manner, or by the assignment of lessons much too long for one's normal
rate of advance, or by the assignment of subject-matter that seems to
have no possible value, what should the student do? Should he smother
his own desires and opinions in the attempt to satisfy his teacher?
Rarely, if ever; he will not grow inwardly by suppressing the self. On
the contrary, when he feels himself in serious restraint, he should
frankly state his grievances, and the teacher, even though a college
professor, should receive and ponder such statements seriously,
remembering that one reason he is paid a salary is that he shall
exercise skill in adapting himself to the psychological condition of
his students.

If these frank statements evoke no friendly response, then protest may
be in place, and sometimes revolt, just as when political liberty is
assailed. Of course, a good degree of patience and tolerance should
always be exercised toward one's teacher; but there is need of more
moral courage among young people to meet the disapproval of teachers
and their punishments in the form of scoldings and low marks. Many a
college student unresistingly submits to a sarcastic, dictatorial
teacher when he ought to show resentment and stand on his rights.
Resistance to teaching authority may be just as vital a part of study
as the rejection of the conclusions of an author. Until such ideas are
more generally practiced, a normal, vigorous self, which is the first
factor in scholarship, is in danger. Intellectual liberty is not less
important than political liberty, and often worth a fight. It is odd
that much blood has been shed for the attainment of political and
religious freedom, while the tyranny of mind over mind, which is
exceedingly common in the class room, has scarcely been recognized as
a serious evil. It can be accounted for only by the fact that both
teachers and parents have been more interested in the quantity of