Ohio History Journal

STEVEN P. GIETSCHIER

 

The 1951 Speaker's Rule

at Ohio State

 

Like many public institutions of higher learning, The Ohio State

University's support for the principles of academic freedom has often

been limited by the political and social views of those who have shaped

its destiny. Because of the university's location in the state capital,

and certainly because of its dependence upon a penurious General

Assembly for funding, Ohio State has, over the years, generally re-

flected its origins as a land grant institution. In the spirit of the Mor-

rill Act, the University has tended to emphasize the practical arts over

the humanities and to cultivate a functional and, when necessary,

patriotic approach to education. As early as 1883, the Ohio State

Board of Trustees dismissed the University's president, Walter Scott,

because "he promulgated unsound and dangerous doctrines of politi-

cal economy," including the Henry Georgian ideas that "capital was

robbery," and "dividends were theft." In the ensuing years, however,

such spectacular incidents were few.^l

After World War II, the Ohio State administration responded to the

anxieties of the Cold War with a series of policy decisions restricting

the exercise of academic freedom. Led by its Board of Trustees and

by President Howard Bevis, the University passed a series of resolu-

tions to regulate political discussion on campus, the appearance of

outside speakers, and the right of faculty members to discuss con-

troversial subjects in the classroom. Overall, these measures demon-

strated the Trustees' decision that the unrestrained exchange of ideas

must be partially curtailed in the interests of national security.

Given the Board's composition, its accommodation to the Cold War

ethos was hardly surprising. During these years the Trustees were led

by Brigadier General Carlton Dargusch, the former Deputy Director of

Selective Service, and by Senator John Bricker, a conservative Repub-

 

Steven P. Gietschier is Director of the Ohio Labor History Project at the Ohio His-

torical Society.

 

1. Alexis Cope, 1870-1910, ed. T. C. Mendenhall, Vol. 1 of History of The Ohio State

University (9 vols., Columbus, 1920-1976), 79. For a wider discussion of higher educa-

tion's sensitivity to public pressure, see Richard Hofstadter, Anti-intellectualism in

American Life (New York, 1963), Chapters 12-14.

• 1
 

OSU Speaker's Rule                                                 295

 

lican and supporter of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Other board mem-

bers, all of whom were appointed by Ohio's governor, included Charles

Kettering, the General Motors research genius, Forrest Ketner, an

agricultural association executive, and Robert Black, president of

Cleveland's White Motor Corporation. The University was firmly

governed by a group of conservative politicians and industrialists.

As early as December 1946, Senator Bricker had accused the Univer-

sity of harboring communists. This charge led to an investigation of

campus groups for leftist ties and to the introduction of a University

loyalty oath. The trustees of the Ohio Historical Society, which occupied

a building on the campus, dismissed one employee of the museum for

disloyalty.² At the same time, the University Trustees decided to forbid

the use of campus facilities to all candidates for public office and later,

to their surrogates. When the Board first passed this resolution, on

April 22, 1946, its announced purpose was to prevent the overcrowding

of an already crowded postwar campus.³ In fact, the 1946 rule was

simply the formalization of an existing, de facto policy. That the Board

had something more in mind than the over-utilization of facilities was

evident in its passage of a follow-up resolution in 1947. This time, on a

motion by General Dargusch, the Trustees warned the teaching staff

that, although it was their right to teach objectively in controversial

areas, they were required to maintain "complete impartiality of opinion

in class room discussion."⁴

Protests against these resolutions arose intermittently, especially

when their provisions seemed to be enforced unequally. Paul Robeson

and Henry Wallace were both barred during the 1948 presidential cam-

paign, although Norman Thomas was allowed to speak, as were two

Republican officials, Senator Wayne Morse (Ore.) and Congressman

John Vorys (Ohio). Petitions by faculty members, students, and the

student newspaper, The Lantern, led to the rule's reconsideration, but

the Board re-affirmed and expanded its stance to include all campus

political meetings, even if no candidate were set to appear. Only in

1950 did the Board amend its rules to permit one campus meeting per

party per year, an opportunity only the Republicans chose to utilize.⁵

This was the situation in 1951 when the Representative Assembly of

Graduate Students in Education organized the sixth Boyd H. Bode

 

 

2. James E. Pollard, The Bevis Administration, 1940-1956, Part 2, The Post-War

Years and the Emergence of the Greater University, 1945-1956, Vol. VIII of History of

The Ohio State University, 158-60.

3. Ohio State University, Board of Trustees, Record of Proceedings of the Board of

Trustees of The Ohio State University, April 22, 1946 (Columbus, 1946), 310.

