The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1895-10-26
THE CASE OF PROF. BEMIs.

Prof. Small. head of the department.
of sociology, and Prof. Butler (Presl-
dent-elect of Colby University,
head of the University Extension
Course, Chicago University. have
published statement in ref
erence to the case of Prof. Bemis. alleged
to have been dropped from the Unlver-
sity because he taught doctrines unpaiat-
able to the rich benefactors of the lnstl-
tuition. Prof. Bemis was what was
known as a university extension proIes-
sor, his work being chiefly the delivering
of lectures on sociology in university ex-
tension lecture courses. He had done
very little class work. The university
extension department has no regular en-
dowment with which to pay the salaries
of its professors, and the university is
dependent upon the fees received from
lectures in this department for the
money with which to pay the salaries OF
the lecturers Mr.. Bemis was not sue
cess as a lecturer, that is to say the public
did not care to go to his lectures, and in
the course of time it became impossible
to get him engagements to lecture in ex-
tension centres. This being the case,
Mr. Bemis was informed more, than
year ago that it was desirable for him to
seek other fields of usefuln ess better
suited to his abilities. He took this
suggestion kindly at first, but subse-
quently changed his mind and undertook
to pose as a martyr. His chief complaint
was that he was not, after his failure in
the lecture field became apparent, trans
ferred to the staff of instructors inside
the university, and he has alleged as a
reason for the refusal to so transfer him
the influence of the millionaire benefac-
tors of the university, who were preJu-
diced against him because his teachings
were not to their liking. In reply to his
complaint Prof. Small, the head of the
sociological department, says the an
swer had to be made that ii the trus-
tees could appropriate money without
limit to the sociological department.,
work might be assigned to Mr.. Bemis
which would be important and valuable
in itself, but that the money which
would be available for some time to come
was much more needed for kinds of in
struction which he was not competent to
give" In short Prof Bemis was not
transferred to the university staff be-
cause he was not competent for
the work on hand Prof. Small
adds further that the head and front OF
Prof. Bemis's erring was not the teach
ing of offensive views, but failure to
teach any distinct views whatever. AS to
the allegation that the influence of the
millionaires was used against him Profs.
Small and Butler joining in saying this
We wish to make the most emphatic
and unreserved assertion which words
can convey that the freedom of teach
ing'' has never been involved in the
been precisely the same If his subject had
been Sanskrit or Psychology or Mathe-
matics.
| And President Harper in statement
which is published in connection with
the statement of the two professors adds
this corroboration:
| Once more it is desired to say that
neither the expressed nor the supposed
wishes and views of the patrons OF the
University have had anything to do with
the case to hand. 1t has been merely a
question of finance in the effort to bring
the expenditures of the division Of Uni
versity Extension within it's income.
There is not an institution of learning
in the country in which freedom of
teaching is more absolutely untrammeled
than in The University of Chicago. The
history of the University during its first
three years is sufficient guarantee to those
who Will examine into it that the
policy of the Trustees Of the University
IL reference to this subject will not be
changed.
These statements thoroughly disprove
Prof. Bemis's allegation that he was the
victim Of the malign influence of mil
Iionaires and ought to put an end to all
fnsinuatiens of that character.