Main LA Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From Labor Action, Vol. 14 No. 21, 22 May 1950, p. 3.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
DETROIT, Mich., May 13 – More than 400 students packed a lecture hall at Wayne University to hear Irving Howe, co-author of The UAW and Walter Reuther, debate Dr. Alfred Kelly, professor of history on the question Should Communists Be Allowed to Teach in an American University? The meeting was arranged by the Wayne Student League for Industrial Democracy one week after Dr. Herbert Philips, ex-professor at the University of Washington, discharged for being a member of the Communist Party, was denied permission to debate Dr. Kelly on the same proposition (reported in Labor Action).
Interest was so great that every available seat was taken and students lined the sides and back of the room. Many had to leave because they could not find standing room to see the speakers.
Irving Howe, as speaker for the affirmative, first outlined the arguments for the denial of academic freedom for Stalinists. The first of these is their willingness to submit to the party line in their field, thereby being reduced to automatons completely lacking in intellectual integrity or freedom. The corollary to this argument is the one of “doctrinal imposition,” the fear being that Stalinists will impose their beliefs on the student body.
Howe’s contention was that the Stalinists are not the only group prone to injecting their bias irtto the classroom, noting that Catholics or pro-NAM economics teachers are also bound to a particular policy and introduce their bias into the academic discussions. “A Catholic historian is no more likely to be objective about the role of the Vatican in modern politics, birth control, contraceptives and Marxism than a Stalinist about Titoism," said Howe.
The reasons for dismissing a professor, Howe further stated, must be confined to classroom conduct.
“Suppose a Stalinist who is assigned to teach physics devotes himself exclusively to discussing the wonders of Russia in his classroom or visibly discriminates against an anti-Stalinist student in grading, or conducts his class undemocratically. then he should be discharged, not because of his political beliefs, but because he is not performing his INDIVIDUAL duties as a teacher.”
Regarding fascists, Howe’s position was that they should not be discharged simply because of their views. If, however, a teacher taunts a Jewish student with anti-Semitic remarks, he should be dismissed because this conduct militates against a student obtaining decent grades and destroys the “growth of a reciprocal relationship between himself and the students.” A fascist who, like Lawrence Dennis, presents his opinions in intellectual terms should be allowed to teach, particularly when the threat to academic freedom is as great as it is today.
The political context of these dismissals was. noted by Howe. During the war, when Russia was the ally of the U.S., when liberals spoke of how Russia would “achieve democratic political institutions through the agency of Roosevelt’s skill,” there was no such concern over democracy in the classroom. Howe pointed out that the drive came only as a result of the cold war and did not represent a genuine concern for academic competence.
Howe’s main point was that teachers must be judged on INDIVIDUAL behavior and that if one competent, intellectually honest Stalinist teacher could be found, that was enough to preclude firing teachers simply on the basis of party membership.
Dr. Kelly, upholding the negative in the debate, began his address with a definition of a university. “A university,” Kelly stated, “is a Temple of Light ... It is in the environment of a university that theory must be examined, debated and even developed.” Adherence to three tenets should be required of all instructors: (1) that they submit to rationality as opposed to irrationality; (2) devote themselves to the inquiry, pursuit, analysis and dissemination of truth; and (3) repudiate violence and power as means of disseminating what they believed was truth.
These are the rules Dr. Kelly proposed for admission as an instructor to American universities. Membership in the CP, by definition, excludes the Stalinist from having these qualities, according to Kelly.
His summation on why he would not allow Stalinists to teach consisted of two reasons: “A Stalinist refuses to function within the framework of rational liberalism, but substitutes power and propaganda for rationality. And Stalinists are avowed enemies of the state, and no state has the obligation to destroy itself.”
Speaking first on the rebuttal, Dr. Kelly amplified his earlier remarks on the nature of, the state, asserting that a university is an instrumentality of the state, launching into an extremely realistic exposition of the state as a power mechanism. The University of Chicago, for example, can afford academic freedom because it has a huge private endowment and is therefore free of the state’s power.
This was one of the strangest contradictions ever heard in a Wayne University debate: the combination of mawkish liberal sentimentality (“Temple of Light”) and an almost cynical acceptance of the coercive power of the modern state.
Kelly further revealed an amazing naivete in conceding that there are some card-carrying Stalinists who could meet his requirements. While declaring ignorance of Frederick Schuman»s formal political affiliations, Kelly would allow this apologist for, Stalinist crimes to teach in universities. Irving Howe, not denying Schuman’s right to teach, pointed out that Schuman had often defended the notorious Moscow Trials.
Dr. Kelly’s concept, except for an aberrant exception, of the ideal university staff was one peopled with liberals teaching an official liberalism. By this method all discussion is a type of gentlemanly competition in which the rules prevent any but approved political action. This concept was notably lacking in the usual liberal latitudinarian bias of free investigation. Kelly’s remarks presage the declining intransigent mood of liberals, who, as Howe pointed out, can now only be politically activated by an overt counter-Stalinist move.
Howe’s rebuttal was principally directed at the failure of liberals to defend academic freedom. Referring to Dr. Kelly’s acceptance of a debate with Dr. Philips and then voting in the University Program Planning Committee against allowing his opponent to appear on the campus, Howe said: “That conduct is – fabulous.” For this statement he was awarded the gold star for delicacy in retort.
Howe’s final appeal was for a militant anti-Stalinist left to support the academic freedom of ALL groups.
Main LA Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 7 February 2024