Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1915-10-04
NEARING DEFENDS
HIMSELF in FIRST
OPEN STATEMENT
Takes Issue With DIR. j.
William White in His
Defense of Trustees
POVERTY TABooED TOPIC


white in seven points made by the latter
IN a lengthy contribution TO "old Penn"
n University publication. The reopenlng
of the free speech" issue at the Uni
versity also was marked today by a Vt
Ger from Wharton Barker. one Of the
trustees. to George Wharton Pepper. also
member OF the board, in which he de-
clares the whole situation must be re-
considered by the trustees.
provost Edgar Fahs Smith told Doctor
Nearing, the latter says, that talk against
child labor and poverty hurts the Uni
versity." Doctor Nearing declares he
never advocated a redistribution of prop
erty. as Doctor white alleged to be the
belief Of "sober-minded. sensibleS per-
sons" and also denies Doctor Whites as
sertion that he was offered a continuance
Of salary until he decided on his future
course.
The reply of Doctor Nearing Is the
drst public statement he has made since
the trustees declined to reappoint him
In II he takes up and numbers the points
made by Doctor White. answering each
briefly, and concluding with the follow
ing: II find in Doctor Whites entire let
aer no other important statement OF fact
regarding me. II Is upon these state
ments whose accuracy l have ques-
toned. that Doctor White builds his ar
rument in justification of the action
taken by the board last June"
DOCTOR NEARING's STATEMENT.
Doctor Nearings statement in full fol-
lows:
81 have read the open letter written by
Doctor White, an alumnus and trustee,
~ h.. Ifnfy ~ Dh1y
sylvania. May call to the attention OF
Doctor White and of my fellow alumni
the following statements upon which Doc
tor White bases his justification of the
board of trustees?
First. Doctor White states that ION
numerous occasions | presented GER
tain views which were construed as
fanatic" and "extravagant" before
LAY audiences" that were quite un-
fit to appreciate or digest them"
THE lay audiences before which most
mainly into four groups-teachers, wom-
ems clubs, churches and abor unions.
do not know which of these audiences
Doctor White believes to be. quite UNFIT
10 appreciate or digest my views.
Second. Doctor White says that
"sober-minded, sensible persons" be-
lleved that i advocated the ruthless
redistribution OF property.
81 have never advocated a 'redistribu-
ton of property ruthless or otherwise.
have talked only about the just distri-
button of income.
Third. Doctor White suggests that
these same persons were convinced
that l believe in ''the personal inlauitv
nj those who lived OH incomes derived
even from their own savings" and
that thought that the alternative of
work or starvation should be presented
even to the old, the feeble and the dis
eased."
Il do not believe and have never in
sisted upon the personal iniquity of those
who live on incomes derived even from
their own savings nor that ] thought
that the alternative of work or starvation
should be presented even to the old, the
feeble and the diseased.
Doctor White states that Doctor
Nearing had been kindly and consid-
eratey asked II he could not lessen
this growing feeling by a bet
ter adaptation of his arguments to the
understanding of his audiences"
WHAT THE PROVOST ASKED.
Il was asked by the Provost not to
talk against child labor and poverty, as
such agitation hurts the University |
know Of no other advice to which Doctor
White can refer"
With the approval of the board, the
Provost offered to continue Doctor
Nearing's salary until he decided on
his future course but Doctor
Nearing. with commendable inde-
pendence, declined to accept the offer.
Neither the board nor the Provost.
nor any officer of the board, has offered
me continuance of salary. Obviously,
therefore, l never declined to accept the
help proffered."
Doctor White cites IAN article in
the Ladies' Home Journal, in which
he had declared himself. or permitted
himself to be described, as Professor
In the University of Pennsylvania
when, In fact. he was but an in
structor."
Inquiry would have shown Doctor
White that the title Professor was
added by the editors of the Ladies'
Home Journal, who. like most people out
SIDE OF academic circles. refer to all Uni
versity teachers as professors and fur
iher, that the moment the error appeared
mad II corrected In the later articles OF
the series.
Doctor White suggests that the Uni
versity authorities when approaching
potential contributors who "are often
NOT averse to being supplied with a
1000. ready-made excuse" find Il "pos-
.itlvely harmful to be handicapped by
statements like the following put
iorth by Doctor Nearing: Private
wealth has been able to control polit-
lesi parties and the church; let II not
control the school. The schools must
not take a dollar from any private
oonor. There must be no educational
oonation save the tax which all the
people pay. - So long as you
nave your college presidents and your
college professors on the payroll of
corporation foundations you will have
me policies of your higher institutions
oi learning dictated by these corpora
uon interests"
srATEMENT AFTER DISMISSAL.
Doctor White lays great stress on q
slatement OF mine regarding private en-.
.oWments to public educational institu
nohh He does not note that this state
meht was reported TO have been made
~ me In July. 1915. MY connection with
.hf University ceased In June II is pre-
sehaoly copied from the reprint of 4
nsrA story based on a public lecture
Nen IN July, 1915. such a news story
uves not pretend TO be a verbatim report
my remarks. Prior TO July, 1915,
..sfer made any public utterance regard
''s private endowments.
md In Doctor Whites entire letter
no vther important statement OF fact 10.
s'aing me. IL Is upon these statements
nnose accuracy have questioned, thai
<'.t,1f White builds his argument In
snneetion OF the action taken by the
..o~1..-