1 Gruber, Carol S. Mars and Minerva: World War I and the Uses of the Higher Learning in America (Baton Rouge, La., 1975), 163–212; Richard Hofstadter and Walter P. Metzger, The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States (New York, 1955), 495–506; David M. Kennedy, Over Here: The First World War and American Society (New York, 1980), 45–92.Google Scholar

2 Various authors have written about incidents of censorship within academia during World War I. Most references to these incidents are found in histories of single institutions. These works, however, are usually sponsored histories and are rarely critical. If a professor was dismissed, according to these accounts, it was only for a display of grievous disloyalty or because enrollments had dropped so low that insufficient numbers of students existed to require the professor's services. These histories are helpful in documenting the occurrences of events, such as faculty dismissals, but usually offer only the most banal, official-sounding explanations of why events occurred. See, for example, the account of Ernst Feise's dismissal from the University of Wisconsin in Merle Curti and Vernon Carstensen, The University of Wisconsin, 1848–1925 (Madison, 1949), 2: 114–15, and the account of William Schaper's dismissal from the University of Minnesota in James Gray, The University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, 1951), 271. A few authors have explored more deeply the issues surrounding dismissals of professors during World War I. In The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States, Richard Hofstadter and Walter Metzger discussed events that occurred during World War I at several different universities. They briefly commented on the discharging of professors at Harvard University and at the universities of Minnesota, Nebraska, and Virginia; in greater depth they discussed the Columbia University controversy, which resulted in dismissals of two professors for charges of disloyalty and subsequent resignations of three other professors, including historian Charles Beard. Twenty years later, Carol Gruber expanded on Hofstadter and Metzger's work in Mars and Minerva, focusing especially on the lack of professorial commitment to academic freedom during the war.Google Scholar

3 Marwil, Jonathan A History of Ann Arbor (Ann Arbor, 1987), 60–64, 88–89, 94–99. See Frederick C. Luebke, Bonds of Loyalty: German Americans and World War I (De Kalb, Ill., 1976); and Carl Wittke, German-Americans and the World War (Columbia, Oh., 1936) for extended discussions of the experiences of German Americans during World War I.Google Scholar

4 See the discussion of this uncomfortable compromise in Laurence Veysey, The Emergence of the American University (Chicago, 1965), 57–259.Google Scholar

5 Nowhere in the historical literature has there been a full treatment of the difficulties faced during World War I by professors of German in American colleges and universities. Although the dismissals of the University of Michigan professors of German have been mentioned in the literature on several occasions, no one, except for authors writing exclusively on the history of the University of Michigan, has done more than merely note the Michigan dismissals in a list of academic casualties that occurred during the war. See James Wechsler, Revolt on the Campus (New York, 1935), 17; H. C. Peterson and Gilbert C. Fite, Opponents of War, 1917–18 (Madison, 1957), 105; Gruber, Mars and Minerva, 174; Clyde S. Barrow, Universities and the Capitalist State: Corporate Liberalism and the Reconstruction of American Higher Education, 1894–1928 (Madison, 1990), 228. The two semi-official histories of the University of Michigan offer only sanitized, official-sounding accounts of the dismissals. See Shirley W. Smith, Harry Burns Hutchins and the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, 1951), 198–99; Howard H. Peckham, The Making of the University of Michigan, 1817–1967 (Ann Arbor, 1967), 131–32.Google Scholar

6 Michigan Alumnus 24 (Nov. 1917): 67, and (Apr. 1918): 389–90; Proc. Board of Regents, Univ. Mich. (Oct. 1917–Jul. 1920), 5, 9, 107.Google Scholar

