The Citadel of Learning

The Citadel of Learning is neither particularly original nor notably well argued. Two of the three essays are from speeches given last year when the German ambassador was apparently more concerned with tanks than textbooks. They attempt in a rather general way to reassert the virtues of independent research and rigorous instruction. The third essay is written especially for the book, but it cannot be accused of originality, since it consists almost entirely of rehabilitated Conant programs, most of which have been better stated elsewhere.

The title essay is a superb example of intellectual propaganda in that it is aimed at convincing an intelligent audience without the labor of produing a potent argument. Dr. Conant's difficulty is not that he has no reason for supporting intellectual freedom and research in the University, but that he fails to answer the arguments of his opponents.

The author tells us that the Russians have abandoned complete freedom in favor of a "unifying philosophy" which all must accept. This proves, by implication, that freedom is a good thing, since Russian education is a bad thing. But Dr. Conant never discusses the possibility that the fault is not in the unifying philosophy per se, but rather in the universal acceptance of a philosophy incapable of encompassing experience, dialectical materialism. The premise is apparently that no philosophy can unify, a premise certainly needing defense.

Instead of a defense, however, Dr. Conant raises a new argument: that the business of universities is to supply "warranted beliefs," and that eclecticism supplies more warranted beliefs than an unquestioned unifying philosophy. This approach is summarized by the assertion that "in those lands and at those times when there has been a flowering of intellectual and artistic activity, there has likewise been violent dissension among scholars and artists." If backed up by an historical demonstration, this argument would have been potent if not conclusive. It is not backed up.

Fortunately, the book is not composed exclusively of such circular efforts at conversion. For those already convinced that truth is so ephemeral that dissension is its worldly counterpart, and prepared, despite the lack of public support, to work for more rigorous training of young citizens, Dr. Conant offers a program. This program is first touched upon when he deals with the problem of technical training, and is more fully explored in the 'original' essay on the institutional structure of education.

The program is largely warmed-over excerpts from his former books, but it is still provocative and constructive. Facing the fact that there is not a great public demand for high quality education, or for intensive theoretical research, he argues that these educational functions should be concentrated in a few of our best universities, so as to get the most out of combining teaching and research. For the rest of our ever-growing crop of erstwhile college students, he proposes two year local colleges.

Whether his program is either practical or desirable is nevertheless debatable. One suspects that the quality of education in local junior colleges would be so low as to make them virtually useless, and that if this were the case, their lack of prestige would make applications negligible. True, half our college students leave before graduating, but most of these people came thinking they wanted a degree, not an education, and abandoned the quest because education was too unpleasant. A junior college would seemingly lack even the prestige attraction, and so do little either to eliminate crowding or end educational dilution.

Certainly, too, it seems desirable to educate our leaders better, and to make research an integral part of higher education. But the question must be raised, as Dr. Conant finally raises it on the last page, do the American people want to spend their money on sound education, and if the answer is, as it seems to be, largely negative, then what is needed is a program for selling education, not an argument proving that those who have a good education are better educated.

This, in the final analysis, is the failure of the book. By attempting to cover an extremely large subject with a few remarks, Dr. Conant has forced himself to presume most of the controversial premises which need defense. As a result, his book offers neither a complete and definitive approach to the problem, nor any strikingly convincing insights into it.