Speeches by Dr. Ralph Spitzer and Dr. L.R. La Vallee

In view of the fact that we rather press for a time we'll begin now and those who come in can pick up as they enter to the members of the student body of Oregon State College and to the faculty of Oregon State College. As Chairman of the Young Progressives, I am happy to welcome you here today. I feel, first of all, that it should be known concerning this meeting, that as far back in February 25th this year, Professor LaValley and Dr. Spitzer requested a convocation at which time both sides of the question regarding the dismissals could be presented. This was made in an open letter, which was never answered, nor did the wrong of her ever publish a, publish the copy of this letter which was sent with. In view of this situation, we in the Young Progressives are happy to be able to present

this opportunity to you to hear the other side of this highly controversial topic, the outcome of which will be of vital concern to not only to you, but to students all over the country. I think further that we may be very glad that the administration has been realistic enough to permit this meeting, a meeting which asserts the right student organizations to have at least faculty members speak on topics that may be, shall we say, somewhat controversial. At this time, then, I would like to introduce our first speaker, Dr. Ralph Spitzer, who has been a member of the Oregon State Chemistry Department since the fall of 1946. Dr. Spitzer received his PhD from the California Institute of Technology in 1941. During most of the intervening years, since that time, he was engaged in war research

for which he received the Army Navy Certificate of Appreciation. Then after a year, as a national research fellow, Dr. Spitzer came to Oregon State as an assistant professor and was soon promoted to associate professor with the substantial salary increases. He has published ten articles on molecular structure, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. He is a president, a member of the American Chemical Society Committee on Patents and related legislation. It is my pleasure at this time, then, to introduce to you Dr. Ralph Spitzer. Thank you. Fellow students, fellow faculty members, for coming to hear this discussion of academic

freedom, although there may be no need for me to make this statement, I would like to make it perfectly clear that I am speaking as an individual and not as an official representative of Oregon State College. Since I am going to discuss academic freedom, a short description of this term is in order. I take one from the various statements of the American Association of University Professors. The following statements are quoted. Academic freedom comprises three elements, freedom of inquiry and research, freedom of teaching within the university or college, and freedom of extramural utterance and action. Also, when a teacher writes or speaks as a citizen, he should be free from institutional censorship or discipline.

And during the probationary period, a teacher should have the same academic freedom that all other members of the faculty have. These principles will become more concrete as the discussion proceeds. The number of cases in the past year, at least 20, in which faculty members throughout the United States have been dismissed for political reasons and violation of these principles has become alarming. Nobody knows how many more have been intimidated, refused promotions or tenure, or just quietly eased out. The eyes of the country were focused on the Pacific Northwest. First, by the inquisition of faculty members at the University of Washington, and soon thereafter by the failure to reappoint Professor LaValle and me at Oregon State College. Two teachers at the University of Washington, with permanent tenure and decades of service, were dismissed on the sole charge that they were members of the Communist Party.

The University Committee on Tenure and Academic Freedom absolves these men of any charge of incompetence, moral turpitude, or the use of their classroom as a forum for the unfair propagation of their political ideas. And further, recommended that the men be retained. More than a year before these teachers were dismissed for being communists, Committee A of the American Association of University Professors declared that, quote, discrimination against communists would readily lead to discrimination against teachers with other unorthodox political views. And the exclusion of such teachers would mean the exclusion of some of the liveliest intellect and most stimulating personalities on our campuses. Furthermore, the acceptance of political discrimination might well be the wills fall in the door. Such discrimination might presently extend to other forms of heterodoxy. Committee members, in general, might take alarm and sagaciously conclude that they cannot

afford the luxury of ranging thoughts and bold speech, unquote. This fine passage turned out to be prophetic. President Strand, in dismissing Professor Lavalli and me, made no charge of membership in the Communist Party, but made the much bigger charge of following the party line. But the OSE cases are an extension of those at Washington, as the American Association of University Professors predicted would happen, is shown not only by the sequence of events, but also by Dr. Strand direct quotations from President Allen of the University of Washington. From President Strand's speech of February 23rd on Los Encos, the Soviet biologist, and the numerous statements he has made since he closed the case on that date, it is possible to piece together four main lines of arguments behind the dismissal. All are based upon certain standards of loyalty, which he has constructed, and determined

