F. ' 'oy, May 25, )955
THE NEtfRASKAN
fooe 3
Mediaeval Traditions:
UTTLt MAN ON CAMPUS
by Dick Bibler
py EDGAR JOHNSON
Professor of History
It should cause no surprise that
the University of Nebraska is be
ing agitated by the issue of in
stitutional autonomy and the rela
tor! thereto of intellecual freedom,
for without these two features it
would cease to ' be a university
in the proper and original mean
ing of this term.
The notion that a university is
an autonomous guild of scholars
is mediaeval. In origin a univer
sity (universitas) was such a guild,
arising quite spontaneously and
freely with the desire and need
for learning.
Such guilds organized them
selves in a aemocratic manner,
elected their own officials and as
sumed full responsibility for lay
ing down the rules and regula
tons necessary for those to fol
low who sought membership in
the craft of teachers.
The university w-as thus a self
perpetuating, self-governing as
sociation of masters or students or
both. When once its free status
had been secured and recognized,
it sought fiercely, and often with
a too easy mediaeval resort to
violence, to maintain this free
dom. The university of students at
Bologna (Bolo-
ena becran as !
sity v of stu
dents) found
that its liber
ty to pursue
learning as
it saw fit (and
these students
of the law
were very
serious) was
uuu uLiea oy Courtesy Lincoln Journal
the professors Johnson
vho were in league for certain pur
poses with the citizens of Bologna.
At Paris and elsewhere in north
ern Europe where masters and
students were regarded as clerics
and thus amenable only to the
jurisdiction of the church, the uni
versity of masters (here the uni
versity was first composed of teach
ers) had to struggle to maintain
its privileged autonomy against
The lone awaited statement bv
C. Clyde Mitchell came as shock
ing proof that academic freedom
has been violated at the Univer
sity of Nebraska.
The letter, when placed beside
the developments in the Mitchell
case as reported in The Nebraskan
during the past weeks, brings out
two salient points. First, The Ne
braskan's reporting of the facts
prior to the statement was ob
jective. Second, the integrity of
the administration in its handling
of the Mitchell case has been high
ly questionable.
Several weeks ago The Nebras
kan reported that C. Clyde Mitchell
was being relieved of his chair
manship. Adam Breckenridge, re
sorting to what was clearly se
mantic duplicity, "scotched these
rumors" with a statement to the
effect that the case had not come
before the Regents since he had
assumed his position July, 1955.
The Nebraskan reported that a
high administrator in the College
of Agriculture had told a meeting
of 16 members of the Agricultural
Economics department that Mit
chell would not be retained as
chairman.
It was well known at that time
the University had contacted men
outside of the state for the job. At
least one of these men had visited
the campus.
Dean Lambert publicly denied
all knowledge of these facts,
though they could hardly have
been unknown to him. As persons
associated with the Agricultural
Economics Department began to
submit statements to The Nebras
kan, the administration labeled
their articles "ridiculous."
Two weeks ago Chancellor Har
din issued a statement asserting
that academic freedom had not
been endangered because no cas
had been presented for Mitchell
before the Liasion Committee or
L ::J
Answers Needed On Tribunal
To the Editor: - .
In considering the possibility of
a Btudent tribunal and honor sys
tem, satisfactory answers must be
provided to several important
questions.
(1) What law would tribunal en
force? Will the student justices
merely enforce regulations handed
down to them by the University
administration or will the regu
lations be those which students
had a hand in drafting?
A tribunal enforcing the legis
Btive fiats of our administration
may well be only a scrapgoat for
workable policies such as the Uni
Trsity "drinking policy."
(2) What qualifications will be re
quired of candidates for posi
tions on the tribunal? Law student
status? Over 21? Open to anyone?
3) What rules of evidence will
be used: In honor cases especial
ly will intent be proved? Will an
"overt act" be necessary, or can
"conspiracy to cheat," such as
preparing crib-notes before class
without actually using them, be a
violation? Who will obtain "evi
dence?" Student spies? University
plain-olothesmen?
