Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1904 [PAGE 67]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

1903.]

PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOAKD OF TRUSTEES.

43

President Draper spoke of the report made by a special committee on the Engineering College, which had been referred to him (see page 31 of the minutes of the meeting of December 9, 1902) and said that he did not see that under present conditions any further consideration of the report was needed now. This statement was acquiesced in by the Board.

UNIVERSITY FEES.

With regard to the petition for the doing away of fees in the University, made by the editors of agricultural newspapers published in Illinois (see page 161 of the minutes of the meeting of December 9, 1902) the President made the following report:

To the Board of Trustees: At the last meeting of the Board a petition requesting the Board to ask the legislature for appropriations which would enable the University to abolish all student fees, and signed by the editors of several agricultural papers in the state, was referred to me for report. Not since the first year or two of my association with the University have I had any doubt of the wisdom of continuing student fees. My views have never been carried into public discussion, for I am distinctly opposed to the public agitation of internal questions of University policy. Two years ago I thought it wise to subordinate my opinion upon this matter for the time being to what I believed to be the inconsiderate action of the Board. But the Board has been well aware of my attitude upon the subject, and I have construed the reference of the petition to me as the expression of a disposition to have me express myself fully and formally in reference thereto. I n preparing to do this I have had in mind not only the standing and influence of the petitioners, but their great interest in the affairs of the University, and the large measure of kindness and helpfulness which they have given it. The regret at the necessity of opposing their views has only been equaled by the conviction that such opposition is vital to the future standing and effectiveness of the University. Accordingly I have gone over the whole subject anew and with care. This examination leads me to set forth the following reasons why the request of the petitioners should not be acceded t o : I. This is not, and ought not to be held to be, merely a Land Grant College of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts. I t is a State University as well. Under all the surrounding circumstances of the case it is not conceivable that Illinois intended to go no farther than grasp the avails of the National Land-Grant Acts. All her neighboring states had already founded state universities. I f this was not very clearly expressed in the early legislation it has been made so by the later action of the legislature and the common feeling of the people. The association of ideas and practices commonly embodied in a state university with the theories and purposes of the Land-Grant Acts in one organization and one group of buildings is a matter of great importance and advantage to Illinois. The association has been of marked advantage to every interest involved. Each line of work has modulated and stimulated every other. The arrangement has bound together the higher educational interests of the state. I t has resulted in a University where every child of the state may find instruction in any study and at the same time have the untold benefit of the indirect influence of all the other studies which are in progress. I t is not the institution of a class. I t is not a poor man's University more than a rich m a n ' s University. I t is not an industrial University more than a culturing University; it is not a University for