Letterhead
Brooklyn, N.Y., March 1st, 1905.
Hon. Timothy L. Woodruff,
339 Broadway,
New York City.
My dear Woodruff:-
You have doubtless heard or read about Controller Grout's project to secure a charter for a "public university" in Brooklyn. He has outlined his scheme as a proposition to establish here a free city college or university, controlled by trustees appointed by the Mayor, housed upon the city property near the Museum known as "the east side lands," and supported by the city treasury. He has suggested that the Packer Institute, the Polytechnic Institute, the Brooklyn Institute and Adelphi College, shoudl sell their various buildings and become merged in the new "public university." The sale of their property and the consolidation of their various possessions would suffice to erect the new buildings and provide some endowments. He also suggests that the organization of the Brooklyn Public Library could be affiliated or fused with the new university.
I am glad that Mr. Grout is interested in the educational development of this borough, and that he has brought our needs for the first time to the attention of a great many people in this community. But while I am thankful to him for this service, I believe that his proposition in its present form is unwise. As it seems possible that Mr. Grout will urge speedy action, I wish now to make in this way to each one of my colleagues upon the Adelphi Corporation, a statement of my reasons for opposing Mr. Grout's proposition, and for hoping that the Trustees of Adelphi College will refuse to favor it.
In the first place, the development of collegiate instruction in Brooklyn ought to proceed from the natural and gradual growth within Brooklyn's two colleges, the Polytechnic and Adelphi. The Packer is not a college, and has now only about sixty students who are of collegiate rank. The other institutions mentioned by Mr. Grout are even less collegiate in character. Mr. Grout's scheme proposes the disappearance of our present colleges in a new insitution created by legislative charter, which "Poly." and Adelphi must join, or be killed. Speaking of and for Adelphi alone, I believe that we ought to exhaust every possible method of preseving our individuality and independence before we consent to become another wheel in the great public school system.
Secondly, I believe that a college ought to be kept free from the danger of management by politicians and party machines. The great State Universities have suffered much from this cause. A City college or university would run a risk tenfold greater. If Mr. Grout's college were now in existence its trustees would be named by Mayor McClellan, and that means by Tammany Hall. We can easily imagine what kind of collegiate or university influences would emanate from such controlling powers as Messrs. Murphy and McCarren.
Adelphi College might be glad to have help from the city in securing a site, but surely not if that help were purchased at the cost of suicide or subjection to political control. There are four or five city colleges in this country, and every one of them has been a disgrace to the name of college because of low standards or political interference or both. There is but one city university in the United States and from its birth it has been the football of political contention, and the miserable home of endless quarrels.
Thirdly, I do not believe that our city should use its taxes for the maintenance of university or professional schools. New York City already has two universities within its boundaries which possess large endowments and can do all the university work that is needed here. The city should not enter into competition with Columbia and New York University. New York City is already maintaining two free city colleges in Manhattan. I would not favor the increase of that kind of institution unless I felt convinced that individual initiative and individual benevolence were both dead in Brooklyn. Adelphi College has excellent reason to believe that they are not dead.
Fourthly, I regard Mr. Grout's proposition to transfer the present wealth of these great Brooklyn schools to the new city university as not only unwise but impossible. He means that the buildings and lands of the schools named should be sold for the benefit of the new university. This means that Adelphi Academy, Packer Insitute and the "Poly" Preparatory School would all be blotted out of existence. He told me that the pupils in these schools should go to the public high schools. This is an absurd idea. If these private schools were destroyed today they would reappear tomorrow under new names. They are inevitable. Moreover Adelphi Academy is now a most prosperous school. It has over 750 students and is supporting not only itself but Adelphi College as well. If the College were otherwise provided for, the Academy would now go on creating its own endowment. It has the interest of several thousands of former students and graduates living in this vicinity. I believe that the man who proposes to kill that school in order to create a free college shows that he doesn't really understand the educational situation.
These statements do not cover all possible objections to Mr. Grout's proposition, but they seem to me to present sufficiently weighty arguments, and they will naturally suggest some others. After serious reflection along the lines here suggested, I have been forced to conclude that Mr. Grout's project would be ruinous to our educational ideals, destructive of the best kind of public spirit in Brooklyn, and fatal to the normal development of several splendid schools. If you agree with me, I hope that your influence will be used to thwart Mr. Grout's scheme.
Yours very sincerely,
Charles H. Levermore
Per W.