Academic Freedom and Tenure:Grove City College

Introduction

On February 14, 1962, Dr. Larry Gara, Professor ofHistory and Political Science at Grove City College,Grove City, Pennsylvania, was informed orally by theDean of the College, Dr. William W. Swezey, in thepresence of the Dean of Men and the Registrar, that hisservices to the College were not satisfactory, and that itwould be wise for him to resign and seek a position else-where with the aid of letters of recommendation fromthe Administration. Two days later Professor Gara wasinformed in a conference with the President of theCollege, Dr. J. Stanley Harker, and Dean Swezey, thathis contract would not be renewed for 1962-63 becauseof his incompetence, and that numerous adversely criticalletters had been sent to the College by students, parents,.and alumni. President Harker refused to make any ofthese letters available to Professor Gara for study.

Thus began a series of events that led to the appoint-ment of an ad hoc committee of the American Associa-tion of University Professors, consisting of ProfessorRonald V. Sires, Whitman College, Chairman, ProfessorMadeline Robinton, Brooklyn College, and ProfessorRalph S. Brown, Jr., Yale University Law School; thiscommittee now submits its report.1 The ad hoc com-mittee held its sessions at the Penn Grove Hotel in GroveCity on May 29 and 30 and interviewed 31 membersof the faculty and two persons having no official connec-tion with the College. The members of this investigatingcommittee decided that it would not be profitable tointerview students currently enrolled in the College.About two weeks before the meeting of the investigatingcommittee at Grove City the Board of Trustees of theCollege had voted by postal ballot not to take any officialcognizance of the investigation by the Association.

1 The text of this report was written in the first instance bythe members of the investigating committee. In accordance withAssociation practice, that text was sent (a) to the Association'sstanding Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (Com-mittee A), and (b) to the teacher at whose request the investiga-tion was conducted and the Administration of Grove City College.In the light of the suggestions received, and with the editorialassistance of the Association staff, the report has been revised forpublication.

Professor Larry Gara

Professor Larry Gara was born in 1922 and receivedthe B.A. degree from William Penn College (Iowa) in1947, the M.A. degree in the following year fromPennsylvania State University, and the Ph.D. degree inhistory from the University of Wisconsin in 1953. Heserved as instructor in history at Bluffton College (Ohio)in 1948-49, lectured in American history at Mexico CityCollege, Mexico City, D.F., in 1953-54, and rose frominstructor to assistant professor of history at Eureka Col-lege (Illinois) from 1954 to 1957. In the summer of thelatter year he accepted a professorship in history andpolitical science at Grove City College. He thus had fiveyears of college teaching experience before coming toGrove City College and in 1961-62 was serving his fifthyear there. Under the 1940 Statement of Principles onAcademic Freedom and Tenure, jointly adopted by theAssociation of American Colleges and the AmericanAssociation of University Professors, Professor Gara mustbe regarded as having served his probationary period andto have had tenure at the time of the decision not torenew his contract. Grove City College, however, hasno tenure policy, written or oral. The institution has noestablished procedures or practices for adjudicating dis-missal actions.

Professor Gara is a member of the Society of Friends,is a convinced believer in pacifism, and was sentenced toprison in 1943 for refusal to register for military serviceand served three years. Also, in 1950, he served part ofan eighteen-month sentence for the counselling offered byhim to a student at Bluffton College who had refused toregister under the Selective Service Act of 1948; in thiscase conviction was affirmed despite contentions that theapplication of the statute infringed freedom of speech,in Gara v. United States, 178 F 2d 38 (6th Cir. 1949),and (without opinion, by an equally divided SupremeCourt), 340 U.S. 857 (1950). Both Professor Gara andthe President of Grove City College, Dr. J. StanleyHarker, state that the facts of the first prison sentencewere known to the President at the time of initial appoint-ment; but since President Harker did not discuss the casewith the investigating committee, we have not been able

S P R I N G 1 9 6 3 1 5

to hear from him when he first learned of the secondconviction and prison sentence.

The Dismissal

Not until February 27, 1962, and in response to Pro-fessor Gara's request of February 22, did President Harkerput in writing his reasons for the decision not to renewthe contract for 1962-63.2 President Harker stated that:Professor Gara had in many ways been "a very unco-operative staff member"; his class work had "alwaysleft much to be desired," and he had taught one course(Ancient History) with "such utter indifference" that thePresident had in later semesters taken over the coursehimself; Gara had "literally flaunted [SIC] directive [sic]from the Dean's office"; a "mounting flood of criticism"had come from students and parents, and from graduatesand friends of the College, regarding his "indifferentteaching and ruthless grading"; and Gara's leadershipas head of the department of history and political science"virtually did not exist." Under these circumstances ithad become "literally impossible" for President Harkerto defend him. Professor Gara's contract was not beingrenewed because his work did not "measure up to thestandard we want maintained by members of our faculty,especially a departmental chairman." The decision not torenew the contract, said the President, had nothing to dowith the teacher's record as a conscientious objector orwith his having served a second prison term "for trying topersuade young people to defy the government. . . . "

This official exposition by President Harker came abouta month after a related account of Professor Gara'swork was given to Professor W. B. Hesseltine, who hadbeen Gara's advisor in graduate work at the Universityof Wisconsin.3 Here President Harker said that fromthe very first students had characterized Professor Garaas a "very dreary teacher" (President Harker's words).He went on to add criticisms of the way in which Pro-fessor Gara had taught a course in Ancient History—thathe had learned from his daughter that Professor Garahad cut relevant portions from textbooks in the field andpasted them in his own notebook for direct use inlectures. President Harker referred to Professor Gara's"absurd testing and ruthless grading" and said that hehad asked "questions about footnotes, legends under pic-tures, even minor details about textbook pictures." Soharsh was the grading that the Dean of the College hadreferred to the most recent semester report as "anotherslaughter of the innocent." President Harker also criti-cized Professor Gara for refusing to accept "excusedabsence slips" from the office of the Dean of the College.

He asked Professor Hesseltine if he could find some otherwork for Professor Gara and thus "let him beat me tothe punch with a resignation. . . . " This comment helpsus to understand a statement made to the investigatingcommittee that, at the first conference on February 14,Professor Gara was not "fired" but that the suggestionwas made that he seek another position with the aid ofletters of recommendation from the Administration.

After receiving the President's letter of February 27,1962, and after a period of informal exchange, and ofmediative effort, Professor Gara wrote a letter4 to Presi-dent Harker stating his understanding that, under gen-erally accepted academic standards, he had tenure at theCollege and should therefore be granted a formal hearingbefore a committee of faculty members operating underthe guidelines indicated in the 1958 Statement on Proce-dural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, jointlyprepared by the Association of American Colleges andthe American Association of University Professors. Healso requested an assignment of academic duties for the1962-63 academic year. In his reply5 President Harkernoted that Grove City College had no tenure program andthat Professor Gara was so informed when he acceptedthe position—therefore the assumption that he had tenurewas false. While the President did not specifically sostate, the "false" assumption made by Professor Garaapparently ruled out any right to a formal hearing. