UNIVERSITIES AND FREEDOM OF TEACHING.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—I trust you will permit one who is nearer the scene of hostilities and may claim an intimate knowledge of the facts to assure you that it is quite needless to apprehend that academic freedom has suffered, or is like to suffer, at Leland Stanford, Jun., University, California (see Spectator, Decem- ber 22nd). The much-bruited dismissal of Professor Ross had not the remotest connection with his economic opinions, nor yet with his teaching of "doctrine unpleasing to the money power which had endowed the University." Professor Ross has nowhere ventured to claim anything of the sort. The gossip to that effect is purely a newspaper invention, deriving, in the first instance, from a notorious personal political grudge against Mrs. Stanford. So far from being true that "incompetency was neither suggested nor alleged," the precise and only question in Professor Ross's case was that of fitness. The conservative report of the alumni, after an exhaustive investigation lasting more than a month, confirms and makes public the facts as they were already known to those in a position to know them. Professor Ross was discharged (after warning and patient probation) for lack of dignity, good taste, and balance. Certainly no English University would have tolerated the bad taste and slang of his political campaign pamphlet, "An Honest Dollar," or his growing use of slang in the classroom and public lectures, even if it were deemed fit that a College Professor should disparage the character of the founder of the University which employed him,—and also the man whose widow's personal salary paid the Professor's salary. There is no evidence whatever that
Mrs. Stanford has ever objected to any of Professor Ross's economic theories. He has nowhere pretended, and does not pretend, nor has investigation of the case discovered, that his dismissal abridges, threatens, or concerns academic freedom of speech or teaching. The fact that he desired to continue in his position after it was required of him is in itself sufficient evidence that the newspaper invention is un- warranted. There are several sober and every-day reasons why Stanford is more unrestricted, less meddled with, than probably any other University in America. It is politically and pecuniarily independent, which is not the generic case. The most richly endowed institution of learning in the world, with its twenty-six millions of dollars, it has no potential benefactors to cultivate. Its control is vested in its president. Politicians, Legislatures, ex officio regents, have no dominion over it. The "money power which endowed it" ceased to be a money power in the act ; for since her husband's death Mrs. Stanford has turned over to it her vast personal fortune. .All the "Stanford millions" are here, and the surviving donor has no more claim on them than respect and gratitude voluntarily given her. Under these circumstances (which are undeniable) it may seem a little unkind to account as a plutocrat and enemy of freedom this lonely old woman of seventy-one who has not only given all her substance to the University, and pawned her jewels to tide it over while her stocks could not yet be sold, but has shown as much wisdom as devotion in her relationship as mother of the University. President Jordan, of course, is sufficiently known as our leading American ichthyologist, Dean of the International Seal Com- mission, one of the broadest and most scholarly and least opportunist of American educators. It is also a matter of record, also, that his measures to preserve academic dignity and balance have the overwhelming support of the student- body, the alumni, and the faculty, as well as the sympathy of the most weighty educators throughout the country.—I am, (Member California State Educational Commission). Los Angeles, California.
[We gladly publish Mr. Lummis's letter. We are extremely
sorry if we have unjustly given pain to the founder of the Stan- ford University. We cannot go into the merits of the particular controversy, but our main point remains good. It is that there is not sufficient fixity of tenure accorded to the Pro- fessors in many of the new American Universities. A Pro- fessorship should be a freehold, as it practically is at Oxford and Cambridge. There are, we are aware, objections to this immobility, but on the whole the advantage is with the system which gives a Professor a freehold.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
