Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Making the University Safe for Democracy, 1902-1910
View through CrossRef
The service of institutions of learning is not private but public,” Woodrow Wilson proclaimed at his inauguration as Princeton University’s thirteenth president. “Princeton for the Nation’s Service,” the title of Wilson’s 1902 inaugural address, captured his vision of Princeton’s mission. The nation, Wilson believed, desperately needed the university. The nation and its affairs, he observed, continued to “grow more and more complex” as a result of industrialization and bureaucratization. Furthermore, as successive waves of non-Protestant and non- Anglo-Saxon immigrant groups—”the more sordid and hapless elements” of southern Europe, as he described them elsewhere—congregated in the nation’s growing cities, Wilson, like other Protestant leaders of his day, feared that America’s democratic society stood on the verge of chaos. The very fabric of American society seemed to be ripping apart under the weight of ethnic and religious diversity. Like other educators of the day, Wilson envisioned the modern university’s playing a crucial role in ordering the nation’s business and political affairs and shaping the aspirations and values of the American people. A university education, Wilson explained, was “not for the majority who carry forward the common labor of the world” but for those who would lead the nation and mold the “sound sense and equipment of the rank and file.” The university’s task was twofold: “the production of a great body of informed and thoughtful men and the production of a small body of trained scholars and investigators.” The latter function gave the university a larger civic mission than a college. According to Wilson’s vision, Princeton would not train “servants of a trade or skilled practitioners of a profession.” By enlarging the minds of students and giving them a “catholic vision” of their social responsibilities, Princeton instead would cultivate “citizens” who would live under the “high law of duty.” “Every American university,” Wilson concluded, “must square its standards by that law or lack its national title.” Wilson’s inauguration appeared to confirm the New York Sun’s assessment of his election: “the secularization of our collegiate education grows steadily more complete.”
Title: Making the University Safe for Democracy, 1902-1910
Description:
The service of institutions of learning is not private but public,” Woodrow Wilson proclaimed at his inauguration as Princeton University’s thirteenth president.
“Princeton for the Nation’s Service,” the title of Wilson’s 1902 inaugural address, captured his vision of Princeton’s mission.
The nation, Wilson believed, desperately needed the university.
The nation and its affairs, he observed, continued to “grow more and more complex” as a result of industrialization and bureaucratization.
Furthermore, as successive waves of non-Protestant and non- Anglo-Saxon immigrant groups—”the more sordid and hapless elements” of southern Europe, as he described them elsewhere—congregated in the nation’s growing cities, Wilson, like other Protestant leaders of his day, feared that America’s democratic society stood on the verge of chaos.
The very fabric of American society seemed to be ripping apart under the weight of ethnic and religious diversity.
Like other educators of the day, Wilson envisioned the modern university’s playing a crucial role in ordering the nation’s business and political affairs and shaping the aspirations and values of the American people.
A university education, Wilson explained, was “not for the majority who carry forward the common labor of the world” but for those who would lead the nation and mold the “sound sense and equipment of the rank and file.
” The university’s task was twofold: “the production of a great body of informed and thoughtful men and the production of a small body of trained scholars and investigators.
” The latter function gave the university a larger civic mission than a college.
According to Wilson’s vision, Princeton would not train “servants of a trade or skilled practitioners of a profession.
” By enlarging the minds of students and giving them a “catholic vision” of their social responsibilities, Princeton instead would cultivate “citizens” who would live under the “high law of duty.
” “Every American university,” Wilson concluded, “must square its standards by that law or lack its national title.
” Wilson’s inauguration appeared to confirm the New York Sun’s assessment of his election: “the secularization of our collegiate education grows steadily more complete.
”.
Related Results
Konsep Dan Urgensi Demokrasi Pancasila
Konsep Dan Urgensi Demokrasi Pancasila
Democracy as a system has become an alternative in various social and state activities in several countries. The reason for making democracy a social and state system is because al...
Convergence of Islam and Democracy
Convergence of Islam and Democracy
This studyattempts to analysethe relationship between Islam and democracy objectively with logical rational arguments. It aims to clarify the differences between Islam and democrac...
Pandangan M. Natsir Tentang Demokrasi: Kajian Pemikiran Politik Islam
Pandangan M. Natsir Tentang Demokrasi: Kajian Pemikiran Politik Islam
This article discusses M. Natsir view on the concept of democracy in Islam. In the map of Islamic political thought, there are differing views on the concept of democracy from the ...
[RETRACTED] Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies v1
[RETRACTED] Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies v1
[RETRACTED]Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies ==❱❱ Huge Discounts:[HURRY UP ] Absolute Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies (Available)Order Online Only!! ❰❰= https://www.facebook.com/Keanu-Reeves-CBD-G...
The Malady of Nigeria’s Democracy and Its Effect on Governance
The Malady of Nigeria’s Democracy and Its Effect on Governance
Practically, democracy has been the tune that most states are dancing to because of its flexibility and accountability, which allows citizens to take part in the government’s decis...
Self-Limitation and Democracy Lefort’s Model of Council Democracy
Self-Limitation and Democracy Lefort’s Model of Council Democracy
This chapter explores the theory of council democracy developed by the French political thinker Claude Lefort. Like his onetime compatriot in Socialisme ou Barberie, Cornelius Cast...
The Idea of Democracy in the Modern Era
The Idea of Democracy in the Modern Era
Although the last half of the twentieth century has been called the Age of Democracy, the twenty-first has already demonstrated the fragility of its apparent triumph as the dominan...

