The Nearing Case UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES SCHOOL OF LAW LIBRARY THE NEARING CASE The Nearing Case The Limitation of Academic Freedom at the University of Pennsylvania by act of the Board of Trustees June 14, 1915 A Brief of Facts and Opinions prepared by LIGHTNER WITMER in A.B. '88, Wharton School and College Professor of Psychology and Director of the Psychological Laboratory and Clinic, U. of Pa. NEW YORK B. W. HUEBSCH 1915 - "Not only is eternal vigilance the price of liberty, eternal struggle is the price of liberty." HON. ELIHTT ROOT. Address to The Union League of Philadelphia, March 23, 1915. "I assert that this perversion of democracy, this robbing democracy of its virility, can be changed as truly as the system under which Walpole governed the Commons of England by bribery, as truly as the atmosphere which made the Credit Mobilier scandal possible in the Congress of the United States has been blown away by the force of public opinion." HON. ELIHTT ROOT. Address to the New York State Constitutional Convention, August 31, 1915. 769416 "The American university that best catches the spirit of the coming era, that is truly abreast of the truest tendencies of the times, that does the most to promote individuality rather than to standardize it, as is the result of a purely mechanical age, that does the best to apply it to the current affairs of life, and does the best to develop our institutions according to safe and workable channels, that American university is going to be the great univer- sity of the future; for the universities standing upon the mountain ranges have always in the past history of the human race, when there have been universities, been the first to catch the dawn of the new era; and, just as Wittenberg, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, first caught the period of extraordinary intellectual fermentation and protest and thus gained so wide and splendid a prestige hi Europe, that Shakespeare makes its college, the youngest of all, the university of his favorite prince; so precisely in the race for supremacy that is still to be run, the American college that is most truly American, the one that catches the first breath of the dawn, the one that proceeds along the safest and surest channels, and that best reflects the tendencies of the American people, that will be the college that will have an unquestioned supremacy among American educational institutions." HON. JAMES M. BECK, '10. Address at New York Alumni Dinner, March 14, 1914* (From the Alumni Register, April, 1914.) INTRODUCTION On June 14, 1915, the board of trustees of the University of Pennsylvania voted not to reappoint Dr. iScott Nearing assistant professor of economics for the academic year 1915-16. Acting under orders of the board, the Provost sent Dr. Nearing this letter: June 15, 1915. My dear Mr. Nearing: As the term of your appointment as assistant pro- fessor of economics for 1914-15 is about to expire, I am directed by the trustees of the University of Penn- sylvania to inform you that it will not be renewed. With best wishes, I am Yours .sincerely, EDGAR F. SMITH. Although this action of the board was technically a refusal to renew an annual appointment, throughout the discussion which followed it was justly treated as a dismissal. The legal right of the board of trustees to dismiss an assistant professor is admitted. The objections offered to the action of the board in the Nearing case have reference to the mode of procedure. The issues involved are much more complicated than the mere fact of dismissal would seem to indicate. In order to pre- sent the more important of these issues, I prepared a series of statements which were published from time to time during the summer months in two Philadelphia newspapers. These I am now republishing together with some arguments on both sides of this discussion, as well as extracts from various sources, including the Alumni Register, a periodical under the editorial control of the board of directors of the General Alumni Society. This partial summary of what preceded and followed Dr. Nearing's dismissal constitutes a brief of facts and opinions which I hope will prove a useful guide for those seeking to form a sound and independent judgment, as well as for some future historian who (ix) X may come to write this rather confused chapter in the history of the University of Pennsylvania. I see before this and other universities a period of intense struggle for the freedom of research and teaching, and over the right of academic men to serve the public in various capacities. A frank treatment of all the facts, with a consequent understanding of the real issues involved, will bring no lasting discredit on the University of Pennsylvania. In general the issues arise from a diversity of opinion in the fields of education, religion, and social service. They transcend and should be held above mere personalities. For this reason I have refrained from all discussion of Dr. Nearing's fitness to be an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania. The fact that he has been consistently recommended by the head of his department, which recommendation has been sup- ported by the dean and faculty of the Wharton School, I con- sider creates a presumption of Dr. Nearing's fitness, which can only be offset by a specific statement of facts. Despite the discussion of the last three months, no facts have been dis- closed which would warrant action contrary to the deliberate judgment of those who are most familiar with Dr. Nearing's work. At the University of Pennsylvania during the academic year 1914-15 there were 128 professors, 67 assistant professors, and 365 instructors, including assistants, lecturers, associates, assistant instructors, and readers. The trustees designate the appointment of professors "for an indefinite term," but in the case of all other officers of instruction, unless a term of two or three years is specified, the appointment is for a single year. Thus, Dr. Nearing was promoted from an instructorship to an assistant professorship in June, 1914, but with the notification of his appointment went the copy of a by-law of the board of trus- Jtees, reciting among other provisions the followirig: "At the expiration of the period specified in the terms of the appointment, such appointment shall be regarded as terminated without further notice, unless it shall have been renewed." While this by-law has been in existence for some years, it was understood until recently that the appointment of an assistant professor was automatically renewed from year to year unless the professors of his particular department advised against his reap- XI pointment. Many assistant professors and even some professors did not know until this year of the existence of this by-law. If the operation of this by-law in the case of Assistant Pro- fessor Nearing establishes a precedent, it means that an assistant professor may be recommended in February or March for reap- pointment by the board of trustees, but that the trustees without further notification to the department, the dean, and the faculty recommending him, may in June decline to reappoint, assigning no reason for their action either to the assistant professor or to the dean and faculty. The board of trustees evidently intends to employ this pro- cedure with respect to all assistant professors and instructors. For the first time, assistant professors in the College received last August the following notification of reappointment: DEAR SIR: It gives me pleasure to inform you that you have been elected to an Assistant Professorship in the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania for the year 1915-16. Salary at the rate of $ per annum. Truly yours, EDWARD ROBINS, Secretary. "Appointments other than those of Professors and Assistant Professors shall be for one year. The appoint- ment of Assistant Professors shall be for a term of from, one to three years. At the expiration of the period specified in the terms of the appointment, such appoint- ment shall be regarded as terminated, without further notice, unless it shall have been renewed." Statutes, Sec. 27 (6). As reappointments are acted upon at the June meeting of the board of trustees, and these notifications were received between August 1st and 15th, the assistant professor is thus brought to realize that Xll (1) His services and salary terminate June 30, 1916. (2) No assurance can be given him by the professors of his department or by the unanimous vote of the faculty, that he will be retained in the service of the University subsequent to June 30th. (3) He cannot expect