Зображення сторінки

record as squarely opposed to the use of the fair name of the University as a point of vantage for utterances foreign to the scheme of the teachings and ideals in education, and recommends that where members of the teaching staff are not willing to subscribe to its policies, their services should be dispensed with.”

During the spring of 1915, Dr. Nearing was again recommended for reappointment, and it was assumed that the reappointment would be given. On June 17, when practically all college positions had been filled for the coming year, the board voted his discharge. The subsequent protest is too well known to require repetition. In the fall of 1915, Dr. Nearing was appointed dean of the University of Toledo, taking office January 1, 1916.

The rules of appointment and dismissal at the University of Pennsylvania have since been changed so as to prevent any recurrence of a discharge of that nature.

Others, whose discharges, forced resignations, a failure of reappointment during the last five years, have led to the accusation of infringement of academic freedom are:

Dartmouth College. G. B. L. Arner, instructor in Economics. Probable cause-Socialistic teachings. Other factors, including that of lecture form may have entered in.

Florida, University of. E. M. Banks, Professor of History. Cause--attitude on states rights.

Lafayette. John M. Mecklin, Professor of Philosophy. Cause-liberal views on philosophy; personal opposition of president.

No. Dakota, University of. .Lewinsohn, Professor of Law. Cause-activity in Progressive politics.

Rochester University. Kendrick Shedd, Professor of German. Probable cause-public utterances regarding the flag and Socialism.

Marietta College. A. Ely Morse, Professor of Economics. Cause-advanced views on land and industrial problems, participation in Progressive politics.

Wesleyan, Middletown, Conn. Willard C. Fisher, Professor of Economics. Cause—advanced views on economic subjects, personal disagreement with president. Occasion for discharge-suggestion that churches close temporarily to help people to distinguish difference between lip service and genuine Christianity.

1915 Cases. Boston University. Benjamin W. Van Riper, Professor of philosophy. Cause—failure to “manifest sufficiently vital interest in religious life.”

Colorado, University of. James H. Brewster, Professor

of Law. Cause—according to Prof. Brewster, appearance before the U. S. Commission on Industrial Relations, in behalf of Colorado miners. Cause-according to the President-desire of governing body to obtain the services of younger men with more physical vigor. Both considerations seem to have entered into this case.

Dartmouth. George Clarke Cox, Assistant Professor of Philosophy. Probable cause-advanced philosophical and social views. No public explanation given by the president.

Maryville College, Tenn. Arthur W. Calhoun, Professor of Economics. Probable cause-economic radicalism. No public explanation given by President.

Ohio State. Dean Price, dean of the agricultural department. Probable cause-desire to obtain some professor as dean who as a member of the state board of agriculture, would be more amenable to certain interests.

Utah, University of. Prof. A. A. Knowlton. Causeaccording to the President—“worked against the administration” and “spoke very disrespectfully of the chairman of the board of regents.".

Associate Prof. Geo. C. Wise. Cause-according to the president—"spoke in a depreciatory way about the university before his classes," and "in a very uncomplimentary way about the administration.”

Charles W. Snow and Phil. C. Bing, Instructors in English. Cause-according to the president—"services are no longer necessary.”

As a result of the dismissals and the demotion of others at the University of Utah and as a further result of the "policy of repression, opportunism and dictation” at the University, fostered by certain individuals in the Mormon church, eighteen members of the faculty, including two deans and five heads of departments, resigned.

At several other universities pressure has, during the last year, been brought against the universities by the state legislatures. This has been notably the case at the universities of Wisconsin and Washington. Appropriations for current expenses and the construction of new buildings have been fought, tuition has been raised and members of the faculties have been attacked. A prominent member of the lower house of the Washington legislature went so far in 1915 as to urge the abolition of the department of Political and Social Science because "it was a hot bed of Socialism."

Academic Freedom is often repressed by refusing appointments to those who are not considered "safe" and by urging professors directly and indirectly to keep quiet along certain lines, for the sake of

the institution or for the sake of themselves and families. The refusal to promote a mem

[ocr errors]

ber who refuses to teach certain doctrines is frequently an effective way of repressing expression along “heretical" lines.

In an effort to safeguard members of the faculty against discharge for exercising their right of free speech, the American Association of University Professors, in their annual conference in December 1915, adopted the following significant demands:

(1) That no official action be taken relating to reappointments or refusals of reappointment of members of the faculty before obtaining the advice and consent of a faculty committee.

(2) That in every institution a faculty member be given an unequivocal understanding as to the term of his appointment and that all positions above the grade of instructor, after ten years of service, be made permanent.

