Burke M. E., The University of Mexico and The Revolution 1910-1940

The University of Mexico and the Revolution, 1910-1940
Author(s): Michael E. Burke

Source: The Americas, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Oct., 1977), pp. 252-273
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/981357
Accessed: 30-01-2018 15:57 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Americas
This content downloaded from 151.97.63.94 on Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:57:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE UNIVERSITY OF MEXICO AND THE
REVOLUTION, 1910-1940
ONFLICT between revolution and academia, between the activist

and the scholar, is probably inevitable. At times when urgent
demands for radical change threaten the very fabric of a society,
when popular violence and ideological bitterness question all tradition
a university becomes especially vulnerable. As an institution dedicate
to preserving the cultural inheritance of the past, a haven for the calm,
deliberate pursuit of truth, the university in the midst of revolutio
must choose whether to adhere to its traditional role, or to become
an active partner of social change, promulgating new ideologies and
providing practical training for revolutionary leaders. During the Mexican
Revolution of 1910, the popular image of a university as a refuge for
the privileged and wealthy added to a long history of the conscious
use of education to promote a prescribed set of values to make the
National University particularly controversial. Dedicated only two
months before the Revolution erupted, the new institution found itself
under immediate pressure to become "revolutionary" in a society that
had little patience for scholarly aloofness.'
The founder of the modern National University was Justo Sierra,
the Secretary of Public Instruction under Porfirio Diaz. A disillusioned
Positivist, Sierra hoped to combine the traditional and the innovative
in the new institution. The University was to include the existing
professional schools of medicine, law, engineering, and fine arts, the
National Preparatory School, which had been founded by Gabino Barreda
to provide pre-professional training in the Positivist mode, and a new
School of Advanced Studies, which was to be devoted to the humanities.
In addition, Sierra hoped that the new structure would be a declaration
of independence from restrictive philosophies and government interfer-
ence. By 1910 he had become intensely critical of the dogmatism,
materialism, and lack of free research that he believed had come to
characterize Positivist education. His National University would not
only train specialists in the traditional professions, but also encourage
the discovery of new truths in an atmosphere of complete freedom
' Throughout the nineteenth century liberals and conservatives used education to promote
their respective values. Although liberals suppressed the university at every opportunity,
they readily established substitutes, such as the National Preparatory School.
For general background, see Leopoldo Zea, Del liberalismo a la revoluci6n en la educaci6n
mexicana (Mexico, 1956); and Irma Wilson, Mexico, A Country of Educational Thought
(New York, 1941).
252
MICHAEL E. BURKE 253
of thought. By stimulating scholarsh

with a love of knowledge and truth
of Mexico. The University would set the tone of Mexican science
and culture, becoming a "nucleus of intellectual power." 2
Between 1910 and 1924, the School of Advanced Studies and the
National Preparatory School not only succeeded in fulfilling the idea
of Justo Sierra, but became targets of the Revolution as well. The
School of Advanced Studies also marked the most significant departure
from the rigid "scientific" bias of the Porfiriato. Dedicated completely
to the humanities, it was explicitly designed to foster an intellectual
elite (sabios) who would create a distinctly Mexican culture. It was
unstructured to an extent never before attempted. During its early years,
it had no formal curriculum, no faculty of its own, and gave no degrees.
Individual professors simply offered courses-any courses-that
appealed to them and attracted students. Subjects ranged from meta-
physics and medieval literature to specialized studies in the physical
and social sciences. Courses in Indian languages, anthropology, and
archaeology were indicative of a more national orientation. Similar
innovations occurred in the Preparatory School: new courses in philoso-
phy and art, seminars and independent research projects, and a greater
focus on the implications for the Mexican reality in all subjects.3
The humanistic orientation in both schools signified the coming of
age of a new generation of young intellectuals who had banded together
in 1909 in what they called the Ateneo. The Ateneo, although opposed
to the intellectual climate of the Diaz regime, was more philosophical
than political. It shared Sierra's opposition to the materialism of
Positivism, and rejected its claims of rigid objectivity. The young
intellectuals, influenced by the intuitive thought of Henri Bergson,
concerned themselves with such concepts as value, beauty, and person-
ality. They looked to literature, philosophy, and art to restore a spiritual
2Sierra to Miguel Unamuno, July 7, 1910, in Sierra, Obras completas (Mexico, 1948),
XIV, 447-50. (Unamuno was rector of the University of Salamanca at the time.)
For Sierra's ideas on higher education, see also his "Discurso . . . al presentar . . .
la iniciativa para la fundaci6n de la Universidad Nacional" (April 26, 1910), Obras, V, 417-28;
and "Escuelas y no facultades universitarias" (April 4, 1910), Obras, VII, 319; Edmundo
O'Gorman, "Justo Sierra y los origenes de la Universidad de Mexico, 1910," Filosofia y
Letras, XVII (1949), 31-54, 221-51.
3Ezechiel Chfavez, "Discurso pronunciado en el acto de la inauguraci6n de la Escuela
Nacional de Altos Estudios" (Sept. 18, 1910), in La Universidad de Justo Sierra (Mexico,
1948), pp. 183-92; Escuela Nacional de Altos Estudios, Ley constitutiva . . . de 1910 (Mexico,
1910); Plan de Estudios e investigaciones de la Facultad . . . de Altos Estudios (Mexico,
1910); Joaquin Eguia Lis, Informe del Rector (Mexico, 1913), pp. 61-63; Escuela Nacional
Preparatoria, Plan de Estudios (Mexico, 1914).
254 THE UNIVERSITY OF MEXICO AND THE REVOLUTION
and aesthetic sensitivity that they asserted was in accord with M

own Indian and Spanish heritage.4
The Ateneo and its ideals dominated the early decades of the
University. Prominent leaders of the Ateneo included Jose Vasconcelos,
who became rector in 1920, Pedro Henriquez Urefia, who supervised
the reforms in the Preparatory School, and Antonio Caso, whose
philosophy classes instilled a love of knowledge and beauty in literally
a generation of Mexican intellectuals.5 Their dedication to art, philoso-
phy, and free inquiry, and their total rejection of all political restrictions,
became a reality in the early years of the University. Unfortunately,
although their emphasis on Mexico's own traditions conformed with
the nationalism of the Revolution, their idealism and individualism were
far removed from the pressing economic and social problems.6 Thus
a confrontation between the university humanists and the hard-nosed,
practical revolutionaries was unavoidable.
The first attack on the University occurred in 1912, when porfiristas
and liberals in Congress joined forces to suppress it. Conservatives
saw the School of Advanced Studies as a regressive step toward the
frutiless love of theory that had traditionally retarded progress; Agustin
Arag6n, a Positivist journalist, dubbed it the "School of Advanced
Speculative Ramblings. " Liberals agreed that it served no useful purpose;
many argued that funds desperately needed for primary education were
supporting a small elite whose loyalty to the goals of the Revolution
were questionable. Fortunately, however, Felix Palavicini, a respected
liberal, was able to save the institution by convincing his colleagues
of the practical value of scientific research.7 Nevertheless, opponents
were successful in slashing the appropriation for the School of Advanced
40n the Ateneo, see Conferencias del Ateneo de la Juventud, ed. Juan Hernfndez Luna
(Mexico, 1962); German Posada, "La generaci6n mexicana de 1910," Historia Mexicana,
XII (1962), 147-53; Patrick Romanell, Making of the Mexican Mind (Lincoln, Neb., 1952),
pp. 54-66.
5 For typical accolades of former students, see Samuel Ramos, "La filosofia en la Universidad
de Mexico," in Pablo Martinez del Rio, et. al., Ensayos sobre la Universidad de Mixico
(Mexico, 1951), pp. 67-69; Alfonso Reyes, Pasado Inmediato("Obras completas," XII; Mexico,
1960), p. 211; James W. Wilkie and Edna Monz6n de Wilkie, Mixico visto en el siglo XX:
Entrevistas de historia oral (Mexico, 1969), interviews with Vicente Lombardo Toledano,
p. 259, and Jes6is Silva Herzog, p. 634.
6Jos6 Vasconcelos, Ulises criollo (Mexico, 1935), p. 464, maintains that Caso, for example,
remained a Porfirista well into 1912.
7Agustin Arag6n and Horacio Barreda, "Las universidades y la Universidad Nacional,"
in Universidad de Sierra, pp. 153 f. (This first appeared in Revista Positiva in 1912.) Also,
M6xico, Camara de Diputados, Comisi6n la de Instrucci6n Pdblica, Dictamen . . . relativa
a la supresi6n de la Universidad Nacional, 1912; Felix Palavicini, Mi vida revolucionaria
(Mexico, 1937), pp. 99-106.
Obviously, the men of the Ateneo would not have appreciated such arguments.
Studies by more than fifty percent,

