THE STATE UNIVERSITIES AND THE SYSTEM OF RETIRING ALLOWANCES OF THE CARNEGIE FOUNDATION
In Mr. Carnegie's original letter giving $10,000,000 to establish a fund for pensioning professors, denominational institutions, on the one hand, and state institutions, on the other, were excluded. In the act of incorporation, however, the question of the state institutions was left open, and it was at one time reported by the newspapers that Mr. Carnegie would add five million dollars to the foundation in order that they might be included. But it now appears that the opposite policy will be followed. The documents on the subject presented to the trustees have been printed as a bulletin of the Carnegie Foundation. This bulletin, in addition to giving the grounds that have been urged for and against the policy of granting pensions to professors in the state institutions, contains some interesting data in regard to the development of these institutions.
The executive committee of the National Association of State Universities drew up a statement for the trustees in which they urge the following reasons for including these universities under the auspices of the fund: State universities are not controlled by religious denominations; they maintain college standards based on the high school; they have an assured income equal to the productive endowment required for private foundations; state institutions can not establish a pension fund as this might raise the whole question of pensions for state officers; the omission of these institutions discriminates against the professors who have served them; the plan would not weaken support by the states. Memoranda in favor of granting allowances were also presented by Dr. Maurice Hutton, acting president of the University of Toronto, and by Professor Henry T. Eddy, dean of the graduate school of the University of Minnesota.
Dr. Henry S. Pritchett, president of the foundation, discusses these papers, and comes to an adverse conclusion. He holds that from the point of view of general policy, professors in the state institutions should receive retiring allowances, but that these should be established by the states themselves, as the granting of allowances by a private agency might lessen the sense of responsibility of the states for educational support. He states that to add to the list of accepted institutions all state universities would be to complete the list of institutions for which the foundation can provide an adequate retiring system. He holds that the award of pensions to a large number of representative institutions by the foundation will make the plan part of the American Educational System, which other institutions will necessarily follow.
It may be that in this matter the trustees of the Carnegie Foundation, nearly all of whom are presidents of private institutions, are not entirely disinterested. Some of them have given occasion for such inference by their attitude toward a national university, which Mr. Carnegie at one time planned to endow. In the establishment of libraries, Mr. Carnegie has not been indisposed to cooperate with institutions supported by taxation. However, it does not follow that in the end it would have been to the advantage of the state institutions to have been placed under the Carnegie Foundation. There are dangers, as well as advantages in centralization and uniformity. It by no means follows that compulsory retirement at the age of sixty-five, on part salary is the best plan. Perhaps the state universities may adopt the German system, by
