User:T laq202/sandbox

The Lafayette College Academic Freedom Controversy of 1913

The Lafayette Academic Freedom Controversy of 1913 resulted with a list of the constraints on academic freedoms. Initially imposed by President Ethelbert Dudley Warfield on John Mecklin at Lafayette College. The controversy of academic freedoms was truly caused by Warfield's adamant accusations of Mecklin's teaching. Warfield's made an effort to constrict Mecklin in his academic teachings and through this his academic freedoms as well. These efforts added to the continuous altercations in the academic community that surrounded both Lafayette and other institutions. The unrest shared between Lafayette and other institutions, initiated the development of the American Association of University Professors. Contrary to belief, students expressed their pride and respect for their professors and in freedom of their academic career. Examples of freedom in academics can be cognizant in the Lafayette College [Class of 1912]. Students stood up for their professors, marched and dressed in outfits resembling Uncle Sam. Some, in the Class of 1913, even dressed in pirate costumes, with gaily colored shirts, red trousers and black headbands, giving the class the nickname "the pirates."

History

In 1891, after serving as Miami University’s youngest president, Ethelbert Warfield became the eighth president of Lafayette College. In the first decade of his administration, President Warfield had full support of his student body. The campus publications spoke of him in a continually active light. President Warfield was a man of deep Presbyterian faith, and became an ordained Presbyterian minister in 1899 before taking a leave of absence in Europe from 1902-1903. Upon returning to the United States, he became the president of the board of trustees for the Princeton Theological Seminary. This enforcement of his firm Presbyterian beliefs led him to conclude that the success of the college relied on their consistent application and understanding. Lafayette thus became influenced by Presbyterian imperialism. This change in behavior by President Warfield and overall environment was not received well by Lafayette’s students. In protest, they would tap their hymn books or cough incessantly to cause distractions whenever President Warfield would speak. The faculty also became increasingly displeased with him and felt that their participation in religious activities were prioritized over their accomplishments in the classroom. President Warfield insisted that instruction ought to be, “within the lines of general acceptance among evangelical Christians.” In 1905, President Warfield appointed a teaching position to Dr. Mecklin, an endowed chair in the field of Mental and Moral Philosophy. Dr. Mecklin struck President Warfleid as appropriate for the college and its Presbyterian beliefs. He was a man of Presbyterian education and upbringing as the son of an orthodox Presbyterian pastor. Having earned a degree from the Princeton Theological Seminary as well as a German Doctorate, President Warfield believed that Dr. Mecklin would be perfect for the continuation of his ideals. President Warfield described him as having had the “correct pedigree." However, once he began teaching at Lafayette, President Warfield began to question Dr. Mecklin's strictly Presbyterian heritage whom had begun to defend traditional Christianity in his teachings.

Early on in Dr. Mecklin’s time at the college, he became captivated with the philosophical teachings of pragmatism by William James. Pragmatism contrasted sharply with President Warfield's views both personally as well as in the classroom. President Warfield in the past had taught a senior course centered on defending traditional Christian views against modern thought. He expected Dr. Mecklin to do the same. His views, however, were rapidly developing as a result of James' instructions, and he moved further and further away from his traditional Presbyterian upbringing. He saw the ideas in philosophy as constantly changing and evolving. His view, in comparison to that of President Warfield, was to reconcile the Christian heritage with modern thought rather than defend it.

Dr. Mecklin's progressive ideas made him an intellectual leader at Lafayette. He garnered the respect and admiration of fellow faculty members. Despite President Warfield's attempts to restrict Dr. Mecklin's expression in class, the faculty clearly sided with Dr. Mecklin over President Warfield. In the face of content-restricting requests from President Warfield via the Board of Trustees, Dr. Mecklin insisted he was merely teaching the students to think independently and that honest intellectual inquiry could not be a threat to faith. His defense was successful, but his conflict with President Warfield continued throughout his time at Lafayette.