without pay.8
While the humanities were fighting
the professional schools were organiz
force within the University. Medical
organization in 1910. Two years late
declared strikes in their respective shcools. In both cases, disputes
over internal issues assumed political significance.
The strike in the School of Law was a response to an arbitrary
reform in the examination program. Students protested the change,
and demanded a voice in setting academic policy. The school's director,
Luis Cabrera, closed its baths and gymnasium, whereupon the students
organized street demonstrations, and the government closed the school.
During the next four months, while the school remained closed, lawyers
and professors, including Antonio Caso, delivered lectures in a student-
organized Free School of Law. Although student leaders insisted their
actions were not political, the fact that Cabrera was virtually the only
overt revolutionary on the staff made them appear so. Cabrera confirmed
this popular assumption by labeling the strike leaders reactionaries and
Catholics.9
Art students were also concerned with greater freedom. In 1913
Diego Rivera, David Alfaro Siqueiros, and Jose Clemente Orozco,
organized their fellow students to protest the doctrinaire approach to
art in the Academy of Fine Arts. During their strike, which lasted
until 1916, they demanded greater freedom of expression, more emphasis
on creativity instead of following traditional models, and incorporation
into the National University so that their work might receive greater
attention. Finally the government capitulated, making the School of
Fine Arts a center for the development of new methods of artistic
expression, and a victory for Sierra's concept of the University.1o
By 1915, however, the University had little to commend it in the
eyes of revolutionaries. Most faculty and students were apathetic. The
8The appropriation went from 80,000 to 30,000 pesos; according to the 1910 charter, the
government made separate appropriations for each school. (Figures from Jose Attolini, Las
finanzas de la Universidad a travis del tiempo (Mexico, 1951), p. 71, based on government
publications.
9Lucio Mendieta y Ntifiez, Historia de la Facultad de Derecho (Mexico, 1956), pp. 169-76;
La Escuela Libre de Derecho: XL Aniversario (Mexico, 1952).
s'Gerardo Murillo, "La Escuela Nacional de Bellas Artes," Boletin de Instrucci6n P ~blica,
XIV (Sept., 1914), 74-81; "Informe general de los trabajos que en la Escuela Nacional
de Bellas Artes fueron ejecutados durante . . . 1911-1912," Boletin de Instrucci6n P iblica,
XII(July, 1914); Justino Fernandez, "La pintura contemporanea y la Universidad," in Martinez
del Rio, Ensayos, p. 89.
professional schools had made no concessions to revolutionary ideals.

Student protests seemed self-seeking if not counter-revolutionary. Even
its former supporter, Palavicini, criticized its "sterile, disgraceful medi-
ocrity." " Fortunately, university leaders also recognized the need to
make tangible contributions to society. Social and economic progress
required trained technicians. An illiterate people needed teachers.
Students bored by politics and insensitive to injustice had to realize
their obligation to serve society. "Social education" must replace the
"laissez-faire attitude" toward duty to country; the professional techni-
cian and teacher must replace the cultured gentlemen.12
In 1916, however, a wider debate between universitarios and normalis-
tas forced postponement of effective internal reform. The universitarios
were advocates of the humanist ideals of Sierra and the Ateneo; the
normalistas were former students of John Dewey who had returned
to Mexico infatuated with American progressive education and intent
on imposing it on their homeland. President Carranza placed normalistas
in charge of public education, including the University.13
The School of Advanced Studies was most affected by this move.
Miguel Schulz, its new director, established formal degree programs
in history, anthropology, and primary and secondary education, thereby
destroying its unique, unstructured character. New courses in educa-
tional theory and child psychology replaced some cultural offerings.
Enrollment soared from less than ninety to over seven hundred. Most
were women. Thus, the center for independent inquiry became a
teachers' college designed to train "professionals" in national culture.14
The Preparatory School changed, too, as normalistas endeavored
to transform it into a progressive American high school. The traditional
preparation for professional training was expanded, in the jargon of
"Felix Palavicini, "Discurso . . . en la ceremonia de la toma de posesi6n del nuevo

Rector," Boletin de Educaci6n, I (Sept., 1914), 27-28.
12 Ibid.; Jose Natividad Macias, "Discurso pronunciado . . con motivo del IX aniversario
de la fundaci6n de la Universidad Nacional, "Boletin de la Universidad, II (1919), 73-82;
Jesds Diaz de Le6n "Alocuci6n . . . en la apertura de la Escuela de Altos Estudios,"
Boletin de Educaci6n, 1 (1916), 50-54.
"3See Venustiano Carranza, "Informe" (April 15, 1917), La educaci6n pifblica en Mixico
a trave's de los mensajes presidenciales desde la consumaci6n de la independencia hasta
nuestros dias (Mexico, 1926), pp. 190-91.
Palavicini became Secretary of Public Instruction; Mois6s Saenz, a former student of
Dewey at Columbia, became his principal assistant.
'4The new Plan de Estudios (1916) is quoted in part in Beatriz Ruiz Gaytfn de San Vicente,
Apuntes para la historia de la Facultad de Filosofia y Letras (Mexico, 1954), pp. 55-57.
Also, Carranza, "Informe" (April 15, 1917, Sept. 1, 1918), in Mensajes presidenciales, pp.
190-91, 198, respectively; Diaz de Leon, "Alocuci6n"; Julio Jim6nez Rueda, "La Universidad
Nacional," in Martinez del Rio, Ensayos, p. 52.
the day, to "preparation for life." C

