Editing Charles William Eliot (section)

==Harvard presidency==
Early in 1869, Eliot had presented his ideas about reforming American higher education in a compelling two-part article, "The New Education," in ''[[The Atlantic Monthly]]'', the nation's leading journal of opinion. "We are fighting a wilderness, physical and moral," Eliot declared in setting forth his vision of the American university, "for this fight we must be trained and armed."<ref>Charles W. Eliot, "The New Education," ''[[Atlantic Monthly]], XXIII'', Feb. (Part II in Mar.) 1869.</ref> The articles resonated powerfully with the businessmen who controlled the Harvard Corporation. Shortly after their appearance, merely 35 years old, he was elected as the youngest president in the history of the nation's oldest university.

Eliot's educational vision incorporated important elements of Unitarian and [[Ralph Waldo Emerson|Emersonian]] ideas about character development, framed by a pragmatic understanding of the role of higher education in economic and political leadership. His concern in "The New Education" was not merely curriculum, but the ultimate utility of education. A college education could enable a student to make intelligent choices, but should not attempt to provide specialized vocational or technical training.

Although his methods were pragmatic, Eliot's ultimate goal, like those of the secularized Puritanism of the Boston elite, was a spiritual one. The spiritual desideratum was not otherworldly. It was embedded in the material world and consisted of measurable progress of the human spirit towards mastery of human intelligence over nature — the "moral and spiritual wilderness."  While this mastery depended on each individual fully realizing his capacities, it was ultimately a collective achievement and the product of institutions which established the conditions both for individual  and collective achievement. Like the Union victory in the [[American Civil War|Civil War]], triumph over the moral and physical wilderness and the establishment of mastery required a joining of industrial and cultural forces.

While he proposed the reform of professional schools, the development of research faculties, and, in general, a huge broadening of the curriculum, his blueprint for undergraduate education in crucial ways preserved — and even enhanced — its traditional spiritual and character education functions. Echoing Emerson, he believed that every individual mind had "its own peculiar constitution." The problem, both in terms of fully developing an individual's capacities and in maximizing his social utility, was to present him with a course of study sufficiently representative so as "to reveal to him, or at least to his teachers and parents, his capacities and tastes." An informed choice once made, the individual might pursue whatever specialized branch of knowledge he found congenial.<ref name="redis"/>

But Eliot's goal went well beyond Emersonian self-actualization for its own sake. Framed by the higher purposes of a research university in the service of the nation, specialized expertise could be harnessed to public purposes. "When the revelation of his own peculiar taste and capacity comes to a young man, let him reverently give it welcome, thank God, and take courage," Eliot declared in his inaugural address. He further stated:

{{blockquote|Thereafter he knows his way to happy, enthusiastic work, and, God willing, to usefulness and success. The civilization of a people may be inferred from the variety of its tools. There are thousands of years between the stone hatchet and the machine-shop. As tools multiply, each is more ingeniously adapted to its own exclusive purpose.  So with the men that make the State. For the individual, concentration, and the highest development of his own peculiar faculty, is the only prudence. But for the State, it is variety, not uniformity, of intellectual product, which is needful.<ref>"Inaugural Address as the President of Harvard College," October 19, 1869 in Charles W. Eliot, ''Educational Reform: Essays and Addresses'' (New York: The Century Co.: 1901), pp. 12-13.</ref>}}

On the subject of educational reform, he declared:

{{blockquote|As a people, we do not apply to mental activities the principle of division of labor; and we have but a halting faith in special training for high professional employments. The vulgar conceit that a Yankee can turn his hand to anything we insensibly carry into high places, where it is preposterous and criminal. We are accustomed to seeing men leap from farm or shop to court-room or pulpit, and we half believe that common men can safely use the seven-league boots of genius. What amount of knowledge and experience do we habitually demand of our lawgivers?  What special training do we ordinarily think necessary for our diplomatists? — although in great emergencies the nation has known where to turn. Only after years of the bitterest experience did we come to believe the professional training of a soldier to be of value in war. This lack of faith in the prophecy of a natural bent, and in the value of a discipline concentrated upon a single object, amounts to a national danger.<ref>''Id.'' at 11-12.</ref>}}