4. Pollard, Bevis, 126-29. Trustees, Proceedings, January 6, 1947, 275-76.

5. Trustees, Proceedings, May 10, 1948, 308, and July 7, 1950, 42-43.

• 2
 

296                                                      OHIO HISTORY

 

Conference on Education, an annual convocation in honor of a promi-

nent emeritus professor of education at Ohio State. To address the con-

ference on the theme, "Frontiers in Educational Theory," the Bode Con-

ference Committee invited Harold Rugg, a retired education professor

at Columbia University. Rugg's three appearances, on July 10 and 11,

consisted of two lectures and a question-and-answer session and threw

the campus community into unprecedented turmoil. A nationally

prominent, progressive educator and an intellectual compatriot of John

Dewey, Rugg was the author of numerous textbooks, many of which

had been subsequently dropped by various school systems for being too

"leftist." In addition, Rugg had become a frequent target of Allen Zoll,

whose chosen profession was to alert America to dangerous books and

subversive individuals. Zoll at various times headed organizations called

the National Council for American Education, the Conference of Ameri-

can Small Business Organizations, and American Patriots, Inc., the

last of these having itself been labelled as subversive by the Attorney-

General.⁶

Although Rugg's appearance on the OSU campus became a matter

of great controversy and bitterness, not much attention was paid to what

he actually had said. His remarks were neither recorded nor taken down

by a stenographer. What remains today of the three sessions are a very

sketchy set of notes of unknown origin and the contemporaneous rec-

ollections of several students who were present. In addition, there

exists a transcript of a radio interview given by Rugg at Ohio State on

July 15. Taken together, these sources give a varied and choppy account

of Rugg's addresses. He seems to have focused on two points: first,

that the postwar world, with its increasing complexities, demanded a

new effort from the schools to use history to teach about current prob-

lems, and second, that a new social order was possible through the

application of new, advanced knowledge of human behavior. Clearly,

Rugg was not satisfied with the way schools were studying contem-

porary problems. More often than not, he said, the fault lay with parents

who simply did not understand what their schools were trying to

accomplish. He explained on the radio:

I think one of the tragic lags in our society is the lag of understanding of the

parents and the citizens generally of what the newer schools are trying to do in

 

6. Pollard, Bevis, 140. Edward N. Saveth, "What to Do About 'Dangerous' Text-

books," Commentary (January 1952), 100. Vinton McVicker, "Is OSU Heading for An-

other Witch Hunt?" Cleveland Press, July 21, 1951. "What's Really Back of OSU Gag

Rule?" (editorial), Ibid., September 15, 1951. [The Bevis Papers at Ohio State (see

note 7) are a particularly rich source of newspaper clippings, but most of these do not

include the page number. I have endeavored to include headlines, article titles, and

correspondents' names in these footnotes because the newspapers were active partici-

pants in the events described, and their contributions should be fully referenced.]

• 3
 

OSU Speaker's Rule                                                    297

 

our times. There has been a great gap. And I think it is partly caused by the fact

that while we've been trying to learn how to build a good school, we have not,

perhaps, given enough energy to bringing parents in on it.

Then, in what was soon regarded as his most outrageous utterance,

Rugg argued that his hopes for America and its schools were not being

realized, and he suggested that another depression would be necessary

to awaken people to the real need for further social and economic

change.⁷

The ammunition for what was soon to be known as the "Rugg con-

troversy" was probably supplied by Colonel William Warner, executive

director of Ohio Civil Defense, on leave from his position as Professor

of Industrial Arts Education at Ohio State. Warner's reputation as a

scholar and educator was questionable. One former OSU professor

noted that colleagues dubbed him "The Professor of Whittling." Others

have remembered that he was once called on the carpet for repeatedly

refusing to allow members of a graduate committee to read his students'

dissertations and that he probably did not get a pay raise during the

whole postwar era.⁸ Perhaps Warner felt more accomplished in his

self-appointed role as Ohio State's resident Red hunter, an avocation

which occupied much of his time both before and after his appointment

as Ohio's Civil Defense chief. There is no direct evidence linking War-

ner with either Allen Zoll or with the Wolfe family, prominent in Co-

lumbus business and politics. The Wolfes published the two newspapers,

the Columbus Dispatch and the Ohio State Journal, whose editorial

policies fueled the Rugg controversy's flames. Nevertheless, these

connections received wide credence on campus. In fact, Warner was the

frequent antagonist of H. Gordon Hullfish, the Education professor who

served as adviser to the Bode committee and was partly responsible for

the invitation to Rugg. Moreover, simultaneous with the September

meeting of the Board of Trustees at which the Rugg matter was consid-

ered, Warner had arranged a special anti-communist program at the

 

7. Notes, Box 45, File: Rugg . . . Correspondence, L-R, The Papers of Howard L.

Bevis, RG 3/h, The Ohio State University Archives, Columbus (hereafter cited as Bevis

Papers). Statements of Students, Box 45, File: Prof. Rugg, Official Correspondence

. . ., Bevis Papers. Radio Transcript, July 15, 1951, Box 37, File: Rugg, Harold O.

(1st of 2), The Papers of the College of Education, Office of the Dean, RG 16/a, The

Ohio State University Archives.

8. "War Against the Schools" (editorial), Akron Beacon Journal, September 11,

1951. Letter to author from Dudley Williams, former Physics professor, Ohio State,

April 9, 1975. Interview with Harold Fawcett, former Education professor, Ohio State,

April 4, 1975. Letter to author from Harvey Mansfield, Sr., former Political Science

professor, Ohio State, April 8, 1975. I solicited the opinions, by questionnaire and letter,

from a number of professors and administrators who played prominent roles in these

controversies. Generally, the persons I chose to contact were members of faculty com-

mittees which became involved in the Rugg controversy.

