Prof. Watkins agrees with the Quad editorial

Prof. Watkins agrees with the Quad editorial

censorship, intimidation, race relations

This long letter to the editor written by Professor Martin Watkins includes Watkins' response to a fear among Professors of the repercussions of speaking out, referencing censorship by the university. Watkins references the intimidating, hostile atmosphere of the university in connection to discriminatory ties and practices, naming the Klu Klux Klan in one instance.

Martin Watkins

The Quad Vol. 47 No. 26

Special Collections, Francis Harvey Green Library, West Chester University

1979-05-08

Maria Marabito

Digital images in Library Services' Digital Collections are issued by Special Collections, Francis Harvey Green Library, West Chester University. Images are provided for non-commercial, educational, and personal use only, and are not intended for reproduction or redistribution. For the above purposes the user may reproduce these materials (by download, printing, etc.) without further permission, on the condition that proper attribution of the source for all copies is provided by clearly acknowledging the name of the Library, the title of the web page or resource and the URL at which it was located, please credit as follows: Special Collections, Francis Harvey Green Library, West Chester University, West Chester, Pennsylvania. For questions regarding use of digital materials contact Special Collections (libspeccol@wcupa.edu or 610-436-3456).

https://digital.klnpa.org/digital/collection/wcnp01/id/16749/rec/1

Prof. Watkins agrees with the Quad editorial Dear Editor: In response to the excellent Quad editorial of April 24. 1979, concerning the fear of professors and administrators at WCSC to speak out on almost any issue (except motherhood, apple pie, the flag, and posterity). I want to note that I am probably the only professor in the 375-year history of American higher education who has been fired twice by the same college. I was fired twice by the good people of the English Department of WCSC, once in 1971 and again in 1975. For the last three years I have sat in a comfortable office in the basement of Resurrection Hall (which I renamed from its former name of Recitation Hall), doing very little except collecting a handsome salary check every other Friday. I began my college teaching career in 1947 and taught at such prestigious institutions as Indiana University (Bloomington, Indiana), the University of Pennsylvania, Oregon State University, and the University of Southern California. Even those who fired me at WCSC made very positive evaluations about my teaching, and my publications exceeded those of at least 90% of the English Department faculty when I was fired. Some have attributed my firings to the fact that I would not bow and scrape to the powers that were. There are basically two reasons why professors and administrators at WCSC are reluctant (scared is a better word) to speak out on any issue except motherhood, apple pie, posterity, and the flag. The first has to do with the history of intolerance in the town and in the college. Dr. Dinniman's recent doctoral dissertation covering an incident at the college in 1927 shows that the college and the important politicians and bankers in the one-party Republican boroughborough of West Chester could not tolerate even the slightest difference of opinion on the part of a Quaker professor and another professor who was a Democrat. Had the college been a 4-year institution instead of a 3-year institution, it would have been censured by the American Association of University Professors in 1927. However, in 1939 the college did achieve the unenviable status of censure by the AAUP shortly after Charles Swope became president for its breach of academic freedom. The college remained on censure for 20 years (a national record), when President Swope died, and the college was removed from censure. In 1973, when Charles Swope, Jr.. currently president of the First National Bank, was chairman of the WCSC Board of Trustees, the college was censured once again. Add to the above information the fact that though the college's roots go back to 1812. it could not find a Jewish professor intelligent enough to teach here until 1956, although Jews had been teaching at Yale. Harvard, Princeton, and other prestigious colleges for about 300 years. Likewise, the college could not find a Black person intelligent enough to teach here until 1961. And Black students at the college were as rare as hen's teeth, when the federal and state governments obliged the college to accept 25 Black students in 1968. Further, until 1970, whenever a department chairman, dean, president, or other administrator decided to fire a professor, for any reason at all—or for no reason— the professor left quietly and meekly, or he was given a derogatory letter of recommendation, thus destroying his teaching career forever. Typical of the Ku Klux Klan atmosphere prevailing at the college as late as 1970 was the comment by a former administrator to a member of the English Department. "We've got to get Watkins out of the college and out of town." How this intimidation works not only in the college but in the borough as well can be understood by reading the Daily Local of Tuesday, April 24, concerning the blackballing of Mitchell Crane in his application for membership in the local Rotary Club. Crane, a former WCSC student activist, is currently a lawyer on the Borough Council. Mr. Crane accused Charles Swope (yes, the same former chairman of the Board of Trustees when the college was censured in 1973) and Elinor Taylor, a state representative and wife of a Southeast National