The facts that were uncovered by those 33 sessions of the 11-man faculty committee are numerous and they are involved. But if the results of the Washington case are to be evaluated, some attempt must be made to summarize the testimony and make it comprehensible.
The committee was empowered to recommend dismissal for "one or more of the following reasons: a) incompetency, b) neglect of duty, c) physical or mental incapacity, d) dishonesty or immorality, or e) conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude." Reasons c and e were discarded by the group and it conducted the hearings to find out whether any of the other three "causes" were present in the cases of the accused teachers.
The facts of the inquiry are most easily divided into three categories: 1) the case of Herbert Phillips and Joseph Butterworth, 2) the case of Ralph Gundlach, 3) the case of the three men on probation, Eby, Ethel, and Jacobs.
The first of these three categories concerns the case of two faculty members. Phillips of the Philosophy department and Butterworth of the English department, who have admitted current membership in the Communist Party. The faculty committee report on them was composed of a report of five members who recommended that the men be retained; a disagreed with the majority reasoning: and finally the dissenting reports of three members who also felt that the two men should be dismissed.
The first report defined the nature of the Communist Party of the United States. Within this definition it then stated that "it is impossible to conceive how the mere fact of membership in the Communist Party could in any way affect the competency of respondent Butterworth as a teacher of Old English Literature." It might, the report found, be a possible deterrent to the competence of a philosophy professor. However, the testimony of Phillips' colleagues and students all Issued his competence and objectivity.
The report likewise found that membership in the Communist Party cannot be considered either immoral or in neglect of duty. However, this report of five members indicated that it might be desirable to change the code so that membership in the Communist Party would be sufficient for dismissal. The dissenting report of the three men who also felt that both Phillips and Butterworth should be kept on the faculty concerned itself mainly with the last point. These three men were definitely against prohibiting members of the Communist Party from teaching.
The dissenting opinion of the three members who felt that both Phillips and Butterworth should be fired was that membership in the Communist Party per se "disqualified" the respondents "for retention on the faculty of the University of Washington."
The committee as a whole then voted eight, to three that both Phillips and Butterworth be retained. President Allen, in his report to the Regents, recommended that they overrule the majority report of the faculty committee. He regarded the same evidence that it did and still reversed its decision, thereby denying the committee its deliberative function and reducing it to a fact-collecting body.
In the Gundlach, ease, the charges were more complete. The University claimed that Gundlach was a member of the Communist Party, that he did not tell President Allen that he was a Communist, that he did not tell the Canwell Committee that he was a Communist, that he neglected his duty to the University by spending his time in party "front" activity, and that he followed the party line, thereby rendering himself incompetent and dishonest.
The final committee report threw out all charges except that Gundlach had refused to answer a question put to him by President Allen as to his membership in the Communist Party. It found that Gundlach's equivocation on this issue, together with his "unsatisfactory relations" with the university administration, constituted neglect of only and were sufficient grounds for dismissal. Four members out of, 11 dissented from this opinion President Allen found the majority report to his liking. As did the Board of Regents.
Finally, in the cases of Eby, Ethel, and Jacobs, all 11 members of the faculty committee recommended that the tenure of these men "remain undisturbed." All three of the accused men were former Communists and frankly admitted it. They all also claimed that they were no longer members of the Communist Party.
Allen concurred with the committee report. However, the Board of Regents in a three hour meeting, hardly time enough even to consider the massive recommendations of the two reports, considerably disturbed the feature of these men by placing them on probation. There has never been any adequate definition of the terms of this probation. Any one of the three will presumably think a long time before he advances any political opinion or indulges in any political activity that might displease the Board of Regents while he is still on probation.
Through the overwhelming minutiae of these reports and through the technicalities of interpretation of the tenure code, some facts can be readily spelled out. The most important of these is that the three dismissed professors lost their jobs because of political activity. This activity was membership in, or, in Gundiach's case, sympathy with, the Communist Party. Likewise, it is certain that the three men on probation are in this unenviable position because of their former affiliation with the Communist Party.
Throughout the testimony much was made of the answers of the various defendants to the question posed by Dr. Allen as to membership in the Communist Party. No one on the committee ever challenged Dr. Allen's right to ask this question.
It is impossible to evaluate completely the effect of the action of the Board of Regents on the University. But already eminent men have refused appointment to the University. Thomas Cook, a conservative historian, has resigned because of the firings. A letter signed by 430 leading educators and scholars was sent to the Board of Regents claiming that its action was tantamount to the establishment of "a standard of political orthodoxy . . . the next step may be whether a belief in Catholicism or the single tax are acceptable. Both of these are doctrines of considerable rigidity and both have been at times highly unpopular."
The Connecticut Valley Educators have attacked the Washington decisions as "establishing the principle that an instructor may be dismissed solely upon the basis of his political beliefs without regard to academic performance or qualifications . . . the continuation of this policy will lead inevitably to a colorless orthodoxy of 'safe 'ideas." Other educator groups are also protesting.
Professor Randall of Columbia University points out a warning in the Washington action: "one wonders how a self-respecting teacher could consider future service in an institution in which the guarantees universally associated with 'academic freedom' seem to be so completely exposed to the vagaries of political pressure."
At present the three fired professors have appealed their cases to the American Association of University Professors. If their appeals are successful, the University must rehire them or become a "censured administration." Top men, as a rule, do not accept positions in institutions on this censured list.
There is no way of calculating the reluctance of Washington faculty members now to exchange freely ideas with each other or with students. Professor Henry D. Aiken of Harvard, a former University of Washington faculty member, stated, "It is a terrible thing when men on a university campus have been isolated from one another by fear. A great University has been badly mauled.