1902] Academic freedom 3 his own denomination, and here conflict might possibly ari ( )r a teacher of history might find a conflict existing betw< the supposed interests of his denomination and the historical facts as determined by the best research at his command. Here, again, he would find himself naturally pulled in two dii" ferent directions. No possible tie to what his own institu- tion specially stands for can impose upon him the obligation to suppress the truth as he sees it. I quote such cases simply to indicate that, while in a general way there is a line of de- marcation between the two types of institutions referred to, and consequently the problem of academic freedom does not arise so definitely in one type, yet even in the latter, because all things shift, the question, after all, may assert itself. In the subsequent discussion I shall confine myself exclu- sively to institutions of the university type. It is clear that in this sphere any attack, or even any restriction, upon academic freedom is directed against the university itself. To investigate truth; critically to verify fact; to reach conclu- sions by means of the best methods at command, untrammelecl by external fear or favor, to communicate this truth to the student; to interpret to him its bearing on the questions he will have to face in life — this is precisely the aim and object of the university. To aim a blow at any one of these operations is to deal a vital wound to the university itself. The university function is the truth-function. At one time it may be more concerned with the tradition or transmission of truth, and at another time with its discovery. Both functions are necessary, and neither can ever be entirely absent. The exact ratio be- tween them depends upon local and temporal considerations rather than upon anything inherent in the university. The one thing that is inherent and essential is the idea of truth. So clear are these principles that, in the abstract, no theo- retical problem can possibly arise. The difficulties arise from two concrete sources. In the first place, there is no gainsay- ing the fact that some of the studies taught in the university are inherently in a much more scientific condition than othei In the second place, the popular or general recognition of scientific status is much more widespread as regards some