to receive this assurance until some time after the second Monday in June, and the notification may not be received by him until after August 1st. Under these circumstances, may we not expect one-year appointees to be looking this year for a more secure tenure of office at some other institution? Not only are their present positions and salaries held at the arbitrary pleasure of the board of trustees, but their eligibility to a Carnegie pension is likewise in jeopardy. It has always been tacitly understood that when the pro- fessors of a department and the faculty recommended a man to the board of trustees, the board would not totally disregard such recommendation and fail to reappoint. The heads of departments organize and keep together an efficient staff only with great difficulty, for other institutions are looking for able men. It is safe to say that few assistant professors or instructors are being held at the University of Pennsylvania by salary alone. Esprit de corps, loyalty, and the opportunity for research and effective teaching are motives which hold efficient men to the service of the institution. The one-year appointment, renewable at the pleasure of the board of trustees at their June meeting, must cause a serious falling off in the efficiency of the several depart- ments of instruction. In fact, it will be found impossible to con- duct an institution like the University of Pennsylvania under this procedure. A city could not run its police department in this manner. The primary function of a board of trustees would appear to be, not so much to guide the detailed development of a particular department, but rather to make it possible for that department to organize and maintain an efficient staff. The securing of funds for the conduct of the University, and the equitable and expeditious distribution of funds among the several departments, would seem to be the board's part in University administration. No one ought to minimize the devoted labors of certain members Xlll of the board of trustees in the interest of tha University of Penn- sylvania; but is the administration to be limited to the twenty- four members of the board? What are the members of the faculty expected to contribute to the development of the several departments of the University? This is the crucial question in the Nearing case, so far as the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania is directly concerned. After Dr. Nearing had been for many years an instructor, the question of his removal became a matter of public concern and discussion in January, 1914. The trustees then denied that any effort was being made to remove Dr. Nearing because of his economic opinions or his public utterances on child labor legis- lation. In June, 1914, Dr. Nearing was promoted from an instructorship to an assistant professorship. No one has been able to suggest sufficient cause, arising during the academic year 1914-15, which could justify a change of attitude on the part of the board of trustees. Nevertheless, the board of directors of the General Alumni Society exerted their influence with the trustees to effect the removal of Dr. Nearing. Moreover, strong efforts have been made from time to time, and still persist within and without the board of trustees, to remove Dr. William Draper Lewis, professor of law and former dean of the Law School, because of his connection with the campaign of the Progressive Party in this state and throughout the country. An attempt is being made to develop the idea that an officer of instruction at the University of Pennsylvania is an employee of the board of trustees, and that the opinions and utterances of members of the faculty must conform to those of the board. Some trustees give of their substance to the support of the institution. Some are content to control the funds given by others of recent years chiefly by the state. Whatever the origin of the income of the University may be, have those who control the expenditure the right to determine what every stipendiary shall teach or refrain from teaching? Freedom of opinion and speech never will be absolutely unlimited, nor on the other hand can it ever be absolutely restricted. The struggle is probably eternal, between those seeking a larger measure of freedom and those demanding greater conformity. The issue is not drawn between the board of trustees XIV and the faculty of any one university, nor yet between trustees and faculties as opposing social groups in the community. The members of a faculty will differ in opinion, as will the members of a board of trustees. At Princeton Mr. Wilson divided the faculty as well as the board of trustees. It is curious to note that some advocates of the old-fashioned classical course are ranged alongside those who favor sectarian intolerance or who would make university teaching conform to the economic and social views of the iwm'-owners, the trustees. There is much more than a lightly held opinion that certain representatives of the privileged classes have determined upon a campaign for the control of research and teaching. A liberal curriculum must embrace the modern sciences, which are concerned with live and dangerous issues. An insidious obstacle to progress, therefore, is a too exclusive absorption of teacher and pupil in the thoughts and problems of the dead and innocuous past. The University of Pennsylvania possesses not less but rather more academic freedom than some of our leading institutions. For example, Princeton momentarily appears to be more conspicu- ously tied to the classics, to religious conformity, and to the power of money than is Harvard, Columbia, or Pennsylvania. At Lafayette, Colorado, Utah, and other institutions, these ultra- conservative forces have provoked much adverse criticism by recent attempts to compel conformity of opinion and teaching. But the history of education shows that no institution can be made to represent for long the opinions of any one man or group of men. The traditions of the University of Pennsylvania, its present status and its probable future, distinguish it as something more than a local institution. A great non-conformist of his day I might even say rebel and one of the greatest intellects this country has ever produced, Benjamin Franklin, was not only its founder, but also proposed a plan for the education of youth in Pennsylvania which some universities have only today advanced far enough to put into practice. Its first provost, Dr. William Smith, formulated an outline of college instruction which is admitted to have contained all that was best in the college curricula offered by the institutions of this country during the succeeding hundred years, Joseph Wharton's deed of gift is XV an educational document which will take its rightful place as a landmark in the history of education. It outlined the plan of a school which has proved to be one of the most virile departments of the University, and which has served as a precedent for the organization of similar departments at other institutions. Pro- vost William Pepper, a reincarnation of the progressive spirit and civic enthusiasm of Franklin, aroused the University of Pennsylvania from the intellectual lethargy of more than half a century. He gave to it a Geist, a modern soul his own. Under his successor, Provost Harrison, a member of the board of trustees, the University of Pennsylvania was hi the hands of an able and beneficent dictator. Unique responsibility seems often to awaken unique capacity and statesmanship. The present administra- tion twenty-four trustees acting for the most part in secrecy is striving "to bring about unanimity of thought and action,"' which, taken at its best, means only machine-like efficiency.