of all who donot hold our alleged “self-evident”truths instead of analysis of them,and calculated insults under the guiseof plain speaking, coupled with a callfor liquidation of heretics in meta¬physics and theology—of which Mr.Adler has just given us an illustration—then I am happy that, in the main,our non-parochial intellectual life isfree of it.I leave to those who have initiatedthis conference the reply to Mr. Ad¬ler’s attack upon its purpose. I wishrather to say a word about Mr. Ad¬ler’s series of propositions in meta¬physics and theology, every one ofwhich, he holds, is entailed by rationalbelief in democracy, so that a differ¬ence with him on any point is tanta¬mount to a denial of democracy. I begin with the metaphysical propo¬sitions. Mr. Adler in advance hasruled out as evasive any reply to hispropositions which would make theirtruth or falsity depend upon the mean¬ing assignied to his words, t. e., uponthe distinctions in the sense and usesof his key terms. He demands yes orn« answers. Now true-false answersto isolated propositions may be de¬manded in religious catechisms. Theycannot be intelligently given to phil¬osophical questions without analysis.And the wisdom of philosophical an¬alysis, from the time of Aristotledown, consists just in this ability tomake distinctions in the meaning anduse of terms before essaying an an¬swer to them.However, if I understand what Mr.Adler means by hii key terms (andin order not to disappoint him), Icategorically declare, speaking onlyfor myself, that all of his propositionsare false, and further that, true orfalse, they do not entail, except byarbitrary definition, any politicalview whatsover. Behind these propo¬sitions in metaphysics lie a numberof unexamined assumptions, uponwhich they depend. The first is thatno warranted assertion can be madeunless it ultimately depends uponsome absolute indemonstrable truth ofreason or indisputable truth of sense-perception or both; the second is thatthese truths are grasped immediatelyand intuitively; the third is the beliefthat things have essential natures,distinct from what are called theiraccidents, and that only the former,in contradistinction to the concerns ofmodern science, are the proper subjectof knowledge. There are many otherassumptions upon which Mr. Adler’smetaphysical propositions rest. Theseassumptions may justify a belief innecessary, self-evident truths aboutthe world and man, but they are themselves not self-evident. Yet des¬pite the fact that all of Mr. Adler’scertainties, immediate or derived, restupon highly dubitable assumptions, heasserts that those who deny any oneof his propositions are denying phil¬osophy. Since there is no leadingfigure in modern philosophy, whetherit be Descartes, Locke, Spinoza, Kant,who has not denied at least one ofMr. Adler’s propositions, the prepos¬terous implication is that there is nosuch thing as modern philosophy andthat most of those who are called phil¬osophers are but blind and wickednominalists.It is not surprising, therefore, thatMr. Adler speaks so scornfully of thecontingent and tentative character ofscientific knowledge, contrasting itwith the superior knowledge of meta¬physics and theology. For the pro¬gress of scientific knowledge flies fullin the face of every one of his as¬sumptions about the nature of know¬ledge, so that Mr. Adler is logicallycompelled to dismiss science as mereopinion about phenomena, incapableof giving us truth about the “real”nature of things.Logical analysis of scientific methodshows that no scientific proposition,whether as premise or conclusion,postulate or law, rule or description,is self-evident. Every propositionmust justify itself, and no vicious in¬finite regress is involved because thesolution of genuine problems, throughthe acquisition of piecemeal knowl¬edge, controls inquiry. What all justi¬fications of the assertion of scientificstatements have in common is this:reference to the verifiable consequen¬ces of their use and not to antecedentcertainties. Mr. Adler’s metaphysicsrules itself out of court when it rulesout scientific knowledge as genuineknowledge, or gives it an inferiorstatus to ontological or theologicalknowledge.There is irony in the fact that moreuniversal agreement exists about sci¬entific ideas, which make no pretenseof being self-evidently true, thanabout any axioms or self-evidenttruths which have ever been advancedat any time by any metaphysicalschool. The moral is that we oughtto extend scientific method to thequestions and problems in social lifeabout which there is disagreement.As for Mr. Adler’s self-evident orderived metaphysical truths, in so faras meaning can be assigned them, Iam convinced it can be shown thatwhere they are not false they areeither tautologies, rules of discourseor disguised definitions, or, at best,vague empirical generalizations on acommonsense level which can be bet¬ter established by the more precisemethods of science. And despite Mr.Adler’s excommunication of all whodisagree with him, I believe it is stillpossible to be a philosopher withoutsubscribing to his philosophy.I come now to Mr. Adler’s theolog¬ical propositions. Time permits a dis¬cussion of only one proposition, thefinal one which asserts “Just as thereare no systems of philosophy, butonly philosophical knowledge lessor more adequately possessed bydifferent men, so there is only onetrue religion, less or more adequatelyembodied in the existing diversity ofcreeds.” According to Mr. Adler,this is another proposition which, ifdenied, entails the denial of all relig¬ion, the negation of democracy, and anihilism that is as bad as Hider’s.But it is clear that if it is affirmed,then the members of all religions oth¬er than the true religion differ onlyin the degree of their positivism fromHitler. For on Mr. Adler’s hier¬archical scheme, religions are order¬ed in the scale of their approximationto the one true religion, and no oneis without some religion even if it bethe religion of Satan. From the pointof view of that one true religion, allthe others represent a graded varietyin the abominations of positivist here¬sy. The primary question, then is todetermine which is the true religion.There are grounds for suspecting thatMr, Adler believes he has the super¬natural knowledge that constitutes the answer. Given his view that thosewho deny this truth are positivists,and that positivists are an even great¬er danger that Hitler (because Hitler,says Mr. Adler, is an honest man),it follows that, like the positivist pro¬fessors, those who hold any religionbut the true religion should be liquid¬ated for the good of their own souls,if they cannot be converted to thetruth. Whether Mr. Adler is awareof it or not—and I sometimes thinkhe has not yet learned how to readhis own words—this constitutes ajustification of religious intolerance.I am not forcing an interpretationupon Mr. Adler’s paper, although hewill probably make that claim. Theseare the logical implications of his re¬marks. They are confirmed by whathe has to say of the cultural beautiesof medieval culture, of which the liq¬uidation of religious heresy and the In¬quisition were integral parts, and hisbelief that positivism, the root of allmodern evil, began with the Renais¬sance and Reformation and culminat¬ed in Hitlerism. Just as Hitler wouldlike to undo the Treaty of Westphalia,which recognized freedom of religpousconscience, so Mr. Adler and thosewho think as he does would like toundo the Renaissance, the Reforma¬tion, the French Revolution and thesubsequent trend toward democraticsecularism which makes the stateneutral in religion.In effect, Mr, Adler is proposing, inthe terminology of metaphysics andtheology and in the protective colora¬tion, of a democrat, that the mem¬bers of this Conference, assembled to.defend- and -‘further ^the democratic-way of life against the menace oftotalitarianism, adjourn their fightagainst Hitlerism — and fight eachother. As opposed to Mr. Adler, Ido not believe that there is any suchthing as a philosophical fifth-column.But if there were anything that couldpossibly be regarded as such, then Ibelieve that it could be demonstratedthat it would be not positivism but theviews of Mr. Adler.Mr. Adler is entitled to defend hisviews, wrong as I believe them to be.We can only request that in the inter¬ests of truth and fruitful intellectualprocedure, of which he asserts thisconference has no conception, he ar¬gue his position instead of beggingit and refrain from distorting theviews of those with whom he dis¬agrees. It is intellectually cheap, forexample, to assert, as Mr. Adler does,that because democrats reject a so¬ciety with his conception of hierarchyand authority, they want “chaos, notorder”; “anarchic individualism,” nothealthy social relations.One word in conclusion, Mr. Adlerbelieves that the fact that “the min¬ority view,” meaning his own, getsa hearing at this conference indicatesour “indifference about the truth whichhides behind the mask of tolerence.”I hope I speak for others besides my¬self when I say that it is not indiffer¬ence to the truth but the love oftruth, and the reasonable faith ofreasonable men which leads us to givea hearing to those with whom we dis¬agree. Tolerance is a mask only whenthose who profess it await the daywhen they will be sufficiently strongto eliminate heretical differences onfundamental questions. Tolerance to¬ward ideas, with the hope of learningand with the privilege of rejecting(or suspending judgment) on the bas¬is of evidence, is of the very life¬blood of democracy.The history of science shows t.iat itis possible to keep an open house toideas, and at the same time to buildup a great body of reliable knowledgecommanding universal agreement.This has been done without any auth¬ority except the voluntarily acceptedauthority of method—reason and ex¬periment—without Gestapo or GPUor Inquisition, without an Index ofproscribed books or doctrines, and, fi¬nally, without the dogma of final andabsolute truths. Our hope lies inbuilding the values and attitudes ofscientific method more firmly into theliving tissues of the democratic wayof life.(Reprinted from The Ne-' Hepv*‘'»,IN npiriiMAi APage Two THE DAILY MAROON. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1940%£ Oollq Tlh/ioori Positive PositivistThe Daily Maroon is the official studentnewspaper of the University of Chicago, pub¬lished mornings except Saturday, Sunday, andMonday during the Autumn, Winter, andSpring quarters by The Daily Maroon Com¬pany, 6831 University avenue. Telephones:Hyde Park 9221 and 9222.After 6:80 phone in stories to our printers.The Chief Printing Company, 148 West 62ndstreet. Telcpnones: Wentworth 6123 and 6124.The University of Chicago assumes no re¬sponsibility for any statements appearing inThe Daily Maroon, or for any contract enteredinto by The Daily Maroon.The Daily Maroon expressly reserves therights of publication of any material appear¬ing in this paper. Subscription rates: $3 ayear; $4 by mail. Single copies: three cents.Entered as second class matter March 18,1908, at the post office at Chicago, Illinois,under the act of March 3, 1879. By MALCOLM SHARPMalcolm Sharp is an associateprofessor of Law at the Univer¬sity of Chicago. He taught clas¬ses with Mr. Adler for severalyears, and has been a frequentcritic however, of the Thomistpoint of view.BOARD OF CONTROLWILLIAM HANKLA ERNEST LEISERPEARL C. RUBINSJOHN P. STEVENS, ChairmanBusinessJOHN E. BEX, Business ManagerWILLIAM LOVELL, Advertising ManagerEDITORIAL ASSOCIATESJames Burtle, Chester Hand, Richard Himmel,Daniel Mezlay, Richard Philbrick. Robert F.D. Reynolds, and Daniel Winograd.BUSINESS ASSOCIATESRobert Dean, George Flanagan, Lyle Harper,and Mylet Jarrow.In ExplanationWhen the Maroon reprintedthe text of the speech MortimerJ. Adler made at the Conferenceon Science, Philosophy, and Re¬ligion, we did not know that wewere starting another contro¬versy of the proportions of theone that filled the columns of theMaroon during the famed “JohnBarden year."But, borrowing the colorfuland colloquial language whichyou will find on page 6 of thisissue, we soon discovered thatwe had a wildcat by the tail.The whole Social Science de¬partment swarmed down on usen masse, demanding that we re¬print Sidney Hook’s attack onAdler. “If the New Rep,ubliccould print it, so could you,”they shouted.Meekly, we made plans to runa special supplement printingMessrs. Hook and Adler, and thereplies we had already securedto Adler’s arguments, articles byCrane and Sharp.But, by this time, everyonewanted to have a voice in theverbal struggle. Of those whorequested publication of theirarticles or who had written art¬icles on this controversy, we se¬lected those by Frank Knight,Quincy Wright, and Milton May¬er. These we have arranged inthe supplement which you ha^'ebefore you.We must have had motives forlending the columns of the Ma¬roon to this controversy. We arenot quite sure ourselves whatthose motives were.The social scientists would saythat we are doing it to sootheour Narcissus—that the feelingof affiliating ourselves with in-tellectuals is a pleasurable,though a vicarious, thrill.We should like to believe,however, and in this we wouldhave the backing of the Thom-ists, that through publishing thediametrically opposing argu¬ments, we are stimulatingthought on vitally importantsubjects.We should also like to believe,however, that we will not settleanything by printing eitherHook’s arguments, Adler’s art¬icles, or the substantiation eachof them gets. We do not intendfor a solution to come from thissix-page supplement.We hope to