^{page 996 note 1} The Report even provides a formula of key words for achieving effectiveness as teachers of citizenship: “example, motivation, preparation, application, participation, and balance.” Fortunately, the initial letters, “EMPAPB,” do not spell a readily pronounceable word.

^{page 998 note 2} I have said “the major goal,” though the Committee makes it this by emphasis rather than by specific phrasing. The Committee seems to find four goals: “training of citizens,” “diffusion of knowledge concerning international relations,” “production of leadership for all branches of the public service,” and “training teachers” (p. 24).

^{page 999 note 3} Pp. 126 ff.

^{page 1000 note 4} Note should be made, however, of the Committee's advocacy of fewer and broader graduate courses and of its disapproval of “excessive proliferation of courses” at the undergraduate level. Let me also note that my discussion is addressed to Committee recommendations, and is not meant to imply that the Committee does not present an inventory, largely without critical appraisal, of what political science departments are doing.

^{page 1001 note 1} The Committee does not explicitly take this position. It merely notes, sympathetically, the present “predominant interest” of political scientists (Goals for Political Science, p. ix).

^{page 1001 note 2} Ibid., p. 42.

^{page 1002 note 3} I am indebted to a discussion with Professor Samuel Beer for clarification on this point.

^{page 1002 note 4} Rossiter, Clinton L., “Political Science I and Political Indoctrination”, this Review, Vol. 42, pp. 542–549, at pp. 542 and 544 (June, 1948)Google Scholar.

^{page 1003 note 5} Ibid., pp. 543 and 544. While Professor Rossiter speaks of questions that are “no longer open questions” and doctrines that are “no longer exactly controversial in this country,” in fairness to him it must be pointed out that he favors a wider latitude of criticism in “our more advanced courses” (ibid., p. 545).

^{page 1006 note 1} See, for example, Smith, Munroe, “The Domain of Political Science”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 1–9 (Mar., 1886)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rowe, L. S., “Problems of Political Science”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 10, pp. 165–186 (Sept., 1897)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Merriam, C. E., “The Present State of the Study of Politics”, this Review, Vol. 15, pp. 173–185 (May, 1921)Google Scholar; Fairlie, J. A., “Politics and Science”, Scientific Monthly, Vol. 18, pp. 18–37 (Jan., 1924)Google Scholar; Munro, W. B., “Physics and Politics—An Old Analogy Revised”, this Review, Vol. 22, pp. 1–11 (1928)Google Scholar; E. S. Corwin, “Democratic Dogma and the Future of Political Science,” ibid., Vol. 23, pp. 569–592 (Aug., 1929); Harold F. Gosnell, “Statisticians and Political Scientists,” ibid., Vol. 27, pp. 392–403 (June, 1933); Perry, Charner, “Relation Between Ethics and Political Science”, Ethics, Vol. 47, pp. 163–179 (Jan., 1937)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sabine, George H., “The Pragmatic Approach to Politics”, this Review, Vol. 24, pp. 865–885 (Aug., 1930)Google Scholar; William Anderson, “The Role of Political Science,” ibid., Vol. 36, pp. 1–17 (Feb., 1943); Cook, Thomas I., “Politics, Sociology and Values”, Journal of Social Philosophy, Vol. 6, pp. 35–46 (Oct., 1940)Google Scholar; Loewenstein, Karl, “Report on the Research Panel on Comparative Government”, this Review, Vol. 38, pp. 540–548 (June, 1944)Google Scholar; Francis G. Wilson, “The Work of the Political Theory Panel,” ibid., Vol. 38, pp. 726–733 (Aug., 1944); Erich Voegelin, “Political Theory and the Pattern of General History,” ibid., Vol. 38, pp. 746–754 (Aug., 1944); Benjamin F. Wright, “Research in American Political Theory,” ibid., Vol. 38, pp. 733–740 (Aug., 1944); Wilson, Robert R., “Teaching of International Law in Undergraduate and Graduate Courses in Political Science”, American Society of International Law Proceedings, pp. 77–88 (1947)Google Scholar; Pennock, J. Roland, “Reason, Value Theory and the Theory of Democracy”, this Review, Vol. 38, pp. 855–875 (Oct., 1944)Google Scholar. In addition to the periodical literature on the nature and scope of political science, of which this list is a meager sample, there are also a number of books on the subject: for example, Rice, S. A., Quantitative Methods in Politics (New York, 1928)Google Scholar; Catlin, G. E. G., Science and Method of Politics (New York, 1927)Google Scholar; Cohen, Morris R., Reason and Nature—An Essay on the Meaning of Scientific Method (New York, 1931)Google Scholar; Friedrich, Carl J., Constitutional Government and Democracy: Theory and Practice in Europe and America (Boston, 1941)Google Scholar, eap. Ch. 25; Lasswell, Harold D., Power and Society (New Haven, 1950)Google Scholar.

^{page 1007 note 2} Although it was probably not available to the Committee at the time it was making its report, another UNESCO publication, edited by McKeon, Richard, Democracy in a World of Tensions (Chicago, 1951)Google Scholar is an invaluable addition to the existing literature on democracy.