- Any one trustee, acting on his sole responsibility, might be expected to meet a situation like the Nearing case more accept^, ably than twenty-four acting as a group. In the administration of public education it is recognized that so large a board is an irresponsible and relatively inefficient body, especially if each member tries to act upon his own judgment and knowledge. The University of Pennsylvania is now too large and diverse an organization to be governed in this manner. Either the institu- tion must grow smaller, if everything in it is to have the personal approval of a, majority of the board, or the governing power must be centralized hi some one individual or a very small group. Despite appearances, I cannot believe that any of the trustees or any group of Philadelphia alumni seriously intend to bring this University down from its present high estate and make it what it was in the early part of the nineteenth century a small local concern. The University of Pennsylvania is a continuation of the University of the State of Pennsylvania, founded hi 1779, the first state university to be established in this country. In 1791 the University of the State of Pennsylvania and the College and Academy of Philadelphia united under the name of the Univer- sity of Pennsylvania, with the governor of the state as president of its board of trustees, and a charter requiring that "the trustees XVI shall annually lay a statement of the funds of the institution before the legislature of the commonwealth." The idea of what a university is, varies with time and circumstance. The great universities of England comprise a number of colleges. If the University of Pennsylvania would unite with State College, the University of Pittsburgh, and perhaps other institutions, to form a single corporate body, the commonwealth of Pennsyl- vania could build up an educational institution which no privately endowed university could ever hope to rival. The issue is a great one, worthy of the imagination of Benjamin Franklin, William Smith, and William Pepper. Back of the Nearing case is the problem of financial support and the question of administrative control. The alternatives are on the one hand private contributions and control by private wealth, and on the other, state support and the control of public opinion. The consequence of the one alternative is a local concern of diminished scope and usefulness, and of the other a great state university, worthy to represent in the field of learning, teaching, and public service one of the largest and richest commonwealths in the American Union. LIGHTNER WITHER. October 1, 1915. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PAGE I. THE ACTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 1. PROTESTS 1 2. THE REAL ISSUE 15 II. A NEW METHOD OF REMOVING ASSISTANT PROFESSORS 3. THE STAND OP THE BOARD OP TRUSTEES 19 4. THE ONE YEAR APPOINTMENT, A LEGAL SUBTERFUGE 23 III. THE LEGAL ISSUE DEFINED 5. A LEGAL OPINION 26 6. AN ANSWER TO MR. BELL 29 IV. RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL CONFORMITY 7. THE TRUSTEES DIFFER IN OPINION 31 8. RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL AIMS 39 9. WHAT is THE OLD-TIME RELIGION? 46 The Inspiration of Whitefield The First Home of the University of Pennsylvania Then and Now The "Honest Heretic" "A Wonderful Day at a Great University" Mr. George Wharton Pepper on "Billy" Sunday The Rev. Charles F. Aked on "Billy" Sunday The Gospel of Hell "Tidings of Great Joy" From the Wharton Deed of Gift Economics or Religion? Another Voice from the Crowd An Obstacle to Reforms Scott Nearing to "Billy" Sunday Ecclesiasticism Doomed Compulsory Chapel 10. WHICH is THE OLD-TIME EDUCATION? 58 Benjamin Franklin The Rev. William Smith, D.D. Joseph Wharton / Mr. George Wharton Pepper The Alumni Register An Editorial Opinion (xvii) XV111 V. THE RELATION OF PROFESSOR TO TRUSTEE PAGE 11. THE "EMPLOYEE" IDEA 68 12. THE UNIVERSITY: AN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOLARS 71 VI. ALUMNI SUPPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 13. "WE THE ALUMNI" 75 14. THE SUPPORTING ALUMNI 80 i **, VII. "THE ALUMNI REGISTER" CAMPAIGN 15. A SALARY QUESTION 83 16. THE COOPERATION OP DIRECTORS AND TRUSTEES 86 17. THE ALUMNI TRUSTEES 93 VIII. ASSETS AND LIABILITIES 18. GLITTERING GENERALITIES 94 19. THE GROWTH OF THE WHARTON SCHOOL 96 IX. THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT 20. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 103 21. ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES. . . 107 THE NEARING CASE CHAPTER I. The Action of the Board of Trustees. 1. PROTESTS. (From the North American, 6/18/15.) Dr. Scott Nearing, one of the most widely known members of the faculty of the Wharton School of Finance of the University of Pennsylvania, has been curtly dismissed from his position as assistant professor of economics by the University board of trustees. For several years Doctor Nearing's agitation against child labor exploita- tion and other industrial injustices has earned him the enmity of powerful interests in the financial and industrial world. He shared this enmity with several other progressive teachers of the University faculty, but two years ago, when the matter of free speech first came to a focus, the board of trustees abandoned all plans of disciplining the progressive professors. The trustees then insisted that they had no idea of limiting the rights of free expression on the part of the professors. As proof of this, the discrimina- tion which apparently had been exercised against the advanced thinkers among the faculty and the professors who had antagonized corporation influences by their financial research and reform work, was remedied. The professors against whom discrimination was said to have been employed were advanced to the assistant professorship, to which they were entitled, though some of them were still denied the advance in salary which this ordinarily included. Doctor Nearing was among the teachers who thus finally gained an assistant professorship. Strong protests against the action of the trustees were voiced, however, as soon as it became known. Harrison S. Morris, one of the trustees of the estate of Joseph Wharton, who endowed the Wharton School of the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania with a fund of some $600,000, was highly indignant over Doctor Nearing's dismissal, and characterized it as an attack on free speech. In a formal statement prepared by Mr. Morris last night, he said: "As one of the executors of Joseph Wharton, founder of the Wharton School of the Pennsylvania University, I stand for freedom of speech. Assis- tant Professor Scott Nearing, of the Wharton School, one of the best loved and best teachers of the University, has been dropped by the stand-patters in the board of directors for expressing views opposite to those held by great trusts and by public service corporations which depend on corrupt politics for their profits. CD "Scott Nearing is a noble fellow, who has seen the oppression by intrenched monopoly and has spoken of it. He was the most readily punished of the group of useful young scholars of the Wharton School who have given it universal fame and drawn students from almost every country on the globe, because he was assistant professor and could be dropped without a trial by his peers as a full professor could not. "His associates have been equally guilty of trying to better social and business conditions, but they are harder to get. They have been of vast use to the present mayor and his directors in showing up the wrongs done the city by corporations whose most powerful directors sit on the board of trustees of the University. They have checked the United Gas Improvement Com- pany in its aggression against the citizens; the Reading Railway was brought to its knees in its excessive freight charges on coal by the service of one of these professors, and the talent and efficiency of the Wharton School have been used wherever possible by the present administration. "The limitation of the University has been that it has had too little touch with the life and business of the city. These younger men have been bridg- ing the chasm, and for doing so they have been under suspicion, and at last one of their number has fallen as a sacrifice on the city's altar. The Penn- sylvania University is not a free agent. It is supported by great sums appro- priated by our corrupt legislatures, and it must obey their wishes, which are equivalent to the desires of the great corporations. " My belief is that all the right-minded citizens of the state would rally to the support of the University if it would free itself from an alliance with Penrose, Vare and McNichol, which controls its judgment in a crisis like the present, when freedom of speech is at stake." Mr. Morris pointed out also that to oppose and expose corporate, munici- pal and industrial corruption as Doctor Nearing and his progressive asso- ciates have done, is a task directly imposed on the Wharton School faculty by Joseph Wharton's deed of gift. This was pointed out two years ago by Mr. Morris when the progressive professors first were put under fire. To emphasize the point and keep it constantly before the eyes of the Wharton School faculty, Mr. Morris had several engraved copies of the deed of gift printed, framed and hung in the Wharton School classrooms. The stipulation made in the deed of gift, particularly applicable to the dismissal of Doctor Nearing, is set forth as provision F in the deed of gift as follows: "The necessity of