7 That the professors of German were singled out for particularly harsh treatment for ideological reasons (as instructors in the enemy's language, they were viewed as spies and propagandists) is shown by the leniency with which the university treated two other German nationals who were employed in different capacities. Assistant Professor Anton F. Greiner of the College of Engineering and Dr. Willy C. R. Voight of the Homeopathic Medical School were both shielded by the university from activist alumni who pressured the Regents to dismiss them. Greiner, especially, was accused by the alumni of being openly disloyal to the American cause. When the alumni demanded that Greiner be dismissed, President Harry Burns Hutchins turned the matter over to Mortimer C. Cooley, the powerful dean of the College of Engineering, who informed the alumni spokesman that Greiner was considered “one of the best, if not the best teachers of the internal combustion engine in this country,” and “All things taken into consideration … it would be a serious mistake—that is, against the interests of the country to remove him from our faculty.” Cooley, who rarely shrank from any challenge, closed his letter affirmatively: “Hoping this will make clear our attitude and prevent further steps being taken to embarrass us with respect to Professor Greiner.” Obviously, those professors whose services were regarded as valuable to the war effort, especially those in technical fields, were shielded from attacks of the sort that were mounted against the more expendable professors of German literature. Mortimer E. Cooley to Jesse F. Orton, 2 Apr. 1918, file 3, box 14, Harry Burns Hutchins Papers, Michigan Historical Collections, Bentley Historical Library (MHC), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. See also A. F. Greiner to Cooley, 16 Oct. 1917, file 3, box 14, Hutchins Papers. German professor Ewald A. Boucke challenged Hutchins over this preferential treatment, saying that Hutchins had made him a “scapegoat” and that “the discrimination made in favor of Professor Greiner, proves clearly that [Boucke's dismissal] is much less a question of legal status than of personal feeling, of passion and venom.” Boucke to Hutchins, 22 June 1919, University of Michigan Board of Regents Papers, file 21, box 12, MHC.Google Scholar

8 “Prof. C. Eggert on the Carpet before the Board,” Ann Arbor Times-News, 12 Oct. 1917; “Dr. Carl Eggert Dismissed from University Faculty Because of Insistent Pro-German Utterances,” Michigan Daily, 13 Oct. 1917; “German Faculty Dare Not Meet: U. of M. Alumni Want Several Others Fired,” Detroit News, 15 Oct. 1917; Michigan Alumnus 24 (Nov. 1917): 67; Proc. Board of Regents, Univ. Mich. (Oct. 1917-Jul. 1920), 9. Student letters and affidavits against Eggert and the report of the United States Department of Justice's investigation of him were submitted with a cover letter by William H. Hobbs to President Hutchins; Hutchins submitted the package to the Board of Regents. W. H. Hobbs to H. B. Hutchins, 15 Sep. 1917, file 8, box 11, Regents Papers.Google Scholar

9 Although Eggert had taught at Michigan for over fifteen years at the time of his dismissal, he had only risen to the rank of assistant professor. As was not uncommon at that time, he had spent years teaching at the high school level before he came to Michigan. He was, however, well-educated. He had studied in Berlin and had earned a Ph.D. in 1901 from the University of Chicago. Moreover, he had written several books and was listed in Who's Who in America. Student letters written in protest of his discharge further attest to his abilities as a stimulating teacher. Unfortunately for Eggert, though, he had some of the traits most commonly associated with those of suspect loyalty. Although a U.S. citizen, he had been born to immigrant parents and raised in Iowa, a state with a large German population. His spouse was also a child of German immigrants. Like most German Americans before the war, Eggert and his wife maintained many characteristics of their parents’ generation, such as speaking German in their home. Also before the United States entered the war, Eggert had told those who pressed him for a response that he was pro-German and that he did not believe being a patriotic American meant necessarily being pro-English. Eggert's intellectual candor was used by men more politically astute than he to goad him into making compromising statements that, eventually, were used to drive him out of the university. Carl E. Eggert to Hutchins, 17 Sep. 1917, and Eggert to Hutchins, 10 Oct. 1917, file 8, box 11, Regents Papers; Eggert to Hutchins, 16 Oct. 1917, and Hutchins to Eggert, 17 Oct. 1917, file 3, box 14, Hutchins Papers; Who's Who in America (1916–17), vol. 9, s.v. “Carl E. Eggert.”Google Scholar

10 Young, Allyn A. (chairman, Committee on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure, AAUP) to Hutchins, 13 Nov. 1917, file 6, box 14, Hutchins Papers; Arthur O. Lovejoy to Hutchins, 4 Dec. 1917, file 13, box 11, Regents Papers.Google Scholar

