Princeton, read a trustees’ report in January 1927, “has always recognized a dual obligation to its undergraduates.” One side of this commitment involved providing “a curriculum which will meet the needs of a modern university” and the other involved creating within students “those spiritual values which make for the building of character.” Wilson had reshaped Princeton into a modern university and had left as his legacy an unyielding commitment to serving national interests. Undergraduate education, graduate training, and a variety of impressive specialized research programs enabled the university to help meet the nation’s need for liberal, civic-minded leaders and the demand for science and practical technology. Wilson and his successors in early-twentieth-century Princeton continued to insist, like their nineteenth-century predecessors, that Protestantism was indispensable to the public good and that civic institutions, such as Princeton, served public interests when they sought to inculcate students with a nonsectarian Protestant faith. In this way, the university, they believed, helped mainline Protestantism play a unifying and integrative role in a nation of increasing cultural and religious diversity. By doing so, they reasoned, Princeton, like other private colleges and universities, would maintain its historic religious mission to advance the Christian character of American society. During the presidency of Wilson’s successor, John G. Hibben, controversies challenged the new configuration of Princeton’s Protestant and civic missions. These controversies, however, helped to strengthen the new ways in which the university attempted to fulfill its religious mission in the twentieth century. In liberal Protestantism, the university found a religion that was compatible with modern science and the public mission of the university. Those traditional evangelical convictions and practices that had survived Wilson’s presidency were disestablished during Hibben’s tenure. Fundamentalists’ criticisms of the university hastened this process in two ways. Sometimes fundamentalist attacks upon the university convinced the administration to adopt policies that guaranteed the displacement of traditional evangelical convictions and practices. This was the case, for example, when fundamentalists’ condemnations of the theological liberalism of the university’s Bible professor accelerated the administration’s approval of a policy of academic freedom.
Greetings from Scotland:
