Introducing the American Spirit

by Edward Alfred Steiner

“In Germany,” again the Herr Director, “where things are not permitted to grow merely because they grow elsewhere, it was found that for military preparedness your sports are of little or no value, especially if engaged in vicariously; and that teaching men to dig trenches and serve cannon, to obey implicitly a command and carry it out effectively, is of more use, not only to the individual’s well-being, but also for the great, collective purpose of national defense.”

It seems very strange to me that nearly all foreigners whom I have helped introduce to our academic life have been so gratified by its evident democracy, and that their satisfaction was greatest when their own aristocratic lineage was highest. That a man’s career in our institutions of learning is not made impossible because he does manual labor to help him through, and that he may do such femininely menial tasks as waiting on table or washing dishes, while taxing their credulity, is always unstintingly praised.

I have, however, good reason to believe that while our foreign visitors find the democracy of our colleges interesting and praiseworthy, we are losing the thing itself to a large degree, and my conscience has not always been at ease when I finished a panegyric on college democracy. In fact what I fear is its defeat just there, where it is most needed, where we are supposed to train the leaders who, whether they become leaders or not, are the men who will give tone to our national life and will control its expression.

In travelling from one of the universities to the other, we came upon a group of college men in the train. The Herr Director recognized them at once, whether instinctively or because he had discovered the type, I do not know. I knew them because of the fit of their garments, or the lack of it, and by the fact that they smoked cigarettes incessantly.

The Herr Director, as a distinguished foreigner, had no difficulty in opening a conversation with them, and I think he got much illuminating amusement out of them. They had just finished their semester “exams,” and one of them said that the question upon which he flunked was a comparison between the two English authors, Dickens and DeQuincy. Though he did not know the difference between these two, he showed his classic training by differentiating between a Rameses II and an Egyptian Deity cigarette merely by the color of the smoke.

I was not drawn into the conversation until the Herr Director needed me to interpret some campus English. One of the lads undertook to inform us regarding the social life of his university and more especially the fraternities, with particular emphasis upon his own, which excluded not only certain well-defined races, but also put a ban upon certain classes. “We don’t admit anybody into our fraternity whose people are not somebody in their communities.”

I asked him his name and he gave it to me with a French pronunciation.

I thought he was Bohemian, and recognized the name as such, in spite of its French disguise. I told him so, and pronounced it for him in the hard, Slavic way, all gutturals and consonants. I also told him its meaning: “A very common hoe such as the peasants use, and it means that your ancestors in Bohemia earned their living honestly, which I am sorry to say cannot always be said about ‘people who are somebody’ in our communities.”

The Herr Director thought I was very hard upon the poor fellow, and later I had a good talk with him. I tried to show him that his Bohemian, peasant origin ought to be a source of pride to him. That the very fact that he and his people had come out of the steerage, and by virtue of our democratic institutions could rise to the point where they could send him to college, should make him a guardian of the American Spirit and not its foe. I do not know that he profited by what I said; for I often find myself talking to the wind and the tide, and they are both against me.

I have only pity for the gilded youth who go to an American college with its vast opportunities of human contact, yet fail to see any one outside their own social boundaries. After all, the chief glory of our educational institutions is that their best things are still democratic. No man is kept from the Holy of Holies, from sound learning, from the contact with scholarly minds, from good books, and enough of rich fellowship to make going to college worth while.