Events at Lafayette College

1909: President Warfield reviews the work of Dr. John M. Mecklin

President Warfield felt the changes in Dr. Mecklin's teaching philosophies were unprecedented. President Warfield sharply questioned the orthodoxy of Dr. Mecklin's teaching method. In 1909, he suggested to Lafayette's Board of Trustees that the duties of Dr. Mecklin be revised. The Board appointed a committee to headline this investigation. President Warfield recommended that Dr. Mecklin be relieved from his duties as a professor of his Theism and Christian evidence class. He then became the professor of a Sophomore Greek class. The committee, in an attempt to compromise, let Dr. Mecklin keep his course in Theism and Christian evidences. However, they also made him teach an elective course in Philosophic Greek.

Shot of Lafayette College's from West Pardee (C. 1909)

Commencement 1912: A Message to the President

In the spring of 1912, commencement speaker and valedictorian William G. Simpson openly discussed his and his fellow graduates' dislike for President Warfield and presented his objections to Dr. Mecklin's teaching. The students' outward disrespect was shown when they began tapping their books while President Warfield spoke, as well as setting alarms that would systematically sound off one after another, in different rooms and buildings until it proved to be utterly disruptive. These actions could not be interpreted in any other way then complete disrespect towards President Warfield. Until Simpson's valedictory speech, the students' actions were hardly visible, but after their feelings were loud and clear.

Spring 1913: President Warfield objected to Mecklin's textbooks

In the spring of 1913, the tension between President Warfield and Dr. Mecklin became much worse. President Warfield explained to the Board of Trustees why he did not approve of the textbooks that Dr. Mecklin used in his Philosophy class. Dr. Mecklin was confused as to why President Warfield had an issue with the textbooks, as they were the same ones that the rest of the philosophy department, and other colleges used. Dr. Mecklin successfully defended his teaching methods to the Board, but this did not entirely settle the issues between himself and President Warfield. In an attempt to receive President Warfield's approval, Dr. Mecklin sent Presdient Warfield copies of exams from his Theism course. The attempt backfired, as it provided proof in President Warfield’s eyes that Dr. Mecklin contradicted the religious views of the college.

Later that spring, the day before the commencement of 1913, Dr. Mecklin again appeared before the Board. President Warfield had finally convinced the trustees that Dr. Mecklin’s teachings challenged the religious viewpoint of the college. Dr. Mecklin accordingly resigned following the meeting.

News of Dr. Mecklin’s resignation reached members of the senior class at a baseball game on March field the following day. The students of the Senior class were infuriated and ready to take action. They immediately began planning a demonstration for that evening. However, a member of the Board of Trustees persuaded them otherwise. The class then took action in an alternative way and announced a statement in regards to their class gift of $200 that the Board had previously accepted:

Whereas the Class of 1913 is thoroughly convinced that President Warfield has demonstrated his incapacity to fill the position of President of Lafayette College, and that his continuance in office is against the best interests of the college; Therefore be it, Resolved, that the gift of the Class of 1913 to the college be withheld until a change be made in the administration of the college.

Commencement 1913: Student uproar

The day after Dr. Mecklin announced his resignation was the commencement ceremony for the class of 1913. During commencement, the graduating class directed their disapproval and anger towards the president as a result of Dr. Mecklin’s resignation. While President Warfield delivered his commencement speech, the entire class made tapping noises and fell into simultaneous coughing fits in order to drown out the president's words. However, when other speakers were at the podium, the students were quiet and attentive.

Following the commencement ceremony, students gathered out front of Dr. Mecklin's home near campus. They expressed their gratitude for his teachings and remorse that he was no longer a member of the faculty at the college. Dr. Mecklin spoke to the students and expressed his gratitude for their loyalty to him.

After their visit to Dr. Mecklin's home, the class attended the commencement luncheon, where alumni and faculty gathered in the Lafayette College gymnasium. The class chanted their class theme song prior to entering the room, which ended with the line "to hell with President Warfield." Dr. Warfield kept his composure throughout the event despite the student uproar.

February 1914: President Warfield resigns

Ethelbert Dudley Warfield, previous president of Lafayette College.