were reduced to allow time for phy
and mandatory military drill. Teacher
students in their learning, such as h
out a chemical reaction."
Universitarios angrily rejected the new trend. They opposed the attack
on the humanities, abhorred the imposition of another foreign philosophy,
and argued that the conscious acceptance of any official ideology was
a threat to academic liberty. Antonio Caso saw excessive political
interference as the root of the institution's problems, and concluded
that only complete autonomy from the government could guarantee
intellectual freedom and integrity. Politics itself threatened effective
learning; freedom from politics was the only solution. His plea for
autonomy was partially discredited, however, when it was immediately
endorsed by the rector, Jose Macias, a man whom many considered
excessively pedantic and unfriendly to the Revolution.16
In sum, by 1920, the University was as removed from the Revolution
than ever. While Caso and others dreamed of the pursuit of learning
in a scholarly environment free from day-to-day politics, Mexican society
demanded immediate, concrete participation in current affairs. It re-
mained for another founder of the Ateneo, Jose Vasconcelos, to bridge
the gap and incorporate the University into national life without
sacrificing its integrity.
Vasconcelos, first as rector of the University, then as Secretary of
Public Instruction, was the architect of the principal educational reforms
of the Mexican Revolution. Education, he believed, could bring literacy,
culture, and civilization to every corner of the nation. Although the
rural cultural missions and artistic renaissance were the principal
accomplishments of his efforts, he also had a significant impact on
the National University.
As an innovator, Vasconcelos was a complex figure. He believed
deeply in the ideals of the Revolution, but despised the politicians and
generals who had brought it about. He was idealistic, impulsive and
demanding. As rector he condemned the study of French literature
as trivial and sterile in a land of widespread ignorance; as Secretary
of Public Instruction he sought to bring literacy and practical skills
15Escuela Nacional Preparatoria, Plan de Estudios (Mexico, 1917); Jim6nez Rueda, "La
Universidad," pp. 50-53; Wilkie, Mexico, Historia oral, interview with Lombardo Toledano,
pp. 260-62.
'6Antonio Caso, "Proyecto de Ley que declara la autonomia de la Universidad Nacional,"
Boletin de Educaci6n, I (November, 1915), 21-29. The entire affair is outlined in Julio Jiminez
Rueda, Historia juridica de la Universidad de Mixico (Mexico, 1955), p. 194.
to remote villages. Yet he emphasized the need to incorporate In

culture into the national heritage, and saw his ultimate objectiv
"the transformation of the Mexican soul." He called to Mexico's
students to share knowledge with the ignorant, but at the s
criticized courses in pedagogy as anti-intellectual. 17
During his brief tenure as rector (1920-21), he was determ
make the University a force for change. In his first speech h
terized the institution as a "pile of ruins" that fostered useless s
by "social parasites." In his eyes, professors had to contribut
to achieving the reforms promised by the Revolution. On t
hand, he was equally insistent upon maintaining high academic s
for academic ranks, and enforcing mandatory attendance at
also encouraged students of little means to attend the Univ
creating a sliding scale of fees.'18
Often imaginative, one of Vasconcelos first acts was to co
university prestige to the campaign against illiteracy. In an
proclamation, he announced that the University would grant
of Honorary Professor of Elementary Education to all pers
would teach one hundred individuals to read and write. The press
gave the offer extensive publicity, and the public responded with
enthusiasm. In the first month the University granted 436 diplomas.19
Always skeptical of bureaucrats, Vasconcelos appointed young schol-
ars to critical administrative positions. The faculty also began to change,
as young men with new ideas, often little older than students, began
to replace the older professors of the Diaz era. Indeed, a remarkable
number of later intellectual giants-Victor Lombardo Toledano, Ram6n
Beteta, Narciso Bassols, Daniel Cosio Villegas, Jesus Silva Herzog-
began their careers in the University of the twenties. Many would
recall fondly the intellectual excitement of the time.20
In addition to internal revitalization, Vasconcelos proposed three
'7Jose Vasconcelos, "Declaraciones . . . con motivo de la toma de posesi6n del cargo

de rector de la Universidad Nacional," Boletin de la Universidad, Epoca IV, I (Aug., 1920),
7-13; Vasconcelos, La tormenta (Mexico, 1937), pp. 570-74.
'8 Vasconcelos, "Declaraciones"; "Bases para la organizaci6n del profesorado de la Facultad
de Medicina" (June 21, 1920), in Mexico, Secretaria de Educaci6n Piblica, El movimiento
educativo en Mexico (Mexico, 1922), pp. 50-54; "Direcci6n administrativa" (June 7, 1920),
in Movimiento educativo, pp. 9-10; "Sobre los grados universitarios" (Sept. 18, 1920), Boletin
de la Universidad, Epoca IV, I (Nov., 1920), 14-23. For a brief, perceptive analysis of
the University and Vasconcelos, see Porfirio Mufoz Ledo, "La educaci6n superior," in
Mexico: Cincuenta arios de revoluci6n (Mexico, 1962), IV, 110-13.
19"Circulares sobre la compafia contra el analfabetismo," Boletin de la Universidad, Epoca
IV, I (Aug., 1920), 32-39.
20See, for example, Wilkie, MWxico, Historia oral, interviews with G6mez Morin, pp.
144-46, and Silva Herzog, pp. 644-45.
national objectives for the University

cultural services; to offer leadership in
culture; and to instill future leaders with a social conscience as well
as professional expertise.2' During the next three years significant
progress would occur in meeting all three goals.
In order to fulfill its first mission of training teachers the School
of Advanced Studies established a Section of Education in 1923 to
prepare and certify teachers ("missionaries of learning"), scho
tors, and school administrators. Courses in physical education and
handicrafts were designed to enable rural teachers to become involved
in all aspects of village development.22 Despite its efforts, however,
the University never became a significant source of teachers, and never
had significant influence in the Ministry of Public Instruction. Yet an
examination of student theses reveals a substantial interest in pedagogical
themes, including such specialized topics as rural health and the roles
of sports and religion in education.23
The University was more successful in contributing toward Vasconce-
los' second objective, the creation of a national identity, although it
would develop its full potential in this area only years later. During
the twenties Mexican intellectuals turned to their nation's Indian heritage
in pursuit of a distinctly Mexican identity. Nationalistic advocates of
indigenismo demanded that schools educate the Indian without alienating
him from his own culture. On an intellectual plane, indigenismo implied
a reexamination of the very nature of the Mexican character. Vasconcelos
embodied this relation between a multi-racial heritage and national
identity in the new motto he gave the University, "By virtue of my
race, my soul will speak." (Por mi raza hablard el espiritu)
The only concrete accomplishments in this direction during the early
twenties occurred in the School of Advanced Studies. New advanced
degrees established the teacher-scholar as a legitimate career in it
Courses in philosophy and literature paid more attention to Mex
intellectuals, while the Section of Social Sciences initiated courses in
Antonio Caso succeeded Vasconcelos as rector, while Henriquez Urefia directed the
Summer School. Vicente Lombardo Toledano, the future labor leader, directed the Preparatory
School; Manuel G6mez Morin, founder of PAN, directed the law school.
2L Vasconcelos, "Declaraciones."
22C6digo universitario, el aho 1922 (Mexico, 1922); "Disposiciones, 1923," quoted and
discussed in Ruiz Gaytain, Facultad de Letras, pp. 66-67.
23"Cat6ogo de teses que se encuentran en la Biblioteca de la Facultad de Filosofia y
Letras" (Librarian's reference copy in this library, undated). Most students presumably went
into administration.
Vasconcelos attributed his accomplishments in education to "the work of one talent
[cirebro], who at the moment of creation had to work alone." See El desastre, pp. 24-25.
anthropology, ethnography, prehistory, and Indian languages.24

