Academic Freedom---Crimson Report

Six weeks ago, the authors of this article set out to conduct a survey of the problems of academic freedom. Some 42 days wiser, we now realize that what follows is not a survey but only a healthy glance. For every case reported here, we have heard of another, but have had insufficient material for publication. For every one of those in turn, there were probably many others of which we never heard. Even had every infraction been uncovered, every firing been exposed, the picture would still be incomplete. There is no way to tabulate the men who were never hired or the promotions that were never made.

But even in this "glance," we have found that since the end of World War 11, 39 professor have been dismissed or placed on probation, or have resigned; and that there has been legislation in 30 states affecting countless thousands of students and faculty members. We have discovered a total of 40 instances involving professors, students, visiting speakers, and legislative actions, spread over 19 states and the District of Columbia.

In gathering this material, we have done our best to contact all the principals concerned. When this was not possible, we have printed public statements made on both sides of the issue and have refrained from any interpretation.

The articles are arranged so that today's Installment will cover the cases of professors and instructors who have been fired or suspended, or whose positions have been endangered by their political beliefs. In the next two days, we will take up legislative activities in various states and also abrogations, both confirmed and alleged, of student rights.

The University of Washington has over 18,000 students enrolled and attending classes on its Seattle campus. It turns out excellent crews and better than average football teams. Howie Odell, formerly of Yale, coaches the latter. The "U," as it is called by Washingtonians, is pretty typical of large state universities throughout the country. It is, also, typically, extremely sensitive to the state legislature and that body's tugs on the purse strings.

In 1948, the legislature's un-American Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of Albert F. Canwell, turned its full attention to "subversive" activities on the U of W campus. Canwell, a photographer before his election, said, "the last hope of freedom rests with us." One month later, Canwell outlined his method of nourishing that last hope. "Counsel (for the defendants) . . . may not make objections, cross examine or make speeches."

Canwell imported the same group of witnesses that had been used at almost all other investigations of un-American activities. These witnesses included J. B. Matthews, former investigator for the Dies Committee, a Hearst journalist and the list of "reformed Communists" such as Benjamin Gitlow and George Hewitt. During the course of the committee hearings not only were members of the Washington faculty accused but such other figures as J. Robert Oppenheimer of the Princeton Institute of advanced study, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. '38, of Harvard, and General Dwight D. Eisenhower, were mentioned as men who "fronted" for Communists.

Canwell himself defined Communists in a public statement: "If a person says that in this country Negroes are discriminated against and that there is inequality of wealth there is every reason to believe that person is a Communist."

Reaction Develops

At the time that Canwell was conducting the investigation at the University, public reaction against his methods began to form. Educators and even other legislators complained of the inability of the accused to defend themselves. J. Alfred Schweppe, former dean of the University law school and a past president of the Washington bar, complained that the Canwell Committee itself was "un-American." One of the professors accused of being a Communist, Herbert Phillips, was prevented from replying to the "are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" question with anything but a yes or no answer when his replies were cut off by the repeated banging of the Canwell gavel. Canwell himself admitted that the gavel was used to "terminate those typical speeches."

In the last elections Canwell and three of the members of his committee were defeated. But on their way out they made several recommendations. They asked that the committee be continued with enlarged powers; that it green the textbooks used in the schools in the State of Washington: and that a person affiliated with three or more "Communist front organizations" be labelled a Communist without recourse to slander or libel action. "Affiliation with recognized Communist front organizations should place the burden of proof as to loyalty on the individual so affiliated," the committee stated.

While the committee was investigating the University, the administration took a friendly attitude toward Canwell's efforts. Professors were requested to cooperate in every way possible with the committee, and the administration went so far as to ask that no faculty member criticize the committee. When Canwell was running for reelection he used testimonials from the president of the Board of Regents and also from President Raymond B. Allen of the University as campaign material. In February of 1949, Allen endorsed the work of the committee and thanked Canwell for his "unfailing courtesy and integrity with all your dealings with the University."

On September 8, 1948, as a result of the findings and publicity of the Canwell committee, the University Faculty Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom served complaints made by the administration against six faculty members. These men were Ralph H. Gundlach, associate professor of Psychology, Herbert T. Phillips, assistant professor of Philosophy, Joseph Butterworth, associate professor of English, Harold Eby and Garland Ethel of the department of English, and Melville Jacobs of the department of, Anthropology.

The faculty committee conducted its hearings for almost two months and at the conclusion in December of 1948 it recommended that of the six men only Gundlach be dismissed. The report was given to President Allen on January 7 and to the Regents the next day. On January 17, Allen submitted an analysis of the Committee's report and recommended that three men be fired. The Board of Regents finally changed all but one of the committee's findings. This was almost without precedent, the faculty committee's recommendation being considered final.

On January 22, the Regents met for three hours. When they walked out of the meeting, Gundlach, Phillips and Butterworth were unemployed. Eby, Ethel, and Jacobs were on two year probation. Nobody has gone so far as to define probation, but Professor Ethel said, "whatever they require of me I intend to comply."

The facts that were uncovered by those 33 sessions of the 11-man faculty committee are numerous and they are involved. But if the results of the Washington case are to be evaluated, some attempt must be made to summarize the testimony and make it comprehensible.

