Expanded Timeline:
Events of the Loyalty Oath Controversy and Historical Background
September-October
1949
September 6
Sproul meets with the Advisory Committees, which tell him that the
withholding of appointment letters from non-signers during the summer had
been the major source of faculty hostility.
Sproul agrees to attend the Academic Senate meeting on September
19, and suggests that the Advisory Committees recommend the Senate ask the
Regents accept, instead of the signed oaths, “an affirmation by the
Senate of the Regents’ policy on communism and that the faculty be not
required to take any oath beyond that which they have taken for the past
eight or ten years.”
September
Faculty opposing the oath have prepared a resolution for Academic
Senate consideration stating that the oath “has impaired the morale
of the faculty. . .it has injured the University’s reputation in the
academic world. . .it has handicapped the University in attracting
a continuous flow of young scholars.”
The resolution also focuses on the issue of tenure, stating
that “it seems evident that, if the terms under which tenure of faculty
members is secured are liable to unilateral or arbitrary change, tenure
itself ceases to be a fact.”
September 19
The Northern Section of the Academic Senate meets, with some 650 voting
members present. President
Sproul tells the faculty that no faculty member “who regards the regents’
policy as unwise will ‘be deemed to have severed his connection with
the University.’ " He
states that about one half of the academic personnel on the northern
UC campuses have signed the oath, but the method of calculating that
number is disputed. Sproul
adds that no one will lose their jobs without “traditional consultation
with the (Academic Senate) Committee on Privilege and Tenure.”
The faculty passes two
resolutions. The first
pledges support for the prohibition of “the employment of persons whose
commitments or obligations to any organization, Communist or other,
prejudice impartial scholarship and the free pursuit of truth.” The
second resolution requests that Academic Senate members be allowed to sign
the constitutional oath, with the implication that no other oath is
required.
September 22
The Southern Section of the Academic Senate meets and supports the
Northern Section’s positions and actions, but adds a stronger statement
that to be objectionable outside commitments by faculty must
“demonstrably prevent objective teaching and the free pursuit of
truth.”
September 23.
The Regents meet, hear the faculty resolutions, and appoint a committee to
confer with the Academic Senate’s Advisory Committees.
Sproul suggests that appointment letters be issued without the oath
in order to allay faculty concerns. Some
Regents are concerned that the reputation of the Board is in danger if it
backs off its earlier positions on the oath. They also feel that the
Academic Senate had changed its position and repudiated what the Board
felt the Senate Advisory Committees had agreed to earlier in the summer.
They believe that the Regents acted to create an oath primarily in
response to President Sproul’s suggestions and the impression that the
Academic Senate would support an oath, but now the Regents are being
unfairly portrayed as unilateral oath proponents.
The Board agrees that September paychecks can be released, but does
not support Sproul’s recommendation that the oath be separated from the
1949-50 faculty contracts. The
Board is not, however, ready to dismiss any faculty for not signing.
September 27
The House Un-American Activities Committee holds hearings on alleged
Communist infiltration of the Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley (later to
become the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory).
One witness, Irving David Fox, a student Teaching Assistant in the
Berkeley Physics Department, refuses to answer some of the Committee’s
questions. The
questions include, “Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party
of the United States?” “Were you a member of the Communist cell at the
Radiation Laboratory?” “Was
your father a member of the Communist Party?”
September 28
Sproul meets with the northern Advisory Committee, telling them that the
Board feels the Academic Senate has put it in a difficult position and
saying that he personally agrees with the Regents on their anti-communist
policy.
September 29
The Regents Committee and the Advisory Committees meet in San Francisco.
Professor Lehman explains that the faculty tend to deliberate
slowly. They felt rushed into
a decision in June, shortly after they learned of the Regents actions on
the oath, and after more time and considered debate had come to different
views. Regents say they
feel betrayed by the changes in the Academic Senate positions between June
and September. The
faculty representatives express the fear of many faculty that few of them
would support Communist faculty, but if Communists are excluded from the
University as a group, by policy, what is to prevent the University from
later choosing to exclude other groups or viewpoints?
Regent Neylan responds that Communists are not a group but a
criminal conspiracy and that banning them from the University would not
set a precedent. Four
hours of inconclusive discussion occur.
This is the first time in
a quarter century that formal negotiations had taken place in the
University of California directly between faculty and Regents, without the
President of the University as a formal intermediary.
Historians later characterize this as an example of the seriousness
of the controversy.
September 30
The Regents meet and their Committee reports that it recommends reaffirmation
of the ban on Communist party members as UC employees and reaffirmation
of the oath requirement. Faculty
representatives speak. The
Board agrees that contract letters for the year should be released
to non-signers and that an informal affirmation be accepted for the
year rather than a formal oath.
Further discussion is promised.
With the deadline to sign
the oaths falling on the next day, many faculty non-signers opposed to the
oath go ahead and sign in order to keep their jobs.
October 7, 10, 25,
and November 7 and 14
Several meetings of the Northern
and Southern Sections of the Academic Senate occur.
The Senate votes for a statement of “complete agreement upon
the objectives of the University (anti-communist) policy” but also appoints
a Conference Committee to continue negotiations with The Regents and
states that the Senate is not agreeing with the Regents non-Communist
policy but only its objectives, that is impartial scholarship and
the free pursuit of truth. The
Committee is instructed to avoid committing the faculty to approval
of an oath that is a political test and constitutes guilt by association.
Because the meeting on October 22 runs late, the number of
faculty voting on various resolutions declines.
By a vote of 148 - 113 the Northern Section approves a resolution
which states, in part, “The public responsibility of the Regents is
to create and maintain the conditions necessary to the University’s
life. The power of the
Regents must accordingly be exercised not only with due regard for
those principles of freedom of thought and association which constitutionally
limit the power of all public officials but also with deep respect
for the essential nature of a University as an institution peculiarly
dedicated to freedom of mind...Academic Freedom is a system of government
which cannot be violated without frustrating the purpose for which
Universities are created.”
Some members of the Regents view this resolution as a direct
attack on the Board, which intensifies the controversy.
October 21
Regents meet and direct President Sproul to send a letter to all
non-signers requesting signature to the oath or an equivalent affirmation.
The letters are mailed on October 22, and create additional anger
among faculty members.
Compiled by Steve Finacom |
