Saturday news. (Watertown, S.D.) 19??-19??, 1915-09-02
"GAGGlNG" COLLEGE PROFESSORS.

THE New York Times raises the point that we have no
right to censor tile public utterances Of our college professors.
We appreciate the fact that this is a broad question and
that the public mind is set in the direction Of the utmost free
dom.
But even our New York contemporary would not for a
moment think of retaining in New York's principal educational
institution a professor who is publicly preaching the doctrines
of socialism, for instance.
Again, the New York Times is owned, presumably, by a
group Of individuals who share views in common with regard
to economic problems. The paper employs a horde Of report
ers. spccial writer's and editors. Does it exercise no supervls-
ion over what these distinguished gentlemen write for pubhca-
ton? Does it permit one group Of reporters and editors to
swing in this direction today and another group to sWerve IN
another direction tomorrow?
Let us get a little nearer home. Suppose the Saturday
News should exercise no supervisory authority over what APP
pears in it's columns. Today one group of editors-supposing
it were employing many--would max" the paper declare for
George w. Igan for governor; tomorrow 1t would swing over
ito Peter Norbeck; the following day it would advocate the|
election of Mr.. McCarter; the next, it would be calling for
Eugene V. Dcbs to establish his residence here that we might
place him at the head Of state affairs.
In our public school system and our general educational
|system We are striving towards certain ideals. We-the pub
Tic, through its duly constituted authorities-are responsible
for the conduct Of those schools, and, if you please, indirectly
responsible for what we permit our employed educators to say
to the public.
While we are advocating the continuation of our present
republican form of government, with such betterments as ex
perience shows necessary from time to time, we cannot permit
la group of our college professors publicly to proclaim the
benefcence of socialism, which would undermine our present
social, political and economic systcms-now, can we? We
are asking the Times and those who agree with it regarding a
censorship to answer.
What we need in all phases of our public and private life
is uniformity, not confusion; harmony, not chaos; consistency,
not errancy-a drawing nearer to certain ideals of national
and civic life.
The Wesleyan college at Mitchell, South Dakota, is a
methodist Episcopal institution. Gould it afford, under any
circumstances, to permit certain Of it's professors publicly to
declare themselves believers in the agnosticism which Robert
Ingersoll so ably proclaimed?
Can the University Of South Dakota permit certain of its
professors-learned though they may be-to go about cham
pioning the cause represented by IIugene V. Debs?
Cole Blease, for instance, a former southern governor,
publicly advocates mob violence aid lynching as a means to an
END, under certain conditions. We are not herein saying that
The is not right, but we are saying that if he were a college
professor in a state institution in South Dakota and should
Igo about publicly unfolding lynch law we would be for turn
ing out the board Of regents if it failed to turn him out.
"Gagging" college professors? We'll, if, under such con-
ditions, that's what it would be called, we are for it.