Expanded Timeline:
Events of the Loyalty Oath Controversy and Historical Background
May-June 1949
May 9
The University’s Faculty Bulletin is mailed out, including a statement that
"acceptance letters" for 1949-50 appointments to the faculty will contain a new
oath which must be signed before faculty can receive their salaries.
The notice, signed by Robert M. Underhill, Secretary of the Regents, reads:
"The Regents of the University have directed me to include in acceptance letters
when 1949-50 appointments are made an oath of allegiance in the form to be set forth
therein, and that all faculty and employees must take the oath as part of the acceptance.
This procedure is about to go into effect for new appointees for the remainder of this
fiscal year, but persons taking the oath of allegiance now will not be required to do so
again on next annual appointments. Salary checks cannot be released until acceptance
letters have been returned to this office properly signed before a Notary Public."
This is the first notice many faculty have seen of the new policy; the information
comes at the end of the semester, and does not include the text of the new oath. The Bulletin
was originally scheduled to go out as much as two weeks earlier, but printing problems
delay its release. The delay causes much suspicion among the faculty that the late notice
was purposely timed to take place at the end of the semester.
June
Newspapers are full of reports about investigations of
alleged Communist activity across the country. The perjury trial of Alger Hiss is
underway, security arrangements at the Atomic Energy Commission are being investigated,
and the House Un-American Activities Committee is not only holding hearings on alleged
"subversion" at Berkeley’s Radiation Laboratory during World War II, but
has announced its intention to survey college textbooks, looking for what it regards as
subversive or dangerous ideas.
A UC administrator tells the press that "We don’t like the idea of
oaths--nobody does. But in the face of the cold-war hysteria we are now experiencing,
something had to be done."
June 7
The Northern Section of the Academic State meets and passes a resolution that the oath
requirement should be discussed at a special meeting on June 14.
June 11
President Sproul’s
office releases the formal text of the oath. It requires a statement
that "I do not believe in and am not a member of, nor do I support
any party or organization that believes in, advocates, or teaches
the overthrow of the United States government by force or violence."
June 14
The Northern Section of the Academic Senate holds a special meeting,
drawing a large crowd of faculty. Most of the faculty present agree
that they are loyal citizens and are willing to take the required
constitutional oath, but many object to the special new oath. They
feel it is ambiguous, an undesirable "political test" for
faculty, a violation of academic freedom, and an act that implies
guilt by association. Professor Ernst Kantorowicz, a renowned medievalist
scholar, reads a statement reviewing the history of oaths and "indicating
the grave dangers residing in the introduction of a new, enforced
oath. . ." He says that throughout history imposed oaths have
been dangerous and calls the oath, "a shameful and undignified
action...an affront and a violation of both human sovereignty and
professional dignity that the Regents of this University have dared
to bully the bearer of this (academic) gown into a situation in which--under
the pressure of a bewildering economic coercion--he is compelled to
give up either his tenure or, together with his freedom of judgment,
his human dignity and his responsible sovereignty as a scholar."
The meeting passes a resolution to inform the Regents that the members of the Northern
Section "although unaware of any conduct which warrants doubt about their loyalty and
zeal" request that the special oath be removed or revised, after consultation
with the Academic Senate. An Advisory Committee of the faculty is empowered to work with
President Sproul to find a solution; however, there is confusion as to whether the
Advisory Committee is empowered to only consult, or actually negotiate on behalf of the
faculty.
June 18
The Advisory Committee meets with President Sproul and proposes that the oath be
modified to a statement of University policy on the employment or retention of Communists
which signers would acquiesce to.
June 20
The Southern Section of the Academic Senate meets and adopts the same resolutions as
the Northern Section.
June 21
The Advisory Committee of the Southern Section meets with President Sproul and later
writes to him saying it agrees with the Advisory Committee of the Northern Section.
June 24
The Regents hold their
regular meeting. They approve a resolution reaffirming their 1940
anti-communist policy and requiring an oath that incorporates some
of the Advisory Committee’s suggestions on wording, but also
inserting an explicit statement that the signer is not a Communist;
this reads, ". . .that I am not a member of the Communist Party,
or under any oath, or a party to any agreement, or under any commitment
that is in conflict with my obligations under this oath."
By this point the semester has ended and the faculty can no longer be gathered in large
numbers. Many faculty members continue to feel the Regents and/or the University
administration purposely timed the oath approval to make an organized faculty response
difficult.
On the same day the State Assembly votes down the various bills proposed by Senator
Tenney.
June 27
The first formal meeting of "non-signers" of the Oath is held at
Berkeley’s Faculty Club. Sixty members of the faculty attend. They oppose both new
and old oaths and declare that the Advisory Committee was not empowered to act on behalf
of the faculty in negotiating the new oath without referring its proposals back to the
Academic Senate for review. The non-signers decide as a practical matter they should try
to get the oath postponed or removed from letters of acceptance for the fall semester so
the issue can be discussed again in the Fall.
June 28
The chairman of the Advisory Committee discusses the views of the non-signers views
with President Sproul.
June 30
The Regents Committee on Finance and Business Management meets in San Francisco. They
have heard of the growing faculty opposition, and Sproul tells them that a number of
senior faculty are concerned but will be reasonable if "we do not push them
about". Sproul suggests that the oath not be combined with the employment contract
for a year. Sproul’s approach is to work with the faculty to reduce to a minimum the
number of non-signers.
Sproul follows up the next week by meeting with Professors Hildebrand and Lehman, who
urge that the letter Sproul sends to the faculty regarding employment contracts and the
oath be moderate. They feel this will reduce faculty opposition. Sproul agrees, and Lehman
and Hildebrand plan to meet with the dissenting faculty.
There are unofficial statements from the Administration that salary checks will not be
held up for those who do not sign the oath.
Compiled by Steve Finacom |
