UA-R-GC-1914-01-01-1914-11-30_Page-007

November 30 , 1914. Liberal Moslems anxious to safeguard .aoral character of thildren will send boys to Collegiate Department. (b) School of Education should attract an encouraging number who serve the Missions in Egypt and the Coptic a.nd private schools. So also for teachers in Mission Schools in Arabia, Syria and all North Africa. (c) The School of Religion should draw three classes; Such mssionaries as now attend the Study Center, native mission workers preparing for work among Mosley ls, Moslem inquirers investigating the sources of Islam and the sources of Christianity. (d) School of Agriculture should command a good enrolment, for Egypt is an agricultural country. (e) Most important is the Extension Department and publication work to reach those who never come to the University campus, and to make available for the widest circles, all that the Schools of Religion, Education and Agriculture have to offer of original discovery or of helpful suggestion. (4) Relationships of Control: There are several relationships conceivable: (a) Denominational: This has not been urged. While University conception originated in a given denominational camp, it was quickly recognized that its development could not be denominational. (b) Wholly independent of Church affiliations: This was considered, but for the sake of safeguarding the Christian and missionary character of the institution in the future and to adequately relate it to the missionary activities in Moslem lands, it was not regarded as satisfactory. (c) The proposed relationship lay between the fore-going two. That a majority of the Board of Trustees should be elected by or subject to the approval of such Foreign Boards as are willing to cooperate in the University scheme. It is hoped that when Charter is applied for, two Boards will cooperate. If 11 out of 21 members of the Board of Trustees are subject in their election to their approval by these Foreign Boards, the remaining 10 may represent other denominations or interests that have not officially joined in the movement. Relationship to the Foreign Mission Boards deemed better than relationsnip to supreme judicatories of these Churches, because of specialized knowledge of Foreign Boards and their natural mission-ary contacts. DISCUSSION: A discussion followed in which many participated and among the points discussed and the suggestions made were the following: The two Boards referred to as probably ready to cooperate were those of the United Presbyterian Church and of the Reformed Church in America. Dr. Chamberlain explains that the Board of the Reformed Church has not yet taken formal action, information having been sought on the following points: 1. Was the Foreign Board or the whole Refor..ied Church to take the movement up and did the Foreign Board's action call for approval by their General Synod? 2. The degree of the Board's responsibility for the actions of its representatives on the Board of Trustees. 3. The length of term of its representatives on the Board of Trustees. 4. How much might their Board be held responsible financially and morally? To these questions ansvtr was given that cooperation involved the Board but not the General Synod: that it was not intended that the Foreign Boards should be formally responsible for the actions of their representatives on the Board of Trustees but only responsible for the approval or disapproval of these representatives at the time of election; that the length of the term of service remained to be fixed; and that no financial responsibility wts attached to cooperation. It was pointed out that Trustees once elected would no longer be responsible to the Board electing them or approving of them, although they would be expected to serve as a means of contact with said Board so as to maintain the viewpoint of that Board in so far as possible. No annual report to the Foreign Boards had been thought to be necessary, though it might be advisable. Dr. Chamber-lain suggested the wisdom of having some constructive statement indicate clearly that Foreign Boards were not formally responsible for the actions o