THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE. 



663 



THE PROGRESS OE SCIENCE. 



It is now possible to make a fairly 

 definite statement regarding the en- 

 forced resignation of Professor Ross 

 from Leland Stanford Junior University 

 and the subsequent events. Professors 

 are reappointed annually at Stanford, 

 and Professor Ross received his ap- 

 pointment last year somewhat late and 

 after a warning. He attributed this 

 to Mrs. Stanford's disapproval of his 

 economic teachings, and presented his 

 resignation, to take effect at the end 

 of the present academic year. The 

 resignation was accepted on November 

 14 and Professor Ross published in the 

 daily papers a statement attributing the 

 trouble to Mrs. Stanford's dissatisfac- 

 tion with his economic views, espe- 

 cially on coolie emigration and munic- 

 ipal ownership. Owing to this publi- 

 cation, Professor Ross's connection with 

 the university was terminated. Presi- 

 dent Jordan has stated that he was 

 not dismissed on account of his views 

 on Oriental immigration, or on any 

 economic question, but because, in the 

 judgment of the university authorities, 

 he was not the proper man for the place 

 he held. Unfortunately, the affair did 

 not terminate with the retirement of 

 Professor Ross. On the morning after 

 its announcement, Professor Howard, 

 of the Department of History, lectured 

 to his students on the subject, blaming 

 more or less directly the university au- 

 thorities for their attitude. After an 

 interval of two months, Professor How- 

 ard was asked to apologize or resign. 

 He resigned; and as a protest Pro- 

 fessor Hudson, of the Department of 

 English, and Professor Little, of the 

 Department of Mathematics, also re- 

 signed. These being, in brief, the facts 

 of the case, there has been much pri- 

 vate and public discussion as to whether 

 academic freedom has been infringed 



by the authorities of Stanford Univer- 

 sity. Thus a committee of the San 

 Francisco alumni has prepared a report 

 upholding the action of the university, 

 while, with substantially the same evi- 

 dence before it, a committee of three 

 economists has published a pamphlet, 

 supporting Professor Ross in his claim 

 that he has been unjustly treated. It 

 is not true, as has been alleged, that 

 President Jordan acted against his will, 

 under the authority of Mrs. Stanford. 

 The question reduces itself to the more 

 general one as to whether university 

 authorities must retain a professor 

 when his methods are regarded as harm- 

 ful to the institution. 



Professor Ross evidently has the 

 qualities of the reformer rather than of 

 the judicial expert. His stump speeches 

 and illustrated pamphlet supporting 

 free silver in the campaign of 1896 in- 

 jured the university, and his published 

 writings and his lectures before his 

 classes are extreme in their rhetorical 

 opposition to the wealth and conditions 

 that made Stanford University possible. 

 Thus, if we glance through his articles, 

 we find them strewn with statements 

 such as 'the lawlessness, the insolence 

 and the rapacity of private interests'; 

 "Under the ascendency of the rich and 

 leisured, property becomes more sacred 

 than person, moral standards vary with 

 pecuniary status, and it is felt that 

 'God will think twice before he damns 

 a person of quality.' " The question is 

 not as to the truth or falsehood of 

 Professor Ross's views, nor as to the 

 desirability of having reformers and 

 even fanatics in the land; it is whether 

 the university, to its own injury, should 

 lend them its authority, whether the 

 professor should have not only the right 

 to investigate and communicate his re- 