Under Eliot's leadership, Harvard adopted an "elective system" which vastly expanded the range of courses offered and permitted undergraduates unrestricted choice in selecting their courses of study — with a view to enabling them to discover their "natural bents" and pursue them into specialized studies. A monumental expansion of Harvard's graduate and professional school and departments facilitated specialization, while at the same time making the university a center for advanced scientific and technological research. Accompanying this was a shift in pedagogy from recitations and lectures towards classes that put students' achievements to the test and, through a revised grading system, rigorously assessed individual performance.
[[File:Booker Washington and some of his distinguished guests LCCN2004679030.jpg|thumb|With [[Booker Washington]] and other dignitaries]]

Eliot's reforms did not go without criticism. His own kinsman [[Samuel Eliot Morison]] in his tercentenary history of Harvard gave an opinion that is rare among historians:

{{blockquote|It was due to Eliot's insistent pressure that the Harvard faculty abolished the Greek requirement for entrance in 1887, after dropping required Latin and Greek for freshman year. His and Harvard's reputation, the pressure of teachers trained in the new learning, and of parents wanting ‘practical’ instruction for their sons, soon had the classics on the run, in schools as well as colleges; and no equivalent to the classics, for mental training, cultural background, or solid satisfaction in after life, has yet been discovered. It is a hard saying, but Mr. Eliot, more than any other man, is responsible for the greatest educational crime of the century against American youth—depriving him of his classical heritage.<ref>Samuel Eliot Morison, ''Three Centuries of Harvard 1636–1936'' (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1946), 359.</ref>}}

By contrast recent scholars such as Richard M. Freeland, emphasize that Eliot appreciated how Harvard needed to modernize:

<blockquote>Eliot believed that the traditional college, with its rigid curriculum and preoccupation with "virtue and piety," had become irrelevant to producing successful leaders for the industrial, urban nation of the late nineteenth century. Influenced by his observations of German universities, Eliot saw that conditions favored academic institutions dedicated to the secular achievements of the intellect, places that would nurture contemporary thinking on socially significant subjects and enable ambitious, talented men to demonstrate their abilities. The former objective required a faculty composed less of faithful teachers than of productive scholars for whom the campus would provide the
conditions for creative work. The latter implied a shift of focus from undergraduate, liberal education to graduate work in the most important professional fields.<ref>Richard M. Freeland, ''Academia's golden age'' (Oxford University Press, 1992).  p. 19</ref> </blockquote>

=== Opposition to football and other sports ===
During his tenure, Eliot opposed [[American football|football]] and tried unsuccessfully to abolish the game at Harvard. In 1905, ''The New York Times'' reported that he called it "a fight whose strategy and ethics are those of war", that violation of rules cannot be prevented, that "the weaker man is considered the legitimate prey of the stronger" and that "no sport is wholesome in which ungenerous or mean acts which easily escape detection contribute to victory."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=Kf9KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA188 "President Eliot on Football."] ''The School Journal, Volume 70'', United Education Company, New York, Chicago, and Boston, February 18, 1905, p.188.</ref>

He also made public objections to [[baseball]], [[basketball]], and [[ice hockey|hockey]].  He was quoted as saying that [[Rowing (sport)|rowing]] and [[tennis]] were the only clean sports.<ref>{{cite news
| title      = ELIOT AGAINST BASKET BALL.; Harvard President Says Rowing and Tennis Are the Only Clean Sports.
| date       = November 28, 1906
| work       = [[The New York Times]]
| url        = https://www.nytimes.com/1906/11/28/archives/eliot-against-basket-ball-harvard-president-says-rowing-and-tennis.html
| access-date = August 9, 2008
}}</ref>

Eliot once said:

