Expanded Timeline:
Events of the Loyalty Oath Controversy and Historical Background
March-April
1950
March 1
Newspapers report that State Senator Jack Tenney charges he has found a
Communist Party member on the University payroll.
He does not release a name.
Faculty hold a press
conference at Berkeley to announce they will fight the Regents' action.
Attacks on the Regents' position begin immediately.
Dean Prosser of Berkeley’s Law School tells the press that
the oath is seen by the faculty the same way one would view “a demand
that each individually sign an oath that he is not a bigamist and
is not operating a house of prostitution.”
Newspapers report that
Governor Earl Warren has issued a statement opposing the loyalty oath,
saying it was an “oath any Communist would take--and laugh about it.”
In general, press reports
paint the faculty position in an unfavorable light.
A series of national and international events have heightened
public anxiety about the spread of Communism, and the faculty focus on the
tenure and academic freedom issues tends to be obscured in the press
coverage.
March 2
The San Francisco Chronicle, the only major California newspaper to
support the faculty position, editorializes:
“This thing--this frantic,
self-crippling retreat--is not unique in today’s international climate.
. .It is an outgrowth of the cold war, and one that must be pleasant
for the Kremlin to behold. For
if the totalitarians can scare us out of our prized freedoms--if they
can frighten us into the limitation of intellectual horizons and the
fettering of imagination and initiative--that is one phase of their
victory that has cost them nothing. . .In brief, this is no private
struggle over at Berkeley; some part of the welfare of each of us
is at stake. We suggest
that all of those who believe that academic freedom is essential to
democracy take off their gloves and step into this fight.”
March 4
President Sproul issues a statement saying that “the welfare of the
University would not be served by insisting upon a special form of oath as
the single method of implementing, through the faculty, the Regents’
policy of excluding Communists from University employment.” This is a public break with the Regents and a
significant statement because Sproul would be responsible as the chief
administrative officer of the University, for enforcing the Regents’
action.
March 6
A meeting drawing 8,000 students, sponsored by the ASUC, is held in
Berkeley’s Greek Theatre to hear a discussion of the oath issues.
Regent Neylan sends word he is sick, but sends a message asking
“As a constructive step toward the solution of this situation, why does
the Academic Senate not adopt a policy in plain English unequivocally
endorsing the policy excluding Communists?”
Some faculty see this as an overture towards a possible solution.
March 7
The Northern Section of the Academic Senate meets, drawing about 750
members to Wheeler Hall. The
Senate votes, unanimously, a resolution rejecting “the special oath,
and the arbitrary dismissal of loyal members of the faculty for refusal
to sign this oath.” The
Senate also prepares to conduct a secret ballot vote among its members
on two propositions: Proposition
1 provides that faculty members should indicate acceptance of the
regents’ anti-communist policy in future employment contracts.
Proposition 2 proposes the policy that “proved members of the
Communist Party, by reason of such commitments to that party, are
not acceptable as members of the faculty”.
Many of the faculty present
meet informally after the Senate meeting ends and organize to fight
the oath, appointing a “Committee of Seven” to take the lead.
March 8
The Southern Section of the Academic Senate meets and takes actions
similar to those of the Northern Section.
For three weeks, through
March 21, the faculty receives an outpouring support from other academic
communities around the country, including legal defense fund
contributions. Ultimately,
by late April, some 700 separate letters and statements of support from
faculty at other universities are received.
March 13
Mrs. Miriam Brooks Sherman, who is employed in a non-academic position
as a piano player for dance and exercise classes at the Department
of Physical Education for Women at UCLA, is called before a Dean at
UCLA and asked about her involvement with Communist organizations.
She refuses to answer, based on “personal and constitutional
rights." Mrs. Sherman is later identified in the newspapers as
the “Communist” Senator Tenney had charged was a University employee
earlier in the year.
March 22
Results of the vote on the two Academic Senate propositions.
The Faculty vote in favor of both by substantial margins.
Regent Neylan expresses support for the Faculty vote, saying
it represents “civilization versus barbarism."
Many faculty believe that the faculty have given up fundamental
civil and academic liberties by supporting the propositions.
March 25
Several faculty leaders meet privately with Professor Ralph Chaney, a
Berkeley paleontologist who is acting as an informal intermediary for
Regent Neylan. Neylan has put
forward a proposal that there be an alternative to the oath developed and
faculty would be asked to sign one of two alternate contracts. The faculty leaders reject the proposal.
They argue that it was the understanding of the faculty that if the
Academic Senate supported the Regents’ opposition to Communists on the
faculty--as the voters in the secret ballot did indeed do--the Regents
would withdraw the oath. The
faculty leaders feel betrayed. To
widen the breach, Neylan is reported as being even more adamant about
retaining the oath in some form, having been angered by the number of
faculty (about one in five) who voted in the secret ballot against the
policy excluding Communists from the faculty.
March 26-27
The American Association of University Professors holds its national
convention in Cleveland and reaffirms its policy against dismissal
of faculty solely on the basis of their membership in a particular
organization such as the Communist Party.
This position runs contrary to the vote of the UC faculty in the
mail ballot, since a majority of UC Academic Senate members had voted in favor
of the resolution supporting the Regents policy against employing members
of the Communist Party.
Governor Warren appoints
two new Regents and reappoints Regent Giannini.
This shifts the balance on the Board slightly in favor of those
Regents who sympathize with the faculty, but not enough to change the
majority opinion of the Board.
March 31
Regents meeting. Regent
Neylan, in contrast to his earlier encouraging statements about the
faculty position, is again critical of the faculty.
He feels that a minority of the faculty (the non-signers) is in
control and states “now is the time to find out if that minority is
going by threat and menace to run the University of California.”
