A typical example of the mental gymnastics which have helped the University to salve its conscience in using restricted funds for general purposes is evident in President Lowell's report in which he considers the use of the Pierce bequest to the Philosophy Department. The value of the gift to the Philosophy Department was in effect cancelled, but the process was so subtle that the President felt that the conditions of the bequest had not been violated.

What actually happened was that, when salaries in all departments were raised, the additional amount spent in Philosophy was drawn from the Pierce fund instead of from general University funds. The President justified the action thus: "The principle regularly followed had been that, while the amount of unrestricted income allotted for any purpose should not be reduced when a gift is made for it, since that would be in effect a diversion of the gift to other objects, the University is under no obligation to increase the appropriation from unrestricted funds."

President Lowell's distinction is fundamentally fictitious. Money which in the absence of the gift would have gone to the Philosophy Department was withheld. The Department failed to benefit by the gift and the money was diverted just as effectively as if the Department's appropriation had been reduced.

In plain fact the University's "regularly followed principle" is to cancel specific gifts by increasing appropriations to other departments. Practically, it divides its general funds in accordance with greatest need. That is the natural outcome of the logical insoluble contradiction between the claims of general University welfare and the moral claims of those who give unrestricted funds.

As far as existing funds are concerned, the University will doubtless continue to defend itself by rotten logic. It ought to avoid prolonging the embarassment of its position by asking that future gifts be made without restrictions. By refusing restricted gifts the University can prevent the recurrence of the difficulty. Only in this way can it eliminate the questionable practices so ineffectually camouflaged in the President's report.