1. A scientific study of the principles of philanthropy: information before reformation.
2. A spirit of friendliness: not alms, but a friend.
Men and women of singular ability, of the best training and devoted to noble ideals, have given their lives to studying the problems of the poor, and so we have colleges and social settlements, free kindergartens, home libraries and a score of other new activities, one in spirit and in aim. But there are not enough trained specialists.
The philanthropic work of our cities is largely done by young ladies of the leisure class, quite a proportion of them graduates of colleges, and with a splendid mental, moral, and social equipment for the work. But they are raw recruits for lack of discipline. Caught in the wave of enthusiasm they plunge zealously into work with very little understanding of underlying principles.
I have given a good deal of thought to this difficulty and am persuaded that there is a way out. I want to present it here because, if it appeals to you as wise, you will be able to help in putting the plan to the test of experience. As the difficulty is ignorance, the remedy is study.
A class in philanthropy should be organized, for serious study in the scientific spirit and by the scientific method, under the direction of as competent a teacher as can be secured. Only those who are determined to do serious work and who have ability to cope with these problems should be admitted. Every attempt to popularize the course should be discouraged. The class might be carried on under the auspices of a church, a charity organization society, or even of a library. The initiative should be taken by some one person with the requisite discrimination, tact, and organizing skill. According to my outline a two- years' course is needed, involving an hour of class work once a week, with, if possible, five hours a week of study, and for nine or ten months in the year. Laboratory work, that is, investigation of local conditions, should be carried on throughout the course. Lectures combined with seminar work seem to me the best methods of instruction. The literature of the subject is rich and helpful.
At the end of the first course there would be two or three new persons competent to instruct, and these might organize other classes.
If this class in philanthropy could be carried on in any city for 10 or 15 years, the charities of the city would feel the effect of the work. Instead of crudity there would be strength, enthusiasm would be supplemented by wisdom. The result would be the strengthening of the personal character of the poor and the enrichment of the whole city life. For we rise or sink together. The higher groups of society cannot develop without a corresponding development in the lower groups.
And so I call you to study the problems of philanthropy, to follow intelligently the history of home libraries, to approve this plan of training if it be wise, if not to work out a better one. Neither is this to go outside your natural course on the ground of sentiment. You are to study the community on broad lines that you may give back to the community through many channels that abundant life which is the highest service.