People are beginning the second half of the twentieth century with fear. Strangely enough, even Americans, whose nation is strongest among those of the earth, are afraid. They are afraid that the people will cast off democracy and take on communism or some other alien form of government. Obviously, this is not a healthy condition. Moreover, it is a condition that defies logic. It adds up to this: Americans who believe in democracy think it is the best kind of society. They believe it to be a society whose controls reside in the people who, in turn, believe democracy to be the best kind of society. But some of these people seem to think that others will lose their belief in democracy and adopt another set of beliefs. At the same time, the second lot are afraid that the first lot will give up democracy with all its advantages for communism with all its disadvantages. In other words, some Americans are afraid not only of the Russians and Chinese, but of other Americans who, in turn, are afraid of them.

This all-pervading fear tends to destroy the things in our world that are good. Confidence gives way to suspicion. Laughter changes to tears. Optimism loses out to pessimism. Freedom is exchanged for restrictions. Love surrenders to hate. Neighbors become informers. Exchange of information is succeeded by secrecy. Reason succumbs to prejudice until faith in democracy itself is threatened.

With our society in such a condition something needs to be done and done at once. In fact, many things need to be done and wherever constructive work is discovered in this world of fear, it should be encouraged.

This is the kind of problem with which our colleges should be concerned. It is a part of the American tradition to rely on education for the solution of persistent social problems. It is a good tradition and with good schools it would be justified by works. If half of the energy and money that are put into organizations, prizes, contests, pamphlets, letters, foundations and campaigns were invested in the improvement of educational institutions, we could reap some very great social benefits.

The situation calls for colleges that are dedicated to education for democratic living. It calls for colleges that do more than preach or lecture about democracy, it calls for colleges in which democracy is actually lived by the students and the staff. Colleges that cling to the authoritarian system in which rules and orders are issued by trustees, presidents and faculties to be obeyed by students are not equipped to educate for democratic living.

If this all-pervasive fear that is making people unhappy and unreasonable is to be dispelled, there must be mutual trust by students and teachers. Yet what could be better calculated to stir fear and distrust than the mass production lecture-test-mark-credit system that is so common in the schools of the mid century? If teachers are afraid they may lose their jobs if they entertain liberal or radical thoughts, or if they express belief in the unfettered search for truth, how can they avoid fostering fears in their students?

America needs colleges that teach the democratic way of living by providing the conditions under which students and staff live democratically. It needs colleges that really mean it when they say there is no discrimination because of color, race or creed in the admission of students or employment of staff. It needs colleges that are small enough to give real recognition to the existence of individuals. How much longer will people give their wealth to perpetuate and enlarge the already overgrown, ineffective, ponderous degree mills that are called universities?

America needs colleges that recognize the difference between talk and learning. It needs colleges that encourage students to recognize problems, to seek solutions to those problems, and to think for themselves. It is high time that colleges recognized that learning involves activity on the part of the learner and that learning proceeds most effectively when the whole person is involved. If colleges are to justify themselves as educational institutions in a democratic society, they will have to provide young people opportunities for learning to make decisions, to carry responsibility, to select persons for positions of trust, how to live with others, and how to study. Lecturers and class rooms, quizzes and marks, credits and diplomas are not the hallmarks of educational opportunity; in fact, they may be impediments to learning. The provision of educational opportunity is as much a matter of the spirit as of materials. Given a staff truly dedicated to education for a democratic society and a college organized as a democratic community, learning situations will be rapidly created. They will develop in the classroom because the problems studied will be pertinent to the needs of the students and the students will actually participate in the running of the class. Moreover, the class will be small enough (not more than twenty-five persons) to permit consistent and frequent oral participation by every student in the group.

Learning situations will arise in the formulation and administration of the standards and rules of college life because students and teachers will work together in a community government. Practical and profound issues will be raised frequently as individuals and groups try to work out the problems of community living. In such situations the ability to teach will be severely tested because the declarations of the teacher will be examined and questioned and compared with those of other authorities and students.

Inherent in the democratic idea is freedom of thought. Every self respecting college in the land expresses allegiance to this principle. But how far practice diverges from profession, and what means are used to discourage bold and creative thinking! This in itself is, of course, a manifestation of fear, an evidence of distrust in the basic principles of democracy. To surmount such obstructions, the colleges need to create a genuine understanding and enthusiasm for democracy and the use of creative intelligence. The real believer in the democratic idea does not stand in fear of new ideas or the revival of old ones. He encourages their examination and he favors digging up all of the available evidence in order that their soundness may be determined by reason rather than prejudice. If a generation of college students could live and study in institutions that were democratic in practice and spirit, there would be little cause for fearing the collapse of democracy in America. Three million informed, alert, enthusiastic young adults who had had four years of experience in democratic living would be a powerful force for dispelling fear and suspicion.

