£r(&itosiuzl .
'Let Truth be in the Field' - The California Oath
With indignation sweeping the faculty of the
University of California as a result of the Board of
Regent’s ultimatum ordering professors to sign
anti-communist oaths within 65 days or lose their
jobs, we note the intelligent and farsighted hand
ling of a case at Harvard. A reprint of the Harvard
dean’s editorial appears on this page.
A bitter eight-months’ battle has been raging-in
California’s state universities. And the regents
action has united the 4,000-odd faculty members
more solidly in their “don’t-or-die” rebellion. An al
ternate resolution presented by the faculty was re
jected Monday. Now the faculty intends to take
the controversy to the U. S. Supreme Court if
necessary.
Professor Joel H. Hildebrand, member of a four
mall committee of professors and dean of the col
lege of chemistry, declared in a statement endorsed
by the entire committee that “no conceivable
damage to the university at the hands of hypothet
ical communists among us could possibly have
equalled the damage resulting from the unrest, ill
will, and suspicion engendered by this series of
events.”
Hildebrand, an avowed anti-communist, des
cribed the ultimatium as an “indignity.” He agrees
that communists should be excluded from the fac
ulty but feels that that objective has been obscured
by the imposition of this oath which casts suspi
cion on the faculty.
The Harvard incident occurred just one year
ago this month. The John Reed Club of Harvard
invited Gerhart Eisler to speak at one of their meet
ings. The university provided a room for the
gathering.
It seems that the news announcement of the
meeting caught the eye of Fulton Lewis, Jr. Mr.
Lewis -took it upon himself to warn the public
about “subversive activities at Harvard” and urged
a “deluge of letters and telegrams” in protest. He
pointed out that Eisler was under sentence to one
vear in prison for refusing to answer questions of
the Congressional Committee on Un-American
Activities.
Eisler was allowed to speak at Harvard. Meet
ing reports described a polite show of interest,
but little applause.
There were 305 responses to Lewis’s requests
for protests. Only 14 came from Harvard’s 97,000
alumni. Many received were anonymous, indicat
ing that the writers were semi-literate or zealots of
one kind or other.
At the time of the incident Wilbur J. Bender,
dean of Harvard College, published a statement of
policy. We are reprinting a complete text of this
statement today.- These lines give the key:
“Four years spent m an insulated nursery win
produce gullible innocents, not tough-minded
realists who know what they believe because
they have faced the enemies of their belief.
Already the California oath has had two undesi
rable effects. The ire of the faculty has been
aroused'at the imputation of guilt. Public distrust,
in the loyalty of the professors has been engend
ered.
Such an oath is unwholesome for a university
and reprehensible to educators. It impinges on the
free metal climate in which a search for higher
knowledge must be conducted. Consider a research
scientist who is told that he must avoid certain
provinces of investigation. It would constitute a
violation of his search for knowledge and truth. No
less does such an oath impose restrictions on the
provinces of thought when applied to professors.
The opinion of the Harvard dean is infinitely
more wise and admirable. It is suggestive of the
opinion of John Milton who opposed another odi
ous restriction by saying:
“Though all the winds of doctrine were let
loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the
field, we do ingloriously, by licensing and prohib
iting misdoubt her strength. Let her and false
hood grapple: who ever knew Truth put to the
worse in a free and open encounter?”—H.S.
/! RepsUnt
Confidence in the Maturity and Intelligence of Students
Ly the 3>ea*t o^ tSasutafid
(A policy statement by Wilbur J. Bender,
Dean of Harvard College, made in spring, 1949.)
“The world is full of dangerous ideas, and we
are both naive and stupid if we believe that the way
to prepare intelligent young men to face the world
is to try to protect them from such ideas while
they dre in college. Four years spent in an insulated
nursery will produce gullible innocents, not tough
minded realists who know what they believe be
cause they have faced the enemies of their beliefs.
We are not afraid of the enemies of democracy who
are willing to express their ideas in the forum. We
have confidence in the maturity and intelligence of
Harvard students. We have confidence in the
strength of our free and dynamic American democ
racy. There is no danger from an open communist
which is half so great as the danger from those who
would destroy freedom in the name of freedom.