rigorously punishing by legal penalties and by social exclusion those persons who commit frauds, betray trusts or steal public funds, directly or indirectly. The fatal consequences to a community of any weak toleration of such offenses must be distinctly pointed out and enforced." The student body and alumni of the Wharton School are already pre- paring for a protest demonstration. Doctor Nearing is very popular with his students. The action of the trustees, however, could not have been better timed if the intention was to forestall student demonstrations, as the students will scatter during the vacation season. Comment was also made on the fact that the dismissal of Doctor Nearing was withheld until this time, when other universities and colleges have filled their faculties. In the ordinary course of events, a college professor is dis- missed early in the spring, so that he can seek other connections. Colleges elect their faculties in April. (From the Public Ledger, 6/18/15.) Dr. Scott Nearing, assistant professor of economics in the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce at the University of Pennsylvania, has lost his position. Views and utterances on economic subjects considered too radical by members of the board of trustees of the University and the faculty, and which several times in the past jeopardized his postion, are believed to be the cause of his removal. The action against the professor was taken by the trustees at their meeting on Monday. Doctor Nearing received notification from Provost Smith yesterday morning. It is understood his appointment expired this spring and the board refused to renew it. Other than stating he had been dropped Doctor Nearing would say nothing. While members of the board refused to make any comment on the case, it generally is believed the economics professor goes as the result of the long- continued friction some of his views had caused in University circles. Surprise, however, is felt, in that last spring Doctor Nearing was promoted from an instructorship to the assistant professorship, and this year had seemingly had little trouble. Doctor Schelling, the orator of the day at the commencement exercises, of the University's English Department, expressed great regret at Doctor Nearing's leaving the University. "It is unfortunate for Doctor Nearing, but more unfortunate for the University," he said. (From the North American, 6/19/15.) Strong telegrams of protest against the summary dismissal of Dr. Scott Nearing by the trustees of the University of Pennsylvania were sent from this city yesterday to Governor Brumbaugh. The telegrams urge Governor Brumbaugh not to sign the $1,000,000 appropriation bill for the University of Pennsylvania until the University trustees have satisfied him that their dismissal of Doctor Nearing is not part payment for senate votes of child labor interests in favor of the Uni- versity appropriation. For years Doctor Nearing has lectured and written against child labor exploitation. A newspaper in Bristol, the home town of Joseph R. Grundy, leader of the Pennsylvania child exploiters' fight against Governor Brum- baugh's child labor laws, some time ago took occasion to make a vitriolic attack on both Doctor Nearing and a local minister who permitted Doctor Nearing to lecture against child labor in his church. Grundy's editor denounced Doctor Nearing's church lecture against the greedy exploitation of helpless children as sacrilege, and called on the University trustees to rid themselves of such a dangerous professor. 4 Grundy's senator, Clarence J. Buckman, became chairman of the senate appropriation committee this year. When the University trustees came before this Grundy committee as applicants for $1,000,000 of the state funds they are said to have been reminded of the fact that Doctor Nearing had unplesantly antagonized "influential men" in the state who had much to do with granting or withholding state appropriations. Every member of the faculty, from Dean McCrea, of the Wharton School, down to the assistant professors, rallied as a man yesterday to Doctor Near- ing's support. The summary dismissal of Doctor Nearing is, indeed, declared now to involve a question of bad faith on the part of the trustees. The dean of each department in the University forwards the full list of his teaching staff to the board of trustees each spring, with recommendations for reappointment. This custom has been in vogue for a number of years, because it enables a teacher who is not reappointed to seek other employment before the end of the school year. Usually the recommendations of the dean of each depart- ment are carried out to the letter, as the trustees, of course, are not in per- sonal touch with the teaching staff and have not the opportunity that a dean has to judge the value of a teacher. Doctor Nearing was recommended by Dean McCrea for reappointment. In the spring, Dean McCrea is said to have received assurance from the trustees that everybody recommended by him would be reappointed. This assurance was disregarded entirely when Doctor Nearing was dis- missed at the end of the school year in violation of all customs. Another violation of precedents which makes Doctor Nearing's dis- missal unusual is the fact that he was personally notified of his dismissal by Provost Smith, and Dean McCrea was absolutely ignored. The custom is to notify the dean when a member of his faculty has been dismissed, and the dean in turn notifies the dismissed teacher. Dean McCrea, of the Wharton School, yesterday made it clear that Provost Smith's note should not be interpreted as meaning that Doctor Nearing's teaching ability gave any cause for his dismissal. Dean McCrea said: "Scott Nearing is an efficient teacher, an influence for good in personal relationships with students and colleagues and an able and helpful adminis- trative associate." Despite the report that other progressive teachers are to be eliminated from the University faculty as summarily as Doctor Nearing, the members of the faculty were not deterred from rallying to Doctor Nearing's support yesterday. Several of the most prominent University professors gave their unstinted praise to Doctor Nearing's work. Prof. Clyde L. King said: "There is not a man on university faculties anywhere whose motives are cleaner, whose ideals are higher, both as a teacher and as a student, than Scott Nearing. His personal contact with the students invariably left an impress for good an impress that was effective throughout all later years. As a teacher he is one of the greatest assets of the University of Pennsylvania, and has long been so. His loss to the Wharton School would be irreparable." Dr. Simon Patten, professor of economics in the Wharton School, is quoted as saying: "In losing Doctor Nearing the University loses one of its most effective men, a man of extraordinary ability, of superlative popularity and a man who, to my mind, exerted the greatest moral force for good in the University. " He had the largest class in the University there were 400 in his class and no one could have done his work better. I taught his course fifteen years, and have superintended it for the last ten, and I know. It is not an easy thing to teach 400 students, and Doctor Nearing did it well. Several men failed before we got him." Despite these opinions of the faculty, the University trustees refused to make public their ulterior cause for forcing Doctor Nearing out of the University. (From the Public Ledger, 6/19/15.) The general belief that the "free speech" breach between the trustees and radical members of the faculty is widening, is strengthened by a report that Doctor Nearing is not the only one from the Wharton School who may be dropped. Following are six members of the faculty who are said to be in disfavor with the trustees: Dr. James T. Young, professor of public administration. Dr. Carl Kelsey, professor of sociology. Dr. Ward W. Pierson, attorney, professor of business law. Dr. Thomas Conway, Jr., professor of finance. Dr. Clyde L. King, assistant professor of political science. Dr. J. Russell Smith, professor of industry. Dr. Young formerly was director of the Wharton School, but was deposed. In view of the tempest that Doctor Nearing's dismissal has caused, it is said no immediate attempt to remove these men is contemplated. It is understood that those holding the rank of professor can be dismissed only by trial by their peers in the faculty. "This thing should be investigated until everything is cleared up," said Mr. Morris. "The whole trouble is that the body of men controlling the University controls other public institutions of this city." Without