(4) Will someone who . know
of an instance of cheating but
who says nothing be subject to
such punishment for not inform
ing? If he is subject to such punish
aienL a vast atmosphere of fear
the local hierarchy of the secular
church: the officials of the cathed
ral chapter, the bishop and the
archhbishop, and against the car
dinals and legates of that Rome
to whom they often had to ap
peal for protection.
They had also to protect them
selves against the burghers who
more often resented their liberties
and license than they understood
the essential freedom for which
they fought. They had to resist
the encroachments of royal offi
cials, and ultimately of the king
himself, who was their second
source of appeal.
This fight on many fronts to pre
serve the liberty of the univer-
sty was stubbornly conducted. Its
chief weapons were the migration
and the cessation. Professors who
needed nothing much more than
student fees to carry on their
work were quick to move to anoth
er town when they felt their privi
leges locally abused.
About half of the universities
of mediaeval Europe, and among
these some of the greatest, owe
their foundation to this willing
ness on the part of teachers and
students to tolerate any local op
pression. When the matter was not import
ant enough for an exodus or mi
gration, it was often sufficient to
stop lecturing cessation). And
while the refusal of the professors
to go on talking was not always
regarded as intolerable, revolting
universities were never without
a welcome elsewhere. This im
pluse to get out the town council
of Bologna tried finally to curb
with the death penalty.
It is worth citing some of the
incidents of this large struggle for
institutional freedom.- Oxford in
the fourteenth century was the
academic home of a master, John
Wycliffe, whose heretical opinions
the strenuous efforts of neither
Pope nor archbishop could totally
surpress.
After his opinions had been con
demned by Rome and by the Arch
bishop of Canterbury, a former
disciple, Nicholas Hereford, in a
on Ascension Day, 1382, boldly as
serted, as he had done on many
Nebraskan Letterips
Statement 'Shocking
the Academic Freedom and Ten
ure Committee.
It was inconceivable that the
Chancellor, surrounded by his cap
able advisors, did not know that a
chairman could be relieved for any
cause or no cause whatever. Fol
lowing the Mitchell statement the
administration -wisely declined to
comment.
The administration has maneu
vered shrewdly, but has placed
both feet squarely in its mouth
each time it has taken a stand on
the Mitchell issue. This should not
be construed as a slam at the ad
ministration's political skill, for I
doubt that anyone could have suc
cessfully suppressed the evidence.
The administration has not been
without support in its stand. I am
sure that they appreciated Dr.
Pfeiler's letter, in which he elo
quently questioned The Nebras
kan's motives, and concluded that
The Nebraskan's handling of the
Mitchell case -was yellow journal
ism. If The Nebraskan has at times
approached the limits of yellow
journalism, then the demotion of
C. Clyde Mitchell and the rea
sons given for it, which are a di
rect reflection upon the profes
sional competence of Mitchell, are
clearly a ease of slander.
No one who has objectively con
sidered the issue could doubt that
Mitchell was demoted because in
terest outside the University did
not agree with his economic views.
A faculty member told me a
few days ago that both sides were
liberally endowed with "brains,"
but that men of honesty, honor and
integrity have rallied to the sup
port of Mitchell. The Nebraskan
can be proud that such men as
Dr. Edgar Johnson, Dr. Nathan
Blumberg, Dr. Frederick Beutel,
Dr. William Swindler. Dr. Herbert
nnrl susDicion is created. If one
is not required to report violations
under penalty of punishment, few
indeed will be the cases brought
before the tribunal.
(5) Who will prosecute the cases
and present the University's evi
dence? Dean Hallgren? Or student
inquisitors? Or will the justices
themselves confront the accused
with such evidence as they may
have?
Would not the accused, then, be
guilty until proved innocent. Who
would defend the accused: Law
students? Himself? Could witnesses
be subpoened? What if they re
fuse to testify? Could such a silent
witness be expelled from school,
for example, because he wouldn't
tell on someone else?
It should be borne in mind that
a successful honor system requires
a genuine belief that it is wrong
to cheat or lie In any form. Lack
ing this, the community on which
such a system is imposed must be
so rigorously policed that every
one is constantly watched.