Vasconcelos' most enduring impact on higher education, how
resulted from the support he gave to building the fledgling s
movement and directing its attention to social issues beyond the
University. In 1920, he assisted student leaders in establishing the
Federation of Students in order to create "a compact, strong and cultured
student class with defined social attitudes, and capable of exercising
effective influence on national destiny."'25 On October 12, the Festival
of the Race, he demonstrated the idealism of youth by dramatically
arousing its hatred of tyranny. Addressing a huge student assembly,
he announced that a revolt had just begun against the Venezuelan
dictator, Juan Vicente G6mez, "the most monstrous, the most repugnant
and the most despicable" of all Latin American tyrants. "Show your
sympathy," he cried. "Raise the flag of a free Venezuela!" At this,
hundreds of students rampaged through the streets of Mexico City
waving Venezuelan flags and screaming, "Death to the tyrant, Juan
Vicente G6mez!" The Venezuelan embassy protested, but journalists,
intellectuals, and students proclaimed Vasconcelos a hero.26 By 1924,
a majority of the student body were members of the Federation.
Vasconcelos also committed the Mexican movement to the ideals
of the continent-wide University Reform Movement that had firs
attracted attention in Argentina in 1918. Like Vasconcelos, the Refor
Movement advocated internal reform so that a university might become
a force for changing society. The primary function of a universit
was not to train skilled technicians, but to become "a crucible of politic
ideas" wherein students would become aware of and involved in the
struggle for a more just society.27 Vasconcelos himself encouraged the
Movement by inviting its congress to Mexico.
Within the National University, the Preparatory School became the
principal scene of student activism. In 1920 Vasconcelos revamped
24Vasconcelos to Ez6chiel Chaivez, "Reorganizaci6n de la Facultad de Altos Estudios,"

Boletin de la Secretarfa de Educaci6n Puiblica, III (Jan., 1914), 76-77; C6digo, 1922;
"Disposiciones, 1923"; Alfonso Reyes, Pasado, p. 214; "Breves notas hist6ricas sobre la
Facultad de Filosofia y Letras," Anuario de las Facultades de Filosofia y Letras y de Ciencias,
1940 (Mexico, 1940), pp. 53-54.
25Quoted from the 1920 convention in Lucio Mendieta y Ni'fiez, Ensayo sociol6gico sobre
la Universidad (Mexico, 1951), p. 61.
26Vasconcelos, "Discurso pronunciado . . . en la Fiesta de la Raza" (Oct. 12, 1920),
in Movimiento educativo, pp. 120-22. Pp. 122-84 contains an extensive collection of newspaper
reports.
In El desastre, Vasconcelos treats the affair as something of a joke.
27For a review of recent research on Latin American student movements, see John H.
Peterson, "Recent Research on Latin American University Students," Latin American
Research Review, V (Spring, 1970), 37-58.
its curriculum to place greater emph

later, Vicente Lombardo Toledano, an active student leader, became
its director. Acting on the premise that education is intellectual, physical,
and moral "preparation for life," he created a unique combination
of revolutionary ideology and American progressive education. Students
attended lectures in health and sex education, participated in athletic
contests, and took courses in wood-working in order to become more
"humanized." Young intellectuals from the professional schools, many
of them socialists, replaced the American-trained normalistas. All
students attended weekly political debates in order to increase their
social awareness.28
Preparatory students found an opportunity to put their lessons into
practice when their uncompromising commitment to principle and th
arrogance of Vasconcelos collided in a premature exhibition of studen
activism. In 1923, Vasconcelos, disgusted with sloppy habits and
neglected studies, prohibited all notices and graffiti in student lavatories.
Discovering a political petition on one of the forbidden partitions during
the inspection tour, he immediately expelled all signers of the statement,
including the son of Lombardo Toledano. Angry students and professors
immediately called a protest rally, in which they practiced their newly-
acquired oratorical skills to denounce the shameful attack on academic
freedom. During the eventful days that followed, Vasconcelos fired
the more outspoken professors, Antonio Caso resigned as rector, and
students called a strike to demand curriculum reform and autonomy
from government. Vasconcelos refused to back down, however, and
students reluctantly returned to class a few days later, defeated but
perhaps wiser.29
In reality, of course, the debate over graffiti was only symptomatic
of more basic differences over the nature of a university. Lombardo
Toledano and the leaders of the student movement believed the primary
obligation of education was to increase social consciousness. Schools
were to place themselves on the side of the poor and exploited.30 Antonio
Caso, on the other hand, saw the intervention of politics as one of
the major threats to his ideal, the detached search for truth in a spirit
28Address of Lombardo Toledano, in Primer Congreso de Escuelas Preparatorias de la

Reptiblica, Memoria (Mexico, 1922); Wilkie, Mexico, Historia oral, interview with Lombardo
Toledano, pp. 260-62; Andr6s Iduarte, Un niio en la Revoluci6n Mexicana (Mexico, 1954),
pp. 130-31. Iduarte, critical of the debates, claimed they led only to demagoguery and
"intellectual irresponsibility."
2Vasconcelos, El desastre, pp. 202-13; Federaci6n de Estudiantes de Mexico, Proyecto
. pidiendo autonomia de la Universidad de Mixico (Mexico, 1923).
30See his El problema de la educaci6n en Mixico (Mexico, 1924).
of open debate and freedom of thought. And Vasconcelos, commi

to a middle ground of greater social responsibility without sacrif
academic standards, intellectual freedom, or respect for authority, fo
himself in a lonely position.
Yet, when Vasconcelos resigned in 1924, political awareness and
academic freedom were successfully coexisting. No mere list of courses
and programs can adequately describe the changes that had occurred.
Students in large numbers had acquired a social conscience. The Ateneo
generation and its disciples dominated the faculty. The University was
no longer insensitive to the Revolution.
The successors of Vasconcelos demanded more concrete accomplish-
ments, however. The new Secretary of Public Instruction, Jose Manuel
Puig Casauranc, asserted that the principal function of all education
was to provide students with the practical skills needed to become
productive citizens. The National University, still excessively preoc-
cupied with "worthless abstractions," had to concentrate its efforts
on training the ticnicos needed by a developing economy.31 Thus the
humanists again came under attack, but this time the pressure assumed
a new form.
Soon after taking office, Puig decided to separate the essential from
the cultural. He divided the School of Advanced Studies into a Graduate
Normal School, to develop new teaching methods and train supervisors
and inspectors, and a Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, to diffuse
culture.32 At first humanists praised the separation of the liberal art
from teacher training, but their enthusiasm was premature. Since separate
schools meant separate budgets, Puig conveniently "forgot" the Faculty
of Philosophy in the 1925 appropriation, arguing that elementary educa-
tion needed the money more. Instead, he suggested that its faculty
function as a "free school," that is, without salaries. In successive
years he returned the subsidy, but only at a fraction of its former
amount. Many professors continued to lecture without pay. At the
same time, the earlier spirit of innovation declined. Financial problems
hindered research. Enrollment dropped, too, as the programs of the
faculty seemed un-related to promising careers; between 1924 and 1928
3"Jos6 Manuel Puig Casauranc, El esfuerzo educativo en Mexico (Mexico, 1928), I, 535;
Puig Casauranc, "Discurso pronunciado . . . en la apertura de los cursos universitarios"
(Feb. 16, 1925), in Mensajes presidenciales, pp. 436-42; Francisco Larroyo and Rafael Carrasco
Puente, Datos hist6ricos e inconograffa de la educacidn en Mixico (Mexico, 1960), p. 242.
32 "Decreto que instituye la Facultad de Filosofia y Letras" (Oct. 1, 1924), in Ruiz Gaytain,
Facultad de Letras, pp. 69-70.
By this time most school teachers were trained in normal schools unaffiliated with the
University.
only sixteen students received degrees.3

