ADDRESSING THE A.A.U.P.

December 18, 1946

It is a pleasure to meet with you and share in the benefit that comes from a discussion of University matters.

This morning I dictated a few paragraphs that might serve to open our discussion.

I have heard from a number of sources that some members of the faculty were displeased with a few of the remarks that I made or failed to make at the last faculty meeting.

I am told that there was objection because I failed to defend Mr. Gavit, Mr. Mann, and Mr. Harper, because I failed to state affirmatively that I was for academic freedom, and because I used a phrase “self-restraint” or “self-discipline” in the course of my remarks.

So I shall comment upon these objections. I did not realize it was necessary to defend Mr. Gavit, Mr. Mann, and Mr. Harper before this faculty. I assumed that the members of the faculty take the same position that I take, with respect to these men and to every member of the faculty—that they are upright, competent, and patriotic gentlemen. Moreover, I was only attempting to make a factual report on what had happened up to that date in the Board’s investigation of subversive teaching.

In the second place, it never occurred to me that it would be necessary to make protestations as to my own belief in academic freedom. I assumed that my own convictions and beliefs were well-known. One does not tell his friends with whom he associates regularly that he bathes daily in order to reassure them as to the state of his personal hygiene. Here at Indiana University our tradition of independence, individuality, and freedom is so strongly rooted that we are a little startled by someone who joins our ranks and begins to proclaim loudly that he believes in and practices what we long ago assumed all members of our staff believed in and accepted. We are inclined to be a little wary of the man who raises his voice on high and cries, “Lord, Lord, look upon me for I am a righteous man.”

But for the record and for whatever reassurance it gives any members of the faculty who are not acquainted with our tradition, I am glad to state that I do believe in academic freedom. I furthermore believe that a state university which is not free is a menace to society and should be closed. A state university should never be the servant of only a segment of its supporting population.

I have another deeply rooted conviction about our own University. I believe that it must ever be organized and conducted in a democratic manner. I do not propose to let either the faculty or Board of Trustees place me in the position of being an employer. I have neither the talents nor aptitude which are necessary to carry out the duties of the President’s Office under such circumstances. It is precisely for that reason that I am opposed to the Teachers’ Union in its present form on our campus. The Teachers’ Union, developed in the public school system where the employer-employee relationship does exist for the most part, would force the same kind of relationship into universities. On the other hand the AAUP with long experience in the college field opposes this employer-employee concept and therefore is one of the bulwarks of democracy in the faculty. The AAUP has a useful and important role to play, both here and in every university. It will always have my support whether I am assigned teaching or administrative duties.

As to “self-restraint” and “self-discipline” I might rephrase what I had in mind in that respect by saying that I was trying to suggest that each member of the faculty must assume some responsibility for the success or failure of the University. Each citizen in a democracy has certain rights and privileges, and each has certain responsibilities. The rights and privileges may be maintained only by assumption of the responsibilities. Unless these responsibilities are discharged by its citizens, a democracy soon degenerates into anarchy and a strong man appears.

The University is a democracy composed of faculty, students, trustees, administrative officers, and non-academic personnel. To make our work prosper, each of these groups and their members must assume certain responsibilities. Each group cannot successfully assume its share of responsibility without cooperation and consideration from the other groups. Mutual understanding, cooperation, and careful coordination must exist if all five groups are to make their maximum contribution to our progress.

On November 12, 1940, I spoke to a general faculty meeting. At the time we were about to consider some of the most difficult recommendations of the University Self-Survey Committee. The title of my remarks that day was “Who Shall Bear the Responsibility for the Determination of All-University Educational Policy?” I used the term “all-university educational policy” in an effort to differentiate between educational policies for the University as a whole and policies for the individual schools. I said in part, and I quote:

“In a democratic social or governmental organization, responsibility is given to those who have demonstrated their ability and willingness to bear it. In the past, the general administrative staff of the University has borne the responsibility for making many recommendations to the trustees in regard to all-University educational policies largely because the faculty has not done so. You may wish to have this procedure continued. If so, I can pledge you that we shall try to be democratic in our discharge of this responsibility; that is, we shall always thoroughly sound faculty opinion as a basis for each recommendation.

“Personally, I should like to see a larger participation by the general faculty. It seems to me that action which the faculty takes or fails to take with reference to the various recommendations of the Self-Survey Committee and the University Council, of which we have two before us today, will furnish the answer.

“Will we be willing to give the time and energy required to resolve these general recommendations finally into specific programs that can be presented to the trustees? In the formulation of these specific programs, will the various faculties and individual members of the general faculty be motivated by an all-University point of view rather than by a departmental or school point of view? Will they be willing to surrender present advantages of one type or another if the general University welfare requires it? Will we be willing to have our actions guided by the diverse needs of a large student body and the hopes and aspirations of parents and our supporting constituency in this state? Will we be willing to find ways in which to accomplish desired objectives within our means, rather than use lack of means as an excuse for frustration and inaction?”

These questions are as pertinent today as they were then.

I would have you note that if you give an affirmative answer to any of these queries it will require of you in practice a certain amount of “self-restraint” or “self-discipline”—that is, voluntary consideration for the rights of others. A true democracy is a cooperative society in which each member willingly and voluntarily surrenders some of his own liberty of action in order to preserve and enhance the liberty and welfare of the whole.