continue the con¬troversy, and then, if possible,come to some conclusion, afterlistening at great length to therhetoric of each of the contes¬tants. Mr. Adler would say it isimpossible. So would MiltonMayer. But we are young andoptimistic. Either the Hooks orthe Adlers must be right, or atleast more right. Perhaps futureresearches will convince us In Mr. Adler’s terminology, I ama positivist and propose to stay thatway. He is in error in saying thatno one has been willing to debatepublicly with him. I devoted a con¬siderable portion of three years todiscussion with him in the publicityof the classroom. Every time we ap¬proached a critical point of issue, thediscussion became to me most unsat¬isfactory.I came to this University partly be¬cause of an interest in Mr. Hutchins’ideas about education. I had spentconsiderable energy during six yearsat the University of Wisconsin onproblems of undergraduate college ed¬ucation. I was interested in collegeeducation on its own account, and be¬cause of its importance as prepara¬tion for professional education.Everything that Mr. Hutchins saysabout the unsatisfactory character ofcollege education is true; and the an¬noyed response of professors to hisprodding is healthy. We should bemore annoyed, and we should respondmore vigorously.At the same time there is a simpleexplanation for Mr. Hutchins’ failure.His cure is much worse than the dis¬ease.This is, of course, the statement ofa positivist. I am satisfied with Mr.Adler’s preliminary statement as towhat a positivist is. He is a personwho has no use for philosophy or the¬ology as defined by Mr. Adler.Affirmatively he is a person whotries to base his statements about na¬ture on evidence, in the every-daysense of the word. Iris, messenger ofthe Gods, may have left the mail inthe post box this morning; but thereis no reason to suppose that she hasaccess to the post office and the ordi¬nary course of experience suggeststhat it was probably a postman.I have not tried at this point tojustify my position. I have stated it,and expressed a preference for it.While a poet, a philosopher, or apriest may think it dull, I have ex¬pressed in my prosaic way a prefer¬ence as against such a beautiful wordas Iris, for such homely words as postoffice. I have turned my back on allthe delighi;ful and potent mysteries ofambiguity, systematic or otherwise,allegory, metaphor and negative anal¬ogy.One can suggest the lines which ajustification of this position wouldtake. A rather long essay would benecessary to develop them.Looking back over history the home¬ly, observational, “logico-experiment-al” method, which seeks to excludesuch little creatures as the physicists’“force” and the priests’ Iris from itsoperations, has produced results.Many people enjoy it, and the reportsof the world which it gives, on theirown account. Others want and likeits every-day effects.One may deplore the efforts of med¬icine in the treatment of tuberculosisand paranoia and the consequent in¬terference with the supply of genius.Before one makes up his mind on thepoint, however, he had better reread,for example, Thucydides’ account ofthe plague at Athens, and the historyof yellow fever or small pox, for ex¬ample, as well as tuberculosis. Theliving creature destined to surviveprizes health, and the contributionsof careful observational study to thepromotion of health.The tendency and effects of thephysical sciences are more problem¬atical. They seem to offer us indiffer¬ently building or destruction. Thosewho are not ascetics prize electriclights, well woven cloth, automobiles,railroads, ocean liners and pleasureairplanes. Those who are concernedwith their health do not prize, fortheir imme'^late effects, guns, tanksbattleships, submarines, or militaryairplanes.Here is the point at which todaythe positivist must stop and examinehimself. He will observe negativelythat the churches and their sons havemade their contributions to the end¬less wars of Europe. He will note thatthe Roman Catholic Church, leader ofthe anti-positivists, has probably thebest claim to the invention of “fas¬cism”. True, fascism has, to a still un¬determined extent, tended to Frank¬enstein, particularly in Germany. Butthe Church gave Mussolini all hisideas, and made and protected Franco. SharpAmong other things, the Church par¬alyzed efforts in America to modifythe Anglo-American embargo againsta social democratic regime in Spain,whose defeat was, more than Munich,the decisive turning point in recentEuropean history.This, however, is a negative point. and the historical argument to be ad¬equate would require more elaboratetreatment and defense than we cangive it here.The positivist would like to saysomething more, if possible positive¬ly, on the social question. Here, how¬ever, history does not warrant anysimple immediate optimism. Apartfrom short and brilliant episodes suchas fifth century (not fourth century)Athens, and late nineteenth centuryEngland and America, effective man¬agers and rulers have depended fortheir power on extreme forms ofpriestly magic. We do not know whet-cr mankind can be governed other¬wise.It is a hypothesis today almostpeculiar to the United States that wecan be governed otherwise. This hy¬pothesis rejects the claims of church-ly priestcraft, of the myth of race, ofthe myth of dialectical materialism, ofShinto, and of all other myths andcults alike. Its adherents considerit worth while still to work for a com¬munity in which most of the mem¬bers are adult, and need not be treat¬ed like children.At this point again the alert posi¬tivist is aware that he cannot “prove” his case. He tries to maintain both theattitude and the approach of the bestpractitioners of the biological sci-ences. t He observes, with that ex¬cellent biologist John Dewey, that themore general achievement of an adultcondition is indispensable to the suc¬cess of democracy and the achieve¬ment, of those personal, biologicalvalues for the sake of which democ¬racy is maintained.The course of the argument is sug¬gested; but it cannot of course be ful¬ly developed here. As a corrective tothe enthusiasm for priestcraft whichappears in high places in this Univer¬sity, I would suggest three books byJohn Dewey. They are “A CommonFaith”, “Logic”, and “The Public andIts Problems”. It is a shocking thingthat in this University, where JohnDewey accomplished so much for pub¬lic education, Mr. Adler’s demagogicattack on non-parochial educationshould have taken place.It is time to subject this and relat¬ed matters to a thorough study. Sucha study might begin with an examin-ation of the relation between the pub¬lic school administration in Chicago—including Courtney, Kelly and Mc-Cahey—and the Catholic hierarchy.Mr. Adler and the ProfessorsBy RONALD S. CRANERonald Salmon Crane isChairman of English at the Uni¬versity of Chicago. He is per¬haps the foremost authority inthe United States today on 18thcentury English literature.The profe.ssors, says Mr. .\dler inhis address before the Conference ofScience, Philosophy and Religion,“give true-false tests, but never takethem. They will, therefore, avoid thetest I have presented by saying thatit is all a matter of how you usewords, or that it'all depends on yourpoint of view, or something equallyevasive.”Well, the professors who give true-false tests know at least two thingsabout them: first, that their utility islargely confined to determining thestudent’s possession of informationrather than of understanding, i.e., ofopinion as distinguished from know¬ledge; and second, that it is a validrequirement of such tests that thepoor students asked to take them begiven at least a dim idea of what theprofessor’s words mean.Professor Student.sThe students in this ca.se are pro¬fessors, and it would hardly seem tomatter whether they subject them¬selves to Mr. Adler’s test or not, sincein any event he has already decidedto flunk them all, the test being setmerely for the purpo.se of convincingthe class that they deserve their fate.Should they be so obliging, however,as to look over the questions teacherhas prepared for them, I think evenMr. Adler, as a professor himself,might be able to predict what theirreactions would be.They would say, in the first place,that the sixteen statements whichmake up Mr. Adler’s test are merelyassertions of opinion, and they wouldbe able, without very exacting re¬search, to support their protest by cit¬ing Mr. Adler’s own teacher.s—not¬ably Plato and Aristotle—as of thesame mind. For how, according tothese philosophers, can we be said tohave any knowledge, philosophical orscientific, apart from the statement ofit in reasoned discourse proceeding from premises the truth of which cansomehow be tested and involving re¬lationships of terms the meanings ofwhich in the context have somehowbeen made clear? It is nothing butdogmatism, therefore, to demand yesor no answers to propositions put for¬ward,'Hke the.se, without either ra¬tional argument or clarification oftheir terms. And what is dogmatismbut a species of opinion, reducible, inPlato’s language, to the lowest levelof the divided line as a mere shadowof science or philosophy; reducible,in the equivalent terms of Aristotle,to the apparent reasoning or sophi.s-tic that depends on manipulations ofwords? “For reasoning rests on cer¬tain statements such that they involvenecessarily the as.sertion of some¬thing other than what has been stat¬ed, through what has been stated....Now some of them do not reallyachieve this, though they seem to doso, for a number of reasons, and ofthese the most prolific and usual do¬main is the argument that turns uponnames only. It is impossible in a dis¬cussion to bring in the actual thingsdiscussed: we use their names assymbols in.stead of them; and there¬fore we suppose that what follows inthe names, follows in the things aswell, just as people who calculatesuppose in regard to their counters.But the two cases (names and things)are not alike. For names are finite,and so is the sum-total of formulae,while things are infinite in number.Inevitably, then, the same formulae,and a single name, have a number ofmeanings. Accordingly just as, incounting, those who are not clever inmanipulating their counters are tak¬en in by the experts, in the same wayin arguments too those who are notwell acquainted with the force ofnames misreason both in their owndi.scussions and when they listen toothers” (De Sophisticifi Elenchh chap.i).No ExcuseSo it is that the professors who maybe disposed to test their intellectualvirtues by the true-false questionsset by Mr. Adler need not be surpris¬ed at being told by him that it is noexcuse for failure on the examinationto protest that the wording of thequestions is unclear. But surely they would have good warrant in the chap¬ter of Aristotle just quoted for in¬sisting that their protest is at leastthe beginning of true philosophy,since it is aimed precisely at bringingback the whole problem to a pointwhere the relation of names andthings can be profitably discussed bymethods more relevant to genuineknowledge than the sophist’s art ofproducing the semblance of wi.sdomwithout the reality.It is not a denial but rather an af¬firmation of philosophy, then, to wantto know what sort of necessity it is—for there are several kinds—that un¬derlies Mr. Adler’s statement that“the following propositions must beaffirmed.” Or to wonder whether,when Mr. Adler .says that the meth¬ods of philosophy are “distinct” fromthose of .science, the formula is to betaken in the same sense as applied toAristotle and to Plato. Or to inquireinto the precise meanings and rela¬tionships of his distinctions betweentheory and practice, reality and ap¬pearance. Or to probe into his as¬sertion that “there are no systems ofphilosophy” by asking him, for ex¬ample, whether this means that Platocould, without abandoning his char¬acteristic method, give us an analysisof the internal structure of tragedysuch as we get in the Poetics, orwhether Aristotle, proceeding as hedoes, could construct a critical treat¬ise like that of Longinus on the sub¬lime. Or to insist, finally, that beforewe assent to the proposition that“metaphysics is valid knowledge ofboth sensible and supra-sensible be¬ing” we ought to know whether we aremerely committing ourselves to some¬thing like the dialectic of the dividedline in the Republic, or whether wemust be prepared to receive the truthabout angels.The only regret one may have isthat Mr. Adler, in his preoccupationwith the contemporary, did not thinkof first applying his catechism to thefew great philosophers he admires inthe past. The result would certainlyhave been a marked increase in theliterature of subtle disputation he sojustly appreciates in the Middle Ages.But, alas, the number of positivistsand professors would have been ap¬preciably enlarged.KIn the beginning was the wordand the word was in' the presenceAdditional Copies of this Supplement areAvailable atBrentano's - Kroch's - Marshall Field'sCarson Pirie's - Daily Maroon OfficeTHE DAILY MAROON, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1940 Page ThreeGOD AND THE PROFESSORSHy MORTIMER ADLERMortimer J. Adler, a foremostprotagonist of the Thomisticphilosophy, is professor of thephilosophy of law at the univer¬sity of Chicago, and a closefriend and adviser of Presi¬dent Hutchins. He is the authorof the best seller, “How to Reada Hook.”I—IntroductionThe Founding Members of this(’onfeience are, for the most part,[tiofessors in American colleges anduniversities. They are eminent rep¬resentatives of the various aca¬demic disciplines, among which arethe three mentioned as most relevantto this Conference—science, philos¬ophy, and religion. The presence ofhistorians and humanistic scholars isiustirted by the modern extension ofscience to include the so-called socialsciences, with which all research abouthuman affairs and culture can beaffiliated. Most of these professorsbelong to one or more of the severallearned societies which meet annuallyfor the reading and discussion of pa¬pers that purport to make contribu¬tions to truth, or at least do what isacademically recognized as learning.Hence, the reason for this Conferehce,for this additional meeting at whichmore papers are being read and dis-cusseil. must be some need for the pro¬fessors to get together in a differentway Htul for a different purpose. If thepublic wonders why we are gatheringhere this September, we must justifythis Conference as trying to do some¬thing which is not, and perhaps can¬not be, accomplished in the onlinaryprocesses of our academic life—inclassrooms, faculty meetings or thesessions of learned societies..