11 “German Faculty Dare Not Meet: U. of M. Alumni Want Several Others Fired,” Detroit News, 15 Oct. 1917; Jesse F. Orton to Hutchins, 25 Mar. 1918 (cover letter with petition signed by Michigan alumni of New York City, underlined portion in original), W. D. Freyburger to Hutchins, 27 Mar. 1918 (cover letter with petition signed by Michigan alumni of Chicago), and Harry A. Dancer to Hutchins, 28 Mar. 1918 (cover letter with petition signed by Michigan alumni of Duluth, Minn.), file 24, box 14, Hutchins Papers.Google Scholar

12 Boucke's situation at Michigan was complicated because he was a German national. He had been born in Bremerhaven and educated at Jena, Breslau, and Freiburg. Despite having lived in the United States since taking his Ph.D. at Freiburg in 1894, and having married an American woman in 1896, Boucke never became a naturalized citizen. Although this practice was rather common among immigrant intellectuals, Boucke got caught in a vulnerable position when the war came. Forced to register as an enemy alien, he was automatically suspected as a spy and seditious outsider. Boucke's presence on campus, as an alien enemy, became controversial. Under “advisement” from Harry Burns Hutchins, whom Boucke believed was acting in his interest, Boucke requested a leave of absence in February 1918. Unfortunately, his request for a leave of absence “for the duration of this war” was not granted; rather the Regents granted an “indefinite leave of absence,” which in 1919, when he applied for reinstatement and was denied, he learned meant “permanent.” Who's Who in America (1916–17), vol. 9, s. v. “Edward A. Boucke.” Dr. Walter A. Reichart, Department of German, University of Michigan, 1925–72, interview by author, 25 Nov. 1991, Ann Arbor, Mich.Google Scholar

13 Proc. Board of Regents, Univ. Mich. (Oct. 1917–Jul. 1920), 190; “Five Faculty Men Dropped from University, Sixth Given War Leave,” Michigan Daily, 9 Mar. 1918; Michigan Alumnus 24 (June 1918): 560; Warren W. Florer manuscript—personal notes regarding circumstances surrounding discharge of professors of German written sometime in 1918, file 15, box 1, Warren Washburn Florer Papers, MHC.Google Scholar

14 Possibly the furor created at Columbia University over the dismissals of Professors Cattel and Dana alerted the Regents to the possible negative reactions within the academic community to capricious terminations of university professors. Louis L. Goodnow, “U. of M. Drops Five Germans,” Detroit News, 9 Mar. 1918; “German Teachers Lose Positions: University of Michigan Regents to Dispense with Services of Four Professors–Accused of Spreading Enemy Propaganda,” Christian Science Monitor, 11 Mar. 1918; “Disloyalty Charge Found Groundless,” Michigan Daily, 12 Mar. 1918.Google Scholar

15 Orton to Hutchins, 25 Mar. 1918, file 24, box 14, Hutchins Papers; Hutchins to Orton, 18 Apr. 1918, file 3, box 15, Hutchins Papers.Google Scholar

16 Orton to Hutchins, 21 May 1918, file 42, box 3, Walter Hulme Sawyer Papers, MHC.Google Scholar

17 Of the five men dismissed in March 1918, Richard O. Ficken and Hermann J. Weigand were the youngest and least established. Both held the rank of instructor. Ficken was still working on his doctorate, and Weigand had only recently received his. Ficken never completed his degree after his discharge; what he did thereafter is not clear. Norman L. Willey, “The Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures,” in The University of Michigan: An Encyclopedic Survey, ed. Wilfred B. Shaw, 9 parts (Ann Arbor, 1943), 602.Google Scholar

18 Weigand's resignation letter states that he had “obtained a government position.” This was somewhat of an exaggeration: the job at Bath Iron Works was under a government ship-building contract. Weigand was quickly dismissed from Bath Iron Works, however, when a suspicious coworker saw him reading a book in Russian on his lunch break and reported him to the management. Weigand to Hutchins, 26 Apr. 1918, file 17, box 11, Regents Papers; Weigand to Henry Allen Moe, 6 Oct. 1954, photocopy of letter in possession of author; Dr. Walter A. Reichart, Department of German, University of Michigan, 1925–72, interview by author, 25 Nov. 1991, Ann Arbor; Mrs. Hermann J. Weigand, telephone interview by author, 11 June 1992. In introducing a collection of Weigand's essays, Theodore Ziolkowski described Weigand saying, “Weigand's work of course, is well known. Internationally hailed as the doyen of Germanic studies in the United States, he dominated his field for a quarter of a century from his chair as Sterling Professor of Germanic Literature at Yale, where he produced several generations of aggressively devoted disciples. Now an Emeritus, he continues his writing with the energetic youthfulness that has long impressed, and often shamed his colleagues and students.” Theodore Ziolkowski, introduction to Hermann Weigand, Critical Probings, Essays in European Literature: From Wolfram von Eschenbach to Thomas Mann, ed. Ulrich K. Goldsmith (Bern, 1982), 11.Google Scholar