In an American University com
munity the second possibility is
unthinkable. It is equally obvious
that on this campus, cheating is
not considered dishonest.
An effective tribunal and honor
system seems remote until these
difficulties are resolved.
Charles W. Goman
occasions, his sympathy with Wy
cliffe, and in his prayer he deliber
ately omitted the mention of the
Pope.
Yet, he was not hindered in his
progress toward a degree. On Cor
pus Christi of the same year he
was again appointed to preach be
fore the Univesity, by the chan
cellor, Robert Rugge. Before the
day arrived, an order from the
archbishop was served upon the
chancellor, directing him to pub
lish the condemnation of Wycliffe's
theses.
The chancellor flatly refused to
comply with the injunction. In his
sermon on that day, Hereford went
on with his defense of Wycliffe
and, "as the chancellor retired
in state from the church, follow
ed by the whole concourse of doc
tor's and masters, he made a point
of waiting for the preacher at the
church door, and walked home
with him, 'laughing, and great
joy came upon the Lollards (Wy
cliffe's followers) at such a ser
mon.' The chancellor professed that
h dared not. for fear of his life,
publish .the condemation of Wy
cliffe iii Oxford. "Then is oxtora,
rn!id the archbishop, "the uni
versity of heresies, if he will not
allow orthodox truths to bt pub
lished." In 1411 the archbishop, in sptie
of a papal exemption, cited the
University to appear before him.
TVi rhanM'llor and the proctors
refused to allow the archbishop
to enter Oxford. The church at
which they were to appear was
fortified against him.
The scholars appeared in ttie
streets armed with bows and ar
rows and showed themselves quite
prepared to use thenr against the
primate and his retinue snouia tne
attempt be persisted in. When the
town was laid under an inter
dict, a proctor broke open the doors
of a University church and said
mass as usual.
When the archbishop, complain
ing with "what insolency he had
been received by a company of
boys" took the matter to the king,
who required the chancellor and
Proof
Jehle, Kris Kristianson and Ernie
Feder have supported Mitchell.
The Mitchell case has cast serious
doubt upon the integrity of the ad
ministration. Mitchell has dem
onstrated that his demotion was,
first, known to the administration
for many months, and second, the
result of outside political pressures.
This is a direct contradiction of
the statements by Hardin, Lambert
and Breckenridge.
I am certain that what Chancel
lor Hardin meant, when he com
mented several weeks ago that
"The Nebraskan was doing a dis
service to the University," was
that The Nebraskan was doing
a disservice to the present ad
ministration. The courageous stand of The
Nebraskan in the Mitchell case
is a credit to the editor and the
University. Though this The Ne
braskan's final issue, I know that
the fight for academic freedom
will not end at Nebraska.
A Student
'First Step'
To The Editor:
As a graduate of the University
who has kept in close touch with
student groups since leaving
school, I wish to thank this se
mester's Nebraskan editor and
staff for a job mighty well done.
The free press is a wonderful
thing, but can sometimes be pretty
meaningless. The Nebraskan, with
both courage and hard work, has
put meaning into Its own freedom
by publishing what needed to be
published. ... '
That your paper has been free
is to the credit of the way our
University is organized. That it
has said what it has is to the
credit of the editor and staff.
I am sure I am joined by many
other alumni in being proud of our
University, and in having confi
dence that when thincrs go wrong
on the campus they will be righted.
The Nebraskan has taken the
first step in this process, by show
ing what is wrong. For a job well
done, thanks.
Aa Alum
Clayton 'Sorry'
To the Editor:
1 am very sorry to learn that
Dr. Mitchell is being or has been
replaces as chairman of the de
partment of agricultural e c o -nomics
at the University. I was a
member of the department while
Clyde Mitchell was chairman and
I enjoyed very much both the
work and association with Dr.
Mitchell.
There is no question about Dr.
Mitchell's professional ability. In
my. opinion Dr. Mitchell should "be
commended for dealing with con
troversial issues which many pub
lic employees try to avoid,
Unfortunately, these controver
sial issues are often the most im
portant ones and also the areas
which need more information.
