# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1941_S103
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Report of Board for Higher Education 101

11. That all students in the science courses should be charged
a minimum laboratory fee in the high-school and survey courses.
In the science courses in colleges and seminaries the fee should
be somewhat higher. In this way the students will contribute to
the laboratory equipment. However, your Board believes some
control should be exercised, so that all the money coming in from
students will be wisely expended.

12. That in order to meet the minimum requirements in
laboratory equipment, we respectfully request Synod to consider
the possibility of making available $15,000 for the next triennium.
If this sum or a part of it can be made available, the allocation
should be made by the Board for Higher Education in cooperation
with the Board of Directors upon request from individual

institutions. Calling and Tenure of Professors

G. Your Board was instructed by the 1938 convention

1. “To study the question and make recommendations to Synod
in regard to a graduated, orderly plan for retirement of professors”;

2. “To make recommendations to Synod for the improvement
of Synod’s present plan for the removal from office of incompetent
or incapacitated professors”;

3. “To study the need and advisability of Synod’s differentiating
between several kinds of teachers at its institutions, such as
instructors, assistant professors, and professors, and to define and
clarify the status of each.”

Concerning these matters your Board begs leave to submit
the following:

That the present system of calling professors has certain
elements of strength and certain elements of weakness is acknowl-
edged. Its strength lies in the democratic procedure, in giving
the right to nominate candidates for any professorship in Synod
to all member congregations, thus keeping alive their interest in
our educational institutions. In this way also any tendency toward
centralized control will be obviated. On the other hand, certain
weaknesses in the present method have become manifest from
time to time. Nominations are occasionally made somewhat care~-
lessly; electoral colleges at times lack pertinent information con-
cerning candidates proposed.

We therefore recommend:

1. That the present system of nominating candidates for pro-
fessorships be retained;

2. That the Board for Higher Education become a clearing-
house for information concerning prospective candidates for
professorships; «

3. That a member of the Board for Higher Education be present