Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1886 [PAGE 76]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

f,3

"Case of F. North referred to Regent. If he claims conscientious scruples against attendance at chapel he may be excused; if not, he will be suspended." On the 21st of April the Regent called Mr. North to his office, and offered to excuse him from farther attendance at chapel if he would present to the Faculty his objections to attendance on account of conscience, substantially as set forth in the draft of a statement, which is hereto appended as enclosure C. Mr. North declined to make answer at the time, and asked to have the paper for examination. On the 24th of April he filed in the Regent's office his reply in the paper herewith appended, enclosure D. In this paper he refused the offer of excuse on account of the repugnance of the chapel exercises to his religious convictions, saying that he had "no religious convictions for the chapel exercises to be repugnant to:" and, secondly, he took the ground that the Faculty had no right to make any regulation requiring students to attend chapel, and that even the act of formally expressing his wish not to attend would be a recognition of a right which he strenuously denied. His statement that the request "would be the asking a favor * * not accorded to others," is not in accordance with fact, and is therefore not of weight. Finding that Mr. North would accept no solution of the difficulty, which he had himself raised, other than a complete abandonment by the Regent and Faculty of the chapel exercises, or at least so much thereof as may be deemed religious in character, the Regent believed that he could do no otherwise than carry into effect the alternative order of the Faculty, made in their minute of April 17. He accordingly addressed to Mr. North the following letter, of which the original is presumably in Mr. North's possession:

ILLINOIS INDUSTRIAL UNIVERSITY:, REGENT'S OFFICE.

URBANA, I I I . , April 30,1885. Mr. Foster North : DEAR SIR: It is in evidence before the Faculty of this University that during most of t h e current term you have purposely absented yourself from the general assembly of the students required daily of them by the regulations of this institution. You aver that you have not done this on account of any conscientious objections to any of the exercises there held, religious or other, but because you deny the authority of the Faculty to require your attendance there, so long as any part of the exercises are religious in form. You therefore sdeny the authority of the Faculty as now administered. The Faculty cannot accept your view of the case, nor admit your propositions thereupon, nor can they allow you to nullify their regulations. I am, therefore, directed to say to you .that you are from this date suspended indefinitely from the University. By order of the Faculty. S. H. PEABODY, Regent. With this paper the record of the action of the Faculty is complete. ' The following points are suggested: 1. Attendance upon the University of Illinois is not a right inherent in the natural condition of any person, but a privilege accorded to such persons as can and will conform to conditions imposed by the laws of the State, or by the Trustees and Faculty, acting under authority of law. The latter authorities are competent to decide what rules and regulations are reasonable and proper, and may insist that students shall conform to them under penality of forfeiture of said privileges on account of disobedience or abuse. 2. All students at the University of Illinois are in a state of pupilage, no matter whether they be of so-called "'legal age" or not. While members of the University they are such by their own voluntary act and choice, for purposes of instruction and discipline, and that these purposes may the better be accomplished they have formally, or tacitly, in the act of joining the University, agreed to conform to its regulations. They have given, and during .their continued attendance upon and enjoyment of the privileges of the University, do ^constantly give consent to such regulations as the lawfully constituted authorities may make. 3. The affirmation of the constitution that no person may be compelled to attend a place of worship without his consent expresses no new or restrictive principle of personal liberty. What person may lawfully be " compelled" to attend any place without his consent ? Has any man or set of men a right to compel any person without his consent to go anywhere—to dinner, or to bed, to a workshop, or a place of discipline or amusement? Any such compulsion would be a plain violation of the personal rights of the one so coerced; the violation may be punished, and the personal rights may be vindicated by suitable legal process. 4. The general rule has always been, and must ever remain, that whenever any person voluntarily "joins an organization, or accepts a privilege, his act of joining, or of acceptance, is his consent to obey all the regulations of the organization, and to fulfill all the conditions of the privilege. It is not in his power to elect that he will obey a part and disobey a part. He was under no obligation to join or accept. He is under no obligation to continue in his connection. In some cases, indeed, he may become part of the law-making power, and in the lawful exercise of his power he may succeed in changing or abolishing regulations which are distasteful. But in the University of Illinois the law-making power is in the hands of the Trustees and Faculty, and is not lodged with the students. 5. It will be admitted that it is within the powers of the Trustees and Faculty to make and enforce regulations which would restrict in many ways the personal liberty of students, which restrictions under other conditions would be unlawful. For example, these authorities might enact that every student should reside in buildings provided for the purpose, and not elsewhere. That no student should be absent without leave from the pre-