,;AGE MIX THE MICHIGAN DAILY THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1954 -i PAfl~ NIX THE MICHIGAN DAILY THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7,1954 tcher 1Vlakes Report to 'Senate onDismissls (Continued from Page 4) were these or related questions or to talk candidly about yourself and your alleged activities in the Communist Party before me, and the Special Senate Commit- tee to advise the President, on your own personal decision that the answers are none of our business. Unexcusable Conduct This conduct is unexcusable in a member of our profession who seeks at the same time the pro- tection of and continued mem- bership in the University whose policies he disdains and whose responsibilities he ignores. Your conduct to date is clear- ly inimical to the mission and trust reposed in this University, and indicates your unfitness to continue in the position you hold. In view of the evidence avail- able to me, and of the unani- mous recommendation of the Special Committee to advise the President, I regret to state that it will be my duty to recommend to the Regents your immediate dismissal from the staff of the University. Before I present my recom- mendation to the Regents of the University for final action By- law 5.10 (5), I call your atten- tion to your privilege under the Regents' Bylaws to have your case reviewed by the Senate Ad- visory Committee, and the op- portunity which this right af- fords you to present any miti- gating considerations w h i c h may, so far, have been withheld. Under the provisions of this By- law you have five days from this date within which to file your request for a hearing. The Chairman of this Senate Sub- committee is Professor Angus Campbell." Davis Asks Review Mr. Davis then asked the Sub- ;ommittee on Intellectual Freedom ~ and Integrity for a review of his ease. His performance before this oumittee was the same as that Sfbore the others. He maintained 1an an inquiry into communist activity was an inquiry into his political beliefs and he would not discuss them with this committee either. This Committee unanimously recommended his dismissal The Chairman of the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs has already informed you of the reason why you have not received a copy of this' report because of the objection of Dr. Davis to its circulation. I regret that ft is not available to you. I have no wish to withhold it. I am sure that a care- ful study of this Davis report as made by the Subcommittee on In- tellectual Freedom and Integrity might be of some help to you in understanding and evaluating the report on Dr. Nickerson, which you do have, even though you do not have the voluminous evidence upon which the two reports were based. Regents Take Action The President concurred in this recomendation, and, after their own full study of the documents, theRegents took action to dismiss Drk Davis. In this one case, there was no dissent from complete unanimity of decision by all res- ponsible bodies. The case of Dr. Nickerson took on quite different contours. In many respects it was a most dif- ficult case, and one upon which we have spent many hours of study, council and prayer. Dr.I Nickerson had not revealed to the University prior to or after his joining our Faculty of Medicine any of his many considerable ac- tivities in the Communist Party extending over a period of years.{ The questions asked by the Con- gressional Committee indicated something of the alleged scope and" period of an intimate involvement in the Communist Party. Most of these questions he refused to ans- wer on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment with the advice of counsel, leading to the presump- tion that he was using the amend- ment legally and that there were in truth facts in his case which, if disclosed, would tend to connect him with a crime.. Meeting with Nickerson On May 24, 1954, and again on June 3, 1954, the Executive Com- mittee of the Medical School met for extensive discussions with Dr. Nickerson about his associations with the Communist Party and his relationship to the Medical School. The Executive Committee of the Medical School, after weighing the case from their own close k n o w l e d g e and responsibility, unanimously recommended his dis- missal, and this recommendation was communicated to me by let- ter signed by the Dean of the Me- dical School for the Executive Committee under date of June 11. On June 14 the Special Advis- ory Committee to the President held two lengthy hearings with Dr. Nickerson. Following the hearings they studied the testimony and discussed the problems which it raised. The Committee was par- ticularly concerned as to what consideration to give to the unan- imous recommendation of the Exe- cutive Committee of the Medical School. Since the recommendation of the corresponding committee of the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts in regard to Dr. Mar- kert was to be noticed, at least, it was hard to disregard completely the action of the Medical School. I believethat the prevailing view was, however, to disregard it as far as possible, and this Special Committee incorporated in its re- port to the President the specific statement that "The Executive Committee of the Medical School did not make any recommendation to the Special Advisory Committee as to whether Dr. Nickerson should be retained or dismissed." Committee Divided ture of the problem. The case rests heavily upon the truth, candori and completeness of Dr. Nicker-s son's testimony, and upon whe- ther he did in truth and in goodi faith withdraw from the Com-! munist Party, or whether he has3 continued in the new order ands pattern of activity which the Com- munist Party adopted and has carried on since 1948. 