Despite setbacks in the humanities, th
concelos' successors helped bring new li
Designed by nature to impart a specifi
became the vehicle for training a new
servants. Thus, as the tecnico replaced
university life, the late twenties marked
reform existing programs and to initiate
Although professional training had h
Mexican higher education, the Ateneo l
efforts elsewhere. In the decade follow
of Medicine, Law, Engineering, and Arch
the University itself, made no concession
and remained untouched by the experimen
Nevertheless, since most students st
prestigious careers of law, and medicine,
ultimately effected far more students th
tions.
Reform in the professional schools consisted of greater emphasis

on the social sciences, more attention to specific social and economic
problems, and practical experience outside the classroom. The young
directors of the schools, though often indifferent to political and culture
issues, were convinced that only a clear understanding of the social
and economic forces that governed society could bring about real
progress. The future lay with the social scientist, not the philosopher
or artist. Thus, the "soul" of Mexico was becoming its social and
33 Memoria de los trabajos realizados por la Universidad Nacional durante la administraci6n

del C. Presidente Plutarcho Elias Calles (Mexico, 1928), p. 71; "Informe que rinde la Secretaria
General de la Universidad," Boletin de la Secretaria de Educaci6n Pablica, V (Dec., 1925),
149-88, and VI (March, 1927), 335-61; Puig Casauranc, Esfuerzo educativo, I, 605-14; Catilogo
de la Universidad Nacional de Mixico, 1926-1927 (Mexico, 1926); Ruiz Gaytan, Facultad
de Letras, pp. 70-72, 95-96; Attolini, Finanzas, p. 73.
In 1924 the subsidy was $250,000; in 1927, it was only $67,000.
34The School of Medicine did introduce a one-year internship and additional laboratories
and seminars, while the School of Engineering initiated courses in petroleum technology
and on-the-job training.
For the early development of professional schools, see Jose Macias, "La Escuela de
Jurisprudencia," Boletin de Educaci6n, I (Sept., 1914), 43-50; Francisco Herrasti, "Discurso
. al inaugurarse los cursos de la Escuela Nacional de Jurisprudencia," Boletin de Educaci6n,
I (Aug., 1916), 39-43; Mendieta y Ntifiez, Facultad de Derecho, p. 232; "La Escuela Nacional
de Medicina," Boletin de Educaci6n, I (Sept., 1914), 51-54; Fernando Ocaranza, Medicina
en Mixico (Mexico, 1934), pp. 190-91; Facultad de Ingenieria, Programas de estudios (Mexico,
1919); "Resefia de los trabajos llevados a cabo durante el afio de 1911-1912 en la Escuela
Nacional de Ingenieros," Boletin de Instrucci6n Pablica, XIX (1914), 952-58.
economic "reality"; education would serve society by training the

experts needed to improve it.
The most substantial modifications occurred in the School of Law.
In 1925 its new director, Narciso Bassols, reorganized the entire
curriculum for the first time since 1910. It now included such specialized
subjects as criminology, municipal organization, labor relations, and
agrarian law. Every student had to write a thesis on a contemporary
issue. In addition, Bassols created a new program in the social sciences
in order to produce trained sociologists and economists. Among the
courses in the new program were the histories of worker and peasant
movements, economic doctrines, and the role of women in modern
society.35
Other professional schools similarly adapted their programs to current
needs. The School of Medicine began courses in child psychology and
tropical diseases, and initiated a program in which medical students
offered free medical aid in working class barrios. The Graduate Normal
School created a new major in rural education that included hygiene
and agronomy. The Schools of Engineering and Chemical Science
allowed students to obtain credit while working on government construc-
tion projects or in factories. In addition, the University created new
schools of economics and public administration. Unfortunately,
however, these newer programs were unable to overcome the traditional
predilection of law and medicine. The Faculty of Chemical Sciences,
for example, founded in 1917, granted only 62 degrees in its first ten
years.36 Despite extensive advertising enrollment in the School of
Economics remained so small that in 1931 the University Council
considered closing it.37
In any event, the University of 1929 seemed an active participant
in the Revolution. Culture had assumed a more Mexican flavor. The
professional schools were graduating a new brand of expert. Students
had acquired a social conscience. Yet the basic problem of its relation
"3Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales, Plan de Estudios (Mexico, 1927); Ezechiel

Chavez, La situaci6n actual de la Universidad Nacional de Mixico, los mdas importantes
de sus problemas y de sus perspectivas (Mexico, 1924); Puig Casauranc, "Memoria, 1927,"
Boletin de la Secretarfa de Educaci6n Pdzblica, VI (1927), 329-31; Memoria de los trabajos
de ... Calles; Mendieta y Nifiez, Facultad de Derecho, pp. 240-45.
36 Titulos expedidos; "Poblaci6n estudiantil," Boletin de la Universidad Nacional, IV (Aug.,
1928), 61-62.
This problem continued. Between 1939 and 1945, when total enrollment was approaching
15,000 per year, fewer than 1600 students attended the Schools of Engineering and Chemical
Sciences, combined. (Mendieta y Nifiez, Problemas, p. 58.)
"7Manuel Pallares Ramirez, La Escuela Nacional de Economia (Mexico, 1952), pp. 75-76,
adds that the Council was unconvinced of the need for economists. Jesus Silva Herzog,
director of the school, retorted that much of Mexico's underdevelopment was due to "the
most frightening ignorance of the most basic knowledge of trade and finance."
to the government, of its freedom to r

official ideologies, remained. During
activism carefully cultivated by Vasc
forced the resolution of these issues in a series of confrontations that
disrupted education, threatened academic freedom, and again cast th
University in the role of enemy of the Revolution.
Since the early twenties the government had been a frequent targe
of student protests against incompetent professors, outdated courses
and boring classes.38 By 1929, many students also believed that the
Calles machine had betrayed the Revolution. The idealistic presidenti
campaign of Vasconcelos in 1928 crystallized student opposition to
the government, and paved the way for confrontations that threatened
to destroy the alliance between the University and the Revolution.
Mass protest movements, however, require specific grievances as
well as general frustration. In 1929, minor administrative reforms an
an over-reactive government provided the sparks that led to the fir
major strike in the University's history. In early May, the School o
Law announced a more rigid examination schedule. Law students
immediately organized huge demonstrations in protest. President Emilio
Portes Gil, already angered by widespread student opposition, thereupon
closed the school. Students called for additional demonstrations, the
University called in police, and violent confrontations ensued. Other
schools supported the strike. Within three weeks, one student was
dead, many more were hospitalized and virtually the entire student
body had deserted their classrooms.39
Nor surprisingly, the strike quickly turned into a massive protest
against the government. Portes Gil realized that the strike was costing
him public support, but feared that to capitulate to student demands
would encourage further protests in the future. In order to solve his
political dilemma, therefore, he granted the University limited autonomy,
even though that was not an issue in the strike. By separating the
University from the government, he hoped to prevent the government
from becoming a target of student protests in the future."
His ploy was successful. Students and faculty hailed the decision
3 Federaci6n de Estudiantes de M6xico, Proyecto. . . pidiendo autonomia de la Universidad

de Mixico (Mexico, 1923).
39For the events of 1929, see Jim6nez Rueda, Historia juridica, pp. 210-06; Mendieta
y Nilfiez, Ensayo soci6logico, pp. 60-80; Wilkie, Mexico, Historia oral, interview with Silva
Herzog, pp. 674-75.
Antonio Damiano, et al., En torno de una generaci6n, glosa de 1929 (Mexico, 1949),
contains remarkably frank recollections of the participants.
'Emilio Portes Gil, Quince ahios de politica mexicana (2d ed.; Mexico, 1941), pp. 327
f.; Puig Casauranc, "Discurso," Boletin de la Secretaria de Educaci6n Pliblica, X (1930),
7-13; Wilkie, Mixico, Historia oral, interview with Portes Gil, pp. 557-61.
as a victory for academic freedom and revolutionary ideals, and returned