exception the professors speak of Doctor Nearing as a con- structive teacher and as a great asset to the University. Dr. Clyde L. King said: "There is not a man on university faculties anywhere whose motives are cleaner, whose ideals are higher, both as a student and as a teacher. Scott Nearing's personal contact with the students invariably left an impress for good. "This statement is made with full cognizance of the fact that he had in one class alone more than 400 students every year. Not only here is Professor Nearing known as an effective teacher. Far and wide among the university men of the country he is known as one of the clearest thinkers on current problems in the United States. As a teacher he is one of the greatest assets 6 of the University of Pennsylvania. His loss to the Wharton School would be irreparable." Doctor Nearing always was making suggestions and doing things for the betterment of the Wharton School according to Dr. J. Russell Smith. He said: "I have heard the Governor of this State say with great earnestness that the most important thing about a teacher was his character. In this respect Doctor Nearing is one of the cleanest, fairest, squarest, whitest fellows I know. He is a diligent and effective teacher. His work in reconstructing the Wharton School roster increased the efficiency of the whole school. His students and their problems and the improvement of the Wharton School are always on his mind." Dr. Bruce D. Mudgett, instructor in insurance and brokerage, said: "I have been associated with Doctor Nearing in graduate work and as mem- ber of the faculty for the last six years, and I believe he was one of the ablest teachers on the staff." Dr. Edward Potts Cheyney, professor of English history, said: "Doctor Nearing's influence on his students and in the community has been valuable. He is one of the group of vigorous and active teachers who have done much to make the Wharton School what it is. "But the manner of Doctor Nearing's dismissal raises a larger question than that of his own personality and opinions. There is a widespread, almost universal, sense of resentment among professors of the University. It has been a most disheartening occurrence. The freedom of opinion and its eopression that was described by Professor Schelling in his recent com- mencement address and the comparative security of tenure that is essential to good teaching seem both to have been disregarded in this case. "Today every assistant professor in the University feels that he may be removed without warning, after it is quite too late to make an academic connection for the next year. Not merely assistant professors, but men of every academic grade at the University feel themselves humiliated by an action that, however legal, is nevertheless derogatory to their positions and destructive to their proper service. Such results cannot fail to bring serious injury upon the University." Dean Roswell C. McCrea issued the following statement: "Scott Nearing is an efficient teacher, an influence for good in personal relationships with students and colleagues and an able and helpful adminis- trative associate." Doctor Nearing still refuses to talk. "The initiative has been taken by the trustees. It is up to them to explain," was all he would say. A report from Harrisburg yesterday was that he might be appointed by Governor Brumbaugh to a State position, perhaps in the Department of Factory Inspection. (From the Public Ledger, 6/21/15.) That it was incumbent upon the trustees to clear the situation by giving a straightforward explanation of the reasons for retiring Doctor Nearing was the thought expressed last night by Henry Budd, a widely known attorney and for many years president of the University alumni in this city. Mr. Budd is one of many alumni who have literally bombarded Provost Smith with letters asking the reason for Doctor Nearing's dismissal. Mr. Budd said: "As an alumnus of many years' standing, it seems to me that so unusual a proceeding as the virtual dismissal of an instructor without having given the warning which I understand is usual in the spring of the year requires explana- tion on the part of the trustees. This seems to have been recognized by one of the board, who, according to one of the newspapers, referred inquirers to the provost. "I wrote a note to Doctor Smith last Saturday asking the reasons for Doctor Nearing's ousting, but have received no answer. This is not to be wondered at. I may have an answer tomorrow. "Of course, it is not fair to judge the trustees finally until they have given the explanation which they owe not only to the alumni, but also to the general public, from whose funds liberal appropriations have been made to the University. "But as the dean of the department in which Doctor Nearing has taught speaks in the highest terms of his ability and fidelity, and as Doctor Nearing seems to be supported by his associate instructors, the report that he has suffered because his views on certain economic subjects have not agreed with those of certain gentlemen of the board of trustees is the only explanation before the public. "It does not appear when or where Doctor Nearing gave expression to his views, or whether, if they were advanced in the course of instruction, they were given as theories or fulminated as articles 'de fide.' If the former be the case, then no fair-minded man can object to students being fully informed of all theories upon any subject within the scope of the instructor's chair. "If the opinions were expressed outside of the University, where neces- sarily Doctor Nearing must speak without pretending to speak with the sanction of the University, it would seem to be pretty near tyranny to punish a man as a professor for what he said in a personal capacity. "The time of the offensive utterances, if there have been any, and if the cause of the trustees' action is to be sought in them, is also of interest, for unless it was very recent the withholding of action until commencement would seem to show a purpose not only to rid the University of Doctor Near- ing, but to prevent his obtaining employment elsewhere, at least for a season, a thing which on the surface seems unfair, not to say cruel. "Of course, however, the trustees may have some excellent reasons for their action, which if they had made known would have forestalled any adverse criticism. But if such reason exists it certainly ought to be given, and promptly, for the responsibilities of the board and its accountability to the community will not permit it to take the position of 'sic volo, sic jubeo' (thus I will, thus I command). "The whole matter is regrettable and it is of the greatest importance for the sake of the reputation of the University that the truth be known." 8 A demand upon the trustees of the University of Pennsylvania to give their reasons for dropping Professor Scott Nearing from the faculty of the Wharton School was voiced by the Rev. Dr. Augustus E. Barnett yesterday in an address at the Reformed Episcopal Church of Our Redeemer. If no reason is forthcoming, Doctor Barnett said, people would believe that Dr. Scott Nearing is "a victim of the interests." "Free speech must be maintained at all costs in America," said Doctor Barnett. "We must refuse to be Russianized. Professor Scott Nearing is one of the latest victims of intolerance. He was one of the brightest orna- ments of the University of Pennsylvania. Better had an earthquake destroy its buildings than oust a man for daring to think his own thoughts and who has the courage of his convictions. I speak as the father of two sons who are now in the University and who have been inspired and stimulated whole- somely by this professor. "I resent the action of the trustees, and as one of a large number demand the reasons for his retirement. Until they are given, I shall believe that he is a victim of the interests. Men like Mr. Grundy do not like to see public money going to support a man who holds the views Professor Nearing does on child labor and wages. One of the most pernicious effects of rich men like John D. Rockefeller endowing a univeristy is that men like Doctor Nearing are muzzled if they are cowards and are thrown out if they are heroic enough to refuse the muzzle. "It is the same in the church. Let any one man pay the bills of the church and he thinks he owns a chattel mortgage on the preacher." (From the Evening Ledger, 6/21/15.) The Baptist Ministers came out today for a hearing for the deposed instructor at their weekly meeting, held this morning in the First Baptist Church, at Seventeenth and Sansom Streets. After considerable discussion the following resolution