In February 1914, the Lafayette College Board of Trustees met to discuss the termination of President Warfield following his dispute with Dr. Mecklin’s teachings. The Board came to the conclusion that President Warfield should not remain the president of the college based off his actions. Members of the Board then informed President Warfield of their decision. On February 12th, 1914, President Warfield presented his letter of resignation to the Board. The Board granted President Warfield two years salary for his services to the College. After the dust settled from President Warfield’s resignation, members of the Lafayette community began to reflect on the all good he did for the college. Within President Warfield’s 23 years of presidency, Lafayette had grown from 250 students to 569, the faculty had grown from 22 to 56, and 22 new buildings had been added to the college. President Warfield also worked persistently with students to eliminate hazing from the Lafayette campus. President Warfield’s final few months as President, he suspended 54 students who were involved in a hazing incident. Although President Warfield ran into controversy with Dr. Mecklin, he still is credited with building a strong foundation for Lafayette to grow on.

Mecklin's Role in the Formation of the AAUP

Beginning of AAUP

The AAUP made academic freedom its early focus more by accident than by design, due to events taking place at colleges and universities at the time of its founding. If there was a particular academic freedom case before the founding of the AAUP that was specifically responsible for setting the course of the Association, it was arguably that of John Mecklin at Lafayette College. On May 16th, 1963, Dr. Mecklin reached out to Edward Ross at the University of Wisconsin, seeking assistance in finding a new teaching position. He wrote, “my only excuse for thrusting myself, a total stranger, upon you, if indeed it may be called an excuse, is first the debt I owe to you in my thinking and teaching and secondly the fact that in your academic career you have stood for the things that are just now under fire in my own work in this college.” This was following a review of Dr. Mecklin’s teaching materials and assignments conducted by President Warfield that yielded unsatisfactorily non-traditional content and ideas. You will readily understand that I can hardly keep my self-respect and retain the position that I hold. The letter that Lafayette College President Warfield had sent Dr. Mecklin, quoted in Lovejoy’s subsequent report, stated, "[O]bligations I can not escape make it necessary for me to ask you to give a full and clear statement with regard to your teaching, and to say... as president of the college I insist that the instruction in the department of philosophy shall be consistent with the professions made by its authorities. I shall be glad to give you every opportunity to explain your opinions and your teachings, but I ask that you do so explain them or retire from the chair which you occupy." In addition to the use of certain textbooks that raised President Warfield’s concern, his main objection was to the application of evolutionary theory in Dr. Mecklin’s classes. After being called in front of a committee of the governing board twice to explain himself, Dr. Mecklin resigned. His forced resignation was reported in Cattell’s journal Science, and Dr. Mecklin himself issued an additional explanatory statement in the Journal of Philosophy. As a result, a joint committee of the American Psychological Association and the American Philosophical Association was appointed to investigate the case under the chairmanship of Arthur Lovejoy.

Events Preceding Dismissal

Without the events preceding Dr. Mecklin’s resignation, the AAUP would likely have still been formed. But, the involvement of the Lafayette students and faculty in the events protesting his termination demonstrated the passion beyond those inspired to take action in professorial equity in American colleges and universities.

Although the use of certain textbooks was President Warfield’s first accusation of Dr. Mecklin, his main objection was to the application of evolutionary theory in Dr. Mecklin’s classes. This theory caused him to be called in front of a committee of the governing board twice, where Mecklin explained himself. After failing to offer an acceptable explanation, he resigned with the influence of the Board. His forced resignation was reported in Cattell’s Science Journal, and Dr. Mecklin issued an additional explanatory statement in the Journal of Philosophy. As a result of this statement, a joint committee of the American Psychological Association, was appointed to investigate the case under the chairmanship of Arthur Lovejoy.

At Lafayette, the students’ response to Dr. Mecklin’s dismissal brought about the eventual resignation of President Warfield. The student body had for some time been dissatisfied with the president’s old-fashioned views and had regularly disrupted his chapel services. The following excerpt from David Skillman’s History of Lafayette, sheds light on the expectations the college had for the balance between religion and coursework:

"The aim of Lafayette College is distinctly religious. Under the general direction of the Synod of Pennsylvania of the Presbyterian Church, its instruction is in full sympathy with the doctrines of that body. At the same time religious instruction is carried on with a view to a broad and general development of Christian character, within the lines of general acceptance among evangelical Christians, the points of agreement, rather than those of disagreement, being dwelt upon."