• 4
 

298                                                       OHIO HISTORY

 

Columbus Rotary Club. Without the consent of any other members of

the program committee, Warner substituted reporter Frank Hughes for

the previously scheduled speaker. Hughes, who worked for the Chicago

Tribune, spoke about leftist propaganda in American schools, centering

his criticism on the Citizenship Education Project, sponsored by

Teachers' College at Columbia University.⁹

Without a doubt, the two conservative Columbus newspapers, the

Dispatch and the Journal, were ready to make Rugg's campus appear-

ance a cause celebre. Professor Hullfish, in his introductory remarks

before Rugg's speech of July 10, referred to the controversy already

present on the campus. On the next day, Rugg himself displayed the

news clippings about the first talk.10 These stories focused, not sur-

prisingly, on his call for a new depression. The Dispatch quoted Rugg

as saying, "I hope for a depression, but I don't think it will materialize

in the near future. Only under the stress and strain of nationwide unem-

ployment can the people be brought up short to ask why." In addition,

these newspapers noted that Rugg had predicted an increase in the

extent of the public control of production. They also made sure to show

the alleged intellectual connection between the controversial Rugg and

the faculty in the College of Education.11 By way of contrast, the other

Columbus daily, the Citizen, covered only the second day of the Bode Con-

ference. Its story included Rugg's prediction of increased public control

of the economy, but it also quoted Hullfish on his sharp philosophical

differences with Rugg.¹²

Much more vituperative and accusatory than these news stories was

the flurry of editorials and letters to the editor which followed in the

aftermath of the Rugg visit. These items detailed the two-fold case

against Harold Rugg: first, that Rugg himself was a socialist or perhaps

a communist and certainly unfit to address a college audience; second,

that Rugg's invitation could be attributed to a conspiracy within the

College of Education, which influenced the Bode committee to invite

him to indoctrinate the future teachers of Ohio's youth. The Journal

 

9. Letter to author from Harold Burtt, former Psychology professor, Ohio State,

April 3, 1975. Letter to author from Grant Stahly, former Microbiology professor,

Ohio State, March 25, 1975. Interview with Harold Fawcett. Lowell Bridwell, "Warner

Acted Alone in Blast on Educators," Columbus Citizen, September 13, 1951. Memo,

William Warner to Rotary Club, September 10, 1951, Box 37, File: Rugg, Harold O.

(lst of 2), Education Papers. "Rotary Told of Leftist School Cult," Citizen, Septem-

ber 10, 1951.

10. Notes, Box 45, File: Rugg . . . Correspondence, L-R, Bevis Papers.

11. Dean Jauchius, "Educator Tells OSU Meeting He's Hoping for Depression,"

Columbus Dispatch, July 11, 1951. "Dr. Rugg Cites Two Teacher Problems," Ohio

State Journal, July 12, 1951. Jauchius, "Rugg Is Praised by OSU Dean As Campus

Conference Ends," Dispatch, July 12, 1951.

12. "TVA Exemplifies American Way of Life, Rugg Asserts," Citizen, July 12, 1951.

• 5
 

OSU Speaker's Rule                                                299

 

seethed editorially that public funds had been expended to bring to

OSU "the Marxian doctrinaire of school textbook fame," and the Dis-

patch complained that "people who will teach hundreds of thousands

of Ohio youngsters in the years to come are being indoctrinated with

the subversive political ideas advocated by a notorious and discredited

propagandist .. .."¹³ Those persons who accused the College of

Education of harboring a "Rugg cult," dedicated to furthering his ideas,

demanded an investigation of the college by the newly-created Ohio

Un-American Activities Commission. That the evidence of this con-

spiracy would be hard to uncover, as the often anonymous accusers

admitted, was simply proof of its sinister existence.¹⁴

Rumors and suspicions persisted that Colonel Warner had master-

minded the entire anti-Rugg campaign and that he was responsible for

the anonymous letters and the editorials. Certainly, this was the opinion

held by many OSU faculty members. There is no hard evidence con-

necting Warner with the effort to besmirch Rugg and to discredit the

College of Education. Yet, a careful examination of the entire episode

leaves the inescapable conclusion that someone did engineer the whole

effort. The letters to the editor of the Journal began appearing on July

11, only one day after the Bode Conference. These writers had to be

aware of Rugg's reputation from some outside source since the only

news story announcing Rugg's invitation was a very simple, non-in-

flammatory publicity release in the Journal of July 4. Then too, the

flood of editorials and letters to the editor overpowered by far the

limited news coverage given to Rugg and strongly suggests the influ-

ence of especially interested persons.15

University President Howard Bevis at first responded to the

charges against Rugg and Ohio State by appealing to the tradition of

academic freedom, asserting that the University must allow a wide

latitude of expression. In late July, Bevis elucidated his position fur-

ther and implicitly refuted the charge of a conspiracy within the Educa-

tion faculty. In a letter to a member of the Board of Trustees, Bevis

wrote that the Bode Conference had been organized by graduate stu-

dents, that Hullfish had played an advisory role only, and that Rugg

 

13. "Dr. Rugg and His New Social Order" (editorial), Journal, July 28, 1951.

"Campus Probe in Order" (editorial), Dispatch, July 17, 1951.

14. "Investigation Called For" (editorial), Journal, July 16, 1951. "Rugg Episode

Calls for Thorough Stock Taking" (editorial), Journal, August 31, 1951. Anonymous

letter to editor, Dispatch, July 15, 1951. "Of All People, Why Rugg?" (editorial),

Journal, July 11, 1951.