to enforce. The four evidences of this loyalty are following the party line in general, following the party line through the progressive party, following the party line by supporting Los Encos, following the party line by becoming too absorbed in extracurricular, prosoliting activities. President Strand accused me in his February 23rd speech of going, quote, write down the party line without any noticeable deviation, unquote. What is the party line? The Eugene Registered Guard of March 23rd, 1949, reporting on President Strand's speech before the Eugene Rotary Club, regarding the dismissals, stated that according to Dr. Strand, quote, as I see it, there are several kinds of propaganda in the Communist line activities. One, is to choose a subject on which there can be no disagreement, such as racial discrimination. According to the Registered Guard, President Strand stated that another kind of propaganda

is a Marshall Plan, which has found opponents in Henry Wallace and his Communist Controls Group and the fascist element. A third kind of propaganda use is a theory of genetics advanced by Los Encos. Dr. Strand's beliefs that progressive party activity demonstrates adherence to the party line is indicated by the following statement. In a letter of March 28th, we find to a criticism of his actions, quote, I think you have been reading too much Communist propaganda under the guise of the progressive party, unquote. In a list of graph form letter to critics, he refers to, quote, officials of the progressive party and many other fellow travelers, unquote. That real or imagined support of the Senko is evident to President Strand following the party line, is shown by his whole February 23rd speech, which attacked me for asking him a letter to chemical and engineering news that American scientists give objective consideration to the theory of genetics proposed in the Soviet Union. President Strand, a former biologist, is convinced that a person's attitude toward Los

Encos is a sure test of loyalty. He has laid down the victim that the Senko is 100% wrong. Therefore, because Henry Wallace admitted that certain experiments of his begun before World War I gave results consistent with one of Los Encos' generalizations as President Strand accused him of, quote, deserting what he knows to be the truth in order to follow the party line, unquote. In my case, Dr. Strand declared, quote, he supports the Charlotte and Los Encos in preference to what he must know to be the truth. And then he added, because he goes right down the party line. The final charge that I devote so much time to my prosoliting activities, at my work is beginning to suffer, is accompanied by the words, quote, although no claim in that regard has been made, unquote. Since no instances are given and no charge is made, one can only assume that President Strand is unwilling to take the responsibility of proving this statement. But President Strand's basic charge is disloyalty.

He has assumed the duty of investigating the loyalty of his staff and holding them to such standards of loyalty as he set up. In so doing, President Strand is taking part in a widespread movement to suppress the sentencing opinion by labeling it disloyal. Professor Henry Steele Commodier discussing this movement asks, quote, what is the new loyalty? It is above all conformity. It is the uncritical and unquestioning acceptance of America as it is. It rejects inquiry into the race question, or socialized medicine, or public housing, or into the wisdom of our foreign policy, unquote. The Supreme Court has given an effective answer to the self-appointed guardians of this new loyalty. The Court said, quote, if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, may prescribe what is orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or action

their faith therein, unquote. President Strand also gave an effective reputation to the advocates of new loyalty only 19 months ago. On October 24, 1947, President Strand wrote an editorial in the barometer in which he himself quoted approvingly the passages from Commodier and from the Supreme Court which I just gave. He then put it even more strongly in his own words when he said quote, if we are to fight communism by the requirements of strict conformity to what this or that organization claimed to be truly American, we will wind up not with a stronger democracy, but with some kind of a fascist state under which our minds and actions will be as closely controlled as under the very system we started out to fight, unquote. There is only one way that I can explain this complete switch in President Strand's position. It seems to me that he, like academic freedom, is a victim of the Cold War.

The Federation of American Scientists has summed up the situation, quote, in the broadest terms, the spitzer case is a manifestation of the stress of the Cold War upon democratic institutions in the United States. But let us return to President Strand in his new role as protector of the new loyalty. As specific evidence of this loyalty, we have, first of all, the charges devotion to the Communist Party line. I mentioned before, to Dr. Strand such devotion is represented in propaganda regarding racial discrimination, the Marshall Plan and the Sanctuary Genetics. We remember that the passage from Commodier quoted so approvingly from President Strand by President Strand at an earlier date said that this dangerous new loyalty among other things rejects inquiry into the race question or into the wisdom of our foreign policy. Commodier and Dr. Strand, in this discussion of the new loyalty and party line, forgot to mention sex.

According to the Gazette Times of April 25th, the California State Senate Committee on Education, quote, listen to Senator Jack Kenny Los Angeles say that sex education would lead to obscurity and communism. That's not so funny, because the next line is, then it killed a proposal to teach family relations and teachers, colleges, and high schools. Unquote. Dr. Strand's belief that progressive party activity, quote, follows a communist party line, unquote, is based on the same fallacious reasoning that criticism of our foreign policy, a serious effort to solve a race problem, and a desire to secure peace through an understanding with Soviet Russia, are subversive, communistic, and disloyal.