171
transfers away from the University during the first two years and transfers to it
of juniors and seniors from elsewhere, I suspect that it will be shown that more
men start college at the University of Florida and fail to finish there than at
most any school in the country. The main function of a university is to train
men and women for the higher professions. Society is under no obligation to
support an institution for only a limited number of its citizens to obtain a
general education and who do not prepare themselves to make some contribution in
return, If the General or University College does not actually result in a larger
percentage of young men choosing a profession than would otherwise be the case,
then the State of Florida is under no obligation to support it.
The manner is which the General College was established, however, is enough to
prevent it from ever being placed on a firm foundation. This writer was not in
Florida at the time it was established, but the fact are generally known to all of
the older faculty members. When the general assembly was called in session to
discuss the Genreal College, one old and respected faculty member rose to question
some parts of the program and apparently expected to oppose it. He was ruled out
of order and informed that the University was going to have a General College, regardless
of whether the faculty liked it or not; for the decision had already been made by
the Board of Control. The purpose of the meeting was to inform the general faculty
of a program that had already been adopted. A former member of the Board, R.P. Terry,
who, however, was not a member at the time the program was adopted, states that the
Board reluctantly approved the program only because they were informed that.the
faculty wanted it. In 1945, the state Board of Education was told that the responsibility
for the adoption of the General College belonged to the faculty, which "wanted it." A
member of the faculty whom all men respect for integrity and intellectual honesty said
in my presence, "That's a damn lie." when the news story containing this statement
was shown to him (Dr. James Miller Leake, my superior).
The method of adopting the General College was wrong in principle; therefore, it can
nevea be fundamentally sound, regardless of the good features in the program. When
such methods are used, those responsible become afraid that the truth will be or is
known; they tend to stifle the kind of free.ydiscussion of a program that results in
the correction of errors, mistakes and bad practices. This accounts, in my judgement,
for the rare meetings of the General College faculty. In my four years as a member
of this faculty, 1937 to 1941, there was only one meeting; and then, as I remember,
only one professor dared to rise and ask a question. I am informed that another
meeting was held recently. Academic freedom of a sort exists, yes. Individual
professors may advocate almost any type of change in the social and economic order,
but there was never any opportunity to have free discussion of the General College
in faculty meetings.
My reasons for writing the Board members at length concerning the University are
two-fold. First, I am a native of Florida an an alumnus of the University; and I dare
hope that this letter may assist you gentlemen in some slight degree, in the improvement
of some bad conditions at the institution which has meant so much to me. In the second
place, frankly, I wish to place on record the reasons why I left my chosen profession
of teaching at my own university. It would have been financially profitable if I
had "hushed up" and accepted things as they were. But I have always considered it
to be my duty to do something to correct them. The dean who appeared before you in
reference to my criticism of nepotism, refused to listen to my criticism of the