to their classes. Higher education had freed itself from politics; govern-
ment had separated itself from its principal critics.
During the years that followed, however, autonomy served less to
separate academics from politics than to bring politics into the University.
Since virtually all power rested in the University Council, student
politicians turned from national issues to university affairs. Loud
laughing and hissing interrupted Council meetings; rival factions even
resorted to occasional violence. Both scholarship and the idealistic
student concern with national affairs that had characterized the Vascon-
celos era declined.41
Yet student politics did concern itself with the bitter ideological deb
over "socialist" education that convulsed Mexican education during
the early thirties. At issue was not simply a philosophy of education,
but also the obligation of the University to conform to national educa-
tional policies.
The question first appeared in 1929, when a PNR convention declared
that schools must convince students that serving society is a higher
calling than serving one's self. When Narciso Bassols, the former law
school director, became Minister of Education in 1932, he advocated
a "socialized education" to create class consciousness and to concentrate
on economic interpretations of events. The movement culminated i
1935 with the adoption of a constitutional amendment declaring tha
all education be "socialist," and that all teachers be "morally and
ideologically" prepared for their position.42
The exact nature of this "socialist education" was unclear. Some
teachers introduced such concepts as class conflict and a world
proletariat, while others simply emphasized the obligation to
society. Whatever the case, educators had apparently created an off
revolutionary ideology that to its opponents was not only soci
but Marxist.43
Within the University, socialist education became a major iss
Supporters argued that only "historical materialism" provided a
tific analysis of Mexican reality. Opponents countered that any o
41Roberto Medellin, "Informe," Universidad de Mixico, VI (May, 1933), 1-5; Fer
Ocaranza, Tragedia de un rector (Mexico, (1943), p. 217; Lucio Mendieta y Nti

Universidad creadora y otros ensayos (Mexico, 1936), pp. 13-28; Medellin, Reform
ensehianza universitaria propuestas a las academias de profesores y alumnos (Mexic
420n "socialist education," see Isidro Castillo, Mixico y su revoluci6n educativa (M
1965), pp. 344-77; Josefina VAzquez de Knauth, Nacionalismo y educaci6n en Mixico (
1970), pp. 151-61; Jos6 Bravo Ugarte, La educaci6n en Mixico (Mexico, 1966), pp. 1
43Curiously, sex education apparently provoked the most controversy.
ideology meant the death of academic freedom. Both sides agreed,

however, that the University must find its own solution regardless of
government policy.
The leader of the so-called Marxist faction was Vicente Lombardo
Toledano, the former director of the Preparatory School. He praised
the men of the Ateneo for their affirmation of spiritual values and
human dignity, but argued that their idealism and emphasis on the
individual had become unrealistic, unscientific and contrary to social
justice. Only a radical redistribution of wealth could incorporate the
poor into society; only an economic system in which all shared equally
could create a truly just society. Education must accept and propagate
these truths. Hence in his eyes, the University had to adopt Marxism
as its official ideology or cease being a constructive influence in Mexican
life. Neither the nation nor the University could afford the luxury
of an academic freedom that ignored this reality."
Antonio Caso led the opposition. Since a university is dedicated to
the "creation of values," an a priori acceptance of one ideology defeated
its reason for existence. True academic freedom demanded institutional
neutrality, for only in an atmosphere of complete freedom and openness
can real research take place. A university had to concern itself with
social problems, but law cannot dictate truth, edicts cannot define
culture, and a materialist doctrine cannot quell the spirit of free inquiry.45
In September, 1933, the issue came to a head at the First Congress
of Mexican Universities, which was organized to reexamine the goals
of higher education and encourage greater standardization in Mexican
universities. During the deliberations Lombardo Toledano, one of the
organizers of the conference, proposed a resolution to require all
universities to "orient the nation's thought" toward the substitution
of socialism for capitalism. After a stormy debate in which the resolution
became so blurred that it appeared to accept Marxism as the official
philosophy of higher education, the delegates gave their strong approval.
A few weeks later Roberto Medellin, one of the organizers of the
Congress, became rector of the National University. Although he insisted
that the congress was only advisory, he immediately became the target
"For the best summary of the debate, see Antonio Caso and Vicente Lombardo Toledano,
Idealismo vs. materialismo dialectico (2d ed.; Mexico, 1963). On Lombardo, see also Antonio
Diaz Soto and Vicente Lombardo Toledano, iCual debe ser la orientaci6n de la educaci6n
pUblica en Mixico? (Mexico, 1932); Robert Paul Millon, Mexican Marxist, Vicente Lombardo
Toledano (Chapel Hill, 1966), esp. pp. 17, 31-32; Abelardo Villegas, "Idealismo contra
materialismo diallatico en la educaci6n," Historia Mexicana, XV (July, 1965), 69-83.
45Argument of Caso in Caso and Lombardo, Idealismo, pp. 23-25; Caso, Nuevos discursos
a la naci6n mexicana (Mexico, 1934), pp. 25-26, and La filosofia de la cultura y el materialismo
hist6rico (Mexico, 1936), pp. 89-125.
of anti-Marxist demonstrators. The law faculty, including Rudolfo B

Foucher, its director, Vasconcelos, Caso, Salvador Azuela, a 1929
student leader, and Mariano Azuela, the novelist, organized huge protest
meetings and published articles denouncing the threat to academic
freedom. As the demonstrations increased the law faculty threatene
to strike if Medellin did not quell the disorders.46 Medellin, in turn
fired Brito Foucher, the presumed ring-leader of his opponents. Law
students then called a strike of their own in support of Brito Fouche
Widespread terror and vandalism followed, as striking students engaged
in pitched battles with police. On October 17, students forced thei
way into Medellin's office and forcibly ejected him from the building.
By now, although few non-legal students supported it, the strik
was clearly a protest against socialist education at all levels. Manifesto
castigated not only Lombardo Toledano, but also Narciso Bassols,
architect of the national program.47 Substantial public opinion supporte
the strikers. Even the University Council, sympathetic to academi
freedom and, perhaps, in need of a scapegoat, blamed Lombardo
Toledano for the disorders and forced him to resign.48
President Avelardo Rodriguez, on the other hand, was less interested
in principles than in suppressing the violence. Following the example
of his predecessor, therefore, he announced complete autonomy, includ-
ing financial independence, for the University. During the ensuing debate
in Congress, Bassols explained that if the government completely
disassociated itself from the University, the University would lose its
predominant role in higher education.49 Thus, autonomy was again an
expedient to terminate a strike and reduce the national stature of the
University.
Within the institution, complete autonomy created a financial crisis
that overshadowed philosophical concerns. The 1933 charter replaced
annual subsidies with an endowment so small that the University was
compelled to cut expenses by 75%. As a result, many professors had
46The resolution is quoted in Caso and Lombardo, Idealismo, pp. 18-19. The Congress
is discussed in Sebastifin Mayo, La educaci6n socialista en Mixico: El asalto a la Universidad
Nacional (Rosario, Arg., 1964), pp. 72-80. The account of the 1933 strike is also based
on Mendieta
pp. 208-09. y Ntiiez, Facultad de Derecho, pp. 188-90; Mufioz Ledo, "Educaci6n superior,"
47 Manuel G6mez Morin, who became rector after the strike, later recalled it simply as
"the strike against Bassols." (Wilkie, Mixico, Historia oral, interview with G6mez Morin,
p. 174.)
4Mayo, Educaci6n socialista, p. 128.
49Narciso Bassols, "Iniciativa presentada al Congreso . . ." (Oct. 17, 1933), La obra
educative de Narciso Bassols: Documentos para la educaci6n pablica en Mixico, ed. Antonio
Luna Arroyo (Mexico, 1934), pp. 275-84; "Debate en la Cgamara," in Daniel Moreno (ed.),
Presencia de la Universidad (Mexico, 1948), pp. 20 f.
to work for little or no pay, while