was passed, intro- duced by the Rev. W. Quay Roswell, pastor of the Fifth Baptist Church, Eighteenth and Spring Garden Streets. "Resolved, That we express our regret over the action of the trustees of the University of Pennsylvania in dismissing Dr. Scott Nearing from the faculty of the Wharton School on grounds they have not disclosed to the public. Their silence concerning the reason for his dismissal we believe to be a blow to free speech. Our action in this protest we do not wish to be con- sidered an approval of the doctrines advocated by Professor Nearing or an attempt to pass judgment on his case. But we believe that the public has a right to know the causes that led up to his dismissal." (From the Public Ledger, 6/22/15.) Measures were devised yesterday by Philadelphia alumni of the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania to get from its trustees an explanation for the drop- ping of Dr. Scott Nearing from the faculty of the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce. The movement to unite members of the faculty and grad- uates in a central working force took shape through the organization of a Committee of Twenty. Letters were drafted by the committee and were mailed last night to all members of the Board of Trustees, demanding the facts in the Nearing case. At the same time steps were taken to make the Nearing case a national issue by bringing it before the new American Association of University Professors, which was organized a few months ago for the purpose of maintaining academic freedom of speech. The letter to the trustees from the Committee of Twenty follows: "We are, as alumni of the University of Pennsylvania, very directly interested in the discussion occasioned by the abrupt termination of the connection of Dr. Scott Nearing with the University. It has been generally assumed that this action on your part has been due to the views on social and economic questions expressed by Doctor Nearing. For two years in the press throughout the United States it has been repeatedly stated that Doctor Nearing would be dismissed because his views differed from those of the trustees. This dismissal has now become a fact, and the press persists in placing it upon these grounds. If unexplained, we believe the public generally will accept these grounds as true ones. In view of the circumstances, and the relation of the University to the public, we deem it of the utmost impor- tance that the trustees state clearly the reasons for their decision, so that the alumni may be able to take such action as seems to them appropriate on undisputed facts. "The public has come to consider our institutions of learning as centers where current problems can be discussed, and the slightest suggestion of an effort on the part of any group of individuals to use their power over the means of livelihood of professors to influence the expression of this thought affects the confidence of the whole community in the sincerity of opinions voiced by all professors and instructors. "In order that you may not feel that this is the opinion of only a few alumni, and in order that you may have for your consideration the attitude of a larger number than can now be called together, we are sending a copy of this letter to certain groups of the alumni with the request that they write to you expressing their own opinions thereon." The letter was signed by Robert J. Sterrett, '10 L.; T. Henry Walnut, '02 C.; Dr. Daniel Longacre, '81 M.; Ferdinand H. Graser, '03 C.; Henry J. Gibbons, '01 C.; S. Gaitland Horan, '13 W.; Edgar D. Faries, 77 C.; O. Charles Broderson, '03 L.; Arthur E. Hutchinson, '09 L.; Albert A. Faught, '03 C. and '06 L.; Henry Beates, '79 M.; Everett H. Brown, '10 C.; C. W. Hitschler, '12 W.; Edward J. Horwarth, '12 W.; Horace Hayday, '11 W.; Horace Teller Fleisher, '06 W.; Cornelius D. Scully, '01 C.; James F. McCoy, '95 C.; A. Mercer Parker, '11 C., and W. Lane Shannon, '11 W. On behalf of alumni of the Wharton School, R. H. Wallace, Jr., who was president of the Wharton School Association until his graduation last week, made this statement: "The undergraduates have always been strong friends of Doctor Nearing and have always been firm believers in free speech at the University, At 10 the last meeting of the Wharton Association a strong resolution was passed upholding Doctor Nearing and freedom of speech at the University. "I have talked this over with a number of graduates and it seems to be the consensus of opinion that it was unjust to dismiss Doctor Nearing at this time. This is unquestionably the opinion of the Wharton School students. We may not agree with everything he says, but we certainly agree with the principles for which he is fighting. He, more than any other professor in the Wharton School, has taught students how to think." Benjamin C. Marsh, former president of the Pennsylvania Society to Protect Children from Cruelty and now head of various charitable organiza- tions in New York, has written an open letter to Provost Smith, saying: "Let me congratulate you upon having dismissed Dr. Scott Nearing from the University of Pennsylvania! It is an unnecessary proof that the University is a kept institution of learning. It proves beyond any possibility of doubt that you do not wish to have discussion in the University, that you do not wish to have your young men think; that the University exists to perpetuate privilege, and that it will not permit any man to express his honest opinion as a professor. " You have chosen the time well. You probably have secured the appro- priation from the State Legislature for the next two years, while if you had had the nerve to do this while the Legislature was in session you probably would not have gotten so much. "Again let me congratulate you upon the outrageous conduct of the trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, which has done more to forward true progress than Doctor Nearing could have done as a professor. I only hope that the other professors will boycott the University, while we can safely rely upon action by the student body. Are you thinking of substituting the Rev. William A. Sunday for Doctor Nearing?" (From the North American, 6/22/15.) Prof. Samuel McCune Lindsay, of Columbia, who has been in Philadel- phia investigating the dismissal of Professor Nearing, said today: "When I speak about this case I do so as an alumnus of the University of Pennsylvania and a former professor there. Nearing was the best student in the next to the last class that I taught there, and it was rather a large class, too, in sociology. He was- then appointed an instructor and reappointed annually for eight years. Promotion was unquestionably held back from him but at last it came, and last year he was made an associate professor on a one-year contract. "Last spring the faculty recommended him for re-engagement. His record both as a student and as a teacher was very high. I took pains to look this up, and his record is flawless, and is one of the best of the forty pro- fessors and instructors in his department. "Right here is where I think the whole system at Pennsylvania is wrong. I believe that the trustees should confine themselves to the financial problems of the University and with the acceptance or rejection of such recommenda- 11 tions on other matters as their faculty or other representatives may make. But the Pennsylvania trustees, of whose intelligence in these matters I have a poor opinion, are not content to let the faculty decide educational matters. (From the Public Ledger, 6/23/15.) The Wharton School undergraduate committee in the letter calls the dismissal of Nearing an "outrage," and says that for "two years we have been held up to the ridicule of the student bodies of every university of our size and standing in the country because of the reactionary attitude of our board of trustees toward academic freedom." The letter in full follows: "Dr. Scott Nearing has been dismissed from the teaching staff of the University of Pennsylvania. For two years we have been held up to the ridicule of the student bodies of every university of our size and standing in the country because of the reactionary attitude of our board of trustees toward academic freedom. "There is not a student of the Wharton School, past or present, of any shade of political opinion, who believes Doctor Nearing's liberal views and earnest personality do him harm. Men who have disagreed with him on every conceivable subject admit that he at least forced them to think for them- selves. But real harm has been done to the University as a result of this recent decision, the responsibility for which rests squarely