It is good to see students take
an active interest in the academic
affairs at a university.
P. C. Clayton
Former agricultural
economics staff member
y divers
protectors to resign, the Univer
sity decreed a cessation, and,
when required to elect a new chan
cellor and proctors, it re-elected
the old ones.
It was difficult at Paris to get
the impudent friars to obey the
statutes of the University and the
chancellor of the cathedral chap
ter to respect its privileges.
To tame the latter an election
of their own chancellor and even
Upper Chamber
Today's "Upper Chamber"
column was written specially for
The Nebraskan by Edgar Johnson,
professor of history. The theme,
"The Medieval University", was
given as a lecture to Johnson's
History of Western Culture class.
a dissolution of the University were
tried. The general of the Domi
nicans complained that his friars
were hard put to it in the course
of their subjection. "It was dan
gerous for a friar to be seen
abroad ... No sooner was he
caught sight of . , , than he was
surrounded by the human swarms
that poured forth from every house
and hostel in the narrow street
"hurrying as if to a spectacle.'
Instantly the air was full of 'the
tulmult of shoutings the barking of
dogs, the roaring of bears, the
hissing of serpents, and every sort
of insulting exclamation.
Filty rushes and straw off the
floors of those unsavoury dwell
ings were poured uopn the cowled
heads from above; mud, stones,
sometimes blows, greeted them
from below." Arrows were shot
against their convent, "which had
henceforth to be guarded night
and day by royal troops."
It was a special satisfaction for
the mere rector of the masters
of arts at Paris, when a dean
of theology, who was also an
archbishop and a papal legate was
"by the superior numbers and
athletic prowess of the young Mas
ters of Arts, and their younger
pupils . . . forcibly expelled from
he Rector's chair of State in the
choir of S. German-des-Pres."
After a riot or two he even suc
ceeed in acquiring the dignity
of sharing "in solitary grandeur,"
with the Bishop of Paris bringing
up the rear of public processions.
These struggles for institutional
freedom were paralled by some
efforts to secure an adequate re
presentation of more than one
point of view. Mediaeval philoso
phers wre divided between two
main schools, realists and nomina
lists. In some of the German univer
sities at least the dispute between
realist and nominalist raged so
hot that it was necessary to offer
in the arts courses both a real
ist and nominalist approach to
each book on philosophy and, for
WHAT'S THIS?
For solution
porograph below.
PARACHUTIST
4AMMM IN WA.TM
John ArteriMVT
' U. of Oklahoma-
u
WML
mow km nmsoN
WITH NAKDOW MIMf
Wynn Dahlcraa
U. of Onto
rowri (not IB)
Lowell Griamm
Southern Illinois
AMOA
Joshua
KQWCtUM rot NATIVI
CONTIMMATIWI SUiOM
Richard Torpia
Holy Croat
A.T. Ce.
MODUCT
LilLlJl
I jj
p?3 '
rihYffttfttfMiM1tt,t'a IB WUiai0jl4liLlL"JillUuJLialltU'T
the sake of more than academic
peace, to house the respective
teachers and scholars separatley.
Former President Conant of Har
vard took care to point out to
his Board of Overseers in 1948
that "universities . . , could devlop
only in an atmosphere which per
mitted 'that liberty of assocaciton
and that juridical autonomy which
are not only the condition sine
qua for the formation of the
esssence." "
He argued thst such "a group
of devoted and loyal men united
for a special purpose, governed
by its own traditions and perpet
uated by its own rules, yet given
recognized status by a higher au
thority, must be an unconscious
agent for the spread of ideas hos
tile to all forms of tranny."
He then said that "to the extent
that we depart from this tradi
tional ideas we endanger the in.
dependence of our universities and
thus tend to destroy their useful
ness in these days so critical for
freedom."
Mitchell Statement
Needs Clarification
First of all may I commend
Brugmann for the vigorous and
persistent way in which he has
handled the Mitchell situation. He
has made mistakes, to be sure, but
the overall value of his contribu
tion outweighs those errors.