keep the institution afloat.50 The 1934
of the institutions problems with the s
is at least as important as perfection
Student politics also frustrated effo
Student-elected directors openly cam
even resorting to bribery. One schoo
strike. Examinations were seldom mo
Many teachers, over-worked and dem
facts, discouraged original thinking,
of class.52
Nevertheless, autonomy did signal a defeat for the advocates of
socialism, even though a commitment to ideological pluralism forced
the University outside the mainstream of Mexican education. Medellin
and Lombardo Toledano were forced to resign. Brito Foucher returned
to the law school. The rectors that followed Medellin were content
with the institution's isolated position. Manuel G6mez Morin, for
example, a former student leader active in opposing Lombardo Toledano,
revived Vasconcelos' idea of a university as critic of society. Controversy
and dissent, he argued, were the inevitable result of the desirable clash
of ideas.53
Unfortunately, the institution's position only convinced government

leaders, already disgusted with student politics, that the University
was indifferent to the goals of the Revolution and probably deserving
of its financial woes. In 1934, President Lizaro Cirdenas, who believed
that "socialist doctrines" sustained the Revolution, attempted once
again to compel the University to accept socialism at its official ideology.
Students and faculty of all schools and all political persuasions were
united in their opposition, however, and the government backed down.54
Nevertheless, the institution's financial plight necessitated some kind
of conciliation with the government that would affirm the University's
concern for social issues without compromising academic freedom. The
'Instead of an annual subsidy, the government gave the University an endowment of

$10 million, an amount only four times its budget. (Attolini, Finanzas, pp. 58-59.)
5 Informe del Consejo Universitario (Mexico, 1934).
G6mez Morin claims he lost fourteen pounds during his tenure as rector (Wilkie, Mexico,
Historia oral, interview with G6mez Morin, p. 175), and his successor, Fernando Ocaranza,
called his term "the worst years of my life" (Ocaranza, Tragedia, p. 219).
52Manuel G6mez Morin, La Universidad de Mexico: Su funci6n social y la razdn de ser
de su autonomia (Mexico, 1934); Medellini, Reformas propuestas; Jim6nez Rueda, Ensayo
sociol6gico, pp. 79 ff.
53G6mez Morin, Universidad.
54Mayo, Edacaci6n socialista, pp. 321-23. Cirdenas' statement is quoted in Ibid., p. 243.
selection of a radical lawyer sympathetic to academic autonomy as

rector in late 1934 provided such an opportunity.
Luis Chico Goerne was convinced that learning must be relevant
"to the great problems of the world," and affirmed the University's
obligation to serve the nation in countless public statements.55 Relations
with the CUrdenas administration slowly improved. The University
Council voiced its support of the Revolution, labor, and the redistribution
of national wealth. The dispute ended in 1937 when the government
resumed annual subsidies and accepted the concept of a university
open to "all currents of thought and all attitudes of a scientific and
social character" in an atmosphere of "free investigation and academic
freedom."56 Thus, the University succeeded it preserving its intellectual
integrity without denying its obligation to the nation; academic freedom
was not apathy.
Indeed, while university authorities were struggling with political and
financial problems, young academicians within the schools and colleges
were developing more effective tools with which knowledge and culture
might serve the needs of the Revolution. Unlike Vasconcelos, Lombardo
Toledano, or Bassols, they believed they could best serve Mexico not
by indoctrination or political action, but by focusing on what was proper
to a university, teaching and research. In essence, they argued, the
University could best serve the Revolution as an academic institution.
The 1930's witnessed the coming of age of a new breed of academicians
who had matured during the Revolution and participated in the student
movement of the 1920's. Influenced less by the idealism of the Ateneo
than by Jose Ortega y Gasset and his dictum, "I am myself and my
circumstances," they set out to discover the reality of Mexico. These
contempordneos, as they became known, strove to describe rather than
to praise or condemn. Unlike the ideologue, or the traditional pensador
with universal interests, the young reformers-Samuel Ramos, Daniel
Cosio Villegas, Jesds Silva Herzog, Lucio Mendieta y Nfifez-saw
themselves as professional scholars, given not to abstract ideals but
to painstaking study and research. Investigation, not reflection, was
the key to understanding a developing nation and training its future
leaders.57
Scholarly interest in lo mexicano was reflected in virtually every
division of the University. The Faculty of Philosophy and Letters created
" Luis Chico Goerne, La universidad y la inquietud de nuestro tiempo (Mexico, 1937),
and "Palabras iniciales," Universidad de Mixico, I (Feb., 1936), 1-2.
5Estatuto General de la Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mixico (1938), Cap. 1.
57Perhaps the best statement of this attitude is Samuel Ramos, Profile of Man and Culture
in Mexico, trans. Peter Earle (Austin, 1962), esp. pp. 74 ff.
a full program in Mexican history and

ogy, ethnology, and indigenous langua
on Mexico's Indian heritage. In a curious combination of traditional
and modern predilections, courses in history and literature treated either
universal topics or specifically Mexican themes.58 Student theses reflect-
ed this dichotomy: some chose such abstract themes as imperialism
or romanticism, while others investigated minute subjects in Mexican
history and literature. Student political awareness was perhaps demon-
strated to excess by such titles as "Spanish Destruction of Aztec
Equality" and "American Imperialism in Panama." Mexican themes
were similarly reflected in the theses on pedagogical subjects. Papers
on folklore as an educational device, hygiene in kindergarten, and even
university problems were typical.59
In the professional schools the ideals of the contempordneos supported
the pragmatic social science orientation of the late twenties. The Faculty
of Law encouraged students to approach law as an instrument for
change, using the insights of the social sciences. The School of Medicine
accepted a proposal of the Federation of Students whereby all students
wrote theses describing their experiences during a mandatory internship
in a rural village. A new School of Veterinary Medicine, designed to
contribute to rural development, encouraged students to investigate such
problems as insect control and cattle raising in dry climates. In 1932
it too initiated a rural internship.6
Among the professional schools, the School of Economics was most
intimately involved in problems related to underdevelopment. So dedi-
cated were its faculty and students that the school remained open during
major strikes, and students often sacrificed their vacations in order
to continue their studies. From its founding, the school had a strong
socialist orientation since here socialism was not an abstraction but
a potential pattern for development. Its principal areas of specialization
were rural economics, labor unions, cooperatism, and statistics; after
1936, the only compulsory advanced courses in economic theory were
Marxism and the history of socialism.61' Thus, university advocacy of
"SMario de la Cueva, Informe de la rectoria, 1938-1942 (Mexico, 1942); Anuario de las

