The union times., 1948-03-13
TEXT OF LETTER


 Following is the full text of the A.F,L.'s reply to Dr. Seymour: Dear President Seymour:
 "The newspapers recently reported that you took the occasion of the Uni versity's 31st annual Alumni Day to express your opposition to so called anti-dScrimination bills.
 You are quoted as saying you cannot legislate spirit of tolerance through an anti-discrimination bill any better than you could 1egislate sobriety through constitutional amendment.
 ''In our opinion, your cOmpari- son is misleading. It is as if one were to equate law which would seek to compel a man to love his family with one that Obliges him to support them. You cannot be un- aware that there is a fundamental distinction between tolerance which is a state of mind, and discrimina- ton which is an overt act. If you wished to draw a valid parallel, you should have compared laws prohibiting discrimination, not to the unsuccessful attempt to legis- late sObriety, but to laws against drunken driving.
 "You argue that anti-discrimination legislation would constitute interfer- ence' in college affairs. Even if this were true, 1t would not follow that Americans of different racial, reli- giouS or national origins should be denied equal educational opportunity i'll order to spare colleges such petty annoyances. But 1t IS not true.
 ''The legislation against which you protest SO vigorously has not yet been presented to the COnnec- ticut Legislature, but we expect that it will be considered at the next regular session.
 ''This legislation involves nOth- ing more than the creation of an unpaid commission within the State Department of Education, wholly divorced from executive control, and authorized to prevent and eliminate discriminatory edu- catiOnal practices. The commission would operate mainly by eOncilia- ton, but armed with power to seek judicial enforcement of its orders. All the traditional American safe guards of notices, detail charges, public hearings, cross examination of witnesses, right of counsel, and full court review are explicitly and fully assured. The University would be completely free to man. age its own affairs and to select its students under any criteria it chose to adopt, so long as there would be no arbitrary discrimination against applicants for education because of their race, religion, color, national origin or ancestry.
 Can 1t be that you were objecting to this limitation when you stated so must be completely free to select those we regard as best fitted for the privi lege of Yale education?
 ALL ARE EQUAL
 Tt is a cardinal principle of our American heritage that education IS the highroad to democratic citizen ship and that every individual regard less of race, religion or nationality has a right to equality of educational opportunity.
 ''TO be certain, Yale is privately endowed and privately administer ed Nevertheless, it receives import ant financial aid from the public treasury. Its buildings and proper ty amounting to over $69, ,OOO, 900 are not subject to taxation. The gifts it receives from private donors are similarly tax exempt, thus de- priving the government of large sums of money which would other wise come to it in the form of either income or inheritance taxes.
 ''Yale and other institutions of higher education enjoy these priv ileges as institutions devoted to the public service. They themselves have insisted that their function is a public function, and that the jus tifcatiOn for their existence lies in the services they perform for peO- pie and the state. It follows there fore that a democratic state may properly inquire whether these in- 'stitutiOns uphold the democratic principles of equal opportunity for all citizens. It follows, too, that the State may properly intervene and
 Continued on Page Two)