^ome explanations have alreadybeen given. We have come togetherbecause we all share, for different rea¬sons and in varying degrees, an un¬easiness about something we call theinesent situation. Whether or not weare ready to say that God’s in hisheaven, we cry with one voice thatall’s not right with the world. I wish1 could credit my colleagues with onefurther agreement, namely, that thepresent crisis is only superficially aconflict between democracy and total¬itarianism in the political arena, orbetween individualism and collect¬ivism in the economic sphere. If thatwere the full nature of the crisis, whyshould we waste time talking aboutscience, philosophy and religion? Thefact that we have chosen to considerthree major components of human cul¬ture should indicate that we all havea vague sense of cultural disorder asthe root of our troubles, as the sourceof a threatening doom. Far from be¬ing jirime movers, Hitler and Mus¬solini, or. if you wish, the Stalins andChamberlains, are but paranoiac pup¬pets, dancing for a moment on thecrest of the wave—the wave that isthe historic motion of modern cultureto its own destruction.A culture is not killed by politicalconflicts, even when they attain theshattering violence of moclern war¬fare; nor by economic revolutions,even when they involve the disloca¬tions of mo<iern mass uprisings. Acidtiire (lies of diseases ivhich arethemselves cultural. It may be bornsick, as modern culture was, or it maydecay through insufficient vitality toovercome the disruptive forces pres¬ent in every culture; but, in any case,cultural disorder is a cause and not aneffect of the political and economicdisturbances which beset the worldtoday.The health of a culture, like thehealth of the body, consists in the har¬monious functioning of its parts. Sci¬ence, philosophy and religion are cer¬tainly major parts of European cul¬ture; their distinction from anotheras quite separate parts is certainlythe most characteristic culturalachievement of modern times. But ifthey have not been properly disting¬uished, they cannot be properly re¬lated; and unless they are properlyrelated, properly ordered to one an¬other, cultural disorder, such as thatof modern times, inevitably results.This Conference, one might suppose,has been called to consider the illnessof our culture; more than that, to seekand effect remedies. One of the trou¬bles is that scientists, philosophers,and theologians, or teachers of re¬ligion, have long failed to communi¬cate with one another. The structureof a modern university, with its de¬partmental separations, and its totallack of order among specialized dis¬ciplines, represents perfectly the dis¬ unity and chaos of modern culture.Since nothing can be expected of theprofessors locked up in their depart¬mental cells, since reforming our in¬stitutions of higher learning (to makethem truly universities) seems to beimpossible, since the ordinary proc¬esses of academic life manifest thevery defects which must be remedied,the professors have been assembledunder the special auspices of this Con¬ference with the hope that lines ofcommunication can be established.That done, one might even hope forcommunication to lead to mutual un¬derstanding, and thence to agreementabout the truths which could unify ourculture.II—The Purpose of theConferenceIf what I have said is not the pur¬pose of this Conference, I can see nojustification for it whatsoever. Thefact that all the professors gatheredmention that Present Crisis, withouttrying to agree about its nature andcau.ses; the fact that they manifestsome concern about Democracy, with¬out trying to define it and understandits roots; the fact that, in a bafflingvariety of senses, they refer to Sci¬ence, Philosojihy and Religion, with¬out trying to solve the intricate prob¬lem of the relationship of these dis¬ciplines,—all this amounts to nothing..An undertaking of this sort is notneeded to make professors think ortalk this way. Nor is it nee<led to givethem an opportunity to write andread papers which do credit to theirspecialized scholarly schievements.Unless this be a Conference in morethan name only, unless it be concert¬ed effort to reach a common under¬standing of our cultural failure and acommon program for its reform, thisgathering will be as vacuous and fu¬tile as many another solemn conclaveof professors, advertised by high-sounding and promising titles.But if I have stated the only pur¬pose which might justify this Confer¬ence, then I must also say that it can¬not possibly succeed. I do not bother tosay that a conference, however good,cannot suce«d in reforming modernculture, or even in correcting one ofthe main causes of its disorder, name¬ly, modern e<lucation. That goes with¬out saying. To expect such resultswould be a.sk too much from even thebest of all possible conferences. Imean, much more directly, that onecannot expect the professors to under¬stand what is wrong with modern cul¬ture and modern education, for thesimple reason that that would requirethem to understand what is wrongwith their own mentality. If such amiracle could be hoped for, I wouldnot be without hope for a peacefuldeliverance from our manifold con¬fusions. Since professors come to aconference of this sort with the in¬tention of speaking their minds butnot of changing them, with a willing¬ness to listen but not to learn, withthe kind of tolerance which delightsin a variety of opinions and abomi¬nates the unanimity of agreement, itis preposterous to suppose that thisConference can even begin to realizethe only ends which justify the enter¬prise.Instead of a conference about sci¬ence, phiosophy and religion in rela¬tion to a democracy, what is needed isa conference about the professors ofscience, philosophy and religion, es¬pecially American professors whoseintellectual attitudes express a falseconception of democracy. The defectsof modern culture are the defects ofits intellectual leaders, its teachersand savants. The disorder of modernculture is a disorder in their minds,a disorder which manifests itself inthe universities they have built, in theeducational system they have devised,in the teaching they do, and which,through that teaching, perpetuatesitself and spreads out in ever widen¬ing circles from generation to gener¬ation. It is a little naive, therefore, tosuppose that the professors can becalled upon to solve the problem of therelationship of science, philosophyand religion in our education and inour culture—as naive as it would beto invite the professors to participatein a conference about what is wrongwith the professors.Ill—The Failure of Mr. HutchinsWe do not even have to wait untilthis Conference is over to discover itsfutility and the reasons therefor.The glorious. Quixotic failure ofPresident Hutchins to accomplish anyof the essential reforms which Amer¬ican education, so badly needs, dem¬onstrates the point to us. In fact, if he could have succeeded, this Confer¬ence would not be necessary now. Thefact that he did not succeed may makethis Conference necessary, in thesense that fundamental rectificationsof modern culture are imperative; butif we understand why, in the natureof the situation, Hutchins could notsucceed, we also see why a conferenceof professors about the defects of themodern mentality must be self-defeat¬ing.What did Mr. Hutchins propose?He proposed, in the first place, thatman is a rational animal, essentiallydistinct from the brutes, and hence,that education should cultivate themoral and intellectual virtues. Heproposed, in the second place, thatscience, philosophy arfd theology aredistinct bodies of knowledge, radicallydifferent as to methods of knowing aswell as with respect to objects known.But he went further. He said thattheoretic philosophy delves more deep¬ly into the nature of things than allthe empirical sciences; that, as theo¬retic knowledge, philosophy of supe¬rior to the sciences by reason of thequestions it can answer. He said thatpractical philosophy, dealing withethical and political problems, is su¬perior to applied science, because thelatter at best gives us control over thephysical means to be used, whereaspractical philosophy determines theends to be sought, and the orderingof all means thereto. Hence thestructure of a university should notbe a miscellaneous collection of de¬partments from astronomy to zoology,with all treated as equally importanttheoretically and practically, but aheirarchy of studies, ordered educa¬tionally according to their intrinsicmerits. Because of the fact that oursecular universities harbor a diver¬sity of religious faiths, Mr. Hutchinsplaced metaphysics at the summit in¬stead of theology. For man thehighest knowledge, and the most in¬dispensable to his well-being, is theknowledge of God; and since the ulti¬mate conclusions of metaphysics com¬prise a natural theology, metaphysicsis the supreme subject-matter in thedomain of natural knowledge. ButMr. Hutchins would have to admit(and he indicated his willingness todo so) that if there is a better knowl¬edge of God, and man’s relation toGod, than metaphysics offers, thensuch knowledge is superior to phil¬osophy, both theoretically and prac¬tically just as philosophy is superiorto science. Traditional Judaism andChristianity do, of course, claim thatthere is such knowledge, the sacredtheology that rests on faith in God’srevelation of Himself. It is proper¬ly distinguished from both scienceand philosophy as a supernaturalkiiowledge which man cannot havewithout God’s direct aid.Why did Mr. Hutchins fail? Any¬one who has ever attended a facultymeeting knows the answer. It can bediscovered by anyone who will readthe reviews of The Higher Learningin America, written by the professors,or what is worse, the professionaleducators. He failed not oecause hisanaylsis was patiently demonstratedto be in error; not because someoneproved that philosophy does not existor is inferior to science; or that re¬ligion is superstition, and sacredtheology a rationalization of somemake-believe. He failed because hewas asking the professors to changetheir minds and to agree about some¬thing. He failed as much with theprofessors of philosophy as with theprofessors of science; he failed evenmore with those teachers of religionwho regard themselves as liberal.What Hutchins proposed ran counterto every prejudice that constitutesthe modern frame of mind, and itstemper. The professors being in thevast majority, and ultimately con¬trolling, as they should, educationalpolicy, it was naive of Mr. Hutchinsto suppose that he could reform edu¬cation by appealing to truths the pro¬fessors ignored or denied. Worse thannaive, he had the effrontery to assumethat if the professors were ignorantof certain truths or had neglected theimplications of others, they wouldsubmit themselves to teaching onthese points. Since the professorscannot conceive themselves as beingtaught, certainly not by anyone with¬out a Ph.D. in their field, the manwho tries to argue with the plainintention of winning agreement mustreally be trying to impose his doc¬trine. The simplest way to deal witha fellow like Hutchins is to call hima fascist.IV—The Academic MindNow I want to make one thing ab¬ solutely clear. I am not begging thequestion in this issue between Mr.Hutchins and his opponents, by pro¬ceeding as if I have proved the form¬er right and the latter wrong. I knowI have not proved the truth of any ofthe theses mentioned, nor have Iproved the falsity of'their contraries.With the time at my disposal thatwould be impossible to do under anycircumstances; and even with muchmore time I would not try with thisaudience. With a few notable excep¬tions, the members of this Conferencerepresent the American academicmind. It is that fact itself whichmakes it unneessary, as well as un¬wise, for me to make any effortin the way of reasoning. I know toowell, from much experience, the opin¬ions of this audience, and of all theprofessors they represent—about thenature and relationship of science,philosophy and religion. I also know,because I have tried so many timesto present an analysis with the fullestof supporting arguments, preciselywhat reactions such procedure callsforth. Fortunately, there is no needto verify this once again, because onthis occasion I am concerned only toshow the futility of a conference ofprofessors about science, philosophyand religion.That can be shown very simply.Either the prevailing opinions of theprofessors are right or they arewrong. Let us suppose, for the mo¬ment, that they are right, that what isnow generally taught