on the board of trustees. "We have a right to expect that the board of trustees shall pay less attention to their personal interests and give more heed to their trust. Their action in waiting for the closing of the University before taking this step can only be regarded with suspicion by the students, when they recall how under- graduate organizations have met similar attempts in the past. "Do you want to give some real help to the University? Write or telegraph at once to the provost and to several of the trustees, giving your opinion of this outrage, and demanding Doctor Nearing's retention. A com- mittee of alumni is now requesting a public inquiry into the facts of the case. If you can send duplicate copies of your letters and the replies received to us, these duplicates are likely to be most valuable in forming conclusions. "Strong, vigorous action on your part must show the trustees that their action is condemned by the student body." ^ ' v (From the North American, 6/23/15.) Director Cooke in his statement concerning Doctor Nearing's removal said: "The dismissal of Dr. Scott Nearing comes as a distinct shock. The trustees of the University probably felt that a summary demand for the resignation of one of their best known teachers, made after the close of the school year, would excite a few days' comment and some bitter criticism and then would be forgotten." 12 (From the North American, 6/25/15.) Protests against the dismissal of Dr. Scott Nearing by the University of Pennsylvania trustees as an infringement on academic freedom of speech continued to pile up yesterday. Thomas Robins, financier and staunch supporter of the university, took particularly strong exception to the trustees' silent attitude of "the public be damned." In a letter addressed to Provost Smith, Mr. Robins voiced his protest as follows: "MY DEAR PROVOST: You know that I have been and am an ardent supporter of your administration. As provost you have honored me with two appointments, both to boards where the performance of responsible duty has been at once a pleasure and a privilege. "I therefore write as a friend, a candid friend, to tell you of the morti- fication I feel at the position in which the trustees have placed themselves before the entire country, as a result of their treatment of Dr. Scott Nearing and of their subsequent action, when questioned as to that treatment. "Believe me, the 'public be damned* attitude cannot be assumed by any one holding a position of public trust, and especially is that true when those administering that trust have just received state aid to the amount of a million dollars of the people's money. "As a result of the Nearing dismissal, your board of trustees is placed in the unenviable position of invoking the privilege of the star chamber to cover their motives for discharging a professor whose standard of duty has been high, whose success as an instructor has been great, who has made notable contributions to the literature of his subject, and who has set an example of fearlessness in the discussion of vital social questions. "They have not hurt Nearing; they have given him an opportunity to learn how high an estimate has been formed of his character and teaching by the public and his associates; but they have injured the university in the eyes of the learned world to an extent that cannot be now estimated and they have served notice on the public that parents who wish their sons to hear in class a free discussion of economic and social questions that they must meet and solve in after life had better send them anywhere but to the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania. "Very sincerely your friend, "THOMAS ROBINS." (From the Evening Bulletin, 6/28/15.) Declaring that the action of the Board of Trustees was an "outrage, and BO un-American in principle as to arouse the indignation of every right thinking citizen," the Central Labor Union yesterday unanimously passed a resolution protesting against the dropping of Scott Nearing as "a violation of the right of free speech and as persecution of an instructor whose only offence is that he served the public faithfully." The resolution also pledged the Central Labor Union to "stand with the public until the U. of P. has been cleared of the stain brought upon its name by the trustees." 13 The Rev. Homer J. Vosburgh, of the North Baptist Church, of Camden, in a sermon last night on "The Case of Scott Nearing," condemned the trustees for the way in which they had dropped Mr. Nearing, and for their refusal to state frankly their reasons, and declared that action was a blow to the standing of the University. Dr. John Dewey, of Columbia University, and president of the American Association of College Professors, has taken sides with Dr. Nearing, and in an open letter condemns the action of Chancellor Day, of Syracuse University, who recently came out with a defence of the action of the U. of P. trustees. The Survey, a New York magazine of ultra-progressive tendencies, in its latest issue says that the public must infer from the method used and the silence of the trustees that the charge is true that the dropping of Scott Nearing was part of an effort to control the opinions of teachers. (From the New York Tribune, 6/27/15.) More letters and telegrams protesting against the dropping of Professor Nearing were given out by Mr. Morris today. J. Oseroff, of Pittsburgh, a former pupil of Dr. Nearing, wrote to Provost Smith protesting against Dr. Nearing's removal. He said: "Dr. Nearing's dismissal, if allowed to stand, will prove conclusively that outside influences persist in determining the educational policy at Penn- sylvania. If these influences can beat the professors into submission so that they are afraid to express themselves when they see fit, then the situation is a hopeless one and the university, under the circumstances, can no longer be an influence for good in the community." (From the North American, 7/14/15.) The Pennsylvania Associated Alumni of Rochester and Vicinity not only differs from the thirty-three self-appointed spokesmen for all the alumni, but have taken formal action to notify the trustees that their position does not meet with the association's approval. The Rochester association, of which John F. W. Whitebeck is president and Dr. Irving T. Clark, secretary, in formal session approved resolutions condemning the action of the trustees, in limiting the faculties of the Uni- versity, and demanded that the trustees, who, so far, are hiding the reasons for the dismissal of Professor Nearing under a veil of secrecy, should state their attitude publicly. Individual members of the association assert that in their belief the resolutions more closely represent the general feeling among all the alumni than the recent defense of the trustees by the thirty-three Philadelphians who oppose Nearing. The resolutions are as follows: "WHEREAS, The newspapers of Philadelphia and to a less extent the newspapers of other parts of the United States, have recorded the fact that the trustees of the University of Pennsylvania have refused to renew the 14 engagement of Scott Nearing as assistant professor of economics in the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania; and "WHEREAS, The newspaper comments have spread the impression that this action is due to disapproval on the part of the trustees of the conclusions of Mr. Nearing, drawn after a study of economic conditions, and incorporated in his teachings in the Wharton School; and "WHEREAS, This action on the part of the trustees is construed to mean that the trustees of the University of Pennsylvania intend to limit arbitrarily the independence of thought and the freedom of expression of conclusions on the part of recognized experts in the faculties of the University of Penn- sylvania; and "WHEREAS, The trustees of the University of Pennsylvania have seen fit not to express their reasons for this action publicly; now, therefore, be it Resolved, By the Pennsylvania Associated Alumni of Rochester and Vicinity, that this protest be sent to the trustees of the University of Penn- sylvania concerning their action: "Resolved, That it is the opinion of the Pennsylvania Associated Alumni of Rochester and Vicinity that the trustees should recede from their policy of silence in this matter and state publicly their attitude; "Resolved That the Pennsylvania Associated Alumni of Rochester and Vicinity strongly represent to the trustees of the University of Pennsylvania that they disapprove of any action that would lead to the impression that freedom of investigation, freedom of the expression of conclusions and free- dom of teaching are limited to the faculties of the University of Pennsylvania by its board of trustees." 