{{blockquote|[T]his year I'm told the team did well because one pitcher had a fine curve ball. I understand that a curve ball is thrown with a deliberate attempt to deceive. Surely this is not an ability we should want to foster at Harvard.<ref>McAfee, Skip. [http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/nine/summary/v013/13.2mcafee.html "Quoting Baseball: The Intellectual Take on Our National Pastime"] ''NINE: A Journal of Baseball History and Culture, Volume 13, Number 2, Spring 2005,'' pp. 82-93</ref>}}

===Attempted acquisition of MIT===
During his lengthy tenure as Harvard's leader, Eliot initiated repeated attempts to acquire his former employer, the fledgling [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]], and these efforts continued even after he stepped down from the presidency.<ref name="TechRev">{{cite journal |url=http://www.technologyreview.com/article/425862/the-harvard-institute-of-technology/ |url-access=subscription |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150911224243/http://www.technologyreview.com/article/425862/the-harvard-institute-of-technology/ |archive-date=September 11, 2015 |title=The Harvard Institute of Technology? How alumni rallied for an independent MIT |last=Marcott |first=Amy |journal=[[MIT Technology Review]] |date=October 25, 2011}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref name="McKay" />  The much younger college had considerable financial problems during its first five decades, and had been repeatedly rescued from insolvency by various benefactors, including [[George Eastman]], the founder of [[Eastman Kodak Company]].  The faculty, students, and alumni of MIT often vehemently opposed merger of their school under the Harvard umbrella.<ref>{{cite web|title=National Selection Committee Ballot — Power of the NSC|url=http://alum.mit.edu/about/elections/nscb/power.html|access-date=November 23, 2005 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20051027135902/http://alum.mit.edu/about/elections/nscb/power.html <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = October 27, 2005}}</ref>  In 1916, MIT succeeded in moving across the [[Charles River]] from crowded [[Back Bay, Boston]] to larger facilities on the southern riverfront of Cambridge, but still faced the prospect of merger with Harvard,<ref>{{cite news|title=Tech Alumni Holds Reunion. Record attendance, novel features. Cooperative plan with Harvard announced by Pres. Maclaurin. Gov. Walsh Brings Best Wishes of the State.|publisher=Boston Daily Globe|date=January 11, 1914|page=117}}<br />
Maclaurin quoted: "in future Harvard agrees to carry out all its work in engineering and mining in the buildings of Technology under the executive control of the president of Technology, and, what is of the first importance, to commit all instruction and the laying down of all courses to the faculty of Technology, after that faculty has been enlarged and strengthened by the addition to its existing members of men of eminence from Harvard's Graduate School of Applied Science."</ref>
which was to begin "when the Institute will occupy its splendid new buildings in Cambridge."<ref>{{cite news|title=Harvard-Tech Merger. Duplication of Work to be Avoided in Future. Instructors Who Will Hereafter be Members of Both Faculties|publisher=Boston Daily Globe|date=January 25, 1914|page=47}}</ref>  However, in 1917, the [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]] rendered a decision that effectively cancelled plans for a merger,<ref name="McKay">{{cite web | url=http://www.seas.harvard.edu/about-seas/facts-history/origins/founding/gordon-mckay | title=Gordon McKay Patent Pending: The Founding of Practical Science at Harvard | publisher=Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences | work=Founding & Early Years | access-date=April 23, 2013 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130308001618/http://www.seas.harvard.edu/about-seas/facts-history/origins/founding/gordon-mckay | archive-date=March 8, 2013 | url-status=dead }}</ref> and MIT eventually attained independent financial stability. During his life, Eliot had been involved in at least five unsuccessful attempts to absorb MIT into Harvard.<ref name=Alexander>{{cite web|last1=Alexander|first1=Philip N.|title=MIT-Harvard Rivalry Timeline|url=http://mta.scripts.mit.edu/CES/mit-harvard-rivalry-timeline/|website=MIT Music and Theater Arts News|publisher=Massachusetts Institute of Technology|access-date=July 7, 2014|archive-date=July 14, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714173624/http://mta.scripts.mit.edu/CES/mit-harvard-rivalry-timeline/|url-status=dead}}</ref>