in Americanschools about the relation of science,philosophy and religion, is the trueaccount. If it is true, there is noth¬ing wrong with modern culture, formodern culture, in all its practicesand institutions, embodies theseopinions. On this alternative, there¬fore, it is difficult to see why thereshould be any conference aboutscience, philosophy and religion. If,however, on the other alternative, theprevailing professorial opinions onthese matters are wrong, and if, inaddition, modern culture suffers gravedisorders precisely because it em¬bodies these opinions, then there issome point to a conference whichwould seek to correct the prevalenterrors. But then it is pointless toask the professors to consider theproblem. They have already consider¬ed it and told us their answers inall* their teaching and all their edu¬cational decisions. The same major¬ity point of view will dominate thisConference, as in the Hutchins con¬troversy. Of course, the minorityview will get a hearing, with all thatindifference about the truth whichhides behind the mask of tolerance,but it is a foregone conclusion thatnobody’s mind will be changed; infact, everyone knows that is not theaim of a conference, anyway. Hence,when all is said and done, the rela¬tive weights of majority and minorityopinion will be registered once more.The Conference will have exhibitedthe characteristic mentality of ourculture, and those who are deeplyconcerned about changing that men¬tality will be confirmed in theirpessimism that nothing, simply noth¬ing, can be done to reform our educa¬tion or to reorient our culture.Now I am well aware that my col¬leagues do not think there is any suchclear-cut division between a majori¬ty and a minority view of science,philosophy and religion. For onething, they do not like to acknowl¬edge the existence of clear-cut is¬sues, with truth on one side, anderror on the other; if there weresuch issues, then anyone who under¬took to think about them might beobliged to risk his academic reputa¬tion by coming to a definite conclu¬sion. For another thing, the profes¬sors do not like to feel that theyshare even a common majority opin¬ion with each other. The sacred in¬dividuality of each professor can bepreserved only by differing. Whenone is in substantial sympathy withwhat a colleague has to say, he stillsafeguards his freedom of opinion bysaying the same thing some otherway. Most professors seem to feelthat agreement, even if freely reach¬ed, violates their personal integrity.V—The Prevalence ofPositivismNevertheless, I charge the profes¬sors—and here I am speaking of thevast majority—with being in sub¬stantial agreement on one side of thecrucial issues this Conference faces.I say that most of them are positiv¬ists. 7 know that there are enoughvarieties of positivism to permit theprofessors to retain their individual'ity, hut I insist that behind the multi¬ plicity of technical jargons there isa single doctrine. The essential pointof that doctrine is simply the affirma¬tion of science, and the denial ofphilosophy and religion. Again Iam aware that the professors willsmile at my simplicity. Whoeverheard anyone, except a few violentextremists, flatly denying philosophyand religion; as a matter of fact,such dogmatic denials are made onlyby a small circle of “philosophers”who blatantly advertise themselvesas positivists. The very presence atthis Conference of scientists, philoso¬phers and theologians shows that therepresentatives of the several discip¬lines respect each other; the fact thatthey are willing to listen to eachother’s papers shows the spirit of co¬operation which prevails among them.One even begins to wonder about thesanity of those who talk about thedisorder and disunity of modern cul¬ture. The real problem of this Con¬ference must be the perils of De¬mocracy; it certainly cannot be theissue of positivism.Despite such blandishments, I re¬peat my charge. The professors, byand large, are positivists. And,furthermore, 7 say that the most se¬rious threat to Democracy is thenositivism of the profe^isors, whichminates every aspect of modemeducation and is the central corrup¬tion of modern culture. Democracyhas much more to fear from the men¬tality of its teachers than from thenihilism of Hitler. It is the samenihilism in both cases, but Hitler’s ismore honest and consistent, lessblurred by subtleties and queasyqualifications, and hence less dan¬gerous. I shall return to this pointafter I have supported my charge.Within brief scope, the easiest wayto force the professors into the openis by making the issue sharp andclear. Let me do this first with re¬spect to philosophy, and then withrespect to religion.VI—The Issue About PhilosophyWith respect to philosophy, thefollowing propositions must be af¬firmed. He who denies any one ofthem denies philosophy. (1) Philos¬ophy is public knowledge, not pri¬vate opinion, in the same sense thatscience is knowledge, not opinion. (2)Philosophical knowledge answersquestions which science cannot an¬swer, now or ever, because its methodis not adapted to answering suchquestions. (3) Because their methodsare thus distinct, each being adaptedto a different object of inquiry, phil¬osophical and scientific knowledge arelogically independent of one another,which means that the truth and falsi¬ty of philosophical principles or con¬clusions does not depend upon thechanging content of scientific knowl¬edge. (4) Philosophy is superior toscience, both theoretically and prac¬tically: theoretically, because it isknowledge of the being of thingswhereas science studies only theirphenomenal manifestations; practi¬cally because philosophy establishesmoral conclusions, whereas scientificknowledge yields only technologicalapplications; this last point meansthat science can give us only a con¬trol over operable means, but it can¬not make a single judgment aboutgood and bad, right and wrong, interms of the ends of human life. (5)There can be no conflict between sci¬entific and philosophic truths, al¬though philosophers may correct theerrors of scientists who try to an¬swer questions beyond their profes¬sional competence, just as scientistscan correct the errors of philosophersguilty of a similar transgression. (6)There are no systems of philosophy,each of which may be consideredtrue in its own way by criteria of in¬ternal consistency, each differingfrom the others, as so many systemsof geometry, in terms of differentorigins in diverse, but equally arbi¬trary, postulates or definitions. (7)The first principles of all philosophi¬cal knowledge are metaphysical, andmetaphysics is valid knowledge ofboth sensible and supra-sensible be¬ing. (8) Metaphysics is able to dem¬onstrate the existence of supra-sensible being, for it can demonstratethe existence of God, by appealing tothe evidence of the senses and theprinciples of reason, and without anyreliance upon articles of religiousfaith.These eight propositions are notoffered as an exhaustive account ofthe nature of philosophy, its distinc¬tion from, and relation to, science. Ihave chosen them simply because theyPage Four THE DAILY MAROON, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1940will serve like intellectual litmus pa¬per to bring out the acid of positiv¬ism. Let the professors who claim torespect philosophy—and this goes asmuch for the professors of philos¬ophy as for the others—decide wheth¬er they affirm every one of thesepropositions. Those who say thatphilosophy is just another kind ofknowledge but not superior to sciencem’.ght just as well call philosophyopinion and deny its existence. Thosewho suppose that philosophical prin¬ciples or conclusions are dependent onthe findings of science; those whosuppose that real technical compe¬tence is necessary in order to solvescientific problems, whereas none isneeded for philosophical problems;those who think that philosophycomprises a variety of logically con¬structed systems, among which youcan take your choice according toyour preference among postulates;those who say philosophy is all right,but metaphysics is nonsense, andthere is no rational knowledge of God—all these deny philosophy. They arepositivists. If the professors wereclear of mind and forthright ofspeech, they would come right out andsay that they regard philosophy asopinion, not knowledge. But the pro¬fessors are unaccustomed to simpleaffirmations and denials. They givetrue-false tests, but never take them.They will, therefore, avoid the testI have presented by saying that it isall a matter of how you use the words,or that it all depends on your pointof view', or something equally evas¬ive. Yet, by their evasions shall youknow them, for those who affirmphilosophy to be knowledge neitherhesitate nor quibble on any of thesepoints.VII—The Issue About ReligionWith respect to religion, the fol¬lowing propositions must be affirmed.He who denies any one of them de¬nies religion, in any sense w'hichmakes it distinct in character fromscience and philosophy. (1) Religioninvolves knowledge of God and ofman’s destiny, knowledge which is notnaturally acquired in the sense inwhich both science and philosophyare natural knowledge. (2) Religiousfaith, on which sacred theology rests,is itself a supernatural act of thehuman intellect, and is thus a Divinegift. (3) Because God is its cause,faith is more certain than knowledgeresulting from the purely natural ac¬tion of the human faculties. (4)What is known by faith about God’snature and man’s destiny is knowl¬edge which exceeds the pow'er of thehuman intellect to attain withoutGod’s revelation of Himself and HisProvidence. (5) Sacred theology isindependent of philosophy, in that itsprinciples are truths of faith, where¬as philosophical principles are truthsof reason, but this does not mean thattheology can be speculatively de¬veloped without reason serving faith.(6) There can be no conflict betweenphilosophical and theological truths,although theologians may correct theerrors of philosophers who try to an¬swer questions beyond the compe¬tence of natural reason, just as phil¬osophers can correct the errors oftheologians who violate the auton¬omy of reason. (7) Sacred theologyis superior to philosophy, both theo¬retically and practically: theoretical¬ly, because it is more perfect knowl¬edge of God and His creatures; prac¬tically, because moral philosophy isinsufficient to direct man to God ashis last end. (8) Just as there are nosystems of philosophy, but only phil¬osophical knowledge less or more ade¬quately possessed by different men, sothere is only one true religion, less ormore adequately embodied in the ex¬isting diversity of creeds.These eight propositions, like tho.seconcerning philosophy, are far fromexhaustive. They are intended simp¬ly as a device to bring professionalpositivism—or shall I call it “negativ¬ism”?—out into the open. Those whoclaim to respect the distinct place ofreligion in modern culture, but refu.seto grant that religion rests upon su¬pernatural knowledge, or that it issuperior to both philosophy and sci¬ence, either know not what they sayor are guilty of profound hypocrisy.For unless religion involves superna¬tural knowledge, it has no separatestatus whatsoever; and if it restsupon supernatural knowledge, itmust be accorded the supreme placein the cultural hierarchy. Religioncannot be regarded as just anotheraspect of culture, one among manyhuman occupations, of indifferent im¬portance along with science and art,history and philosophy. Religion iseither the supreme human discipline,because it is God's discipline of man,and as such dominates our culture, orit has no place at all. The mere tol¬eration of religion, which implies in¬difference to or denial of its claims,produces a secularized culture asmuch as militant atheism or Nazi ni¬ hilism. Philosophers who think thatall the significant questions men askare either answerable by reason ornot at all, are naturalists in a senseanalogous to the positivism of sci¬entists who think that science aloneis valid knowledge, and that scienceis enough for the conduct of life. Ifthe professors are positivists, theyare certainly naturalists. They dis¬honor themselves as well as religionby tolerating it when, all equivoca¬tions overcome, they really think thatfaith is superstition, just as they real¬ly think philosophy is opinion. Thekind of positivism and ifaturalismwhich is revealed in all their worksand all their teaching, is at the rootof modern securalized culture.VIII—The Professional PositionNow let me guard against misun¬derstanding once more. The variouspropositions I have enumerated I donot regard as matters of opinion. Ithink their truth can be proved. ButI have not done so. I have done ab¬solutely nothing to show that positiv¬ism and naturalism are false doc¬trines. My only aim was to showthat the professors are, whether rightor wrong, positivists and naturalists.My only hope was that the profes¬sors might examine their consciencein the light of clearly defined issues,and acknowledge plainly what theyreally think. I know, of course, thatthat is too much to hope for. Butsince actions speak louder thanwords, no one who understands theissues will be deceived by what theprofessors have to say, how’ever muchthey fool themselves. The professor¬ial reaction to the proposals of Mr.Hutchins, the professorial conduct ofthis very Conference, give the lie toprofessional speech, the polite dis¬course, the insulting tolerance, whichconceals the dismissal of philosophyas opinion and religion as supersti-tution behind expressions of speciousrespect.IX—Medieval and ModernCultureThe central problem of