15. Letter to author from Paul Varg, former History professor, Ohio State, April 11,

1975. Letter from Dudley Williams. Letters to editor, Journal, July 11, 1951. "Educa-

tors Set OSU Conference," Journal, July 4, 1951. For a summary of the case support-

ing collusion, see Ohio C.I.O. Council, Keep Them Free (Columbus, n.d.).

• 6
 

300                                           OHIO HISTORY

had been invited because the graduate student committee had selected him. Bevis added that he thought the invitation showed poor judgment and that he disagreed with much of what Rugg supposedly had said, but, "within the bounds of loyalty to the Government, considerable latitude of expression must be allowed on a university campus."16 If the attack upon Rugg's appearance had included nothing more than the virulent reactions published in the Columbus newspapers, President Bevis' public stand might well have ended the incident. But the Board of Trustees and Governor Frank Lausche also took a strong interest in the Rugg invitation, and their concern kept the controversy alive. Once the governor got involved, Bevis and the Board were quick to announce an investigation of the entire matter. As Bevis now explained to General Dargusch, the new Chairman of the Board of Trustees, the invitation to Harold Rugg was "a minor issue. The underlying and major issue is the curricular content and teaching approach in courses given to prospective teachers. ... It concerns, as I sense it, the economic, social, and political predilections, if any, which manifest themselves in the courses and the teaching."17 16. Jauchius, "Rugg Is Praised." Bevis to Robert Black (copy), July 23, 1951, Box 45, File: Prof. Rugg, Official Correspondence, Bevis Papers. 17. Benjamin Fine, "Education in Review: Issue of Academic Freedom Is Raised Again, This Time at Ohio State University," New York Times, October 28, 1951. "OSU's Trustees Plan Rugg Probe," Journal, July 19, 1951. Bevis to Dargusch, July 21, 1951, Box 45, File: Prof. Rugg, Official Correspondence, Bevis Papers.

• 7
 

OSU Speaker's Rule                                                301

 

Yet the result of this investigation, which took better than a month

to conclude, had very little to do with curricular content and teaching

approach. Instead, at the September meeting of the Board at Gibraltar

Island, Ohio, the Trustees passed a resolution commanding the Presi-

dent to establish procedures, "under which all proposed invitations to

speakers appearing on the University campus or under University

auspices, shall be submitted to his office for clearance ten days prior to

the extension of the actual invitation by the individual, department or

College concerned." This resolution, which came to be known as the

Speaker's Rule, was accompanied by a statement in which the Board

condemned the Rugg invitation as "not in accord with the traditions

and objectives of the Ohio State University. . . . The function of a

University," the statement concluded, "is teaching, not indoctrination.

The University must not be used as an agency of un-American propa-

ganda."¹⁸ Thus it was that the original concern of President Bevis for

preserving the widest latitude in matters of free speech on campus was

subordinated to the Board's desire to insulate the University from indoc-

trination and propaganda, the presence of which was to be determined

by the president.19

The furor set off by the announcement of this policy far surpassed the

original uproar over Rugg's appearance. The sustained outburst of

opposition caught Bevis and the Board completely by surprise. The

controversy over academic freedom which the Board had sought to

stifle mushroomed as protests to the resolution, now dubbed the "gag

rule," rose from inside and outside the campus.²0 In addition, the imple-

mentation of the rule by the President soon became both an intolerable

administrative burden and a severe interference with the normal course

of education on the campus. Critics of the rule, including faculty mem-

bers, church leaders, civic and professional groups, and private citizens,

accused the Board of repressing freedom in the name of defending it.

They argued that the issues at stake in the country at large could be met

only by discussing them openly, and they rejected the Trustees' implicit

assumption that college students could not grapple successfully with

controversial ideas. Perhaps the most strident objection to the rule

came from the Cleveland Press:

 

 

18. Minutes, Board of Trustees, September 4, 1951, typed copy, Box 45, File: Prof.

Rugg, Official Correspondence, Bevis Papers. "Campus Speakers: President Must

Clear Them," Ohio State University Monthly, XLIII (October 15, 1951), 5.

19. It would be foolish to assume that each member of the Board of Trustees re-

acted exactly the same to the Rugg crisis, but the Board always met in secret, published

abbreviated proceedings, and spoke in public with one voice.

20. Letter to author from Robert Patton, former Economics professor, Ohio State,

March 28, 1975.

• 8
 

302                                                       OHIO HISTORY

 

In their [the Board's] apparent determination to play star chamber censors

to a great public education institution, they ignored the earnest wishes of most

of the faculty. . . . The greatest danger, of course, is the strong possibility

that these first tragic repressions will snowball. When you start monkeying

with people's freedom to think and act, you get intellectual zombies in a

terrible hurry. Everybody votes Ja.²¹

Although many faculty members made known their opposition to the

rule as soon as it was announced, the full extent of faculty disapproval

did not emerge until Bevis began to implement its provisions. Initially,

when debate over the rule was still just a matter of principle (because

classes were in recess until the end of September), protest seems to

have come most frequently from the Colleges of Arts and Sciences,

Education, and Law. Soon, though, these faculty members were joined

by other colleagues as the full burden of the rule was realized. As imple-

mented by President Bevis, the rule called for every sponsor of every

invited speaker to fill out and file with the President a detailed ques-

tionnaire prior to the issuance of any invitation. This form included

spaces to list the sponsoring organization, describe the character of the

meeting, and supply biographical data on the proposed speaker as well

as "any pertinent information affecting the desireability of his appear-

ance as a speaker on the campus." Each form had then to be co-signed

by the appropriate dean and filed ten days in advance of the proposed

22

appearance.

