OATHS IN CALIFORNIA

...A faculty member who deems this oath an inefficient means of detecting Communists because of Communists' willingness to take false oaths will have to be prepared to tolerate the insult involved in the Regents' refusal to regard the traditional oath as conclusive...

...It presents the story, up] to publication date, of the control versy between the Regents and the Academic Senate...

...Six had failed to "cooperate" with the Committee, and Sproul recommended that they be dismissed...

...7) It was "not a good Communist preventative," "since Communists would presumably swear to it readily...

...However valid this objection may be, it is hardly important enough to warrant serious organized opposition to the oath—a faculty has more important things to do than to preserve its governing board from foolish procedures...

...Earl Warren in the minority) that all who had not signed the oath by April 30 should be discharged...

...But the fortitude with which a position may be held is not unrelated to what the position is, and this book indicates that the California faculty experienced great difficulty in identifying its position...

...4) It violated academic freedom by infringing upon the right "to teach and be taught the truth...

...This seems to me to understate the case...

...Tenney was persuaded not to push this proposal by assurances from James Corley, University comptroller and "legislative representative," that the University's Board of Regents would put its own house in order...

...5) It was being used by the Regents to "force their arbitrary will upon the faculty...

...III Presumably there are six former members of the California Academic Senate who adhere to the notion that the oath and its unsworn and oral equivalents are bad because the policy behind them is bad, although this book contains nothing on the views of the non-cooperating six but the observation that "no professor, so far as is known," refused to sign because he was a Communist...

...Forty of the non-signers had satisfied the Committee that they were not Communists, and President Sproul recommended to the Regents that they be retained...

...The essence of those proposals is that the caliber of the Board of Regents should be improved, chiefly by reducing its size and making its members more representative of the people...

...The authors of this volume report that opposition to the oath requirement at California was based on one or more of the following grounds: (1) It constituted a political test for faculty membership which was dangerous because it might be extended to other political faiths...

...The authors note that "after the acceptance of the Regents' anti-Communist policy by vote of the faculty," the first two objections became of less general importance...

...In August the Regents met again...

...6) Since the faculty had already sworn to support the state and federal constitutions, it was insulting and, since it applied only to University employees, it was also discriminatory...

...The action taken at the previous meeting was reconsidered, and it was voted (12 to 10 with the previous majority, including Sproul and Warren, now in minority) to dismiss also the non-signers who had "cooperated" with the Tenure Committee—a group whose number had by then dwindled to 32...

...It ill behooves anyone who has not gone through a similar ordeal with greater bravery to question the courage of the California faculty...

...Eighteen of those so dismissed have initiated an action in the California courts to test the power of the Regents to reconsider their earlier vote...

...3) It violated the academic tenure supposed to be enjoyed by all associate and full professors at California...

...It is unlikely that those six will view with any more enthusiasm than I do this book's "positive proposals for long-range improvement...

...Finally, a Regents meeting in February, 1950, attended by 18 of the 24 Board members, voted (12 to 6 with President Sproul and Gov...

...2) It involved an application of the doctrine of guilt-by-association...

...Reviewed by Vern Countryman JACK TENNEY, state senator and recently deposed chairman of California's Un-American Activities Committee, started it all early in 1949 by proposing an amendment to the state constitution empowering the legislature to insure the loyalty of the faculty and employees of the University of California...

...The most important lessons to be learned from the California experience is that a faculty which accepts the proposition that members of any group are disqualified as teachers solely because of their membership may as well submit without protest to taking an oath disclaiming the proscribed membership...

...Blame us if you like...

...Nine days before the April 30 oath-signing deadline, the Regents voted (20 to 1) to withdraw the oath and to accept a solution under which each faculty member either signed an employment contract in which he "stated" that he did not belong to the Communist Party or appeared before the faculty Tenure Committee for a hearing, the scope of which was not defined...

...Primarily, this book is an attempt to portray and explain the reaction of the Academic Senate faculty during the period of tension that was the year of the oath...

...It is the policy behind the oath, not the oath-taking ceremony, which is subject to most of the faculty's objections...

...The Year of The Oath, written by George R. Stewart "in collaboration with other professors of tH University of California" was puB| lished before the Regents' AugusI meeting...

...One month later the Academic Senate voted (1,154 to 136) to accept an employment contract containing a statement that faculty members held their positions "subject to" the Regents' policy "excluding members of the Communist Party from employment in the University," and approved (1,025 to 268) a proposition stating that "members of the Communist Party, by reason of [their] commitments to that Party, are not acceptable as members of the faculty...

...That faculty's only plausible objection must be that the oath is a foolish way to implement the policy...

...Why refuse to sign the oath...

...By endorsing that policy, although their action can hardly be regarded as an act of free choice, the faculty necessarily abandoned all objections save their contentions that the oath requirement is insulting to non-Communists and innocuous to Communists...

...During the next 11 months many faculty members signed the oath, and the Academic Senate, consisting of the more than 1,300 faculty members, engaged in inconclusive negotiations with the Board of Regents...

...At times we were not as idealistic or as courageous as we should have been...

...We made mistakes," the authors say...

...II By July, 1950, all but 46 members of the Academic Senate had signed either the oath or the contract, and the 46 non-signers had appeared before the faculty Tenure Committee...

...Two months later the Regents unanimously adopted University President Robert Sproul's recommendation that each employee and faculty member be required to take, in addition to the traditional oath to support the state and federal constitutions, a supplementary oath that he was not a Communist...

...The first recommendation was accepted by a vote of 10 to 9; the dismissal recommendation was accepted unanimously...