mediaevalculture was the relation of faith andreason, religion and philosophy, su¬pernatural and natural knowledge.The so-called mediaeval synthesis, thecultural haiTnony and unity of themediaeval world, depended on the so¬lution of that problem. It was notsolved by conferences, although in themiddle ages something much betterthan conferences of this sort tookplace: patient, honest, forthright,hard-thinking discussion. Centuries ofearnest disputation, despised by nlod-ern professors as logic-chopping andwordy dialectic, prepared the way, be¬cause in every case the disputantswere seeking to agree about the truth,not to maintain their individuality byholding to a difference of opinion.When, after such preparation, thetime was ripe, two men solved theproblem by sheer intellectual masteryof every I’elevant truth: Moses Maim-onides solved it for the Jewish com¬munity, and St. Thomas Aquinas forthe Christian world. That later Jewsand Christians did not sustain the so¬lution, or even repudiated it, w'as partof the cultural tragedy which themodern era went through at itsbirth.The central problem of modernculture is more complicated, andmuch more difficult, than the medi¬aeval, because in our times sciencehas become a distinct and importantenterprise, both theoretically andpractically. The modern culture, willbe achieved only when all the good¬ness of science can be praised with¬out sacrificing any of the goodness inphilosophy and religion, only whenthe truths of philosophy and religioncan be integrally retained withoutlosing any of the genuine advancesin knowledge or production that sci¬ence has contributed. The modernsynthesis must necessarily include themediaevel solution, but it can do soonly by carrying the mediaeval prin¬ciples to a higher level of compre¬hension. In order that every cultur¬al good shall be preserved to thefullness of its own unique value, eachmust be recognized precisely forwhat it is, and according to its dis¬tinctive character it must be orderedto the others. Since in the world ofvalues, there is no order without hier¬archy, science, philosophy and religioncan never be harmonized so long, asthey are all asked to lie down to¬gether, but only when each is calledupon to perform its proper function,whether that be to serve or to rule.The time is obviously not yet ripefor a modern solution. There are notenough scientists who understand thetruths of philosophy and religion, notenough philosophers and men of faithwho are at home in the domain ofscience. Much work by representa¬tives of all three disciplines is requir¬ed to prepare the way for the modern analogue of Maimonides or Aquinas,perhaps even centuries of patient dis¬cussion and incisive disputation. ThisConference might have been an occa¬sion for such work. That it was calledat all indicates a vague realization ofthe task to be understaken. But if Iam right about the professorial mind—and I look to the actual proceedingsof this Conference for confirmation—there will be no discussion of funda¬mental issues, nor even a formulationof them. The members of this Con¬ference are not cooperatively seekingto agree about the truth, through thepainful ordeal of intellectual debate.Each is content to express his ownopinions, and to indulge everyone elsein the opportunity for similar self-expression.X—The Present CrisisThe various propositions I haveenumerated are either true or false.Each, therefore, can be regarded asconstituting a problem, a two-sidedissue at least. Should it not be thebusiness of this Conference to take upsuch problems in a definite order, andto direct all its intellectual energiesto their solution? If a group of mendo not come together because theyhave common problems, and ultimate¬ly seek to reach common answers,there is no more community amongthem than there is in a modern uni¬versity, or in modern culture itself.As I have already said, the failure ofthis Conference to do the only workwhich justifies its existence, perfectlysymbolizes the absence of culturalcommunity in the modern world;worse than that, it justifies the mostextreme pessimism about an impend¬ing catastrophe, for until the profes¬sors and their culture are liquidated,the resolution of modern problems—aresolution which history demands shallbe made—will not even begin. Thetower of Babel ive are hiilding {mHtesanother flood.The failure of this Conference isdue not only to the fact that the pro¬fessors are, for the most part, posi¬tivists; but even more so to theiravoidance of what is demanded forfruitful intellectual procedure. Un¬like the mediaeval man of learning,the modern professor wiU not subjecthimself to the rigors of public dispu¬tation. He emasculates discussion bytreating it as an exchange of opinions,in which no one gains or loses becauseeveryone keeps his own. He is indo¬cile in the sense that, beyond the fieldof science, he cannot be instructed,because he acknowledges no ignorance.Hence anyone who would try to in¬struct him about philosophical or re¬ligious truths w’ould be regarded asauthoritarian, as trying to impo.se adoctrine. He is scandalized by thevery notion of a commonly sharedtruth for all men. Even though suchtruth can be attained only by the freeactivity of each mind, the fact thatno mind is free to reject the truthseems like an infringement upon hissacred liberties. What he means bytruth in science and by agreementamong scientists permits him to talkas if he were a truth-seeker and will¬ing to agree; but that is because thecontingent and tentative character ofscientific knowledge so perfectly fitsthe egoism, the individualism, the lib¬ertinism, of the modern mind. Thegreater necessity and finality of truthin philosophy and religion oblige amind in ways it will not suffer. Onfundamental questions, which meansall the questions beyond the scope ofscience, he wishes to keep a thorough¬ly open mind forever; he wishes nei¬ther to be convinced of anything norto convince anyone. Hence he wouldnot participate in a conference whichrequired everyone to agree upon thefundamental questions to be answered,and measured its success by the de¬gree to which such answers were com¬monly achieved as a result of the mostpatient discussion.XI—The Roots of Democracy1 have so far pointed out the signifi¬cance of this Conference for the stateof our culture, and the doom its fore¬bodes. In conclusion, I wish to indi¬cate briefly the bearing of my anal¬ysis upon the crisis of Democracy. Letme say at once that I hold Democracyto be the greatest political good, themost perfect form of political com¬munity; and I hold this not as a mat¬ter of fine feeling or local opinion, butbecause I think it is a conclusionwhich can be demonstra*^“d in termsof the truths of moral and politicalphilosophy. Now, what can positivistssay about such a demonstration? Ob¬viously, they must repudiate it. Out¬side the sphere of science nothing canbe demonstrated, and the propositionthat Democracy is the best politicalorder certainly lies outside the sphereof science. What is neither self-evi¬dent nor demonstrable must be anopinion, which attracts or repels usemotionally. Anyone who denies thatphilosophy is knowledge denies, ofcourse, the self-evidence of moral prin¬ ciples and the validity of moral dem¬onstrations. Hence the professors canbe for Demcoracy only because theylike it, not because they know' it isright. They talk a great deal aboutnatural rights and the dignity of man,but this is loose and irresponsible talk,in which they lightly indulge becausethey do not mind contradicting them¬selves. There are no natural rights ifthere is no natural moral law, whichis bindirvg upon all men everywhere inthe same way. Man has no dignity ifhe is not a rational animal, essentiallydistinct from the brutes by reason ofthe spintual dimension of his being.This should be enough to make clearthat positivists are forced to deny therights and dignity of man, or holdsuch views only as prejudice, ration¬ally no better than Hitler’s prejudicesto the contrary. But to reinforce thepoint that the profes.sors have nogrounds for any of their fine feelings,let me add that the same facts whichwarrant man’s dignity as an end tobe served by the state also imply thatman has an immortal soul, and a des¬tiny beyond the temporal order. Inshort, one cannot have reasons foraffirming Democracy and at the sametime deny the truths of philosophyand religion.Of course, the sort of democracy towhich the professors are sentimen¬tally attached can not be demon-.strably approved, for theirs is an es¬sentially false conception. The socialorder they would like to preserve isthe anarchic individualism, .the cor¬rupt liberalism, which is the mostvicious caricature of Democracy. Ob¬jecting to any inequalities in value,objecting to any infringement of ab¬solute individual liberty by loyaltiesand obligations to superior goods, they'want a democracy w'ithout hierarchyand without authority. In short, theywant chaos, not order, a society inwhich everyone will be as free as ifhe live<l alone, a community in whichcommon bonds will not bind the in¬dividual at all. Even when they speakenthusiastically about this false ideal,the profes.sors seldom claim that theyhave rational grounds for defense.The very fact that they so frequentlyrefer to democracy, not as governmentor as a political order, but as a wayof life, reveals them as exponents of afalse religion. This religion of de¬mocracy is no better than the religionof fascism. One is the idolatry ofindividual liberty as the other is theworship of collective might.XII—Democracy and ModernCultureOne of the greatest achievements ofthe modern world is the discovery ofthe moral and political reasons for thedemocratic ideal, as well as actual ex-l)erimentation in the field of demo¬cratic processes. But though it be inthis sense a child of modern times,Democracy will not be fully achieveduntil mwlern culture is radically re¬formed. Science contributes nothing oi.ufrui/;y ofDemocracy. Without the truths ofphilosophy and religion, Democracuhas no rational foundation. In Amer¬ica at present it is at best a cult alocal prejudice, a traditional persua¬sion. Today it is challenged by othercults which seem to have more mightand no less right, so far as Americariability to defend democracy rationallyis concerned. ^For all these reasons I say we havemore to fear from our professors thanfrom Hitler. It is they who have madeAmerican education what it is, bothin content and method: in content, anindoctrination of positivism and nat¬uralism; in method, an exhibition ,.fanarchic individualism masqueradingas the democratic manner. WhetherHitler wins or not, the culture whiehis formed by such education cannotsupport w'hat democracy we haveagainst interior decay.If I dared to raise my voice a.s didthe prophets in ancient Israel, I wouMask whether the tyrants of today arenot like the Babylonian and .4ssyriankings—instruments of Divine justice,chastening a people who had departedfrom the w'ay of truth. In the in.scrutable Providence of God, and ac¬cording to the nature of man, a civili-zation may sometimes reach a rotten-ne.ss which only fire can expunge andcleanse. If the Babylonians and .As¬syrians were destroyers, they werealso deliverers. Through them, theprophets realized, God purified Hispeople. Seeing the hopelessness ofworking peaceful reforms among apeople who had shut their eyes andhardened their hearts, the prophetsalmost prayed for such deliverance,through the darkness of destruction,to the light of a better day. So, per¬haps, the Hitlers in the world today-are preparing the agony throughwhich our culture shall Ik> reborn.Certainly if it is part of the Divineplan to bless man's temporal civiliza¬tion with the goodness of Democracy,that civilization must be rectified. Itis probably not from Hitler, but fromthe professors, that w’e shall ulti¬mately be saved.AdierNihilists allThe Illogical LogicianMortimer J. Adler, in an effort to achieve rhetorical excellence has over¬stepped the bounds of logic.This statement is made in criticism of his address to the Conference onScience, Philosophy and Religion recently reprinted in the Monitor, an officialCatholic newspaper.The editors of the Daily Maroon are not well enough qualified as theologians or metaphysicans to attempt an analysis of the eight propositions whichMr. Adler says must either be affirmed or denied for both religion and philos¬ophy.But we read with incomprehension at fir.st, and then with resentment hi.sburning accusations that “democracy has much more to fear from the meni-tality of its teachers than from the nihilism of Hitler” and his vehementstatement that it is futile to expect the professors to change their minds onwhat values there must be in an ordered culture.Historically FalseThe first, and the most immediately important of his statements is, wcbelieve, historically false.It is not the “mentality” of our teachers that has made necessary war inso many countries, and immense armaments in our own. Hitler’s “nihilism”is an aggressive, brutal effort to dominate the world by force. The mentalityof our teachers, even of Dewey’s ilk, Mr. Adler, would not cause them to actin so dangerous a fashion.Secondly, and of this we are certain, Mr. Adler seems to us to be illogicalwhen he says that it is futile to try to change the minds of the professors.It is well known that he thinks man is a rational animal. It does not takevery deep or penetrating analysis to see that if man is rational, he shouldbe able to be convinced by arguments of reason. Professors, (and we thinkdespite his obvious prejudices against them, Mr. Adler would be forced toagree with us here) are the most rational of men. So if Mr. Adler werepatient enough to iterate and reiterate reasonably the arguments for hi.