It soon became apparent that the speaker's rule was an administra-

tive and intellectual nightmare. In the three weeks after the rule's

adoption, Bevis had to rule on 138 separate requests, each one demand-

ing, in effect, its own security investigation. This process was not only

a physical impossibility, but required the President to rule on the fit-

ness of individuals about whom he often knew very little. In addition,

there were several activities scheduled at the University, such as the

annual Institute for Education by Radio-Television and the opening of

new health education and medical facilities which, with their huge num-

ber of participants, put an intolerable strain on this haphazardly con-

structed system.²³ More serious than this bureaucratic problem was the

21. "Gag at Ohio State" (editorial), Toledo Blade, n.d.; "Let Us Hear" (editorial),

Ohio State Lantern, n.d.; Letter of Walter McCaslin, Jr., to editor, Ohio State Univer-

sity Monthly; "Book Burning Next?" (editorial), Cleveland Press, n.d., all in Ohio State

University Monthly, XLIII (November 15, 1951), 8, 9, 10, 15. There are several files

of correspondence and reactions to the rule in Boxes 45 and 46 of the Bevis Papers.

22. Letter to author from Robert Patton. Letter to author from Harold Burtt. Sam-

ple questionnaire; Bevis to Dean Donald Cottrell, College of Education (copy), Sep-

tember 24, 1951, both in Box 45, File: Prof. Rugg, Official Correspondence, Bevis

Papers.

23. "Campus Speakers," 5. Interview with Harold Fawcett. I. Keith Tyler, Director,

Office of Radio Communication, to Bevis, October 10, 1951, Box 47, File: Speaker

• 9
 

OSU Speaker's Rule                                                    303

 

startling decision by groups and individuals alike to avoid coming to

Columbus or, in the case of Ohio State faculty, to rescind invitations

rather than subject guests to the new rule. The American Physical

Society moved its 1952 meeting of some eight hundred physicists from

Columbus to Chicago, and the Art Section of the Ohio Education

Association switched its conference to Canton. One prospective

speaker, a psychologist, explained quite clearly why he would not sub-

mit to the screening process. An unfavorable report would be highly

undesirable, he argued, but even a satisfactory clearance would tie him

to the views of the Board, with which he disagreed.²⁴

The speaker's rule did far more than cause bureaucratic inconven-

ience and a decrease in the number of guest speakers on campus. When

Bevis declined to approve a proposed speaker, the inescapable

implication was that the individual was subversive. This was exactly

the case when Bevis refused to allow Dr. Cecil Hinshaw, a Quaker and

a pacifist, to address the student chapter of the Fellowship of Recon-

ciliation. Hinshaw's record bore no trace of subversion, and he was in

fact staunchly anti-communist, but Bevis' negative decision reflected

adversely on Hinshaw's reputation.²⁵ The rule could be as damaging as

its most vocal critics feared. When Bevis consistently refused to reveal

his reasons for banning Hinshaw, other invitations to him were can-

celled, and his reputation was injured. Bevis' silence on the matter soon

became an issue in itself. Hinshaw's repeated requests that Bevis

explain the ban went unfulfilled, and Hinshaw left Columbus unsatis-

fied and vexed. Privately, Bevis argued that neither Hinshaw's pacifism

nor his Quakerism had caused the ban; instead, Bevis objected to Hin-

shaw's public insistence on his right to counsel men to violate the draft

law. The Ohio State president believed that such a position, if ex-

pressed on campus, could have subjected the University to legal dif-

ficulties.²⁶

Faced with a barrage of criticism during the first weeks of the rule's

application, President Bevis made an administrative adjustment to

 

Rule Clearances, Bevis Papers. Dean Charles Doan, College of Medicine, to Bevis,

October 11, 1951, Box 45, File: Prof. Rugg, Official Correspondence, Bevis Papers.

24. "Screening Rule: Issue Becomes National," Ohio State University Monthly,

XLIII (November 15, 1951), 6-7. Manuel Barkan, Professor of Fine Arts, to Bevis,

November 2, 1951; Oscar Adams, Professor of Psychology, to Bevis, November 7,

1951, both in Box 45, File: Rugg . . . Correspondence, A-D, Bevis Papers.

25. Hinshaw request, n.d.; Bevis to Wilbur Held, faculty adviser, Fellowship of Re-

conciliation (copy), September 29, 1951, both in Box 45, File: Rugg . . . Correspon-

dence, E-K, Bevis Papers. Jack Fullen, "Letter from Home: Background On Screen-

ing," Ohio State University Monthly, XLIII (November 15, 1951), 1.

26. Citizen, October 5, 1951. Hinshaw letter to editor, Citizen, October 22, 1951.

Bevis to William Greeley (copy), January 1, 1952, Box 45, File: Rugg . . . Corres-

pondence, E-K, Bevis Papers.