2. REAL ISSUE.* Professor Nearing's appointment as assistant professor was recommended to the provost and board of trustees by the faculty of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. The board of trustees refused to accept the recommendation of one of its faculties, and declined to reappoint Professor Nearing. In doing this, the board acted clearly within its legal right, but did it exert its legal right wisely and justly in this particular instance? So far as I know, this action of the board of trustees is the only instance of a refusal to accept the favorable recommendation of a faculty in regard to an appointment. The burden of responsibility for this exceptional action rests entirely upon those members of the board who voted not to appoint Professor Nearing. Under the circumstances, a clear statement of the reason for this unusual action was to have been expected. The board of trustees, however, assigns no motives for its action. In effect it throws down the gage to the faculty, which recommended Professor Nearing's appointment, and opens a battle here for academic freedom, which has been fought at so many other universities in our own and other times. It is, indeed, the first move made by a board of trustees of the University of Penn- sylvania to assert its right to censor the opinions of men whom it has called or may call to membership in one of its faculties. It is not, however, the first move in this direction to be made by individual members of the board. For the trustees of an institution of learning even to appear to control the opinions of its faculties, is ussually the first step toward the deterioration and disintegration of the institution of which they are legally the administrators in trust for the entire community. Their refusal to accept a faculty's recommendation without notice to the faculty must be resented by every self- respecting member of the university faculty. ^ When they notified Professor Nearing, through the provost, without previous warning, and after the fifteenth day of June, that his services would no longer be required by the institution, * The fublif ledger chairman, Mr. Wharton Barker, Mr. J. Bertram Lippincott, and Mr. George Wharton Pepper. * Because of the opposition of Mr. 1 Madeira and Mr. Pepper to Professor Nearing's reappointment, which opposition precipitated the discussion and negative vote at the board meeting in June, Mr. Wharton Barker wrote a letter to Provost Smith under date of April 5, 1915, first made public following Mr. Bell's publication of his reason for voting against J)r. Nearing. As. this letter conveniently summarizes the various 121 grounds of objection then offered to Dr. Hearing's reappointment, it should be given careful consideration: "The letters, four, I think, you placed before the Board of Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, appear to be charges of economic heterodoxy rather than of ecclesiastical heterodoxy. I attach to this letter a slip that covers an open letter, addressed by Scott Nearing, who is attacked by the writers of the letters referred to, which breathes from end to end the spirit of Him who preached the Sermon on the Mount, which letter I want you to read. "If the action George Wharton Pepper and J. Levering Jones would have the trustees of the University take should be taken action I cannot believe possible Jews, Unitarians and other dissenters would be driven from the University of Pennsylvania; students and professors, associate professors and instructors would be driven. "Is it possible that such men as Joseph Leidy, Thomas H. Huxley, John Tyndall, William H. Furness, Horace Howard Furness, Henry C. Lea and hosts of other men as earnest but not as well known should have a ban put upon them by the University of Pennsylvania? j "I hope the action taken by the board of trustees about a year since, when the statement of Effingham B. Morris as to the position of the University of Pennsyl- vania trustees for free speech and religious liberty may stand without modification as the declared position of the University of Pennsylvania. I- "Thomas H. Huxley, upon his installation as rector of Aberdeen University in 1874 said : ' Universities should be places in which thought is free from all fetters and in which all sources of knowledge and all aids to learning should be accessible to all comers, without distinction of creed or country, riches or poverty.' "Can any one who believes in free speech and reli- gious liberty take other position than that taken by Hux- ley? 122 "The attacks upon Nearing are made, not because of his views upon religion, but because he attacks the aggressions of associated capital; attacks made because associated capital knows that its aggression upon economic rights of the people is nefarious and cannot stand against adequate presentation of the demands of the people and of the aggressions of associated capital. "I think no one in the United States has, during a period of thirty years, given more study to these vital questions than I have given, and I do not believe any one would venture to charge my statements as vindictive or unsupported by facts, because my statements rest upon facts and not upon assumptions. "I write you this letter for obvious reasons." The Provost of the University of Pennsylvania is an appointee of the board of trustees. So long as he remains Provost, he must carry out the orders of the board. The abrupt letter of dismissal dated June 15, 1915, was sent to Professor Nearing from the Provost's office, by order of the board of trustees. The Provost has since maintained absolute silence with respect to his own and the board's action. Nevertheless, rumor has connected him with Dr. Nearing's dismissal, and it is said on the authority of a trustee that Professor Nearing was not reappointed by the board because the Provost did not want him reappointed. What- ever the Provost's personal opinion may have been, there does not appear to be any evidence for the belief that he used the power of his office to further Professor Nearing's removal. At the meeting of the New York Alumni, held February 10, 1912, the Provost is quoted as having said in part, "Tonight you will not expect me to occupy much of your time, for our Trustees are your real guests, and you desire to hear from them. . . . The administration of the University is aiming to bring about unanimity of thought and action in our faculties." The "administration," as the Provost understands it, is the board of trustees. The Provost has openly declared that he has "no" policy. He places the responsibility of action on those who assert the right and have the power to act. He is the very opposite of the autocrat, and would appear to carry to the utmost limit the principles of democratic government. For this and other 123 reasons, I disregard the rumors which associate the Provost with the dominant faction of the Republican party in this state. He is indeed a Republican in politics. He stood for election as a Taft delegate to the last presidential convention. He has spoken with kindliness of a contractor politician, but he speaks with kindliness of all. Because the trustees have failed to make good the promise given at the time of his election as provost, that he should not be required to find the money to run the institution, it has been necessary for him to treat with the political leaders in the state legislature. He has frankly expressed his opinions on political and other questions. He should be granted the same freedom to express his personal views and to act, which every member of the faculty would claim for himself. Moreover, I do not believe that political leaders or so-called "bosses" are mainly responsible for the evils of the "invisible government" in the city of Philadelphia and the state of Pennsylvania. The chief offenders are the great corporations, which have acquired a private monopoly in the field of public utilities. The offense of many political leaders is of the nature of treason, because they pretend to be servants of the public, whereas in fact they serve their masters, the private interests. Is the University of Pennsylvania in danger of being brought under the same mastership? I hope that all the trustees are statesmen of rare unselfishness, at least in the field of education, for nearly two-thirds of the board are fair representatives of the allied business and political interests whose influence on civil government even Mr. Root has come to deplore. LAW LIBttAKY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY A 000 696 420 9