1 Opinions Differo Whether or not he did satisfac- torily demonstrate his withdrawal from the Communist Party and its activities is a matter upon which fair-minded persons may, and clearly do, differ. The Chairman of his Department and the Dean and Executive Committee of his School, persons who may be pre- sumed to know him better than any of the others who have dealt officially with his case, believe him to be unfit for continued membership on the Medical School faculty. The President's Advisory ;ommittee divided on the question, three recommending severe cen- sure and two dismissal. Under the Bylaws, which we have tried to follow with scrupu- lous attention to the letter and the spirit, the President is bound to assume his heavy and distasteful responsibility at this point, and reach a decision. I believe that I can give you some indication of the considera- tions which led to a judgment without violating any of the con- fidences or judicial procedures in- volved. Claims of Withdrawal Dr. Nickerson's claims of with- drawal from the Communist Par- ty are not supported by corrobor- ative evidence of any sort, and might, under other circumstances, be flatly contradicted. The date which he gave for his final "drifting away"-1948-co- incides with the approximate date when the Communist Party went "underground" and it became the party line for members to conceal their affiliations. He has not by words or action indicated any disapproval of the Communist Party or of its actions, nor has any action of his been re- ported which would be inconsist- ent with continued party member- ship. His testimony before the com- mittees reflects approval and ad- miration for the actions and pro- gram of the Communist Party. This approval apparently extends to the character of individual members of the party since he says The "frank and candid" disclos- ures of his past activities which appeared to impress the committee members are all concerning mat- ters which he knows to be matters of record in government files. He has not disclosed any phase of his activity which was not already a matter of record. Vague on Withdrawal His vagueness concerning the circumstances of his withdrawal from the party is an example of his unwillingness to disclose mat- ters which he surmises may be un- known to his questioners. His disclaimers of knowledge of the Communist Party today and of its relation to Russia and his statements that he has made no attempt to determine the facts about the party do not ring true in the light of his long association with the party, his continuing sup- port of its doctrines and the stu- dies he must have made in con- nection with his appearance be-Y fore the Congressional Committee. Nor does his vagueness on these matters seem consistent with his apparent certainty and knowledge of such other matters as the cur- rent situation and Communist po- sition in France, Czechoslovakia and other countries. In short, his testimony may pro- perly be interpreted as that of a man who has decided in advance exactly what he is going to be in- formed on and what he is not. Agrees with Party Dr. Nickerson's present affirma- tion of agreement with the Com- munist Party and its aims is a proper subject of consideration, in the light of his long and active work as a party member and be- cause of its bearing upon the ques- tion of whether he has in fact severed his allegiance to the party or merely "gone underground." Standing alone, the question of political and economic ideologies would not be matters of grave con- cern to the University. But as evi- dence bearing upon the determin- ation of the fact of severance or non-severance of Communist af- filiation they may be made the proper subject of inquiry without invading the sacred precincts of freedom of thought. It is not thoughts but the definite fact of adherence or non-adherence to the present Communist organiza- tion which is the subject of in- quiry. The burden of refuting the in- escapable inferences flowing from his admitted former membership and present refuge in the Fifth Amendment must necessarily rest upon Dr. Nickerson. Relationship Continues There is a reasonable presump- tion that a relationship such as he had with the Communist Party and its activities continues in the absence of a clear showing of its discontinuance. Pursuant to these, and other considerations, I wrote to Dr. Nick- erson under date of July 27 as fol- lows: "Dear Dr. Nickerson: "Since the hearings at Lansing before the House Committee on Un-American Activities on May 10, 1954, you have appeared be- fore the Dean and the Execu- tive Committee of the Medicala School, and before the Special Advisory Committee to the Pre--n sident. Your answers to their questions leave grave doubts asr to your fitness to hold your pre-o sent position of responsibilityv and trust, and have raised in mya mind and in the minds of the I University committees seriousr concern about your integrity asI a member of the teaching pro-r fession. While the Special Ad-I visory Committee is closely di-c vided and a majority recom-r mends a strong censure rather than dismissal, the Dean andI Medical School Executive Com- mittee unanimously recommendt dismissal. f "You have refused to answerI pertinent questions put to youc by a duly constituted legal body concerning your activities and affiliations with the Commun- ist Party on the grounds that the answers might tend to in-, criminate you. Although you de- ny that you would overthrow the government of this country by