An oversimple illustration perhaps is one which we have here. So far as I know we have no rules stating that a faculty member must meet his classes. He is free to oversleep and cut classes so far as the rules are concerned. Faculty members don’t punch clocks. Why? Because each faculty member voluntarily assumes responsibility for the discharge of his duties—self-discipline, if you please. It is not so in a large business organization where an employer-employee relationship exists. There, presidents and vice presidents as well as all other administrative and top staff punch clocks or the equivalent throughout the year.

What are some of the duties of faculty citizenship peculiar to an academic democracy? These are some that occurred to me, and they are all compatible with the best traditions of the American Association of University Professors.

It seems to me that a faculty member has an obligation to try to achieve as great a mastery of his subject matter as possible and to try for maximum effectiveness in presenting it to students.

He should gladly accept his rightful share of the work of the institution—teaching, research, public service, committee work, and all the rest—and if he wishes to gain distinction among his fellows, be willing to assume a little more than his share.

In the presentation of controversial subjects in the classroom he should be willing to take the time and effort necessary to present all sides of the matter and make certain that he has not confused or distorted the minds of immature students.

If he wishes to participate in outside political activity and to sponsor reforms of a controversial nature by political means, he should carry on these activities in such manner that they will not bring discredit upon himself, his colleagues, or the academic community of which he is a part. In engaging in reform activity it will be necessary for him to understand the people he proposes to reform, their mores, their points of view, why they are as they are, and the history of past reform efforts. Such understanding cannot be gained quickly, and it does not come after a month or two of residence in this or any other community.

A member of the faculty must be willing to offer his expert testimony when called upon about questions in his own field, even though his views may bring censure upon him. In such circumstances he has the right to expect the active support of his colleagues in bearing the criticism.

And last, but not least, a good academic citizen does not indulge in idle exaggerated gossip about colleagues. We have had, in my judgment, too much of this in recent years. Those whose social and political views are to the Right and those whose views are to the Left have been about equally guilty of this reprehensible practice. You will notice I did not use the terms “liberal” and “conservative,” for I think those terms are greatly misused at the moment, and are certainly so when applied to intellectuals. The most liberal man I have ever known on this faculty was a teacher of mine, who was far to the Right in his own social and political philosophy. The most doctrinaire illiberal man that I have known was far to the Left in his social and political philosophy.

I might summarize all of this by saying that it is a great privilege to be able to carry on one’s life work in a truly democratic organization. I honestly believe that a person who has the privilege of working in such a society is under obligation to his colleagues to so conduct his own affairs, to so speak and so teach, that he reflects credit upon the academic community of which he is a part.

Personally, I have faith in all of the groups that make up our institution. Our non-academic staff has on its roll many persons who have served the institution long and faithfully. I have great confidence in our faculty. I think it is growing steadily in strength and scholarly reputation. Our trustees are all persons who love the University and give of their time unselfishly without remuneration. I believe in our general administrative officers, our deans, our department heads, our vice president, our treasurer, our registrar and all of the others. It should be remembered that department heads and deans and vice presidents, and so on, are faculty members who have been assigned certain administrative responsibilities in order that other faculty members may have more time to carry on teaching and research. The aspirations of the trustees and general administrative officers are identical with the aspirations of our faculty. All three groups are dedicated to the advancement of our institution, to increasing its teaching effectiveness, its research output, and its services to the citizens of the state and nation.

Last Sunday a board member handed me a recent copy of the Antioch Notes. He had marked two or three paragraphs which I want to read to you.

“Many people in America are feeling disturbed about the Liberal, the liberal professor, the liberal college. They say he is ‘communistic.’ These people, I believe, are themselves unintentionally playing into the hands of the Communists. For liberalism is the antithesis of communism, and the best antidote for it.

“Take a democratic meeting. The Liberal wants an examination of ideas; the Communist comes with predetermined ideas. The Liberal wants to analyze all the pertinent evidence as a basis for action; the Communist comes with instructions for action. The Liberal, believing in free speech, desires all to be heard, even Communists; the Communist comes to monopolize time, to prolong contention, to seize power when others are too bored or worn to maintain their position. The Liberal desires action based upon majority opinion; the Communist desires whatever is nearest his line at the moment.

“Take social action as another example. The Liberal, like the scientist (always a true liberal in his own field), believes that the world is not yet finished. As the scientist Charles F. Kettering says: ‘We don’t yet know enough.’ Liberals have helped curb monopolies, secured conservation of our natural resources, reformed our currency practices (the Federal Reserve system, for instance), initiated regional planning in economically retarded areas (the TVA),helped labor secure the right of collective bargaining (right in principle however abused in practice), and urged world co-operation as the only alternative to atomic warfare.

“Communists claiming similar objectives find it easy to bore into liberal organizations. Therefrom arises the public confusion of the two. But the result of Communist success is domination by a self-selected clique; arbitrary rule; eventual black-jacking, character-assassination, or death for the Liberal; and defeat of those social movements which the liberal intends for the security and the advancement of the individual in society.

“The Liberal thus finds himself in a dilemma today. How is he to maintain his attitude of tolerance, his theory of freedom of speech, his association with progressive social movements, when to do so gives the Communists freedom to try to destroy these very things? Or is he soft even to try to maintain these attitudes and theories?

“I doubt whether we in America should turn tail. To suppress speech, to abandon freedom of assembly as defined in the American Constitution, would only drive dissident elements under cover, where they would continue to fester in the sores of depressed minorities. Like exposing tuberculosis or syphilis bacilli to scrutiny, we need to keep social germs, too, in the open where we can study them and deal with them intelligently.

“A college is in the business of studying all ideas, all social philosophies, all human activities.”