19 Who's Who, s.v. “Boucke.” Ewald A. Boucke to Max Winkler, 25 Feb. 1918, file 17, box 11, Regents Papers; Proc. Board of Regents, Univ. Mich. (Oct. 1917–Jul. 1920), 189; Boucke to Hutchins, 22 June 1919, file 21, box 12, Regents Papers; file 1, Ewald A. Boucke Papers (MHC). Boucke's years in Heidelberg were memorialized by a few of his students whom he taught in the late 1920s and early 1930s. These memoirs were written in German in 1953 to a man named Mr. Domroese. The connection between Dr. Boucke and Mr. Domroese is not clear from the documents. However, Dr. Fred B. Wahr, of the German department at the University of Michigan, secured copies of the memoirs and in 1953 deposited these copies along with his English translations of them at the Michigan Historical Collections. Unfortunately, no correspondence exists between Wahr and Boucke. Wahr completed his Ph.D. at Michigan in 1915, however, and Boucke was a member of his committee. Wahr had been hired as an instructor in the Michigan German department, but was on a leave of absence at the time Boucke was released as he had been drafted into the army. A letter from alumnus-activist Jesse F. Orton to Harry Burns Hutchins indicates that Boucke and Wahr were not on good terms during the war. However, Wahr's pursuit, translation, and preservation of these memoirs by Boucke's European students indicate that there must have been some connection between the two and possibly at one time they had been on friendly terms. Orton to Hutchins, 25 Mar. 1918, file 24, box 14, Hutchins Papers.Google Scholar

20 Governor Fred W. Green to Warren Washburn Florer, 22 Nov. 1930, file 5, box 1, Florer Papers; Who Was Who in America (1951–60), vol. 3, s.v. “Warren Washburn Florer.”Google Scholar

21 In addition to not being ethnically German, Florer had no affinity with any immigrant group and was quite active in the Sons of the American Revolution. Who's Who in America (1918–19), vol. 10, s.v. “Warren Washburn Florer”; “German Faculty Dare Not Meet,” Detroit News, 15 Oct. 1917.Google Scholar

22 “Lecturer Is for School Reforms,” Grand Rapids News, 6 Nov. 1911; “Be Prepared Is His Warning,” Greencastle Herald (Greencastle, Ind.), 6 Nov. 1915; “Prof. Florer Wants German-Americans to Be True to U.S.,” Manistee News (Manistee, Mich.), 7 Feb. 1916; “Many Enjoy Lecture: Prof. Florer in University Extension Course Discusses Revolution,” Port Huron Times Herald (Port Huron, Mich.), 6 Jan. 1917; “An Inspiration to Patriotism,” Owosso Daily Argus (Owosso, Mich.), 26 Feb. 1917; “Journey in Fatherland with Florer,” St. Joseph Daily Press (St. Joseph, Mich.), 1 Feb. 1915.Google Scholar

23 “Liberty Dear to German Heart Says Dr. Florer,” Saginaw Courier-Herald, 20 May 1917; Dr. Bernhard Friedlander to Florer, 21 May 1917, file: “oversize,” Florer Papers; Student petitions (2) to University of Michigan Board of Regents, 24 May 1918, file 2, box 12, Regents Papers; Mrs. Bess Hazelton Jackson to Hutchins, 14 Oct. 1917, file 2, box 14, Hutchins Papers; AAUP, “Report of Committee on Academic Freedom in Wartime,” reprinted in The American Concept of Academic Freedom in Formation, ed. Walter P. Metzger (New York, 1977), 40–41.Google Scholar

