New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-10-04
NEARING GAGGED
FOR CHILD LABOR
TALK, KECKARGES
His Structures on Poverty
Hurt the University
ProvoSt's Warning.
WHITES ATTACK
CALLED UNJUSi
Never Advocated Redistribution
of Property, Asserts De
posed Teacher.
d, ra,raIs r. Ths Tr''un'

.nr r.,srash r. Ths r-;'ur-
Philadelphia. oct. 3.-Dr. scott Near
ing. dismissed from the University OF
Pennsylvania faculty last June for his
100 radical views upon certain eco
monte questions. to-day charged that
he had been asked by the provost OF
tbe institution not 20 talk against child
labor and poverty The reason given
according 90 Dr. Nearing. was that ad-
dresses upon such subjects "hurt the
university"
This charge was made in reply to
The open letter written by DR.. J. Will
lam White 90 the University of Penn
svlvanis alumni Dr. Whites letter,
made public yesterday, stated that Dr.
Meanings dismissal was due 90 ms
scoAing and his failure 10 recognize the
rights Of others. particularly the
board Of trustees. Of which Dr. Nhlte
IS member.
Until to-day Dr. Nearing had made
no statement Of his case since he was
drorped as assistant professor or
economies in the Wharton School But
when he SAW Dr. Whites letter he de-,
tcrmined 90 break his long silence ana
answer the allegations OF the writer
who had admitted shat. in spite OF the
storm OF protest which accompanied
the Instructors dismissal. the trustee
would DO u all over again II they mad
10 20 do.
Untrue" in Seven Points.
Dr. hearings statement is only
seven hundred words long. DR.. Whites
arrangement took ton thousand words.
Tho dismissed instructor takes up
seven specific points boo which ne eN-
Dloins that tLc allegations are untrue.
81 have read the open letter written
by Dr. White 20 the alumni OF the NJ
rersity Of Pennsylvania. says Dr.
Nearing. "May ! call 10 the attention
OF DR.. White and my fellow alumni the
following statements upon which pr.
White bases his justification OF the
board OF trustees 90 Then are enumer-
ated the seven points. These are fol-
lowed bv this sentence: "A full knowl-
edge Of the facts necessItates the re-
vision Of each one Of these state
rcrts." The reply concludes with Dr.
Ncarinr's criticisms on the points Sc
lected. lie says in his opening crltl-
cisn:
"First. Dr. White states that 'on
numerous occasions ! presented GER
tain views. which were construed as
fantastic and 'extravagant,' before
gav audiences that were quite UNFIT 10
qrurcciate or digest them.
The first criticism Of the trustees
letter refers 70 ire part in which DR.
White charged that DR.. Nearing put
forward "views which. isolated from
their intcrdependence upon correlated
facts and theories, would necessarily
seem fantastic. eXtravagant and 10
some unframed minds ararchistic be-
fore persons, not university students,
quite unfit 20 appreciate or digest
them" To this Dr. Nearing replies:
"The lay audiences before which
most Of nv public lectures have been
given fall mainly into four groups
teachers. women's clubs, churches and
labor unions. do not know which OF
these audiences Dr. White believes 10
p quite unfit 70 appreciate or digest
my views
Income" Not Property
Second" saws the ousted instructor,
OR White says that sober minded,
sensible persons believed hat J advo-
Gated the ruthless redistri button or
property. ] have never advocated a re-
distribution Of property, ruthless or
otherwise. ] have talked only about the
distribution az income.
"Thrd." continues his statement,
CDR White suggests chat these same
person. were convinced that believe
I'm the personal iniquity OF those who
lived on incomes derived even from
their own savings and that ] thought
~ AZ the alternative of work or starva-
ton should bee presented even 20 the
Cd. the feeble and the diseased. 10
this Dr.. Nearing replies:
IL do not believe and have never in
sisted upon this personal iniqulty or
those who live on incomes derived even
from their own savings nor that ]
thought the alternative Of work or
starvation should be presented even 70
the old. the feeble and the diseased.
The fourth point DIR. Nearing takes
up IS that Dr. White states that he
chad been kindly and considerably
asked + he could not lessen this grow
ING feeling by "a better adapta-
tion OF his arguments 20 the under
standing Of his audiences.
81 was asked By the provost Edgar
Flhs SMITH not 60 talk against child
labor or poverty. as such agitation
hurts che university ] know OF no
other advice go which Dr. White can
refer"
Salary Offer Denied.
lie next takes objection 20 tho trus-
tees remark that "with the approval o.
the board the provost offered TO con-
Il nc Dr. Nearing salary until he de-
cided on his future course but
Dr Nearing. with commendable indie
pendence. declined 20 accept the offer"
To this Dr. Nearing answers:
Neither the board nor the provost
nor any officer % the board has
offered me continuance Of salary.
OBVIOUSLY. therefore, / never declined
20 accept the help profered' DR..
Nearing then writes:
OR. White cites an article in The
ladies' Home Journal" in which he had
permitted himself 90 be described as
professor in the University Of Pennsyl-
Nania. when. in fact. he was but an in
structor." Or. Nearing. replying 10
this criticism. saws:
"lnouiry would have shown DR.. White