• 10
 

304                                                       OHIO HISTORY

 

reduce his own staffs investigatory responsibilities. This change re-

quired faculty to supply more biographical information on potential

speakers. But the Board, Bevis, and the governor all stood firm in

defense of the basic policy. General Dargusch argued that the rule had

nothing to do with academic freedom, but was merely a way to prevent

Ohio State from being used by "those who would subvert our people

and destroy our institutions by force or other unconstitutional means or

to those who lend aid, comfort and assistance to such persons." Senator

Bricker agreed with Dargusch, and Governor Lausche, in part responsi-

ble for the Trustees' initial concern over Rugg, refused to tamper with

the rule. He asserted simply that "someone has to assume the respon-

sibility of seeing to it that those who want to overthrow our Government

are not allowed to speak at the university."²⁷

Faculty opposition to the speaker's rule was at first sporadic, disor-

ganized, and limited to certain departments.²⁸ But, as more faculty

members came to see that the rule would hamper their own activities

and would not be confined to the rooting out of "subversives," the

faculty began to organize opposition to the Trustees' position. The

Planning Committee of the Faculty of the College of Education called

a meeting of the entire Education faculty at which a resolution was

passed expressing concern that the Board had infringed upon the

traditional principle of faculty responsibility for academic freedom. The

resolution urged the Faculty Council and the Conference Committee of

the Teaching Staff to seek redress of this grievance.²⁹

As these two faculty groups began to consider how best to deal with

the crisis, at least one member of the Board suggested to Bevis that the

rule needed further interpretation and clarification.³⁰ Simultaneously,

Academic Affairs Vice-President Frederic Heimberger recommended

to Bevis a list of faculty members who could be called upon to work

out a modus vivendi with the Trustees. These two developments were

without doubt inspired in part by the growing array of faculty oppo-

sition. At the same time, the Trustees may well have been influenced

by the moderation of both the Faculty Council and the Conference

Committee. Neither body demanded a completely unrestricted

 

27. "Campus Speakers," 5. Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 27, 1951. Citizen, Oc-

tober 4, 16, 1951.

28. For an example of faculty support of the rule, see J. F. Haskins, Professor of

Physics, to Bevis, n.d., Box 45, File: Prof. Rugg, Official Correspondence, Bevis Papers.

29. Memo, Planning Committee, College of Education, to Education Faculty, Sep-

tember 27, 1951, Box 37, File: Rugg . . . Correspondence . . . (confidential), Educa-

tion Papers. Education Faculty resolution, October 2, 1951, Box 45, File: Prof. Rugg,

Official Correspondence, Bevis Papers.

30. Robert Gorman to Bevis, October 11, 1951, Box 45, File: Rugg . . .Correspon-

dence, E-K, Bevis Papers.

• 11
 

OSU Speaker's Rule                                                 305

 

approach to the speaker question. The resolution passed by both

groups admitted that fundamental freedoms were subject to abuse and

that indoctrination could be a problem. But the faculty felt aggrieved

that the Board of Trustees had not demonstrated enough confidence in

them to let them handle the situation, as they had in the past. Their

resolution, moreover, attacked the new rule's bureaucratic require-

ments which virtually ruled out the appearance of any speaker on short

notice.31

The faculty-passed resolution established a basis for compromise

between the existing Speaker's Rule and no rule at all. Even before the

Faculty Council approved the resolution on October 9, a group of

faculty members and several Trustees held an informal meeting.³²

Although some Board members accepted the evidence of a subversive

conspiracy within the Education faculty and although some faculty

members resented even the slightest administrative intrusion into

academic conduct, the moderate stance expressed in the faculty reso-

lution allowed this small group to begin to seek a solution to the prob-

lem which was creating so many difficulties on the campus.

Once members of the Board of Trustees learned firsthand the true

depth of faculty feeling on the issue, the Board itself began a tortuous

effort to extricate itself from the full consequences of its action. There

was some speculation that the abandonment of Columbus by profes-

sional societies and conference groups had had a severely adverse effect

on the city's hotel and restaurant trade, and that this development influ-

enced the Trustees. More important, perhaps, was the Board's percep-

tion that it had over-reacted in September and that Ohio State was

being severely criticized in the national media, including the New York

Times.³³ Whatever the reasons, the Board met at Wooster, Ohio, on

October 15 and proceeded to modify its rule. Although the only sub-

stantive change was the suspension of the ten-day clearance provision,

the Board agreed to meet with the new, formally established Faculty

Council Committee, the successor to the informal faculty group. At

the same time, the Trustees issued a new clarifying statement, designed

"to encourage the fullest academic freedom consistent with national

security."³⁴ Still, the Speaker's Rule stood firm, and, as General Dar-

 

31. Heimberger to Bevis, October 5, 1951, Box 45, File: Rugg . . . Correspondence,

E-K, Bevis Papers. Conference Committee to Bevis, October 4, 1951, Box 45, File:

Rugg . . . Correspondence, A-D, Bevis Papers. Minutes, Faculty Council, Ohio State

University, October 9, 1951, 2-9.

32. Pollard, Bevis, 146.

33. Milt Widder, "Sights and Sounds," Cleveland Press, November 17, 1951. New

York Times, October 27, 28, 30, 1951.

34. Minutes, Board of Trustees, October 15, 1951, typed copy, Box 45, File: Prof.

Rugg, Official Correspondence, Bevis Papers. Plain Dealer, October 16, 1951.