^{page 1008 note 3} The Committee might well have considered the problem raised by ProfessorLippincott, in an article on “The Bias of American Political Science”, Journal of Politics, Vol. 2, pp. 125–139 (May, 1940)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. “It is impossible … ,” Professor Lippincott argued, “for the empiricist to avoid a point of view, a bias. Not only does he assume a theory and a scheme of values when he selects his facts, but also when he writes about them and tells us what they mean. Although he may think his objectivity is simon-pure, nevertheless, there will be found in his text, in the lines and in between the lines, all sorts of conclusions—in fact, a whole philosophy” (p. 132). Whether he is right or wrong, the problem he raises merits consideration. A recent attempt to grapple with the problem of objective evaluation as it relates to the problems of politics is Pennock's, J. RolandLiberal Democracy: Its Merits and Prospects (New York, 1950)Google Scholar.

^{page 1009 note 4} My own view is somewhat different from that expressed by Rossiter, Clinton L. in “Political Science I and Political Indoctrination”, this Review, Vol. 42, pp. 542–549 (June, 1948)Google Scholar. For there is, I believe, a significant difference between education and indoctrination, difficult though it may be at times to say exactly what that distinction is. I do not believe that the teacher should impose his value judgments upon his students, however laudable those value judgments may be. I do think he should make his judgments explicit and share with his students his premises as well as the evidence and train of thought that lead him to his conclusions. The students should be encouraged to take issue with him when they feel so inclined and be free always to reject his judgments, as well as to accept them if they find them sound. I conceive of the educational process as a mutual search for truth and in no sense at all a propagandistic undertaking. This point of view is elaborated in more detail in “Religious Perspectives of College Teaching: In Political Science”, published by the Hazen Foundation (New Haven, 1951), esp. pp. 23 ffGoogle Scholar. I have argued at some length in the same place that the kind of knowledge at which political science aims, or ought to aim, is practical knowledge of the best means of promoting justice among men.

^{page 1014 note 1} “Toward a More Integrated Political Science Curriculum”, this Review, Vol. 41, pp. 314–320 (April, 1947)Google Scholar.

^{page 1016 note 1} Contemporary Political Science (New York, 1960)Google Scholar.

^{page 1018 note 2} The Brookings Institute has been making special efforts toward improving both the scope and materials of international relations teaching. See also the Report of the International Relations Committee of the APSA, submitted at San Francisco, 1951.

^{page 1022 note 1} “Working for the Government”, New Republic, Vol. 84, pp. 260–263 (Oct. 16, 1935)Google Scholar and Vol. 85, pp. 14–15 (Nov. 13, 1935).

^{page 1023 note 2} All of the articles in the Political Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Oct.–Dec., 1944)Google Scholar deal with university education. Particularly acute is the article by ProfessorDobrée, Bonamy, “Arts' Faculties in Modern Universities”, pp. 341–352Google Scholar. Dr. Eric James, the famous High Master of Manchester Grammar School, has recently published a provocative little book, Education and Leadership (London, 1951)Google Scholar. SirMoberly's, WalterThe Crisis in the University (London, 1949)Google Scholar should be more widely known in the United States. Virtually unknown is the Report of the Committee on the Provision for Social and Economic Research, July, 1946 (Cmd. 6868)— a parliamentary paper deserving of study by all teachers and researchers in the social sciences. If anyone says that in these egalitarian times talk of an elite is out of the question, I refer him to Laski's, Harold article, “The Élite in A Democratic Society”, Harper's Magazine, Vol. 167, pp. 456–464 (Sept., 1933)Google Scholar.

^{page 1024 note 3} The Nation, Vol. 101, pp. 327–328 (Sept. 9, 1915)Google Scholar.

^{page 1024 note 4} Since the contents of the American Political Science Review are protected by copyright, I disclose an idea with which I have long toyed and which will not lose its merit, if any, when American universities and colleges face the serious financial difficulties that are in prospect. Could universities and colleges learn a lesson from organized baseball? Could there be universities in major leagues and in minor leagues, and colleges which were “farms” for the major institutions, with young instructors serving apprenticeships and with professors being traded in? I once remarked to my friend James T. Shotwell that, if such a system had been in existence when he was younger, a university, in order to get him, would probably have been willing to offer Columbia a Nobel Prize Winner, an associate professor of English, and $10,000. Major league universities would have their talent scouts watching performances in the minor leagues and then draft professors. Before university seasons began, the presidents could take their “teams” to Florida or Puerto Rico and the professors would practice their lectures. The more valuable ones would hold out and demand better contracts. When the season began, the number of professors could not exceed the figure agreed upon. The surplus ones would be “farmed out.”

The principal catch I see is that in baseball there are practices known as “obtaining waivers” and “unconditional releases.” But the American Association of University Professors should be able to make proposals for the proper modification of these practices. See Baseball Bluebook, 1951: The Official Administrative Manual of Organized Baseball (Ft. Wayne, Indiana: Heilbroner, 1951)Google Scholar.