force, you have vigorously asserted before the committees of your colleagues that you want it clearly understood that you hold the same views and beliefs now which you held while you were an active member and an officer in the Communist Party; and that, although you are not now an active Communist, you drifted away from your activi- ties only because you did not have enough time to devote to them, and not because you were in disagreement with the alms, policies, and methods of the Communists. Under these cir- cumstances it becomes difficult to accept your disavowal of the illegal and destructive aims of the Communist Party. Serious Disqualifications "These serious disqualifica- tions which bring your case be- fore me under the provision of Bylaw 5.101 becomeeven more weighty when joined with the formal recommendationhmade to me by the Dean and the Exe- cutive Committee of the Medi- cal School (copy attached) that you be dismissed because your continued membership in the Medical faculty would be harm- ful to the School and may in- jure the reputation of the Uni- versity as a whole. This recom- mendation places your case also under the general provisions of Bylaw 5.10. "In view of all of the evidence available to me I regret to state that it is my present intention and my duty to recommend to the Board of Regents your im- mediate dismissal from the staff of the University. Before I pre- sent my recommendation to the Regents for final action [5.10 (5) ] I call your attention to your privilege under the Bylaw to have your case reviewed by the Senate Advisory Committee, and the opportunity this right af- fords you to present any miti- gating considerations w h i c h may, so far, have been withheld. Five Days To File "Under the provision of this Bylaw, you have five daysfrom this date within which to file your request for such a further hearing. The Chairman of the Senate subcommittee is Profes- sor Angus Campbell." Dr. Nickerson asked the Sub- .ommittee on Intellectual Freedom and Integrity to review his case as provided by the Bylaw. This Com- mittee worked promptly and dili- gently. It had available to it the recorded testimony, the transcript of the hearings of the Special Ad- visory Committee to the President, and it held its own hearings with Dr. Nickerson. The Committee did facts, about his *past affiliation not at any time confer with the President. Following this proced- ure, the Committee made its re-t port, a copy of which has been cir-t culated to the Senate, in which it makes its recommendation that,c although it found Dr. Nickerson to posstss "more than one man's share of human faults and frail-1 ties," to be "an arrogant man" and "perhaps arso a foolish man," he should be censured but not dis- charged. Disagreeable Duty Again it was my disagreeable' duty to review the totality of this case and to transmit all data con- cerning it to the Regents. I read hopefully through the testimony taken by the Subcommittee on In- tellectual Freedom and Integrity, seeking to find some new evidence that might controvert that already presented. Not only- was it not there to be found, but instead there appeared repeated reinforcements of previous evidence upon which the original recommendation had been framed. Upon the basis of the evidence before me and of the conflicting and apparently irreconcilable po- siitons taken by the Medical School and by the two advisory committees, the President felt com- pelled to concur in the recommen- dation of the Medical School that Dr. Nickerson should be discon- tinued as a member of that fa- culty. In transmitting to the Regents the complete data, as required by the Bylaws, I wrote: "After study- ing the record of further hearing by the Subcommittee on Intellect- ual Freedom and Integrity, I fail to find anything in the testimony to alter the conclusions stated in my letter of July 27, 1954, to Dr. Nickerson and my memorandum to the Subcommittee. I submit the complete record for your study and consideration in preparation for the Regents' decision in this case." Regents Study Case The Regents studied this case earnestly prior to their meeting in August. They discussed it fully at their meeting. They felt the same regret that the President felt in not finding grounds for accepting the advice of the Subcommittee. They did not differ on the question of the general principles of intel- lectual freedom as stated by the Subcommittee, but on the reading and the interpretation of the evi- dence and the testimony. Their action was to sever Dr. Nickeirson's connection with the University, with one Regent dis- senting. The case of Dr. Markert was in some fundamental respects differ- ent from the two preceding cases. After going over-the story and the evidence again and again, I still find myself wondering just why the Congressional Committee call- ed him into public session, and ev- en more, why he refused to res- pond to their questions in the spir- it of a free and honorable man, as he seems to have responded be- fore our University groups. Verifiable Facts The questions asked him by the Congressional Committee were clearly based upon the verifiable with the Communist Party, hisC youthful adventure in the Spanishc Civil War, and his work with thec Communist Party, chiefly in Cal-F ifornia. Although he was not un-c der oath while testifying beforee the Special Advisory Committee to the President, he swore to the truth of his statements, and all1 Who heard him were impressed bys his apparent candor.t It seems clear that he was scar-X red by adverse experiences -in hisc youth duing the deep depression,r that he dramatized himself in hisi role as liberat