The Mitchell case has seemed to
me rather nebulous from the be
ginning. The fault has not been
the Rag's but simply a lack of
conclusive evidence.
Now we finally have at our dis
posal a statement by Dr. Mitchell
himself. This statement does much
to clear the air, although it is by
no means conclusive.
I believe that several points in
Mitchell's statement warrant clari
fication, for his case is not, as
some have claimed, "black and
white."
1. Mitchell states that attempts
were made "to tone down, modi
fy, and even to censor my publi
cations." What is the difference
between attempts at modification
and attempts at censorship, and
to what extent were those at
tempts successful?
2. He states that he was "ad
vised to curtail my speaking and
writing activities." What was the
specific nature of the advice, how
strong was it, and to what extent
was it followed?
3. He states that he was notified
HERE 8 poa
(1
THERE'S A MEETING OF THE MINDS in the Droodle
above: Board meeting out for Lucky break. All in
favor of better taste have signified by lighting up a
Lucky. Luckies 11 the bill when it cocoes to taste,
because they're made of fine tobacco mild, good
tasting tobacco that's TOASTED to taste even better.
First item on your agenda: pick up a pack of Luckies.
You'll say they're the best -tasting cigarette you ever
smoked 1
DROODLES. Copyright 1953 by Roger Priw
9if5
jo teste
COLLEGE
SMOKERS
PREFER
HNftHt
Harvey, IV
Vato
: ir Titeitftir-1 TiiiTiijiiittii:winii,y''1Jit''"' '
O O
LUCKIES!!
Luckies lead all
other brands, regu
lar or king size,
among 36,075
college etudents
.questioned coast to
coast. The number
one reason: Luckies
taste better.
JITS m CLOSI
FORMATION
Donald Knudaca
Harvard
OF
( I SI6NA. ?Ml 1 , I
ok.you Pledges' it's time
that "if any reasons be demanded,
an official statement would be
made that I had performed my
professional duties inadequately."
As I recall, the official statement
referred not to Mitchell's profes
sional duties but to his adminis-
Given 'em Ell
trative duties. Professional duties
involve teaching and research, but
not administration. What, then, if
any, is the basis of this apparent
discrepancy in terminology?
I raise these questions not sim
ply to be ornery or to criticize
Dr. Mitchell. I wish only to point
ou that the case is by no means
closed; that we now have need of
more specific substantiation and
documentation.
In view of Dr. Cohen's advice,
it is understandable that Mitchell
has not contacted the Committee
on Tenure and Academic Privi
lege. We may justly wonder, how
ever, why he has not appealed to
other available champions of aca
demic freedom, such as the AAUP.
In any case it seems obvious that
the spirit; if not the letter, of aca
demic freedom has been grossly
and despicably violated. It is smail
wonder that the administration has
been so silent; they have irre
mSKY BRGODLgS! S
V
l
t
I . ..
(SSOM i
CIGARETTES
1 '
DKtlllCt'l U.HPIHG 'MANLlFACTliRF-a Of CiOARFTTS
fqr&d
.
h.
- 4
sponsibly mutilated not only their
explanations but also a man's rep
utation and the spirit of academic
freedom.
The question is not one of lack
of loyalty. We are, first, men, and
second, citizens. As men and as
citizens our loyalty is not to other
men but to principles: the princi
ples which make our government
in all its facets our tool and not
our tyrant.
Academic freedom is one of thosa
principles. It is a principle which
stands above the level of politics
and Regents and social-economic
ideology.
It is a principle which has led
the AAUP to confirm the right of
Communists to teach in our uni
versities: "How else are Ameri
cans to know the nature of the
ideological currents in their
world?"
Our loyalty, then, is not to th
Chancellor or the Board of Regents
or Mitchell; it is to the spirit and
letter of academic freedom. Re
member what Voltaire says? "I
disapprove of what you say, but
I will defend to the death your
right to say it."
Or do we prefer Alice's Queen,
whose entire vocabulary consists
substantially of the cry "Off with
their heads"? '
I
I
f
K
&
,
9
',
i -
!-
-
8-
t
t
i
i
r
1