The debate has shifted from the issue of Communists on the
faculty--which the Academic Senate has joined The Regents in opposing--to
a power struggle between the Regents and the faculty in the governance of
the University. Neylan leads
the Regents faction arguing that the Board cannot back down and lose
authority. Governor Warren
leads those who would prefer to compromise with the faculty and end the
controversy. The Regents
split 10-10 on a motion to withdraw the dismissal ultimatum.
The ultimatum stands.
April
The faculty is demoralized and many different views are expressed.
Most of the non-signers continue to say they will not sign, but
some say they will hold out through April 30, then sign for economic
reasons. Some signers ask that their oaths be returned so they can join
the non-signers, other faculty who have signed say they will resign if any
faculty are dismissed. Academic freedom and tenure are now the primary
concerns of the faculty, which fears that the developments of the
controversy will ultimately give the Regents absolute control of the
University. The faculty “Committee of Seven” decides to lobby
individual Regents to change their votes.
April 2
President Sproul meets at Berkeley’s Durant Hotel (now the off campus
headquarters of the “non-signers”) with the Committee of Seven.
They urge Sproul to publicly support the faculty position.
Sproul feels that he will lose his job if that occurs, and would be
replaced by a new President indebted to the Neylan faction on the Board.
April 4
President Sproul privately proposes an administrative policy that would
implement the Regents policy but would not assume a non-signer was a
member of the Communist Party and would thus not require their dismissal.
This is reviewed by Neylan, who does not support it, seeing it as
giving in to the non-signers.
April 7
Three Regents, Dickson, Giannini, and Neylan, release a statement critical
of the faculty, saying in part, “preparations are being made once more
to intimidate the regents.”
April 11
In response to rumors that he will resign or be forced to resign, Sproul
issues a statement saying that they are only rumors and “my
participation in the loyalty oath discussion has been confined to efforts
to clarify the facts and the issues, and to promote a decision in
accordance with them upon which faculty and Regents might agree.” Behind the scenes, Regents in Neylan’s faction affirm that
they support Sproul as President and would not want him to resign.
April 15
Regent Hale, President of the California Alumni Association, says an
alumni committee is working to find a compromise.
The Chairman is Stephen D. Bechtel, a Berkeley alumnus.
The committee writes to and meets with various participants in the
dispute, seeking a compromise.
April 18
245 faculty members and other employees of Stanford University release
a letter supporting UC faculty and sending contributions to their
legal fund.
April 19
The alumni committee on the oath reports to the Alumni Council.
The committee is supportive of retaining the oath, but also of
giving faculty non-signers due process.
The faculty generally view the recommendations as not supportive of
their cause.
April 20
University of Chicago faculty vote for a two-percent voluntary
contribution of salary to support the legal fund.
Faculty also organize in support at other Universities from
Columbia and Harvard to Wisconsin and Illinois.
April 21
Regents meet. President
Sproul presents a resolution very similar to what the alumni committee
had recommended, requiring faculty to swear to the State constitutional
oath and to accept an appointment letter in part by stating, “I am
not a member of the Communist Party. . .”
Those who do not sign the oath and letter of acceptance would
retain the right to petition the Committee on Privilege and Tenure
of the Academic Senate and the President for a review of his reasons
for not signing, although the Regents would retain authority to dismiss
a faculty member for not signing.
In essence, the proposal maintained some degree of tenure right
but supported the Regents’ position on the other issues, including
the exclusion of Communists from UC employment and the right of the
Regents to impose an oath.
By a 21-1 vote the
Regents adopt the proposal. Regent Giannini, who casts the one dissenting
vote, resigns from the Board.
April 22
The Northern section of the Academic Senate meets and hears some faculty
leaders urge support for the Regents “compromise."
Professor Tolman announces that he will not sign the new contract
of employment and will ask for a hearing before the Committee on Privilege
and Tenure. The
Senate approves a motion stating that the principles of tenure would
be violated if the Regents dismissed any faculty member not found
by the Committee on Privilege and Tenure to be a Communist or someone
whose commitments prevented the free pursuit of truth.
The faculty begin to divide again.
The non-signers hope to encourage large numbers of their colleagues
to join them, demonstrating that the faculty remained opposed to infringements
on its academic freedom and tenure rights, and rendering the hearing
process unworkable. Many
faculty, however, see the alumni sponsored “compromise” as an end
to the dispute.
April 26
Faculty are mailed copies of the Regents’ resolutions and appointment
letters and the constitutional oath to sign.
The letter of acceptance had previously stated simply the amount of
salary the faculty member would receive.
The new letter is revised, stating that “you have been appointed
Professor of _____ for the period July 1, 1949 to June 30, 1950...”
Many faculty see this as a significant change, even more dangerous
that the oath, because the new wording essentially states that the Regents
are, in effect, reappointing tenured faculty from year to year not simply
approving the salaries of faculty already in office.
This would have the effect of eliminating tenure, or the right to
remain on the faculty unless dismissed for just cause, after a review by
one’s faculty peers.
April 30
University
officials note that Mrs. Sherman, the suspected Communist-sympathizer
piano player employed at UCLA, has a sister with an academic appointment
in the Department of Physical Education for Women at UCLA and that this is
“nepotism” forbidden by University regulations.
Mrs. Sherman is called from the middle of a class and told she has
been dismissed and to leave the UCLA campus immediately. She is paid the remainder of the salary that would be due to
her under her one year contract. The
nepotism charge is seen by many faculty as a pretext to get rid of a
suspected Communist employee. After
this Regental action faculty say to one another in irony, “I’ve sold
my piano. It was too
dangerous to have around.”
Compiled by Steve Finacom |
