The crucial line in the 1914 report was 'the university is, indeed, likely always to exercise a certain form of conservative influence.'<p>Not conservative in the political sense as I read it but in the sense of being slow moving, of having a sense of history and tradition, honoring both. And a place where creativity as well as radicalism is tempered with caution.<p>I don't think that's compatible either with 'disruptive innovation' or with 'cancel culture' both of which strike me as two aspects of the same phenomenon. Or with 'publish or perish' for that matter.
FTA : "The teacher ought also to be especially on his guard against taking unfair advantage of the student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher's own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own. It is not the least service which a college or university may render to those under its instruction, to habituate them to looking not only patiently but methodically on both sides, before adopting any conclusion upon controverted issues."<p>The above is even more important in schools, where teachers impose their ideology on even younger students, who have no concept of multiple opinions. This can only be called brainwashing.
"This brings us to the most serious difficulty of this problem; namely, the dangers connected with the existence in a democracy of an overwhelming and concentrated public opinion. The tendency of modern democracy is for men to think alike, to feel alike, and to speak alike. Any departure from the conventional standards is apt to be regarded with suspicion. Public opinion is at once the chief safeguard of a democracy, and the chief menace to the real liberty of the individual"<p>"An inviolable refuge from such tyranny should be found in the university."<p>So if one professor is a Marxist/capitalist, they are an asset. If all professors are either one, it is a liability to the mission of the university as a refuge of heterogeneous thought.<p>Yet if we select professors based only on their idiosyncratic opinions we're as likely to fill the roster with well spoken insane people as with strong independent thinkers.<p>I'd prefer to attend a university filled with insane but unique teachers -- who are otherwise competent in their fields -- than with a homogeneous mass who I happen to agree with. Sure, strong independent thinkers would be better, but if I could pick just one...
All of these apologies for setting limits always assume that someone wise will make wise decisions about where to draw the line. The world, though, may not have enough wise people to go around.