Newark post., 1915-06-30
Academic Freedom
Written for The Post

issue in the East by the action of
the Trustees of the University of
PENNSYLVANIA in dismissing with
out warning an assistant profess
sor. And the tumult of discussion,
pro and con, and in "letters to the
Provost and Trustees" the note Of
protest has sounded firm and long.
Summary action of this kind with
out a complete explanation of the
attendant conditions will not be
accepted calmly by faculties,
alumni, or even by the general ed
ucated public, whose opinion,
for practical or other reasons, can
not be disregarded by boards of
control. The status of the profess
sor will have to be definitely de-
termined at least by the Trustees
of the University of Pennsylvania.
The average man in these parts
in the part of our country east
of the Mississippi-had probably
not realized until he was attracted
by the publicity attached to the
Pennsylvania-Nearing case that
there was anything wrong with
the present status of the American
professor. Relations between pro-
fessors and presidents or between
professors and governing boards
seemed to be generally harmon
ious. The organization of an as
sociation of university professors
might have indicated that the wat
ers below the surface were not
wholly tranquil. But few cases of
drastic action on the part of gov
erning boards had come before the
eye of the average outsider. He
was justified in thinking-if he
thought about the article at all
that aside from the low salaries
which were paid, the university
professor held pretty indepen
dent, dignified position. Out in the
far West, however, conditions
seemed to demand an investiga-
tion. From two universities, not
ably, the University of Oklahoma
and the University of Utah, came
disturbing reports. independence
of thought and speech and GER
tainty in the tenure of office-two
factors which are essential to the
very existence of the profession of
teaching-seemed to be entirely
destroyed in these institutions.
The main facts in these cases were
made public and the conditions in
the University of Utah are now
being investigated. That like con-
ditions could prevail in an Eastern
university was hardly thought
possible before the publication of
the significant facts in the Penn
sylvania-Nearing case.
1t is unsafe, of course, for an in
dividual to pass complete judg-
ment in this case before all the in
side facts have been published. So
far, the public mind is in a state
of confusion. Many questions
have occurred doubtless to worry
one. What is meant by academic
freedom? To what extent should
a professor be independent in
thought and speech? Is the chief
business of a teacher to present
facts or to stimulate thought? On
what grounds should a professor
be subject to dismissal? How long
a period should elapse between
the notification of dismissal and
the expiration of his service? On
some of these questions, it may be
we'll to await conclusive state
ments from authoritative sources
for there is no doubt that such
statements will be made. On the
soundness of the decisions in so
far as they affect the freedom of
professor to apply the results of
his own intellectual processes to
know facts or theories, will depend
possibly for years to come, for a
single university, or it may be for
university education generally the
greatest usefulness of university
teachers. There can be no growth
where thought is stifed. On one
question, however, there can be
can be dismissed arbitrarily, with
out warning, unless for gross mis-
conduct. In the case of Nearing.
''intemperate utterances" are said
by one trustee to be the cause of
his dismissal. The one utterance
which this trustee gave was that
Nearing had said that he would
rather send his son to hell than to
certain DreDaratOrV school -