the advanced state of educational services in thenUnited States, but also of the vitality and success ofnour economy, our culture, and our politicalnsystem. . . .nA provision of one bill, now before Congress, forninstance, would make construction funds availablento religious institutions, provided they are not spentnfor facilities in which religious activities take place.nIf enacted, this provision would make it necessarynfor any institution which begins the first morningnclass with prayer to change its program in order tonqualify for the grants. . . .nAs anticipated by those college presidents, religion was ancasualty of the ever-growing dependency of Americanneducation upon the federal government. Given the separationnof church and state, church had to move out asnincreasingly state moved in to the campuses. For example,nthe Catholic universities that had boards of trustees primarilyncomposed of clergy were obliged to reconstitute thosenboards so that laymen were in the majority. At the precollegenlevel, textbooks have been drained of almost allnmeaningful references to religion, as revealed in the studiesnof Professor Paul Vitz. The full consequences of relegatingnreligion to the periphery of the schooling process will not benknown for some time, but one senses that the “MenGeneration” is a natural product of an acculturation devoidnof the Ten Commandments and other traditional religiousnstandards of virtuous behavior.nThe conversion of American education fromna locally-controlled to a federally-dependentnsystem has served to advance the thrust ofnequality in America, which in some respectsnhas been beneficial. But this change hasnbeen harmful to the behavior of the citizensntoward one another.nAnother consequence of federal funding is the hastenednand reenforced withdrawal of academic institutions from anconcern with standards of individual behavior; In 1962,nHarvard’s President Pusey noted in his annual report thatnthe enormous influx of new. faculty members hired tonconduct federally-funded research was having an unanticipatednand disquieting impact upon the university. It seemsnthat the new faculty members had become so numerousnthat they could outvote the professors who were experiencednin, and wise about, the purposes, mores, virtues, andntraditions of the university.nPresident Pusey may have foreseen that the ancientnpurposes of education would not survive the ultimatendominance of research on the campuses. In America untilnwell into the 20th century, education was expected to trainneach new generation in the ideals of American society andnto teach the young the obligations they must accept and thentaboos they must observe so that those ideals could prevail.n22/CHRONICLESnnnGordon Chalmers, in summarizing his admirable volume ofneducational philosophy. The Republic and the Person, wrotenthat the object of education is moral maturity. That book,npublished not long before Sputnik, was widely acclaimed.nIf students are to be imbued with these ideals, they mustnbe convinced that certain things are good and contrarynthings are bad. Such a concept is alien, even anathema, tonthe mind fixed on research, which necessarily and wisely isnconducted on the assumption that all points of view must benconsidered. Research, by its very nature, must be inclusive innits conduct. Education, if it is to socialize and acculturatenthe young, cannot accept the equal validity of all points ofnview. An ideal by definition is a concept of what is good.nIt will be seen that the principle governing research has tona great extent supplanted the principle of educating fornmoral maturity. The consequence is a society that year bynyear is converting itself into a moral wasteland. Crime,nAIDS, drug addiction, and other social pathologies multiplynbecause of the moral paralysis created by the researchnviewpoint. Our society cannot bring itself to say to the usernof illegal drugs, “That’s a bad thing. You mustn’t do it, and ifnyou do, you will be punished.” So we spend our effortnfinding ways to solve the problem indirectly by going afternthe traffickers of drugs. There must be no condemnation ofnthe user. Research and education can coexist and providenmutual support on the same campus, but only if thendifferent principles that apply to those two functions arenunderstood, protected, and kept operative.nAlexis de Tocqueville concluded his Democracy in Americanwith a prediction and a set of options. “The nations ofnour day cannot prevent conditions of equality from spreadingnin their midst. But it depends upon themselves whethernequality is to lead to servitude or freedom, knowledge ornbarbarism, prosperity or wretchedness.” The conversion ofnAmerican education from a locally-controlled to a federallydependentnsystem has served to advance the thrust ofnequality in America, which in some respects has beennbeneficial. But this change has been harmful to the behaviornof the citizens toward one another and to the viability of theninstitutions of society, for it has been aimed at the lowestncommon denominator of what is regarded as acceptablenbehavior.nEarlier generations of professional educators insisted thatnthe control of education be lodged with the locality where,nas with the family, the higher notions of what is good andnright can be applied in the decisions regarding the young. Itnis, I believe, unlikely that religion would be excluded fromneducation in the United States and homosexual safe sexnwould be taught in the classrooms if parents were voting onnthose matters.nForty-four years ago the National Education Associationnand the American Council on Education warned the peoplenagainst federally-funded schools and colleges. That admonitionnwas eventually discarded in favor of what were judged tonbe considerations of larger import. This may have been anblunder. As America tries to redeem its system of schoolingnfrom the grossly unsatisfactory state into which it has fallen,nthe wisdom of the people who in eariier generationsnconducted a far more satisfactory program of education isnworthy of careful study. <§>n