The sun., 1915-10-05
NEARING Is EYASIYE,
DR.. WHITE CHARGES
Analyses and Picks Flaws in
Defensive Letter Of Former
L. Of p. Instructor.
DENIALS BY INFERENCE

PHILADELPHIA. Oct. a period OF
silence has succeeded the renewed out
break Of the controversy over the dis
nissal of Scott Nearing from the as
sistant professorship of political and so
cial economy in the Wharton School.
University of Pennsylvania.
81 haven't received Wharton Barker's
letter." said George Wharton Pepper.
trustee, "and I do not feel disposed to
answer one issued through the press.
I should have nothing more to say. in
any event"
Provost Smith OF the university. whom
Dr.. Nearing now charges with warning
him not To talk OF child labor or pow
erty, refused to be seen. He said, In
answer to questions conveyed through
his secretary, that he would not discuss,
confirm or deny any charges made by
Nearing.
Dr. J. William White, however. issued
statement in which he analyzes Prof
Nearing's letter.
Dr. white Gives His Answer.
DR.. White said that he had just read
Dr. Nearing's reply to his letter to the
alumni DIR. White added:
HE makes seven specifications. IL Will
be convenient to follow them in what
have to say:
"First--IIe questions my statement as
to the unfitness of his lay audiences to
digest his views. Judged of their un-
fitness by the symptoms Of mental indi-
gestion which they subsequently evinced.
Second and Third--Iie says that he
did not teach certain things. | also
said that he did not teach them and
that he had been misunderstood. But
l added that the opportunities that he
so often offered for such misundersta nd
ings were harmful to the university. This
was correct
"Four,h--I am told on further inquiry
that Dr. Nearing was asked kindly and
considerably IL he could not better adapt
his arguments to the understanding Of
his audiences. He says he was not so
asked. 1t becomes a matter OF crcdi-
bility.
"Ff,h--I am told positively that an
Offer to continue Dr. Nearing's salary
was conveyed to him and was understood
to have been declined. He says that
no such offer was made. I am compelled
to believe this either genuine misun-
derstanding or a quibble. | am Inclined
t. think 1t is the latter, het at any rate
he can scarcely object TO the fact that
when I thought he had refused such an
offer 7 commended him for his inde-
pendence.
Professor or Instructors:
&c. II the editors Of the Ladies Home
Jobudi who he says are responsible
for calling him professor instead Of in
,.tructor, received "A correction as to
his title the moment the error appeared
they must have been singularly persis-
tent as to his titular promotion, "a after
| calling him professor In April, 1913
and having. according to him, been iS-
simultaneously informed of their error
| they obstnately still called him pro
fessor' in May and specified that he
I vas professor Of economies in June
I This may all have been due. as DIR
Neariu2 says. to their position outside
| Of academic circles hut that eXplana-
| ton would not have occurred to US
! spontaneously.
-. The date (July) OF DIR. Nearing's
settlement that educational donations
must cease has 80 hea .ue on tho situ9-
! tom. I expressly said that when
came now, after the lapse vf tire,
! months, Ia review the situation | was
| confirmed In my belief that the end hat
I come to Dr. Nearing's usefulness to IN,
! university That review included IN,
statement | have objected TO. as wei
1 as the unworthy slur on his senior col
leagues to which ] had also objected.
/ III. as II seems to Dr, Nearing. thes.
seven are the important statements tina
refer to him in my paper, and If thi:
is his best reply to them. am Quit.
content to leave them. and the remainde
of the paper, which to me seems mucl
more important, to the quiet judgrnen
Of the alumni and 90 the public"
"Dr Nearing must excuse mo IL
add hraAy that he is-like | aun-o
| very little Importance in the whole mat
ter My letter gave the reasons why
believed that he did the university NOR,
harm than good. But whether or no
each one uf those reasons Was absolutcll
correct and convincing Is altogether he
| side the main question.
Nearing the Central Figure.
1T was necessary To write Of Dr
| Nearing only because he has been IN
peg on which has been hung the broa,
statement that the trustees were deter
mined to interfere with free speech an,
| academic freedom. In discussing thi
really important matter Dr. Nearinl
was incidental, almost accidental though
he was unavoidable
III my letter to the alumni has an,