Bank officer, as being responsible, along with a college administrator, for his blackballing. You will remember that Ms. Taylor was a physical education instructor and then Dean of Administration when the college was censured in 1973. Said Crane. "It's just another example of what's been going on in West Chester for too long. It's the pattern of Charles Swope and Rep. Taylor, and everybody's so afraid of them that they won't speak out." Fear and intimidation have been the pattern in town and at the college. And except for apple pie, the American flag, posterity, and motherhood, no one speaks out— unless he knows that the powers that be feel a certain way. Then he comes charging, brave professor, like Don Quixote, jousting with tooth picks at forty paces at the imaginary enemies of apple pie, the American flag, posterity, and motherhood. A second reason for professors' timidity has to do with the nature of many people who have gone into teaching, particularly English professors, whom I know best of all. Many of them have had little contact with the non-academic life. They graduate from college and graduate school and then go into teaching. There, at the head of a classroom they suddenly realize their power. Often they misuse that power. And yet, fearful of losing their jobs since they know no other work except teaching, they bow and scrape to their department head, who in turn bows and scrapes to the dean, who in turn bows and scrapes to whomever he is obliged to bow to and scrape to. The bowing and scraping hierarchy is well established and quickly learned by those in academe, especially English professors. They fear losing their jobs, and they fear they will not be promoted unless they goose step to the everchanging and often cacaphonous tune of their superiors. The result is that instead of preparing students to think independently and to act independently, self reliantly and individualistically in the truly American tradition, they prepare students simply to "get along," to succeed, "to play to the powers that be," as a former English Department professor at WCSC said several years ago, before she retired. Having goose stepped correctly, the professor is promoted to chairman, to dean, even to president. And the cycle is repeated and repeated. In short, then, instead of preparing students for forceful living in a vibrant democracy, these sycophantic professors prepare students to be cautious, to withhold opinions, and ultimately to have no opinions. Like the "prudent" Germans and Russians, they learn to be obedient and to be silent in the face of evil and injustice. Such training is subversive of democracy and more consonant with training for life in a totalitarian society, whether that society be fascist or communist. And the loudest howls will come from those killers of democracy who have just read the preceding. Examine for a moment the statement of April 24 by Representative Elinor Taylor. Crane had been "a hell-raiser," she said, and she couldn't forget that. "Then he made a complete change; he joined the establishment and expected all of us to forget about those days. Well, I can't forget about it. I've been a teacher all my life and the one thing I've taught is that you write your own history. What you do and don't do will be on your slate, and people will remember it." In other words. Rep. Taylor wants students to be meek and obedient to authority — like good German students and good Russian students — and not like probing, questioning American students. Examine, on the other hand, a statement made by President Carter on April 30 {DNL, p. 13), "It is sinful to be silent in the face of injustice,"" and "The accumulated influence of courageous human beings can correct defects in government or society.'' And Georgi Vins, a Baptist minister just released from a Russian prison, responded to President Carter, "I thank you . . . that you are teaching us not to be silent when we see injustice." It has been said that if the college professors of Germany had spoken out against Hitler he never could have destroyed the German republic and wreaked upon the world the catastrophe of World War 11. Among college professors in America today, especially English Department professors, as well as among administrators, by and large, a silence similar to that of the German academician can be expected. For they think only about holding on to their jobs, they lack the courage of any convictions they may have, and they lack, in the final analysis, integrity. They lack guts, and, really, they don't believe in democracy. In the responses to the Quad questionnaire, only Professor Heverly touched upon an important quality desired in an administrator when he said that the adminstrator should be •"respected by his peers." Nowhere were the qualities of honesty, integrity, courage, intellectual integrity, and devotion to democracy mentioned. Obviously, most of those responding to the quesionnaire don't think these qualities are important in an administrator. They know, apparently, from experience, what has been the history of most administrators at WCSC. One wonders what kind of teachers such gutless, selfish, morally and intellectually crippled professors can be. And what kind of lovers and practitioners of democracy their students can be. The answer is obvious. Those of us who have studied the history of this country and have had a passionate love affair with it for more than half a century are grateful that the gutless professors whom we know, some of whom Quad interviewed recently, were not living 200 years ago. Otherwise, we would still be colonists of imperial Great Britain. Sincerely yours, Martin A. Watkins Associate