The last sentence would appear to indicate the understanding upon which Dr. Mecklin accepted the call to the professorship of philosophy and psychology in 1904; he writes that throughout his career he recognized that his teaching, as well as that of every other professor, was to be "in accord with Christianity in the broad evangelical interpretation of that term."

Professor John Mecklin with Dartmouth College's Canoe Club (1920-1921)

On May 16, 1913, Dr. Mecklin wrote to Edward Ross, who was at the University of Wisconsin, to seek assistance in finding another position. After his dismissal, Dr. Mecklin taught at the University of Pittsburgh. He joined the AAUP as a charter member in 1915 and later moved to Dartmouth College, from where he retired. Dr. Mecklin published an autobiography, My Quest for Freedom, which provides additional details of his dismissal.

The committee conclude that at Lafayette College at the present time tenure of the professorship of philosophy and psychology was, in practice, subject, not only to the requirement that the teachings of the incumbent would be in substantial harmony with the commonly accepted doctrines of the Presbyterian Church, but also to the requirement that his teachings would be in substantial harmony with the theological opinions of the administrative authorities of the college, and with their interpretation of the philosophical implications of those opinions.

Contribution to AAUP Formation

In addition to Lovejoy’s involvement, the Dr. Mecklin case was cited as a reason for the establishment of a committee on academic freedom by three professional associations of social scientists. The work of that committee throughout 1914 led Seligman to propose the issue of academic freedom to the organizational meeting of the AAUP. “That the AAUP is old but it has recent gains in membership- over 70 per cent in the last decennium”. “This society neither penalizes those who do not join it nor monopolizes the loyalties of those who do. It is not trying to become a polarizing force in order to solidify allegiances.” Critical, not congratulatory, high expectations for themselves “Thanks to the research-oriented institutions and the scientists and scholars they assembled, we were no longer an academically backward people who had to go to the Germans for edification, the way the Romans once went to the Hellenes.” “Some felt that the enlargement of academic units had given undue power to administrations: growth, they said, fostered usurpation.” There was an identified lack in wage shift as cost of living rose which was concluded by studies about professors who were being underpaid.

Graduate programs were not all on par with one another Schools began hiring professors in poor distribution of experience “In the spring of 1913, a letter signed by eighteen full professors on the faculty of the Johns Hopkins University was sent to persons of equal rank at nine other leading universities urging them to join in the formation of a national association of professors.” “650 persons, chosen for their prominence in their disciplines, accepted the invitation to become charter members; in January, 1915, at a convention of academic luminaries, the American Association of University Professors was born.”

Mission and Application of AAUP Practices

• Started the probationary practice (pre-cursor to tenure) “In theory, the probationary system offered the novice the advantage of an internship and the institution the benefit of a closer look. In practice, according to certain critics, the system worked with perverse effect.”
• Study conducted by Guido Marx said these assistant professors were “oppressed by the burdens of the low-rank life”
• Supposed to be of aid to full professors until promotion but never knew when promotion might actually come

AAUP Logo

The AAUP desired more of an influence in standardizing graduation requirements and such, but feared having much or anything to do with pay scales because that would land them with an unwanted union label: “The one proposal on which there was very broad agreement- that the Association should promulgate and enforce a code of professional ethics”. To determine what was academically acceptable, outlines were sketched in 1914 by Howard C. Warren who: “recognized the classroom as the teacher’s sanctuary and fenced it off from administrative patrol.” What followed was instated departments and encouraged faculty-administration interaction after the inception of formed committees on appointment and promotion (ultimately weak and abandoned), recruitment, classification of universities and colleges, migration of graduate students, ethics (code never formed), pensions, economic conditions, and others. Most of these committees were weak because of problems establishing a universal code. The problem standardizing a universal code may have been because… “To standardize is to simplify, quantify, and reduce exceptions”. It is important to be wary of probationary systems and how they can impact incentives and inter-faculty behavior.