24 “Florer Not Un-American, Letter to Editor signed by students of Assistant Professor Florer's Class,” Michigan Daily, 17 Oct. 1917; J. H. Carstens to Walter Hulme Sawyer, 27 Mar. 1918, Sawyer to Carstens, 28 Mar. 1918, and Carstens to Florer, 30 Mar. 1918, file 15, box 1, Florer Papers; student petitions to Board of Regents in defense of Florer, 24 May 1918, file 2, box 12, Regents Papers.Google Scholar

25 Florer kept a clippings file documenting his speaking engagements; thus it seems reasonable to conclude that he was on the speaking circuit not merely to earn extra money, but also was proud of his popularity and enjoyed this outlet.Google Scholar

26 Although Florer never regained his post at the university, he and his wife continued to reside in Ann Arbor until 1958. He appears to have succeeded to at least a modest degree in the insurance business, attaining late in his life the position of a manager at the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company. He was active as an amateur historian and published at his own expense three small volumes of history of early German settlers in Michigan. He continued to stay involved, moreover, with the many German American communities located throughout Michigan, particularly in regard to political issues affecting Lutherans. Who Was Who, s.v. “Florer”; Warren Washburn Florer, Early Michigan Settlements, 3 vols. (Ann Arbor, 1941 and 1953); “W. W. Florer, Historian, Dies at 88,” Ann Arbor News 17 Apr. 1958.Google Scholar

27 The letters from alumni to Hutchins contain a wide variety of responses to the “loyalty crisis” at their alma mater. Chicago attorney John M. Zane is representative of the solemn approach, as he assured Harry Hutchins, “You may be sure that no one feels more gratitude than I do to know what has been the Resolution of the Regents of the University regarding Dr. Eggert. This calm and deliberate action is eminently worthy of an institution of learning. I suppose that no one more than yourself regretted that it was necessary.” Zane to Hutchins, 19 Oct. 1917, file 3, box 14, Hutchins Papers. Brooklyn pharmacist George C. Hall was not nearly so restrained, managing to combine boosterism and academic censure in the same letter: “This United States is one of the greatest if not the greatest Nation on the Earth, and its men are supposed to be the equal of any other peoples, either as to Vim, Vigor, or Mentality… . It is a well known fact that Sedition and Treason have been promulgated to an alarming extent in most of our great Institutions of Learning, and very largely these theories ‘were made in Germany'; and it is high time that this nefarious work was routed out ‘root and branch'; and I sincerely hope that in the very near future that not a particle of the same will be left in the University of Michigan, whom we all love and honor.” Hall to Hutchins, 21 Nov. 1917, file 7, box 14, Hutchins Papers. Jackson to Hutchins, 14 Oct. 1917, file 2, box 14, Hutchins Papers; Hobbs to Hutchins, 18 Sep. 1917, file 8, box 11, Regents Papers. The Secret Service investigation is mentioned briefly in Shirley W. Smith's handwritten minutes of the Regents meeting of 5 Apr. 1918, file 16, box 11, Regents Papers; Jesse F. Orton's letter of 21 May 1918 to Hutchins with its attached correspondence between Orton and Professor Diekhoff, a German professor at Michigan who barely escaped dismissal for disloyalty, well illustrates the methods of entrapment used by the alumni and extremist faculty members to attempt to ensnare professors (file 42, box 3, Walter Hulme Sawyer Papers).Google Scholar

28 Wilkes, James D. “Van Tyne: The Professor and the Hun“ Michigan History 55 (Feb. 1971): 183–204. Hobbs's method of using students to gather evidence to use against a suspect professor is displayed in his cover letter to Hutchins in which he initialized the movement to have Carl Eggert discharged. Hobbs to Hutchins, 15 Sep. 1917, file 8, box 11, Regents Papers. The activities of professors in the NSL are described in George T. Blakey, Historians on the Homefront: American Propagandists for the Great War (Lexington, Ky., 1970); Gruber, Mars and Minerva; Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession (Cambridge, Eng., 1988), 111–32; and Robert D. Ward, “The Origin and Activities of the National Security League, 1914–1919,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 47 (June 1960): 51–65.Google Scholar

