aken possession of the
nation at large. Meat has become more than life and raiment more than
body. One question is being intensely pressed forward--_how to learn a
living?_ and the swing of the pendulum concerning the Negro's education
has swept a degree beyond any heretofore measured.

That manual training is needful no one will deny for a moment; that some
of all races must inevitably be sons of toil is readily admitted; and
that such education has its share in the development of every race there
is no contention. We all know that Learning and Labor traveled hand in
hand, with the emphasis upon the former, when the Anglo Saxon first
wrestled with the wilderness of America. We know too that when the
desert wastes were changed to smiling plains the ways of the two drifted
apart, and learning took the path for culture and high scholarship,
untrammeled, while labor plodded on, gaining slowly comparative ease in
its varied lines. It is only when limitation is placed upon a race that
objection comes--when one race is selected for more than a fair share of
experimentation in the exploitation of a theory. Then danger seems
imminent. In this case the danger lies in the tendency to lose sight of
Negro scholarship--of Negro higher learning. There are other questions
of equal importance to that of how to earn a living, and that college
president who expressed it in these words "How to live on what one
earns--how to live higher lives," understood well their relative worth
when pre-eminence was claimed for the latter, and pointed to a fact too
largely ignored--that the lessons which teach these last mentioned come
from a different training from that represented by industrial training
alone.

We repeat that the suggestions bearing upon the education of the Negro
race have caused too decided a swing of the pendulum in many quarters
and higher education is in danger of being swallowed up, if not to a
great extent abandoned, in the extreme importance attached to that other
education we denominate as Industrial.

The error arises in confounding race with the individual, which is not
only radically unphilosophic, but morally wrong. The recognition of
individual limitation is right and proper, and it is the individual that
must be considered. As Dr. Ward has pertinently observed, "To the man
who wants to lift a mass of people out of lower into higher conditions
they are people, individual people, not races," and he adds further with
ju