-'beliefs and if they were reasonable arguments culminating in a series ofdemonstrable truths it would seem that ultimately they would gain ad¬herents.One of two conclusionsWe are forced to draw one of two conclusions, then. The first is man isnot a rational animal. If such is the case, then all of Mr. Adler’s argumentis meaningless, because it proceeds from the basic and fundamental assump¬tion, that men, (particularly himself and Mr. Hutchins) can analyse reason¬ably, and by the use of their reason, arrive at the truth.The only other conclusion to draw is that the professors can be convincedof the rectitude of Mr. Adler’s ideas, if the ideas are right. That they havenot been convinced so far must be attributed to the fact that either his view.shave not been broadcast enough among the teachers, that he has not beenable to present them convincingly, or that he has not allowed them to beabsorbed, or perhaps even that they are not true.Too Impatient.Actually we think that there is a great deal of truth iiv what Mr. Adlersays. But we must adopt the somewhat incongruous position of admonishingan older man to be more temperate, not to be so impatient.We think that many of his rash statments were made for rhetorical effect.But they were dangerous statements, and we must take issue with them.(Reprinted from the Daily Maroon, Oct. 29, 'kO)THE DAILY MAROON, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1940 Page FiveABSOLUTISM AND DEMOCRACYBy QUINCY WRIGHTQuincy Wright is professor ofInternational Relations at theUniversity of Chicago, and anadmitted “positivist.”The novelty of Mr. Adler’s doctrinelies in its association of democracywith absolutism. Mr. Adler regardstheology as superior to philosophy,which in turn is superior to science.He asserts that theology and philoso¬phy rest on certain necessary truths,necessary because they are disclosedby revelation or found to be self-evi¬dent by introspection. Science, in¬cluding the science of government, hesays, must observe these truths.This is familiar doctrine. It wasthe doctrine used to justify the divineright of kings. Mr. Adler, however,finds that self-evident truths supportdemocracy. Therefore, he supports notthe divine right of kings but the di¬vine right of the people.This also has a familiar sound. It isin the Declaration of Independence.There is, however, a difference.The divine right of kings was basedon unity of church and state. Theking must apply in government theabsolute truths which he knew in¬stinctively because of the divine sanc¬tion of his authority. The divine rightof the people, on the other hand, hasusually been based on the separationof church and state. The people gov¬ern in their collective capacity in ac¬cord with public opinion, but in thatcapacity they must tolerate the privi¬lege of every person to have whatreligious beliefs he pleases.These prescriptions of democracyhave not always been accepted. Dem¬ocrats no less than royalists havesought to rule by absolute truths, butit did not work either in PuritanEngland or in Puritan New England.It has been found that governmentmust rely either upon consent of thegoverned or upon coercion of the gov¬erned. Governments^ have not. beeoable to gain everyone’s consent to'anybrand of absolute truth, although theyhave been able to gain general con¬sent to many relative truths. Peoplehave been willing to consent to abideby laws in accord with current opin¬ion as a useful expedient, provided thelaws are not regarded as absolutetruths, so that those who do not likethem may have the hope of eventuallychanging them. When, however, lawshave been treated as dogma, peoplehave resisted, and coercion has be¬come necessary.Thus, government by consent hasnot, in experience, been governmentby the logical application of anytruths either revealed or self-evident,but by the prevailing opinion of themoment. It has allowed every manto have his own private domain of ab->;olute truth provided he kept it pri¬vate. It has made the separation ofthe .secular and the spiritual realm,.stated in the first Article of the Unit¬ed States Constitution and supportedby the biblical injunction about “ren¬dering unto Caesar,’’ the first rule ofdemocracy. In short, it has applied the(t jWHteriori method of science toworldly affairs, including government,leaving the a priori method of religionto the individual’s subjective life.This practice of democracy is arepudiation of Mr. Adler’s hierarchy.It is a treatment of theology and sci¬ence as equal, each within its sphere.If I understand him correctly, Mr.Adler regards philosophy as the in¬strument by which theology governsscience. To those who consider religionand science as each sovereign in dif¬ferent fields, philosophy is the instru¬ment which effects a reconciliation. Itis the instrument by which menchange their beliefs to conform to con¬ditions that are too stubborn to re-si.st, and by which they ceaselessly tryto change the less recalcitrant condi¬tions to conform to their beliefs. Ev¬ery personality and every group hasits philosophy. Some lean to thepragmatic, others to the dogmatic, butin a democracy they must all be tol¬erant, and respect the laws acceptedby the existing public opinion, in theirefforts to realize their beliefs.Democracy thus interpreted hasbeen far from perfect, but as com¬pared with other forms of governmentmany consider that it has been justi¬fied by' experience. Some think ithas not. Mr. Adler, however, as Iunderstand him, denies that the testof experience is a suitable one to ap¬ply. He criticizes “the professors,’’not because they interpret experi- Wrightence wrongly, but because they re¬gard experience as a valid test. Thatis what he seems to mean when he calls them “positivists.’’It may be that a civilization couldbe created on the basis of absolutetruth. The Catholic Church tried toapply dogma to secular affairs in theMiddle Ages and found the Inquisi¬tion and the stake necessary. Stalinhas tried to govern according to thedogmas of Karl Marx and has foundthe G.P.U. and the firing squad nec¬essary. Hitler is trying to govern theworld by the dogma of the' divineright of the “Aryans.” He has foundthe concentration camp, the Gestapoand a world war necessary. The Pur¬itans of New England tried to governaccording to the dogmas of Calvinand found it necessary to exile RogerWilliams and to hang Quakers. Maybegovernment based on absolute truthcan be made to yield different results.Maybe some absolute truths are betterthan others. I am ready to admit thatexperience can give no absolute an¬swer. There are, however, many menwho are ready to stake their lives indefense of the relative truth, whichhas been taught by the experience ofso much blood and persecution in thepast, that a government is most suc¬ cessful which rests not on dogma buton opinion. Such government is aconsequence of the application of sci¬entific method to worldly affairs.A similar argument can, I think,be made for dealing with economic,technological, medical, legal and oth¬er affairs concerning social behaviorby scientific method. These and thepure sciences themselves are thethings taught in most of the depart¬ments of a university. It is for thisreason that the professors are gen¬erally “positivists,” in the sense thatthey are seeking what relative truthsthey can find by the application ofscientific method.Mr. Adler appears to doubt wheth¬er a government of opinion can en¬list the loyalty necessary to main¬tain itself in troublous times. No one,he thinks, will make the necessarysacrifices for a postulate, but onlyfor an axiom. It is my opinion, whichis, I think, supported by considerableevidence, though perhaps it cannot bededuced from any gelf-evident truth,that men fight for neither postulatesnor axioms, but for beliefs, and that beliefs have arisen from experienceas well as from preconceptions. Thereare men who can see a giraffe andadmit its existence, even though theyare unable to deduce it from theirprevious idea of an animal. There arealso men who can compare two socie¬ties and decide that one is better thanthe other, even though they cannotjustify their decision by deductionfrom any self-evident truth. Such ob¬servations and evaluations provide thedata from which men formulate thehypotheses which they believe, fromwhich they argue, and upon whichthey act. These hypotheses can neverbe more than relative truths.There is little to w’arrant the ex¬pectation that everyone in any societywill ever believe precisely the same.Perhaps that is fortunate. If thewhole of a society knew the absolutetruth, the world might prove a dullplace. Disagreements about relativetruths are what give life to a societyand the possibility of progress. Ex¬perience has taught that such disa¬greements need not lead to war. It isthe effort to suppress them that isdangerous.God And Professor Adler And LogicBy FRANK H. KNIGHTFrank H. Knight, venerableand eminent economist, is a pro¬fessor at the University of Chi¬cago.Inasmuch as Professor MortimerAdler’s address entitled “God and theProfessors” has been published andto some extent discussed in our uni¬versity community, it would seem ap¬propriate for some one to point outthe issues which are raised. For thereare real issues; Mr. Adler’s paper isnot vte-rely what it is primarily andprima facie, an exhibition of that ex¬hibitionism and opinionatedness ofwhich he accuses other professors.Even this accusation, it may be noted,raises an issue which deserves atten¬tion. There is much truth in it; andthe fact is important, for educationand for civilization. Mr. Adler hasput his finger on a kind of occupa¬tional disease, and sin. Professorsshould realize the peculiar danger andtemptation of their walk in life, andbe on guard, as far as possible. To besure, the sin-sickness in question can¬not be entirely avoided, unless thecalling itself, and virtually all expres¬sive utterance, is discontinued; forone becomes guilty, more or less, inopening his mouth in the class-room,or especially in putting pen to paper—the present instance not excepted.But an effort may be made to min¬imize it, and the suggestion should betaken to heart by all professors, andall teachers, speakers, and writers.But there is a deeper and far moreimportant issue, in the nature of logicand argumentation, of philosophy andof truth. In his paper, Mr. Adler isprimarily concerned to attack a par¬ticular school of philosophy. Positiv¬ism. He does not exaggerate the “er¬ror,” of Positivism. But he does notmake it clear what the error is, andthere are two other schools of thoughtengaged in competition for a publicfollowing in the culture of today, towhich similar criticisms apply, andone of them is that to which Mr. Ad¬ler himself belongs. The other twoschools are Pragmatism, and Scholas¬tic or Rationalistic Absolutism. Thesimilarity lies in the fact that allthree positions rest upon much thesame familiar logical fallacy.The central tenet of Positivism, stat¬ed in homely language, is “we standfor facts.” This credo is a clear andquite effective petitio principii, almostenough to stop all opposition in itstracks. For one can hardly argueagainst the facts; and if an opponentraises the actual issue, as to what isa fact, and whether every questionreduces to a matter of fact, he can bereadily and plausibly accused of ver¬bal evasion—just as Mr. Adler ac¬cuses the positivists themselves. Themode of formulating the issue hasplaced potential opposition at such adisadvantage that its case is renderednearly hopeless; and this is ninety-nine per cent of “logic,” the art ofdebate.The case of Pragmatism is verysimilar. Its credo is, “We stand for results,” and for such an interpreta¬tion of any situation, and such treat¬ment of it, as will best accomplish the*end in view. It is about as hopelessto argue for destructiveness or fu¬tility as to argue for falsehood, andabout as useless to raise the question,what is the “real” end, or whetherthe sole function of intelligence isthat of finding correct procedures forrealizing concrete ends. Such an an¬swer is rather easily disposed of,again, as evasion or quibbling; andthe “logic” of Pragmatism is also anexcellent onei—from the “pragmatic”point of view, which is really sharedby all three schools.Finally, there is Mr. Adler’s owntype of philosophy, for which “Scho¬lasticism,” is an admissible shortdesignation. Its credo is “We believein God,” and, anyone who disagreeswith us denies God. Mr. Adler makesthis position especial!’ clear and em¬phatic by his challenging assertionthat he can prove the existence ofGod. Undoubtedly he can—given hisown definitions of (a) God, (b) exist¬ence, . nd (c) proof. And—with thesame proviso—he can as easily provethe other half of his position, thatany disagreement with him on anyquestion is a denial of the existence ofGod. (He could probably do betterstill; a moderately skilful dialecticiancould probably grant an opponent one,or even two, of these definitions andstill confound him utterly.) Now thisthird “logic,” or technique of argu¬mentation is beyond question and byfar the best of all; for it is not onlya superb petitio principii but in addi¬tion to the ultimate argnmentum adhominem, one which virtually admitsof no response at all. For any oppo¬nent who dares to suggest that aquestion might be raised as to themeaning of “God”, or of the term“existence” used in connection withGod, or of the term “pi'oof” used inconnection with the existence of God,practically stands self-convicted, notmerely of intellectual evasion andquibbling, of the grossest variety, butalso of the abominable sin of heresy.And the way in which heretics are tobe treated is, again, not open to ques¬tion; to question it is to be guilty ofheresy itself. Heretics are to be an¬swered with deeds, not words. (Scho¬lasticism is in fact the true Pragma¬tism, the logic of effective action, andmight be called the “Higher Pragma¬tism.”) The Holy Thomas of Aquino(a very favorite authority with Mr.Adler) said: “For it is a much heav¬ier offense to corrupt the faith,whereby the life of the soul is sus¬tained, than to tamper with the coin¬age, which is an aid to the temporallife. Hence if coiners or other male¬factors are at once handed over bysecular princes to a just death, muchmore may heretics, immediately theyare convicted of heresy, be not onlyexcommunicated, but also justly doneto die.” (Translation of J. Rickaby,S.J., 2a, 2ae, qu 11, art 3; here quotedfrom D. G. Ritchie, Natural Rights,p. 161.) As everyone knows, correctform, under “Christian” auspices, re¬quires that the execution be performed“without the shedding of blood,” which means by burning alive. Surely nomore cogent “argument” has been in¬vented, or is likely to be.What is really important, especiallyfor education, is that all three ofthese schools of thought make theirappeal in the same way, by the sametype of fallacy. Looking beyond log¬ical textbook classifications, the realfallacy, (which lies at the bottom ofsystem-building in philosophy in gen¬eral) is that of over-simplification, orsimplisme. It is the pretense, begin¬ning with self-deception, of havingfound some word or formula whichwill “automatically” solve the seriousproblems of life, of knowing, under¬standing, appreciating, and acting. Ifthere is one thing in particular whicheducation—even not very “high” edu¬cation—should strive to the uttermostto do, it is to teach students, as earlyin life as possible, that there is nosuch word or formula, and that thisromantic craving, and all catering toit, must be resisted and banished fromthought, as the first condition prereq¬uisite to any sound intellectual andmoral life. The three philosophiesmentioned are essentially the threepossible, or at least the most import¬ant, antitheses to a truly rational bas¬is of life; and, their pi’oponents are itsthree main sets of enemies, the real“anti-intellectuals.” And that is theirchief practical significance. And nowabide Positivism, Pragmatism, andScholasticism, these three; but theworst of these is Scholasticism. It ison a level with the other positions ormethods in philosophical naivety, andsurpas.«:es them in its vicious implica¬tions for -action. (As suggested, areally consistent pragmatism mightbe identical with it, as the most “ef¬fective”; Positivism is not likely tobe taken very seriously apart fromverbal disputation, since its centralprinciple is contradicted by any ac¬tion, including argumentation itself).Especially should youth be warnedagainst the notion that solutions forreal problems can be deduced by “for¬mal logic” from any plausible gen¬eralization as a major premise, suchas Mr. Adler’s favorite, that “man isa rational being.” Such premises are“tnie,” but not in a sense which ex¬cludes the truth of divergent and evenformally contradictory statementssupporting very different conclusions.In this case, for example, there wouldbe no point, no real sense, in thestatement that man is rational if hewei'e not also non-rational and irra¬tional in much of this thinking and ac¬tion. (Perfect rationality would in¬deed i*educe to mechanism and con¬tradict itself.) And similarly as toman’s social and moral nature; he isdistinguished from inert natural ob¬jects as much by being anti-social andimmoral. Again, general principlesare accepted as axiomatic to a degreeroughly proportional to their abstract¬ness and lack of content. We all be¬lieve in Truth, Beauty and Goodness(even Positivists, when not momen¬tarily trying to prove a theory to thecontrary); and (since we live in aJewish-Christian civilization) we all iaccept the principles of Christianity 'or Judaism, which mean exactly asmuch. Such generalities have littlesignificance for the guidance of thesincere man himself, and virtuallynone in telling him what he shouldexpect of anyone else. It is of the es¬sence of the position of the Church ofS. Thomas that the revealed truthscall for continuous interpretation byan inspired authority; and we allknow that no law can be made whichwill not prove ambiguous in applica¬tion to cases, and call for authorita¬tive interpretation if it is to func¬tion.What, then, is the true philosophy?it will be natural to ask, especially forthe earnest young student. The onlygeneral answer is that true philos¬ophy is good sense. But what is themark or test by which one may knowgood sense? There is none. There arenumerous tests for error, which havemuch value when used intelligently,i.e., with good sense, and not mechan¬ically; but there is no self-testing orself-applying test for the truth. Truthis a matter of judgment, ultimately,and accurately speaking, a matter oftaste. That is, it is a matter of goodtaste; and no one, not even a philos¬opher, of any school, should be sostupid as to think this means that oneopinion is as good as another. As tohow to recognize, or find, truth, orgood sense, there are two positiveanswers. The first is that every one,every human being capable of con¬sidering the question, is, and must be,his own judge, just so far as he is afree mind. He must decide on his ownresponsibility, at his own peril, usingsuch tests and following such councilas his own judgment dictates. Theother answer is that truth is deter¬mined by law and the arbitrary au¬thority of men in power. All sociallife, indeed any possible human life,embodies some combination and com¬promise between these two methodsof determining what is truth. Thegreat issue in the world, and espe¬cially our own country, today, cen¬ters in a tendency, a movement anda struggle to shift the point of com¬promise away from individual free¬dom and responsibility far in the di¬rection of authority and force. In thisconnection, the import of Scholasti¬cism is obvious; that is why it is aserious issue.Page Six THE DAILY MAROON, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1940I CAN 'T HEAR MYSELF THINKBy MILTON S. MAYERMilton Mayer is the kind ofperson who always speaks ofhimself in the third person. Heis an egotist, a perpetual con¬scientious objector, and a fluentwriter. He works for the Uni¬versity, but has won notorietyas a frequent contributor to per¬iodicals, among them the NewRepublic, the Atlantic Monthly,Harpers’, and the Saturday Eve¬ning Post. In the University’srecords, he is an undergraduateon permanent probation—whichmeans he w^as kicked out ofschool.Mortimer Adler has attacked theprofessors. Sidney Hook has attackedProfessor Adler a»id God. MalcolmSharp has attacked President Hutch¬ins and the Catholic Church.Now I am going to attack Morti¬mer, Sidney, and Malcolm. I am go¬ing to attack them because the peo¬ple and institutions they attack areall dear to me. The professors aremy friends. Mortimer is my benefac¬tor to the extent of a pair of pantshe gave me last summer when myown sprang a seam in New York.God is my Maker. President Hutchinsis my employer. And the CatholicChurch is composed of my brothers inthe brotherhood of man.Nobody can attack my friends, mybenefactors, my maker, my employer,and my brothers, and get away withit.I am also going to attack RonaldCrane, who, though he doesn’t knowit, has attacked philosophy; FrankKnight, who, though he doesn’t knowit, has attacked knowledge; am’Quincy Wright, who, though hedoesn’t know it, has attacked democ¬racy. These three boys all enteredthe ring so groggy, swung so wildly,and tried so hard to hit above the foulline, that they may be led gentlyaway to make room for the dirtyfighters, Mortimer, Sidney, and Mal¬colm.I am as tolerant as the next fellowand considerably more tolerant thanthe last three fellows mentioned. Butthe fascist is in all of us, and hereit comes out of me. I don’t care howangry men may get as long as theiranger is motivated by what St. Thom¬as calls right desire. But when theiranger is motivated by what I supposeSt. Thomas calls wrong desire (Ihaven’t got that far in the book yet),they need to be slapped down. Whenmen sneer, as Mortimer, Sidney, andMalcolm do passim, they are motivat¬ed by wrong desire, and all three ofthem would be thrown out of anydecent saloon for less.And I am the boy to slap themdown. I know all about Mortimer andMalcolm. I have seen them with theirhair down. They, of course, know allabout me, but this is a one way ride.As for Sidney, Sidney and I have be¬longed to a number of Committeestogether down *he years, and I could,by merely reciting the list, show whatmonkeys he and I have been. Thatwould be rough on Sidney.Mortimer and Sidney are guilty, inthis instance, of disorderly conduct,breach of peace, slander, and incite¬ment to riot. They are habitual andincorrigible offenders and should havebeen placed in protective custody longago. This is Malcolm’s first offense,but it contains all the counts allegedagainst the others and some more be¬sides. The three of them can allplead the extenuating circumstance ofhysteria, but hysteria has been knownto infect entire civilizations. Ours ishysterical enough right now.Let’s take Mortimer apart first, ashe was what St. Thomas would callthe efficient cause.Mortimer’s rhetoric in God and theProfessors is the worst I have everset eyes to. Rhetoric is the art ofpersuading men without the use orthreat of force. Men will not be per¬suaded by contempt and abuse. Mor¬timer’s address was contemptuous andabusive. He said, “I know I have notproved the truth of any of the thesesmentioned, nor have I proved the fal¬sity of their contraries. With thetime at my disposal that would be im¬possible to do under any circum¬stances; and even with much moretime I would not try with this audi¬ence.” Again, “The members of thisConference are not cooperatively seek¬ing to agree with the truth.” Again,“The social order they (the profes¬sors) would like to preserve is theanarchic individualism, the corruptliberalism, which is the most viciouscaricature of Democracy.” And though he said at one casualpoint that he was speaking only of“the vast majority,” he used the term“the professors” all the way through,and he used it with emphasis. Hemay have been using it analogically,but to the professors it sounded like“the professors.”Men will not be talked to that way.It does not matter whether Mortimerwas right or wrong. Men will not betalked to that way. Mr. Roosevelt al¬ways says, “You know and I know,”whether or not you know. Mr. Roose¬velt is a rhetorician. Mr. Hutchinssays, “H’c are a faithless generation,”not “You are a faithless generation.”Mr. Hutchins is a rhetorician. Morti¬mer is a lug.Mortimer really is a lug. He tellsthe professoi’s that “the followingpropositions must be affirmed.” Oh,they must, must they? And who saysso? Adler? And who is Adler? And soon. What Mortimer meant was the fol¬lowing propositions must be affirmedif this or that is to be agreed upon ordone. But Mortimer, as my Pa usedto say of me, was feeling entirely toobig for his britches to deliver any¬thing but straight imperatives. ThenMortimer went on to state the propo¬sitions which must be affirmed, in¬cluding the violent proposition that“there is only one true religion, lessor more adequately embodied in thediversity of creeds.”Whether his propositions were rightor wrong, his rhetoric was frightful.Failing to point out that these weremerely propositions, propositions stat¬ed but not explicated, Mortimer sound¬ed as if he were handing down theTablets. At the end of his speech, hesaid, “The various propositions I haveenumerated are either true or false.Each, therefore, can be regarded asconstituting a problem, a two-sidedissue at least. Should it not be thebusiness of this Conference totake up such problems in a definiteorder, and to direct all its intellectualenergies to their solution ? ” Why not ?Why shouldn’t Mortimer suggest anagenda? But the Conference, by thattime, was so mad that it never rea¬lized that Mortimer’s violent propo¬sitions, while they represented hisown views, were not intended to betaken as anything more than propo¬sitions, true or false, each were worthdebating.As to where Mortimer was rightand where he was wrong, that issomething else again. He was rightabout the nihilism of most (not all)of the professors. He was wrong inblaming the nihilism of either some orall of the professors for the collapseof civilization. The professors are es¬sentially effects and only triviallycauses. Here of course, Mortimer wasguilty of the offense of most profes¬sionals; they insist that theirs is themost important activity on earth, andif it is not the best, then it must bethe worst. The positivism of the pro¬fessors is no more responsible for Hit¬ler than Mortimer’s generosity wasfor my needing a new pair of pantsin New York.Mortimer would be right if he saidthat most of the professors must, bytheir exclusive approval of the labora¬tory method, deny both philosophyand theology. Mortimer would beright if he said that the denial ofphilosophy and theology leads men toa position in which democracy’s onlydefense is force. But Mortimer oughtto read St. Thomas and the Gentiles,by Mortimer J. Adler, and find outthat the Faithful must take the Gen¬tiles by the hand, not