At the risk of tedium， it is necessary to push the analysis of businesslike motives and their bearing a step farther at this point. It is not simply the vulgar， commonplace convictions of the populace that must receive consideration in this field of the moral and social sciences， -- including such matters as religion， sociology， economics， and political science， so-called. What is especially to be conciliated by the official scientists is the current range of convictions on all these heads among those well-to-do classes from whom the institution hopes to draw contributions to its endowment， on the one hand， and the more reputable part of its undergraduate client鑜e， on the other hand.
Which comes， broadly， to saying that a jealous eye must be had to the views and prepossessions prevalent among the respectable， conservative middle class； with a particular regard to that more select body of substantial citizens who have the disposal of accumulated wealth. This select and substantial element are on the whole more conservative， more old-fashioned in their views of what is right， good and true， and hold their views on more archaic grounds of conviction， than the generality of the vulgar.
And within this conservative body， again， it is the elderly representatives of the old order that are chiefly to be considered， -- since it is the honourable custom among men of large means not to give largely to institutions of learning until late in life.
It is to be accounted one of the meritorious customs of the greater businessmen that， one with another， they eventually convert a share of their takings to the installation of schools and similar establishments designed to serve and to conserve the amenities of civilized life. Usually it is in later life， or as an act of leave-taking， that this munificence is exercised.
Usually， too， the great men who put forth this large munificence do not hamper their bounty with many restrictions on the character of the enlightenment which it is to serve. Indeed， there is in this respect a certain large modesty and continence customarily associated with the large donations. But like other men of force and thoughtfulness， the large and elderly businessmen have well-assured convictions and preferences； and as is the case with other men of the passing generation， so with the superannuated businessmen， their convictions and preferences fall out on the side of the old order rather than contrariwise. A wise academic policy， conducted by an executive looking to the fiscal interests of the university， will aim not to alienate the affections of the large businessmen of a ripe age， by harbouring specialists whose inquires are likely to traverse these old-settled convictions in the social， economic， political， or religious domain. It is bad business policy to create unnecessary annoyance. So it comes about that the habitual munificence of the captains of industry who have reached their term will have grave consequences for that range of academic science that is occupied with matters on which they hold convictions.(3*)There results a genial endeavour to keep step with the moribund captains of industry and the relics of the wealthy dead.
Remotely by force of a worldly-wise appointing power， proximately by force of the good taste and sober sense of well-chosen incumbents， something of filial piety comes to pervade the academic handling of those institutional phenomena that touch the sentiments of the passing generation. Hence it comes that current academic work in the province of the social， political， and economic sciences， as well as in the sciences that touch the religious interest， has a larger reputation for assurance and dignity than for an incisive canvassing of the available material.
Critics of the latterday university policies have from time to time called attention to an apparent reluctance on the part of these academic scientists to encounter present-day facts hand-to-hand， or to trace out the causes to which current conditions are due. Distempered critics have even alleged that the academic leaders in the social sciences are held under some constraint， as being， in some sort， in the pay of the well-to-do conservative element； that they are thereby incapacitated from following up any inquiry to its logical conclusion， in case the conclusion might appear to traverse the interest or the opinions of those on whom these leaders are in this way pecuniarily dependent.
Now， it may be conceded without violence to notorious facts， that these official leaders of science do commonly reach conclusions innocuous to the existing law and order， particularly with respect to religion， ownership， and the distribution of wealth. But this need imply no constraint， nor even any peculiar degree of tact， much less a moral obliquity. It may confidently be asserted， without fear of contradiction from their side， that the official leaders in this province of academic research and indoctrination are， commonly， in no way hindered from pushing their researches with full freedom and to the limit of their capacity； and that they are likewise free to give the fullest expression to any conclusions or convictions to which their inquiries may carry them. That they are able to do so is a fortunate circumstance， due to the fact that their intellectual horizon is bounded by the same limits of commonplace insight and preconceptions as are the prevailing opinions of the conservative middle class. That is to say， a large and aggressive mediocrity is the prime qualification for a leader of science in these lines， if his leadership is to gain academic authentication.