• 12
 

306                                                       OHIO HISTORY

 

gusch asserted, "The president of Ohio State still has the final say

about campus speakers."³⁵

The Faculty Council Committee, consisting of five members and two

alternates, met with four Trustees on two occasions, October 26 and

November 16. At the first session, the Board members asked the Faculty

Committee for a statement of principles and procedures which would

embrace the faculty position and still preserve the Board's intentions.

At the second meeting, the Committee delivered such a statement,

which indicted the Trustees for placing "restrictions on freedom of

discussion and investigation. By such rules imposed on the Faculty

there is a danger of indoctrination by exclusion of unpopular ideas."

The Committee recommended that the issue be resolved in favor of free

discussion, but they also proposed that the decision to invite speakers

whose views might be contrary to the overall well-being of the Uni-

versity be made by the inviting faculty member in consultation with

his colleagues, his chairman, his dean, and the President, if necessary.36

Had the Board accepted the Committee's position without alteration,

the supporters of academic freedom at Ohio State would have been

more than completely vindicated. The rule would have been revoked,

the Board would have lost face, and even the traditional, pre-Rugg

restraints would have been jeopardized. But this did not occur. Instead,

the Trustees took the first official faculty proposal under advisement

and, in the interim, approved additional interpretations of the rule.

These changes, announced by Bevis on November 8 after he had con-

sulted with Dargusch, granted permission for faculty members to

invite any speaker to a class, without Presidential clearance, relying

only on a professor's own judgment; they also provided that off-campus

organizations and professional societies could meet without any

clearance procedure as long as they accepted responsibility for their

own speakers. The Board approved these interpretations on November

12.³⁷

Neither the first meeting between the Board and the Faculty Com-

mittee nor the November interpretations entirely quelled opposition

to the Speaker's Rule. The Ohio State chapter of the American Asso-

ciation of University Professors voted to oppose the rule, and the

 

35. Lantern, October 16, 1951.

36. Pollard, Bevis, 148-49. Faculty Council Committee Statement, November 19,

1951, Box 45, File: Prof. Rugg, Official Correspondence, Bevis Papers.

37. Bevis to Dargusch (memo), November 6, 1951, Box 45, File: Prof. Rugg, Of-

ficial Correspondence, Bevis Papers. Announcement of Interpretations, November 8,

1951, Box 11, File: Speaker's Rule Controversy, The Papers of the College of Arts

and Sciences, Office of the Dean, RG 24/a, The Ohio State University Archives. Min-

utes, Board of Trustees, November 12, 1951, typed copy, Box 45, File: Prof. Rugg, Of-

ficial Correspondence, Bevis Papers.

• 13
 

OSU Speaker's Rule                                                  307

 

national AAUP threatened an official censure. The Graduate School

Council refused to approve the interpretations, voting instead to sup-

port the Faculty Committee in its continuing talks with the Trustees.

In a special referendum, Ohio State students voted 2986 to 637 to

oppose the rule, and Dean Donald Cottrell of the College of Education

wrote that the faculty's fight had not yet been won. Finally, the Educa-

tion Faculty adopted a statement which sought to counteract the con-

spiracy charge and to re-state their principles and motives, so sharply

impugned by the local press.³⁸

Final action on the Rugg controversy was taken by the Board of

Trustees at its December 10 meeting. After intensive private consulta-

tions involving Bevis, Board members, and members of the Faculty

Committee, a detailed response to the November 16 faculty proposal

was worked out to the parties' mutual satisfaction. On December 13,

Bevis announced an extensive, three-part revision of the policy on out-

side speakers. Responsibility for inviting speakers and determining

their fitness was to rest with the faculty. When a speaker's fitness was

questionable, a decision on the invitation would be made through the

consultation process detailed in the faculty proposal. In addition, a

Committee of Evaluation was to be established to report annually on

the operation of the new procedure. The Board had approved these

changes on December 10, and the Faculty Council agreed on the 11th.39

The controversy surrounding the invitation and appearance of Harold

Rugg at Ohio State was an intense, protracted struggle which aroused

passions and divided the University community. Both sides realized that

they were arguing over those principles by which the University should

be run. So vociferous was this battle and so basic the issue it raised that

neither side ever acknowledged defeat. The Board of Trustees never

completely revoked nor repealed its September 4 resolution. In each

month, October, November, and December, the Board clearly labelled

its action as a new "interpretation." Just before the December Board

meeting, at least one Trustee still insisted that Rugg had been invited

surreptitiously, that the invitation had violated a longstanding, unwrit-

 

 

38. George Eckelberry, "Academic Freedom at Ohio State University," Journal of

Higher Education, XXII (December 1951), 497-98. Citizen, November 7, 1951. Dean

N. Paul Hudson, Graduate School, to Bevis, November 12, 1951, Box 45, File: Prof.

Rugg, Official Correspondence, Bevis Papers. "OSU Students Vote Against Gag,"

Plain Dealer, November 16, 1951. Cottrell to Benjamin Fine, November 12, 1951,

Box 25, File: Fine, Dr. Benjamin, Education Papers. Faculty, College of Education,

"A Statement," Educational Research Bulletin, XXX (December 12, 1951), 1-6.