(3) That in each institution the grounds which are regarded as justifying a dismissal of members of the faculty be definitely formulated and the interpreting body be designated.

(4) That no person be dismissed without a fair trial by fellow members of the faculty or by fellow specialists or by representatives.

The adoption of these demands will be a long step toward converting the university from an “efficient oligarchy". into a genuine republic of letters.

IMMIGRATION. Immigration from July 1, 1914, to June 30, 1915, dropped to the lowest figure since 1899. Total arrivals, including temporary and non-immigrants, was 434,244, or 968,837 less than in the preceding year, a decrease of 69%. The cause of this decrease is the European war.

Emigration during the same period amounted to 384,174, a decrease of 249,631.

Proposed Legislation. For a number of years Congress has attempted to pass a more stringent restriction law. President Taft vetoed the Dillingham Bill on account of the “literacy-test" provision.

President Wilson in 1915 vetoed the Burnett Bill on the same ground, and because of the exclusion of revolutionists. The House failed by five votes to pass the Bill over his veto. Representative Burnett has re-introduced his Bill in the present Congress.

American Organized Labor has consistently backed up the effort to have a "literacy test” added to the restriction act, while Socialists have opposed this measure.


(Anti-Saloon League Year Book, 1915, pp. 92-95.)

Prior to January 1, 1915, the absolute prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes had been adopted by nine states-Maine, Kansas, North Dakota, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Tennessee and West Virginia. The aggregate population of these nine states, according to the 1910 census, was 14,685,961. On January 1, 1915, the Prohibition amendment to the state constitution of Arizona, which had been adopted by a vote of the people on November 3, 1914, went into effect, thus making ten states with an aggregate population of 14,890,315 under Prohibition at the beginning of the year 1915.

In the fall elections of 1914 the states of Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Virginia, as well as Arizona, all adopted state-wide Prohibition, which went into effect on January 1, 1916, in the cases of Colorado, Oregon and Washington; the Virginia law not going into effect until November 1, 1916.

The 1915 legislatures in several states adopted state-wide Prohibition measures during the first sixty days of the sessions. The legislature of Alabama passed a state-wide prohibitory statute over the veto of the governor early in the legislative session. A stringent Prohibition law was passed by the legislature of Arkansas, putting that state under Prohibition January 1, 1916. The Iowa legislature repealed the Mulct act, thereby putting into full effect the old prohibitory law of the state. Idaho passed a state-wide Prohibition law which went into effect, January 1, 1916, and submitted a prohibitory amendment to be voted upon in 1916.

This makes, all told, eighteen states which are either under Prohibition at the present time or in which the prohibitory laws already adopted will go into effect in 1916. These eighteen states have an aggregate population of 25,828,613, according to the 1910 census.

One house of the legislature in each of the states of Montana, Utah and Vermont passed state-wide Prohibition measures early in 1915. Prior to January 1, 1915, the following states were under some form of local option: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

In South Dakota the law places all sections of the state under Prohibition except in political subdivisions where a majority of the electors indicate that they do not wish the

provision of the prohibitory law to apply. This same kind of law was in operation in Arkansas and Iowa until January 1, 1915.

Wyoming and New Mexico have prohibited the sale of liquors in all sections except certain classes of incorporated municipalities.

The states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Nevada are under license, not even a general local option law being operative in these three commonwealths.

The United States government has prohibited the liquor traffic in the Indian Territory, in certain portions of other territories, in military forts and reservations, in the United States Navy, in the National Capitol at Washington and in national and state soldiers' homes as well as in other specified areas under federal control. As a result of the operation of these several state and national laws, more than 47,000,000 of the population of the United States were living under Prohibition and more than 71 per cent of the entire area of the nation was Prohibition territory at the close of the year 1914 The adoption of Prohibition in the several liti states referred to above will increase the population living in Prohibition territory in 1916 by more than 4,000,000 and will increase the amount of territory under prohibition in the United States to 76 per cent.

Nation-Wide Prohibition. The following resolution calling for a national Prohibition amendment to the constitution came up before the House of Representatives on Dec. 22, 1914. One hundred and ninety-seven voted in favor of the measure and 189 against it. Since the resolution required a two-thirds majority, it failed of passage.

Section 1. The sale, manufacture for sale, transportation for sale, importation for sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes in the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof and exportation thereof are forever prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress or the states shall have power independently or concurrently to enforce this article by all needful legislation.

(For socialist position on the temperance movement, see section on the Socialist Movement in the United States.)

« НазадПродовжити »