29 Hobbs to Henry L. West, 1 Sep. 1917, file 9, box 1, Hobbs Papers.Google Scholar

30 William Herbert Hobbs, The World War and Its Consequences (New York, 1919), 150.Google Scholar

31 Lloyd, Alfred H. to Hobbs, 17 Dec. 1918 (cover letter with attached “Statement in re the Hobbs-Security League-University Matter”), Hobbs to Lloyd, 19 Dec. 1918, Claude H. Van Tyne to Lloyd, 19 Dec. 1918, and Lloyd to Hobbs, 24 Dec. 1918, file 14, box 1, Hobbs Papers.Google Scholar

32 Hofstadter and Metzger, The Development of Academic Freedom, 468–506.Google Scholar

33 AAUP, “General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure” (1915), reprinted in American Concept of Academic Freedom, ed. Metzger, 20–43.Google Scholar

34 AAUP, “Report of Committee on Academic Freedom in Wartime,” 41.Google Scholar

35 Ibid., 40–42.Google Scholar

36 In at least six instances in the four months prior to the writing of the report, professors had been dismissed from American universities on charges of “disloyalty.” However, the AAUP authors claimed, “the specific acts which have been regarded as constituting that offense have varied widely in their nature and their gravity.” Professors at different institutions were not assured of fair treatment because “opinions or acts in relation to the war, or the policy of the government, which in some institutions would be deemed proper grounds for dismissal, would in others be regarded as entitled to toleration.” Thus, the AAUP was attempting to provide a standard of judgment that would ensure fair treatment for professors regardless of where they were employed. The wartime statement of the AAUP concluded, moreover, with a specific recommendation of what constituted due process in cases of suspected professorial disloyalty. The accused person was to be entitled to a fair trial “before either the judicial committee of the faculty, or a joint committee composed of an equal number of professors and trustees.” AAUP, “Report of Committee on Academic Freedom in Wartime,” 29, 46.Google Scholar

37 Hofstadter and Metzger, Development of Academic Freedom in the United States, 479.Google Scholar

38 Peckham, Making of the University of Michigan, 126–32.Google Scholar

39 The following letters regarding the German professors reflect the demanding stance of the alumni and rather deferential response of Hutchins: Orton to Hutchins, 22 Aug. 1917, file 20, box 13, Hutchins Papers; John M. Zane to Hutchins, 18 Sep. 1918, file 23, box 13, Hutchins Papers; Orton to fellow alumni, 27 Aug. 1918, file 23, box 1, Calvin Thomas Papers, MHC; Hutchins to Orton, 17 Oct. 1917, Hutchins to Frank F. Reed, 17 Oct. 1917, Hutchins to Zane, 17 Oct. 1917, Zane to Hutchins, 19 Oct. 1917, and Reed to Hutchins, 19 Oct. 1917, file 3, box 14, Hutchins Papers; Hutchins to Orton, 28 Feb. 1918, file 20, box 14, Hutchins Papers; Orton to Hutchins, 4 Mar. 1918, and Hutchins to Orton, 5 Mar. 1918, file 21, box 14, Hutchins Papers; Orton to Hutchins, 25 Mar. 1918, file 24, box 14, Hutchins Papers; Henry E. Bodman to Hutchins, 1 Apr. 1918, Hutchins to Bodman, 2 Apr. 1918, file 1, box 15, Hutchins Papers; Hutchins to Orton, 18 Apr. 1918, file 3, box 15, Hutchins Papers.Google Scholar

40 Smith, Harry Burns Hutchins, 218–30.Google Scholar

41 Keller, Phyllis States of Belonging: German-American Intellectuals and the First World War (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), 1–118; Samuel Eliot Morison, Three Centuries of Harvard, 1636–1935 (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), 453–56; Henry Aaron Yeomans, Abbott Lawrence Lowell, 1856–1943 (Cambridge, Mass., 1948), 316.Google Scholar

42 Guy Peter Benton to Calvin Thomas, 4 Apr. 1917, file 20, box 1, Thomas Papers.Google Scholar

43 Proc. Board of Regents, Univ. Mich. (Oct. 1917–Jul. 1920), 635, 637; Gustavus Ohlinger, Their True Faith and Allegiance (New York, 1916); Lucius B. Swift, Germans in America, 3d ed. (Indianapolis, 1916); Luebke, Bonds of Loyalty, 269.Google Scholar

44 AAUP, “General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” 32.Google Scholar