Yale University - Banner / Pot Pourri Yearbook (New Haven, CT)

Page 21 text:

,,..,............. . YALE BANNER AND POT POURRI . ' AVAVAVA S JAa o X C 3 a z o :d J J O

Page 20 text:

YALE BANNER AND POT POURRI ' avaw.». ' . The Subdivision of the College By Clarence W. Mendell Dean of Yale College IHE quadrangle question is squarely before us — to be reviewed from every angle and all sides. At first glance it aiigbt seem to be largely a mathematical prob- lem: how many small quadrangles of assorted sizes can be j3ut into a large irregular space i But it is a much more complicated matter than that, for it involves the mores of Vale and hence the emotions of Yale men everjnvhere. A generation ago it was a popular tradition at Yale to talk about the democratic stroke oar at Harvard who knew everj man in his boat to speak to except a couple of fellows up in the bow. Eiveryone at Yale felt perfectly sure that democracy was a Yale product. We were con- vinced that we knew intimately and liked every man in our class. At least we would not let the world think otherwise. We smiled too with confident superiority at the Harvard Gold Coast. The} ' had elaborate and exclusive dormitories and they wallowed in luxiuy. We even boasted, I am afraid, of our own lack of baths and felt that it was a sign of one hundred per cent d emocracy. Now it can hardly be doubted that numbers have much to do with democ- racj ' or at least with the form which democracy may take. Kven in the early days I think there was never a desire at Yale to claim the kind of democracy which levels all men to the plane of the lowest. There were vigorous competi- tions and rigid application of the rules of competition. It was never felt that Senior elections were perversive of the spirit of democracy. What Yale did insist on was the equal opportunity of every man and it has always prevented so far as possible the exclusion of any individual or group from the opportu- nities it has to offer. Along with this has gone the attempt to live up to the democratic principle not only in letter but in spirit, to know ones classmates so far as possible, to bring out the best that was in each one. Out of this attempt at social understanding came what was early known as the Yale democracj Unless I misunderstand it the Harvard claim of greater democracy at the same period was based on this reasoning: Every individual has an equal right to follow his own inclinations and to indulge his likes and dislikes. A true democracy will have classes or cliques in great number because that indicates that men are going each his own way and recognizing the right of others to do the same. I suspect that this difference was in large part the result of num- bers. With the large classes at Harvard the aim which Yale recognized would have been impossible of fulfilment. Yale is now larger than Harvard was a generation ago. With entering classes of eight hundred and fifty we cannot hold at all rigidly to the old ideal, at least we cannot hope to attain to it along the same lines as before. If, how- ever, we still believe in our definition of democracj ' and if we still believe in 16

Page 22 text:

s ti ' ' . ' . StZi ry .- .-W- -W ii.- YALE BANNER AND POT POURRI .»a»ava». ' .».».».».»,». ; trying to maintain the spirit of it, we must define a new situation in which it will be possible for us to gain our purpose. The fundamental fact is that Yale College is built at present — from a social point of view — upon the system of classes which was a perfectly ade- quate basis for democratic solidarity when the classes numbered something less than three hinidred each. Now they number about twice that. The result of course is that class solidarity in the old sense at least is almost out of the question, with a resulting tendency toward the establishment of small cliques and away from the much heralded democracy of the older days. On all sides there is sensed a certain weakening of the old bond that held together men of the same class and through the class spirit nourished the spirit of Yale. In one line Yale has a precedent laid down in the last century for at- tempting the solution of this difficulty. The Scientific School set up a sepa- rate college composed of men with certain characteristic interests which were made the basis of segregation. Herein lies one attractive possibility. We might subdivide further, create in Sheff a College of Engineering and a Col- lege of Pure Science; in Yale College after the same fashion, a College of Classical Humanities and a College of Modern Humanities, assigning to one the old Campus, to the other Harkness, and adding new facilities for each. This would undoubtedly add something to the intellectual stimulus within the group. It would also tend to build up groups of approximately the size of the old College. Experience has, however, seemed to show with some conclusiveness that a greater stimulus may be gained by the contact of a greater variety of interests with each other. In the intellectual realm it seems to matter most that men be interested keenly in some field of study and it seems reasonable to believe that this can most readily be brought about in smaller groups than those composed by the present B.A. and Ph.B. divisions. And if this method of subdivision along the lines of interest were extended to include an Honours College the incentive might actually be reduced in the Pass Colleges. I do not say that it would be, but such is the conclusion of the majority to-day. Such also woidd seem to be the conclusion implied in the English system as a whole. At such Universities as Oxford and Cambridge historical fact lies behind the existence of the separate colleges. They grew up independently and are now semi-independent parts of a syntlietic whole. Yale ' s problem to-day is almost the reverse of theirs, namely, how to divide an existing whole into workable parts. When independent colleges join together, or even when a new college grows up within the larger whole, there naturally attaches to each unit a tradition and an esprit which belongs to it and is inseparable from it. When a subdivision is made of an existing whole there is no such inherent element lending individuality to the part. It is really because of this difficulty that the most obvious suggestion is to divide according to the content of the curriculum. If, however, this method be discarded, as for the time being it seems it certainly must be, it is necessary to look into the future to find those growing traditions which will assure the necessary esprit in each particular groujj. The most obvious beginning then, if we are to disregard subjects of study, is to establish housing units which shall be small enough and intimate 18