The committee was empowered to recommend dismissal for "one or more of the following reasons: a) incompetency, b) neglect of duty, c) physical or mental incapacity, d) dishonesty or immorality, or e) conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude." Reasons c and e were discarded by the group and it conducted the hearings to find out whether any of the other three "causes" were present in the cases of the accused teachers.

The facts of the inquiry are most easily divided into three categories: 1) the case of Herbert Phillips and Joseph Butterworth, 2) the case of Ralph Gundlach, 3) the case of the three men on probation, Eby, Ethel, and Jacobs.

The first of these three categories concerns the case of two faculty members. Phillips of the Philosophy department and Butterworth of the English department, who have admitted current membership in the Communist Party. The faculty committee report on them was composed of a report of five members who recommended that the men be retained; a disagreed with the majority reasoning: and finally the dissenting reports of three members who also felt that the two men should be dismissed.

The first report defined the nature of the Communist Party of the United States. Within this definition it then stated that "it is impossible to conceive how the mere fact of membership in the Communist Party could in any way affect the competency of respondent Butterworth as a teacher of Old English Literature." It might, the report found, be a possible deterrent to the competence of a philosophy professor. However, the testimony of Phillips' colleagues and students all Issued his competence and objectivity.

The report likewise found that membership in the Communist Party cannot be considered either immoral or in neglect of duty. However, this report of five members indicated that it might be desirable to change the code so that membership in the Communist Party would be sufficient for dismissal. The dissenting report of the three men who also felt that both Phillips and Butterworth should be kept on the faculty concerned itself mainly with the last point. These three men were definitely against prohibiting members of the Communist Party from teaching.

The dissenting opinion of the three members who felt that both Phillips and Butterworth should be fired was that membership in the Communist Party per se "disqualified" the respondents "for retention on the faculty of the University of Washington."

The committee as a whole then voted eight, to three that both Phillips and Butterworth be retained. President Allen, in his report to the Regents, recommended that they overrule the majority report of the faculty committee. He regarded the same evidence that it did and still reversed its decision, thereby denying the committee its deliberative function and reducing it to a fact-collecting body.

In the Gundlach, ease, the charges were more complete. The University claimed that Gundlach was a member of the Communist Party, that he did not tell President Allen that he was a Communist, that he did not tell the Canwell Committee that he was a Communist, that he neglected his duty to the University by spending his time in party "front" activity, and that he followed the party line, thereby rendering himself incompetent and dishonest.

The final committee report threw out all charges except that Gundlach had refused to answer a question put to him by President Allen as to his membership in the Communist Party. It found that Gundlach's equivocation on this issue, together with his "unsatisfactory relations" with the university administration, constituted neglect of only and were sufficient grounds for dismissal. Four members out of, 11 dissented from this opinion President Allen found the majority report to his liking. As did the Board of Regents.

Finally, in the cases of Eby, Ethel, and Jacobs, all 11 members of the faculty committee recommended that the tenure of these men "remain undisturbed." All three of the accused men were former Communists and frankly admitted it. They all also claimed that they were no longer members of the Communist Party.

Allen concurred with the committee report. However, the Board of Regents in a three hour meeting, hardly time enough even to consider the massive recommendations of the two reports, considerably disturbed the feature of these men by placing them on probation. There has never been any adequate definition of the terms of this probation. Any one of the three will presumably think a long time before he advances any political opinion or indulges in any political activity that might displease the Board of Regents while he is still on probation.

Through the overwhelming minutiae of these reports and through the technicalities of interpretation of the tenure code, some facts can be readily spelled out. The most important of these is that the three dismissed professors lost their jobs because of political activity. This activity was membership in, or, in Gundiach's case, sympathy with, the Communist Party. Likewise, it is certain that the three men on probation are in this unenviable position because of their former affiliation with the Communist Party.

Throughout the testimony much was made of the answers of the various defendants to the question posed by Dr. Allen as to membership in the Communist Party. No one on the committee ever challenged Dr. Allen's right to ask this question.

It is impossible to evaluate completely the effect of the action of the Board of Regents on the University. But already eminent men have refused appointment to the University. Thomas Cook, a conservative historian, has resigned because of the firings. A letter signed by 430 leading educators and scholars was sent to the Board of Regents claiming that its action was tantamount to the establishment of "a standard of political orthodoxy . . . the next step may be whether a belief in Catholicism or the single tax are acceptable. Both of these are doctrines of considerable rigidity and both have been at times highly unpopular."

The Connecticut Valley Educators have attacked the Washington decisions as "establishing the principle that an instructor may be dismissed solely upon the basis of his political beliefs without regard to academic performance or qualifications . . . the continuation of this policy will lead inevitably to a colorless orthodoxy of 'safe 'ideas." Other educator groups are also protesting.

Professor Randall of Columbia University points out a warning in the Washington action: "one wonders how a self-respecting teacher could consider future service in an institution in which the guarantees universally associated with 'academic freedom' seem to be so completely exposed to the vagaries of political pressure."

At present the three fired professors have appealed their cases to the American Association of University Professors. If their appeals are successful, the University must rehire them or become a "censured administration." Top men, as a rule, do not accept positions in institutions on this censured list.

There is no way of calculating the reluctance of Washington faculty members now to exchange freely ideas with each other or with students. Professor Henry D. Aiken of Harvard, a former University of Washington faculty member, stated, "It is a terrible thing when men on a university campus have been isolated from one another by fear. A great University has been badly mauled.