These decadent descendents of Jefferson and
Lincoln reveal their lack of faith in American
ideals and in Americans. If Harvard students can
be corrupted by an Eisler, Harvard College had
better shut down as an educational institution.
T know of no faster way of producing com
munists than by making martyrs out of the hand
ful of communists we now have. Forbidding them
to speak would be not only treason to the ancient
traditions of Harvard and America: It would be
proof that we have something to hide, that we
have lost faith in our principles and in our way of
life. It would be accepting communist practices in
the name of Americanism. Whatever may have
happened elsewhere, Harvard still believes in
freedom and the American way.
“Our policy for student organizations is simple.
Any recognized student organizations can hold a
meeting in a Harvard building, if they can find a
room available, and listen to any speaker they can
persuade to come. The fact that a man speaks at
Harvard does not mean that Harvard in any way
endorses his views or even that the organization
involved does. If the Dean’s Office were to attempt
to decide who would be allowed to speak to a
Harvard organization, whose views were safe and
whose weren’t, the views of those permitted to
speak would then carry Harvard’s official endorse
ment. Furthermore, it would be impossible in
practice to agree on what speakers threatened to
corrupt our youth. Some people would bar Presi
dent Truman, other Senator Taft. Still others
would bar anti-vivisectionalists or opponents of
birth control or World Federalists or Christian
Scientists or Monsignor Sheen or Colonel Mc
Cormick. The answer is not in the suppression
of “dangerous” ideas as in Russia or Japan or
Hitler’s Germany, but more vigorous statement
of American ideas, and faith—which would be
well-founded—in the ability of our students to
distinguish between good and evil.
“Harvard College is dedicated to the task of
producing mature and independent educated men.
I devoutly hope that the time will never come when
we are faced with the sorry spectacle of a great
University and a great country trembling timor
ously in fear of the words of a communist or of a
demagogic commentator.”
ZditoJual
The Worth of Evaluation Depends Not Only on Students
There have been some
opinions expressed on facul
ty evaluation to the effect
that many faculty members
tolerate evaluation simply
because it is something the
students want to do, but that
these faculty members cannot
accept the evaluation of the
students as worthy.
The evaluations are worth
less, these critics claim,
because of the “chip-on-the
shoulder” attitude of some of
the students, and because the
identity of the student is not
known, the faculty member
therefore being unable to de
termine if the criticism comes
from a person who he consid
ers has good judgment). The
evaluations also stress unim
portant things, such as untidy
appearance, use of slang,
tendency of the professor to
arrive to class late, and other
small things which some pro
fessors claim have little if any
relation to teaching effective
ness.
To these critics we say :
If you consider faculty
evaluation a joke or form of
amusement for students, you
are mistaken. Most students
take it seriously and do their
best to evaluate justly; if it
is a joke, it is because of the
attitude with which the fac
ulty member reads the evalu
tion.
Naturally there are some
students who do not approve
of faculty evaluation; anil
many students realize the
system is far from perfect as
it now exists. However, it is
a start; and it does have some
worth.
Opinions of the students
will vary. Professors will yet
some hig;h ratings and some
low ratings in the same field;
just as some students have
received As the first term,
and Bs or Cs the second term
of a sequence, the difference
in grade not always being the
difference in the quality or
content of work, but also the
change in professors and the
different points of view by
which the students’ work was
graded.
It is unfortunate that a pro
fessor cannot tell whether the
opinion was expressed by a
good student or a poor stu
dent. However, the approxi
mate GPA, and the approxi
mate grade earned in that par
ticular class, is a small indi
cation that may help the fac
ulty member.
And if one or two or three
items are repeatedly men
tioned again and again in the
evaluation sheets, a profes
sor might seriously consider
a self-study of that item as it
concerns him.
A faculty member who
finds criticisms only to sav
"this is not important” and
throws it aside had better look
once again at the criticism
and see if perhaps it is not
this little thing that makes a
big difference.
Faculty eyaluation is far
from the worth it may some
day have; but even now, it is
not worthless, unless the pro
fessors wish to make it so.
ben minutes time from a
year's or term’s lectures, does
not seem too unjust a re
quest.