poke them inthe puss.Professor Jesse Newlon of Teach¬er’s College, for years one of theloudest exponents of philosophicalnihilists in that hotbed of nihilism, hasjust discovered that democracy restson philosophical principles. The restof the scientism boys, seeing whatHitler is doing with good science, areweakening. But Mortimer is goingto do his darndest to keep them fromcoming over.As for God, the professors are likeall the rest of us. They feel just asqueasy about God as our immediateancestors felt about sex. They don’tknow God, they don’t believe in God,they are not interested in God, andthey will shoot the man who says theydon’t know God and don’t believe inGod and are not interested in God.They are uneasy pagans in what isleft of a Christian culture. Theyhave no intention of having religion,much less of reconciling it with sci¬ence. They will stand up like the restof us babbits and sing God BlessAmerica, but if anybody asks themwhat they had ever done for God toearn His blessing, they will ask in¬ dignantly, “Who said anything aboutGod?”Professors, like the rest of us,should be approached gently on thesubject of God, as you would approacha man on the subject of his wife’sdipsomania. But Mortimer rips intothem with the wrath of a prophet,which, I am sorry to say, he may be.As for the one true religion, I willbet you my collection of Willkie but¬tons against your rare old Lithuanianvisa that the professors, like the restof us, will every man-jack of themassert that there is one true God, and,asserting that there is one true God,find it difficult, if not impossible, toprove that there is more than one truereligion. W^hich religion it is, if anyextant, is another question.And that brings us to Sidney andthen Malcolm and the Catholic Church,which worries them because it hap¬pens to be the only going religion inthe country. Whether Sidney or Mal¬colm is the more vicious, I can’t de¬cide. Sidney sticks to the time-honored innuendo. Malcolm comesright out in his white sheet. Sidneyis probably more effective among nicepeople, but you can have both of them.W’hen either of these boys takes overin this country, I am going to get out.Sidney, the prominent professor ofanti-philosophy says that all of Mor¬timer’s propositions are false. If Ihad the time and Sidney wasn’t soexcited, I would sit down and proveto him that by his own logic he wouldhave to agree that if Mortimer’s prop¬ositions are false they are also true.(I would also prove to him that byhis own logic there is no logic.) Sid¬ney says there is no “final and abso¬lute truth.” If there is no final andabsolute truth, there is no final andabsolute falsity. But Sidney can’t,then, “categorically declare” that allof Mortimer’s propositions are false.All of them may be true.Sidney, having discovered that allof Mortimer’s propositions are false,proceeds to discover that some ofthem are “vague empirical generali¬zations on a commonsense level whichcan be better established by the moreprecise methods of science.” Aresome of them true, then? And if itis the method of establishing theirtruth that disturbs Sidney, we will allsit quietly by while Sidney proves anyone of them by precise methods of sci¬ence. After a while, Sidney will de¬cide oh, to hell with it, and then weshall ask him to prove by the precisemethods of science the scientific prop¬osition that the whole is greater thanany of its parts. That will keep himbusy.Sidney is willing to deny philos¬ophy, but he won’t even talk aboutreligion. He says, “I come now toMr. Adler’s theological propositions,”but he never does. “The primary ques¬tion,” says Sidney, having quotedMortimer’s proposition that there isonly one true religion, “is to deter¬mine which is the true religion.” DoesSidney thereupon proceed to deter¬mine? Not Sidney. Sidney, seeing theCatholic Church rearing its sinisterhead, proceeds to lay on with somevegetables left over from the late po¬litical campaign.He tips his hand early in his paper.Having asserted that the rise of Hit¬lerism was due to “the conjunction ofeconomic depression, the consequencesof the Treaty of Versailles, the errorsin policy of democratic parties withinGermany and of the democratic gov¬ernments without,” Sidney points outthat at least England and Americaare not making concordats with Hit¬ler and Mussolini “as some anti-positi¬vistic organizations have done.”You know who. The C...c C...h.But Sidney, whose anti-philosophyconsists of empirical determinationsfrom history, is a lousy historian.England and America have made con¬cordats with Hitler and Mussolini—yes, and with Franco and Stalin. And,because they are just as corrupt asthe institutional Catholic Church, nomore and no less, they continued tomake concordats as long as concor¬dats served their own “historical” in¬terests. Sidney not only doesn’t knowtoday’s history; he doesn’t know yes¬terday’s. The Albigensian heresy,which he defends because it was ruth¬lessly suppressed by a vicious Inqui¬sition, consisted of a group of sweetsouls whose liberal convictions com¬pelled them to smother babies. As tothe causes of Hitlerism, those thatSidney cites were caused by othercauses, and those by still other causes.Sidney does not want to pursue thisline lest he find himself, in the end,without a history book.Sidney never mentions the C...c C...h. He extols “our non-parochialintellectual life.” He “suspects” thatMr. Adler has “supernatural knowl¬edge” that answers the question ofwhich is the true religion. He con¬demns medieval culture because “theliquidation of heresy and the Inqui¬sition were integral parts” of it. Youknow and I know, as Mr. Rooseveltwould say, what Sidney is driving atit. And failing to point out the posi¬tive virtues either in Catholicism, theCatholic Church, or Catholics, he suc¬ceeds in driving at it hard.Neither Mortimer nor Sidney triesto prove his case. Malcolm deniesthat he can prove his. “The alert pos¬itivist,” says Malcolm, “is aware thathe can not ‘prove’ his case. He triesto maintain both the attitude and theapproach of the best practitioners ofthe biological sciences. He observes,with the psychiatrists, that the heal¬thy creature tends to desire and oftenachieves an adult condition.”Malcolm can’t prove his case. Sohe says the scientists can’t provetheirs. Malcolm, therefore, is as won¬derful as a scientist, and everybodyknows that scientists are wonderful.But the scientists are not aware thatthey can’t prove their case. If theywere, they would say that the worldis flat and to hell with it. As to whatconstitutes a “healthy creature” or an“adult condition”, Malcolm does notwant to argue; somebody might a.skhim to define a “creature.”Malcolm saves his smoke-ball forhis last paragraph. Let me quote it:“It is time to subject this andrelated matters to a thoroughstudy. Such a study might beginwith an examination of the rela¬tion between the public school ad¬ministration in Chicago—includ¬ing Courtney, Kelly, and McCa-hey—and the Catholic hierarchy.”President Hutchins, my employer,has long maintained that the senti¬mental liberal is a dangerous man.Now I know what he meant. Malcolmhas stuck his neck out in every liberalcause that has come down the pike.Ignoring Mr. Hutchins’ injunctionabout sentimental liberals, I decidedthat Malcolm was a liberal man. Mal¬colm was a man after my own heart.After my own heart is right. Oneof these days Malcolm and I are go¬ing to differ philosophically. In theheat of the argument Malcolm is go¬ing to discover that Jake Arvey, theJew, is behind Courtney, Kelly, andMcCahey. Then he is going to cutmy heart out. Then he is going todiscover that Colonel McCormick, theProtestant, is behind the lot of them.Then he is going to commit hari-kiri,or honorable departure.In the light of that paragraph ofMalcolm’s, I must say that I wouldrather be shot by the Republic SteelCorporation’s Cossacks than be de¬fended by Malcolm. In the first situa¬tion I would know where I stood, orlay. In the second, I would live interror against the day when Malcolmdiscovered Jake Arvey.When I hear Malcolm say that theCatholic Church invented fascism andgave Mussolini all his ideas, and whenI think that this same Malcolm is al¬lowed to teach facts—not principles,but facts—to the little boys in ourLaw School. I despair of the fate ofour University as a leader in the fieldof fact finding. Mussolini was a ren¬egade before he had any ideas, andfascism ruled the whole world, underone name or another long before theCatholic Church hit the deck.To identify Catholic communicantswith Catholic real estate interests isto drive the former into the arms ofthe latter. The hierarchs of the Catho¬lic Church have been no better thanthe hierarchs of the Jewish or Pro¬testant Churches, the Elks, or theLawyers’ Guild. But the hierarchs arenot the holy men. And the high priestsare not the prophets.Men can not act fascistically with¬out denying Christianity. I don’t careif some men or all men or no men actfa.scistically in the name of Christian¬ity. They are not Christians, and thisgoes for dozens of Popes, whom Mal¬colm will meet in Hell if he gets bythe admissions committee. If you aregoing to argue about Christians, youwill have to argue Christianity first,and Mortimer is the only man in thecrowd who so much as says he is will¬ing to. “By their evasions”, says Mor¬timer in one of his lucid moments.'“shall ye know them.”If the knowledge of God disposesmen, including Mortimer, to the loveof God, Mortimer, Sidney, and Mal¬colm, if they would only argue Chris¬tianity, might wind up with religion. Worse things could happen, and havehappened, to all three of them.Let us quit pussyfooting, niyfriends. Let us recognize that there isa menace abroad in the world. Themenace is Mortimer J. Adler, play¬fully proposing that there may besome better reason for men’s lovingeach other than that they are “healthycreatures” in an “adult condition.” ipromise to watch Mortimer closely,and to sound the alarm as soon as Isee any danger of his acquiring a fol¬lowing.As for Ronald, neither I nor anyoneelse can quite make out what Ronaldis trying to say. W’e can see that he ismotivated by right desire, which ismore than we can say of Mortimer,Sidney, and Malcolm. We can see thathe thinks that words are not the sameas things, a point which Aristotlemade, much more lucidly, severalyears back. We can see that heseems to think that several systemsof philosophy can contradict eachother and all be tenable, an argumentwhich, right or wrong, asserts thatthere is no philosophy. But we can'tslap Ronald down for bad rhetoric.His isn’t even rhetoric.Frank and Quincy are late start¬ers. Like Ronald, they are gentle¬men. But, like Ronald, they defyunderstanding. They both hang “ab¬solutism” on Mortimer. Let me as¬sure you that Mortimer is guilty.Mortimer is as guilty of holding ab¬solutely that some things are abso¬lute as Frank and Quincy are of hold¬ing absolutely that all things arerelative.As among Mortimer, Frank andQuincy, I prefer President Hutchins,my employer. President Hutchinsholds that there are such things astruths, and that to say that truths areonly relative is the same as sayingthere are no ti*uths. I can follow himthat far. I can follow him further. Ican follow him when he takes Frank’sposition—that every man is his ownjudge of what is true—and demon¬strates that it leads to anarchy andthence to fascism. I can follow himwhen he takes Quincy’s position—that philosophy reconciles theologyand science—and demonstrates thatphilosophy must therefore be superiorto science.I can follow my employer furtherthan that. It is Mr. Hutchins, thecelebrate<l fascist, who insists thathe will not have a university com¬posed exclusively of either Mortimersor Malcolms and insists on hiring bothof them. It is Mr. Hutchins, thecelebrated liberal, who insists, in themid.st of his modest efforts for socialrevolution, that the social revolutionwill be a moral revolution or it willnot be at all. It is Mr. Hutchins, thecelebrated salesman, who insists onselling the hardest and least profit¬able line of goods on sale in thev/orld today. It is Mr. Hutchins,finally, who saved me, after I hadtrierl them all, from a life like Mor¬timer’s, Sidney’s, and Malcolm’s.Mortimer, Sidney, Malcolm, Ron¬ald, Frank, and Quincy will ail haveto be punished for their offenses.Mortimer’s is the gravest. Mor¬timer opened the floodgates of vitu¬peration and started the rest of theboys on the road to utter nonsense.I find Mortimer guilty of inabilityto communicate with his fellow’-men.I sentence him to spend the restof his life thinking, and enjoin himagainst speaking or writing to any¬body.Malcolm’s offense is next. Malcolmis starting a pogrom.I find Malcolm guilty of bigotry.I sentence him to discover that oneof his grandmothers was a Catholic.Sidney leans toward bigotry, buthis offense is essentially historical.I find him guilty of historical ig¬norance, and sentence him to readnothing but original historical docu¬ments, beginning with the Proceed¬ings of the Inquisition.Ronald, Frank, and Quincy will betried separately, in the Boys’ Court.Ronald is charged with crepitationand Frank and Quincy with crepus-cularity. The court recommendsthat Ronald be sentenced to take Eng¬lish 103. Frank and Quincy are ad¬equately punished already, Frank b\his efforts to prove that economic;'teaches anybody anything but eco¬nomics, Quincy by his efforts to dem¬onstrate that international la"teaches anybody anything but intei-national law.As for me, Mortimer) when bereads this, will swear out areplevin and recover his pants. At*with cold weather setting in.