39. James Fullington, Faculty Council Committee, to Bevis, December 7, 1951,

Box 45, File: Rugg . . . Correspondence, E-K, Bevis Papers. Minutes, Board of Trus-

tees, December 10, 1951, typed copy, Box 45, File: Prof. Rugg, Official Correspondence,

Bevis Papers. Minutes, Faculty Council, December 11, 1951, 26-32.

• 14
 

308                                                        OHIO HISTORY

 

ten policy, and that the Speaker's Rule had done nothing more than

formalize that policy.⁴⁰

On the other side, the faculty never totally assented to the December

compromise. One member of the Faculty Committee argued strongly

that the Board never admitted that the rule was wrong in principle but

adjusted it simply to improve its workability. Another Committee mem-

ber thought that the compromise fell substantially short of the Com-

mittee proposal, that at least some faculty members were still unhappy,

but that its real effect "was to break down moral support for opposition

to the clearance rule."⁴1

Between these two groups stood President Bevis, who did not

emerge unscathed from the controversy. Whatever Bevis' commitment

to academic freedom, he was constrained by a Board of Trustees who

controlled policy and, with the legislature, the purse strings of the

University. After his initial defense of academic freedom, Bevis kept

his own views to himself and did the Board's bidding. He incurred the

faculty's wrath for not representing their point of view, especially in

public. But it is doubtful that he could have remained as President had

he opposed the Trustees, and even then, their course might not have

been altered. However important the free discussion of ideas was to

Bevis and the Trustees, in 1951, with Americans on the battlefield in

Korea, controversy even remotely connected with national security

would not be tolerated.⁴²

For several years thereafter, the Committee of Evaluation, estab-

lished by the Board of Trustees in December 1951, made a diligent effort

to assess the effects of the Trustees' actions on academic freedom. Each

year, the Faculty Council elected the Committee, which solicited faculty

opinion by means of a questionnaire and reported its findings to the

President. The results of these surveys strongly suggest that even by

1952 the controversy had pretty much waned. Throughout the remain-

der of the politically quiescent decade the procedures worked out in

December 1951 were effective in preventing any further incidents

over the suitability of campus speakers.⁴³

 

 

 

40. Statement of Robert Gorman, Board of Trustees, December 6, 1951, Ohio State

University Monthly, XLIII (January 15, 1952), 33-34.

41. Letter to author from Dudley Williams. Dean Jefferson Fordham, College of Law,

to Gorman, February 2, 1952, Box 26, File: Gorman, Robert N., Education Papers.

42. On Bevis' attitude see letter to author from Harvey Mansfield, Sr.; letter to

author from Harold Burtt; letter to author from Grant Stahly; and Rod Peattie, Professor

of Geography, to Bevis, n.d., Box 45, File: Prof. Rugg, Official Correspondence, Bevis

Papers.

43. Report on the Speaker's Rule, 1952, Box 11, File: Speaker's Rule Controversy,

Arts and Sciences Papers. Some faculty members commented that no incidents had

• 15
 

OSU Speaker's Rule                                                        309

 

The failure of the 1951 compromise to resolve the dispute became

apparent to all when political life revived on campus in the early 1960s.

The administration invoked the speaker's rule to ban California radical

William Marx Mandel in 1961, to prevent three opponents of the House

Un-American Activities Committee from speaking in 1962, and to

bar Communist party theoretician Herbert Aptheker from addressing a

campus audience three years later. Despite the vigorous protests of

students and faculty, the Board of Trustees reaffirmed the speaker's rule

in May 1965 and reserved for the administration ultimate authority in the

matter.44   Free speech remained fettered at The Ohio State University.⁴⁵

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

arisen because no controversial speakers had been approached to come to campus.

Another wanted a prominent liberal to be invited, presumably by someone else, simply

to test the new rules.

44. Columbus Dispatch, April 26, 27, 28, 1962, April 24, May 21, 23, 1965; New York

Times, April 26, 1962, April 24, May 21, June 9, 1965.

45. As of March 1978 there continues to be a university rule governing the appear-

ance of guest speakers on campus. Rule 3335-5-06 of the University's Administrative

Code states: "It is the policy of the university to foster a spirit of free inquiry and to

encourage the timely discussion of the broad range of issues which concern our nation.

... no topic or issue is too controversial for intelligent discussion on the campus.

Restraints on free inquiry should be held to that minimum which is consistent with

preserving an organized society in which change is accomplished by peaceful, demo-

cratic means."

Recognized student organizations and faculty members may invite guest speakers

subject to provisions that the sponsor insure that the meeting be orderly, that it be

made clear that the speaker expresses his or her own views, and that the sponsor pro-

vide means for "critical evaluation of a speaker's view," including as a minimum an

open question period.

The current rule also provides for those situations when a speaker's appearance may

create "extreme emotional feeling." In these cases, the steering committee of the uni-

versity senate has the right to "prescribe conditions for the orderly and scholarly con-

duct of the meeting but may not select the speaker or topic." The steering committee

may require that a tenured faculty member chair the meeting, that attendance be lim-

ited to students, faculty, and staff, that additional speakers be scheduled at the same

meeting or at subsequent meetings, or that a debate format be utilized.

Finally, the present rule notes that no speaker may advocate or "urge the audience

to take action which is illegal under the laws of the United States, the state of Ohio, or

which is prohibited by the rules of the university." Sponsors must inform each speaker

of this prohibition in writing.

• 16