Evening star., 1940-03-31
Appeal Held Probable
From Courts Ban
On Russe|I's Teachino
New York Justice
Calls Appointment
Insult to City
By the Associated Press,

,oy tIle ASSOClateQ YreSS.
NEW YORK, March 30.-On the
ground that Bertrand Russell has
taught in his books immoral and
salacious doctrines" practice OF
which would violate the penal laws
of New York State, a State Supreme
Court justice today revoked the ap-
pointment of the British earl
philosopher to a professorship at
the College of the City of New York.
The appointment, declared Justice
John E. Mcclellan in a 4,OOO-word
decision which he himself termed
dynamite" was "an insult to the
people of the city of New York"
and. In effect, an attempt by the
City Board of Higher Education to
establish chair of indecency' at
the parti-co-educational institution
Of $500 students.
Thus was climaxed a bitter con-
troversy touched off by Episcopal
Bishop William T. Manning shortly
after DR.. Russells appointment to
an $8,000-a-year post in the depart
ment of philosophy, effective in
February, l94l, announced several
months ago. Pros and cons were
flung into the debate by noted per-
sonages and, with the case as a
springboard, the State Legislature
this week set up committee to in
vestigate New York City's education
system.
Housewife Wins Action.
But it was Brooklyn housewife,
Mrs. Jean Kay, mother of two chill
dren. who brought the action lead
ing to today's verdict. She charged
that the appointment was illegal on
three grounds: That DR.. Russell
was not a citizen, that it did not
comply with the statute for select
ing public employees on the basis of
merit and fitness. and that it was
against public policy because of DR..
Russell's teachings "and his i'm
moral character"
An appeal was probable-JuStice
Mcclellan said he expected it
and a move to enlist DR.. Russells
own aid in his defense was begun
by the American Civil Liberties
Union, which offered him legal as
sistance. DR.. Russell, now teaching
at the University of California at
Los Angeles, made no immediate
comment.
The justice asserted Mrs. Kay's
hrst two contentious were sufficient
to uphold her plea for revocation,
but based his decision mainly on
the third, the immoral, allegation.
Books Uphold Contention.
"The contention of the petitioner
that DR.. Russell has taught in his
books immoral and salacious doc
trines is amply sustained by the
books concededlv to be the writ
ines of Bertrand Russell" he said.
He added it was unnecessary to
detail here the filth which is con-
tained in the books" but cited sew
eral quotations, including these:
From "Education and the Mod
ern World"-"I am sure that uni
versity life would be better, both
intellectually and morally, if most
university students had temporary
childless marriages. = =" -
From Marriage and Morals
For my part, while I am quite
convinced that companionate mar
;iage .would be a step in the right
direction, and would do a great deal
Of good, do not think that it goes
far enough. I should not hold
1t desirable that either a man or
& woman should enter upon the
serious business of marriage in
tended to lead to children without
having had previous sexual expe-
rience."
From What I Believe''-"The
peculiar Importance attached. at the
present, to adultery, is quite IRA
tional."
Violations of Penal Law.
Justice Mcclellan then cited pro-
visions of the penal law and de-
clared:
considering DR.. Russells prin-
ciples with reference to the penal
law of the State of New York, 1t
appears that not only would the
morals of the students be under
mined, but his doctrines would tend
to bring them, and in some cases
their parents and guardians, in con-
flict with the penal law, and ac-
cordingly this court intervenes 49,
Assuming that Mr.. Russell could
teach for two years in City College
without promulgating the doctrines
which he seems to find necessary to
spread on the printed pages at fire.
quent intervals, his appointment vio-
lates perfectly obvious canon of
pedagogy, namely, that the person.
atty of the teacher has more to
do with forming students opinion
than many syllogisms.
"A person we despise and who is
lacking in ability cannot argue us
into initiating him. A person whom
we like and who is of outstanding
ability does not have to try. It is