Advertisement

Fight on California Oath Continues

Copyright, 1950, by the Editors of the Harvard CRIMSON.

But on the same day, Dr. George Pettitt, assistant to President Sproul, stated: "We don't like the idea of oaths--nobody does--but, on the face of the cold-war hysteria we are now experiencing, something had to be done. We feel the public is entitled to know how the Regents and the faculty feel about the question of loyalty."

Two days later the faculty made its feelings on the question of loyalty known during a three-hour closed meeting of the Academic Senate--the governing body of all faculty members with tenure. The 500 professors said they had no objection to declaring their "loyalty and zeal," but voted a resolution urging the Regents to eliminate or change the loyalty oath. President Sproul told the meeting that he would be glad to work with a faculty committee on suggesting changes to the next meeting of the Regents.

When the Regents did meet on June 24, they agreed to revise the oath. The original oath, to be taken only by the 4,000 faculty and administrative officers on the eight campuses, stated:

"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 government of the United States by force or by any illegal unconstitutional methods."

The revised oath, to be taken not only by the faculty and administrative officers but by all other employees of the university as well, stated:

Advertisement

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office according to the best of my ability; 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 obligation under this oath."

The specific naming of the Communist party as persona non grata at the University of California was a change in the oath, but actually nothing new so far as the university was concerned. As far back as October 11, 1940 the Board of Regents had passed a resolution excluding members of the Communist Party from employment by the university.

Probe Causes Tension

During the month of June and through the summer of 1949 the House un-American Activities Committee began an investigation in Washington which added to the uneasiness of University of California administrators and which was to lead to the dismissal of the teaching fellow already mentioned. An admitted former Communist testified that he had been active in "... trying to infiltrate all scientific research at the University of California" during the war when the atomic radiation laboratory on the Berkeley campus was a vital part of the then completely secret Manhattan project.

Irving David Fox, one of the scientists charged by witnesses with having been a member of the "Communist cell" at Berkeley in 1943, still taught at California. When called before the House Committee on September 27, 1949, on advice of counsel he refused to answer questions concerning his past political affiliations. However, when summoned before a meeting of the university Board of Regents on December 16 he told the Regents that though he had been interested in Communism during the 1930's and early 1940's and had attended Communist Party educational meetings in 1942 he had never become a member of the Communist Party. After a few minutes in executive session the Regents informed Fox that he had been dismissed from the University of California because he did not meet "the minimum requirements for membership on the faculty." No further reason was ever given nor did the Regents ever define the phrase "minimum requirements for membership." Fox had signed the loyalty oath required by the Regents. (Fox's dismissal is also covered else-where in this survey.)

The manner in which the Board of Regents dismissed Fox increased faculty opposition to control of educational policies by the Regents. However, by February 24 of this year 86.5 percent of the 4,000 faculty had taken the oath, but the remaining 13.5 percent were intransigent in their refusal to swear to any oath other than the regular oath of allegiance for state employees. On that date, after a three-hour closed session with Governor Warren presiding, the Regents voted 12 to 6 (with six members absent) that if any employee did not sign the oath by April 30, his "connections with the university would have been severed."

This decision came to be known as the "sign--or else" ultimatum, and served to unite the faculty still more strongly against the Regents; even some of those faculty members who had already signed the oath began to take an active part in the opposition.

Dispute Intensifies

The division between faculty and Regents seemed to have been made almost irreconcilable by the ultimatum. Joel H. Hildebrand, dean of the College of Chemistry and a member of the four man committee of the Academic Senate which had been advising the Regents on the oath, said, "No conceivable damage to the university at the hands of the hypothetical Communists among us could have equaled the damage resulting from the unrest, ill-will and suspicion engendered by this series of events." He later remarked, "If there are Communists among us they are lying so low they at least do not constitute a menace."

Regent John Francis Neylan, San Francisco attorney who voted for the oath and ultimatum, stated that the whole issue could be reduced to the question "shall the Regents accord to each card-carrying Communist the confidence, the respect, and the privileges accorded to the distinguished scholars who have made the university a great seat of learning?" but an authorized spokesman for the Academic Senate made it clear that the faculty did not want Communists on the faculty. "We have patiently tried to settle this bugaboo of repudiation, but Regent Neylan has been unwilling to listen," Professor Malcolm Davisson stated, and Professor Wendell M. Stanley, Nobel prize-winning bio-chemist remarked, "Anyone who accepts dictates from Moscow has no more chance of getting on with the faculty here than Mickey Mouse."

Advertisement