THE STUDENTS JOURNAL.
3
THE AMHERST SENATE.
Fifteen years ago there was begun, and for many years afterward there was practised successfully at Amherst College a system of college government, viewed with admiration by all persons interested in college affairs, which has exercised a lasting influence upon the college life of the country. The then President of Amherst, Julius H. Seelye, was a practical philosopher. He was disgusted with the frequent conflicts between the students and the faculty, and believed that college students were worthy of much greater trust and capable of much more self-restraint. He did away with the old parental system of college government, substituting a college Senate, presided over by the President of the college and composed of representatives elected from the four college classes. To this body only tentative powers were committed at first, but in time the system showed itself successful, and a written constitution was granted conferring jurisdiction over all college offences. The article defining the powers of the Senate was as follows:
1. Whenever a member of the college shall appear to have broken the contract upon which he was received as a member of Amherst College, except in cases pertaining to attendance upon college exercises, determined by the regular rules of the faculty, the case shall be brought before the Senate, who shall determine both as to whether the contract has been broken, and whether, if broken, it shall be renewed.
2. The jurisdiction of the Senate shall also extend over such procedures of any body of students, relating to order and decorum, as effect the whole college, and over whatever other business the President or faculty may submit to it, it being understood that in such cases the action of the Senate shall have the full authority of the college.
"3. Any member shall have the right to introduce business; also to call for any vote by ballot whenever he shall desire it."
Under this authority, college life at Amherst went on peacefully for a long time. The system was adopted more or less in many colleges and universities, and the Alumni of Amherst regarded it as the peculiar distinction of that institution.
It is to be deplored, therefore, that after President Seelye's retirement by reason of ill health, the affairs of Amherst fell into the charge of those who did not share his appreciation of the value of student self-government. In January, 1894, a student who, under the due operation of the established rules, had been dropped temporarily on account of deficiencies in study, intercepted in the Post Office a notice sent by his teachers to his father. The faculty, without referring the matter to the Senate, summarily suspended the student for a year. There was, of course, no question as to his fault, and there is just as little question that the act of the college faculty was an invasion of the jurisdiction of the college Senate. For what reason the faculty adopted such a course has never been made clear, except possibly that they deemed that the offence required immediate severity. It has been intimated that one claim made by the faculty was that as the disciplined student was under temporary suspension he was not a member of the college, and hence not amendable to the Senate's authority. We can hardly believe that such a claim was made. But whatever was said or alleged, the faculty declined to recede from their position. The members of the Senate, in obedience to the unanimous vote of a mass meeting of the students, resigned. So the Senate at Amherst ended.
The Alumni of the college, however, were displeased with this situation, and at the next commencement they appointed a committee to investigate the trouble. The report of this committee was presented at the Amherst commencement this year. The committee decided that while it was inadvisable to determine the merits of the particular case in question, they thought there was a defect in the constitution of the Senate. They recommended that the constitution be so amended as to provide that questions of jurisdiction should be hereafter referred to a committee consisting of two students selected by the Senators, two members of the faculty, and, in the event of their failure to agree, of an alumnus to be selected by all four. The Alumni referred the report of the committee to the trustees of the college without comment, save a unanimous vote in favor of the general system of a college Senate.
We are strongly inclined to the opinion that the settlement, or rather lack of settlement, proposed by the committee will not be viewed with favor by Amherst graduates. The committee endeavored to ride two horses, and met with the success that usually attends such efforts. The proposed appellate tribunal is cumbersome and inpracticable, and was never contemplated by the founder of the Amherst Senate. Under the clear terms of the Senate's constitution, delegating to it all disciplinary authority, it is not easy to see how questions of jurisdiction can properly arise. By the new amendment disputes would be encouraged, and the very evil which the college Senate was designed to prevent, the friction between students and faculty, would be