Facultades de Filosofia y Letras y de Ciencias, 1940 (Mexico, 1940).
59"Catfilogo de teses de Filosofia y Letras"; Tobias Chavez, Notas para la bibliografia
de las obras editadas o patrocinadas por la Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mixico
(Mexico, 1943), pp. 228-38.
60Anuario de la Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mixico, 1931-1932 (Mexico, 1931);
Tobias Chfvez, Bibliografia, pp. 141-91; Cueva, Informe; "Servicio social que prestari la
Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria," Universidad de Mixico, V (Nov., 1932), 114-15.
61Pallares Ramirez, Escuela de Economia, pp. 105-06.
academic freedom did not prevent individual schools and scholars

turning to Marxism for solutions.
The professional scholarship of the 1930's was best reflected, howev
in the new research institute, in which selected scholars banded toge
for the advancement of knowledge in a particular discipline. Since m
professors were still paid by the class-hour the institute not only orga
research, but also created a full time occupation for the teacher-scho
The first and most influential was the Institute of Social Research.
From its establishment in 1930, it undertook minute studies of Ind
tribes and villages, following the methodology of Manuel Gami
addition, it devised methods for the government to use such t
customs as marriage rites and respect for elders to win suppor
the ejido and universal education. Among its other accomplishm
were studies on public health, urban problems, the ejido, the unive
and folklore, all of which were specific attempts to solve real prob
One publication used photographs to illustrate how contemporary
villagers were direct descendants of once proud Indian tribes.62
In contrast to this concentration on the Indian, the Institute of Aesthetic
Research, founded in 1936, focused on the colonial heritage. Its numerous
publications describing colonial structures attempted to elicit pride in
the Spanish inheritance.63 Still other institutes concerned themselves
with problems of development. The Institute of Economic Research
dealt with such practical questions as tax policy, railroad rates, and
Mexican soil peculiarities, while the Institute of Geology investigated
methods to improve the water supply of Mexico City.6"
By 1940, the University seemed committed to solving national prob-
lems. Its emphasis on scientific research conformed nicely with the
pragmatic governments after Cardenas that appeared more interested
in economic development than social reform. The student movement,
though still a potent political force lost its sense of urgency; most
62"Labores del Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales," Universidad de Mtxico, I (Jan.,

1931), 246-50; Mendieta y Ndifiez, "El Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales de la Universidad
Nacional," Revista Mexicana de Sociologia, I (1939), 3-18; "Indice cumulativo," Revista
Mexicana de Sociologia, XIII (1951); Fernando Holguin Quinones, "El estado actual de
la investigaci6n social directa en M6xico" (Professional thesis, Escuela Nacional de Ciencias
Politicas y Sociales, 1961), pp. 8-9.
63 Anales del Instituto de lnvestigaciones Estiticas, Nos. 1-4 (1937-39); "Catilogo cronol6gico
de las publicaciones del Instituto de Investigaciones Est6ticas" (Typed list in Institute office,
1965).
"Investigaci6n Econ6mica, I (1941) and II (1942); Jesuis Silva Herzog, "El desarrollo de
la ensefianza de las ciencias econ6micas en Mexico, 1925-1953," El Trimestre Econ6mico,
XXI (Jan., 1954), 1-6; "Trabajos del Instituto de Geologia," Universidad de Mexico, I (Jan.,
1931), 250-52.
students continued to pursue the tradi

In sum, three decades of the Nation
clearly defined its role. Higher educ
skills a developing nation needed. Teaching and research were to
concentrate on subjects indigenous to Mexico. Student activism, though
often frustrating to academic pursuits, would guarantee awareness of
social and political inequities, and from time to time remind self-satisfied
governments of their failure to confront them.
On the other hand, the University rejected the ideologies and non-
academic tasks politicians proposed, never becoming as radical as some
revolutionaries would have liked. As a result, academics and politicians
grew so far apart that both perceived juridical autonomy as a panacea,
which they interpreted as autonomy from society. By 1929, however,
students and faculty were themselves "children of the revolution,"
and the freedom they demanded was the freedom to determine for
themselves how best to serve Mexico. Indeed, the University stubbornly,
if unconsciously, clung to the dream of Justo Sierra that it become
a nucleus of professional training and scientific research.
Finally, insofar as the Mexican Revolution was a cry for cultural
independence, self-identity, and national dignity, the National University
of Mexico was an effective partner from the start. It not only educated
artists, intellectuals, and scientists of world-wide stature, but also
contributed to the nation's pride in and understanding of itself. The
University prepared Mexicans to define and solve their own problems,
eliminating the traditional dependence upon foreign experts, philo-
sophies, and artistic models. Thus the institution that demanded intellec-
tual autonomy from the government did, in fact, help create the
intellectual and cultural autonomy of a nation.
Villanova University MICHAEL E. BURKE
Villanova, Pennsylvania
65In 1943, for example, these two programs accounted for ov

(Mendieta y Ntifiez, Problemas, p. 58).
Strikes and demonstrations continued to interrupt academ
were perceived neither as a threat to the government nor as th
of one institution.

Burke M. E., The University of Mexico and The Revolution 1910-1940

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Burke M. E., The University of Mexico and The Revolution 1910-1940

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The University of Mexico and the Revolution, 1910-1940

Author(s): Michael E. Burke

ONFLICT between revolution and academia, between the activist

of thought. By stimulating scholarsh

and aesthetic sensitivity that they asserted was in accord with M

Studies by more than fifty percent,

professional schools had made no concessions to revolutionary ideals.

"Felix Palavicini, "Discurso . . . en la ceremonia de la toma de posesi6n del nuevo

the day, to "preparation for life." C

to remote villages. Yet he emphasized the need to incorporate In

'7Jose Vasconcelos, "Declaraciones . . . con motivo de la toma de posesi6n del cargo

national objectives for the University

anthropology, ethnography, prehistory, and Indian languages.24

24Vasconcelos to Ez6chiel Chaivez, "Reorganizaci6n de la Facultad de Altos Estudios,"

its curriculum to place greater emph

28Address of Lombardo Toledano, in Primer Congreso de Escuelas Preparatorias de la

of open debate and freedom of thought. And Vasconcelos, commi

only sixteen students received degrees.3

Reform in the professional schools consisted of greater emphasis

33 Memoria de los trabajos realizados por la Universidad Nacional durante la administraci6n

economic "reality"; education would serve society by training the

"3Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales, Plan de Estudios (Mexico, 1927); Ezechiel

to the government, of its freedom to r

3 Federaci6n de Estudiantes de M6xico, Proyecto. . . pidiendo autonomia de la Universidad

as a victory for academic freedom and revolutionary ideals, and returned

41Roberto Medellin, "Informe," Universidad de Mixico, VI (May, 1933), 1-5; Fer

Ocaranza, Tragedia de un rector (Mexico, (1943), p. 217; Lucio Mendieta y Nti

ideology meant the death of academic freedom. Both sides agreed,

of anti-Marxist demonstrators. The law faculty, including Rudolfo B

to work for little or no pay, while

Unfortunately, the institution's position only convinced government

'Instead of an annual subsidy, the government gave the University an endowment of

selection of a radical lawyer sympathetic to academic autonomy as

a full program in Mexican history and

"SMario de la Cueva, Informe de la rectoria, 1938-1942 (Mexico, 1942); Anuario de las

academic freedom did not prevent individual schools and scholars

62"Labores del Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales," Universidad de Mtxico, I (Jan.,

students continued to pursue the tradi

65In 1943, for example, these two programs accounted for ov

Вам также может понравиться