The advocates of the great books and the prescribed curriculum maintain that such schemes are essential to provide unity and a basis for common understanding. What a silly notion! Why not let democracy be the basis for common understanding, the meeting ground for the artist, the scientist, and the businessman? Is it not possible for the mechanic, the clerk, the teacher, the doctor, the farmer and the housewife to build and operate a democratic community? And will they not find plenty of common ground in working out the problems of living together? As they seek the solutions to their common problems, will not the chances for good solutions be increased by the diversity of interests of the people and the sources of their ideas?

By its very nature democracy rests on people. One of its great virtues is that it recognizes the importance and worth of the individual and provides the conditions under which his unique qualities can be developed without the restrictive effects of rank and station. Individuals differ in their native equipment

and in their experiences. They differ from one another in the skills they possess and in their command of skills. Because of different backgrounds and aptitudes the extent and range of their knowledge varies. Because learning and growth are functions of the individual the materials of learning have to be suited to the individual learner. The good college takes account of this need by insisting that the program of studies for each student be built by careful selection of courses by the student concerned rather than by a general prescription of required courses. It also insists that classes be small enough to enable the student and the teacher to really know one another. It goes further and makes provision for regular and frequent individual counseling for each student.

The elimination of fear and insecurity is as much a job for education as for doctors, social workers or legislators. It extends, however, beyond the walls of the school buildings into every city, town, village and community. The college can work at this phase of education in two ways. First, it can incorporate work experience in industry and elsewhere in the school year through the device of the non-resident work term so that students see and know work life through actual experience. Second, it can arrange a program of adult education by which citizens can get stimulation and help in studying their individual and group problems. Such a program demands the same kind of dedication and creative intelligence as the teaching of young people and it has the virtue of helping the college staff to be better teachers of youth.

There are a few colleges in America whose trustees and staffs are trying to provide the kind of educational opportunities so urgently needed in building a democratic society reasonably free from fear. There are many colleges that are doing some things in this direction and there are many, many teachers who would like to do something but who do not see how within the limitations of their situation. The real promise lies, however, with the handful of progressive colleges. This is unfortunate, but it is merely being accurate to say that they alone have put into practice the philosophy and developed the techniques and organization that are essential.

William Heard Kilpatrick, dean of American educators, says that Goddard College is doing the most thoroughgoing job of all. It ought to. It was designed for such purposes. It has tried to improve its methods and its materials. It has made many changes in practice, but it has stuck to its basic purposes. Its chief concern has been education. It has stood for good teaching, academic freedom, sound scholarship, student participation in a democratic community. It has encouraged the application of the scientific method to the study of social issues. It has no quotas governing student admissions. Its students come from many states and a few foreign countries. They vary in wealth, in social position in their homes, and they have widely differing educational backgrounds. Some come from private schools and some from public schools, some from progressive schools, others from traditional schools. They hail from farms and from cities. They are a good cross section of college youth. At Goddard they all work at maintaining and operating the college and take part in the government of the community.

Goddard students are attracted to it not because of its football teams or its debating squads but because they believe it to be a good place to work and study to educate themselves.

The Goddard staff is chosen, without regard to race or creed, for its ability to teach. Some are immigrants from other lands. Some have studied abroad, others only in America. Because Goddard is a place for learning, the ability to stimulate the search for truth and to counsel with young people outweighs degrees and prominence as a writer or researcher.

Goddard College was established in part to render educational service to the adults of the community, state and nation. Through this service it has been instrumental in breaking down prejudice, dispelling unwarranted fears and widening horizons. It has come to be regarded as a center for adult education, community leadership and freedom of thought to which citizens come to get from one another better ways of looking at life.

People who believe in democracy ought to be enthusiastic about Goddard College. Those who want to live in a free society should stand with it. Those who think there is still a place for individual initiative should lend it strength: Those who believe that the findings of psychiatry, psychology and other branches of modern science should be applied to educational methods should give it support. Those who want coming generations to get out from under the burden of fear that now rests on men should work for it. Those who cherish the Vermont traditions of freedom, integrity and progress should identify themselves with it.

Let's be clear about it. There is a place for the large university where the costly facilities for research and advanced study can be assembled. But there is also a critical need for small colleges whose chief function is the education of young men and women. Unfortunately for America, public funds and private philanthropy are directed mainly to those large institutions whose chief contribution is not teaching. Contrary to the opinion of many, large gifts to colleges and universities have not been discontinued. Private donors are still very generous but because of lack of information about the policies and needs of colleges their gifts are often misdirected.

It is almost twelve years since Goddard College was organized on the foundations of Goddard Seminary by a group of Vermonters who believed that the twentieth century needed a new kind of college. The soundness of the policies of that group has been tested. Its worth has been proven.

[Editor's note: This text was selected from Forest Davis' book Things Were Different in Royce's Day (1996)]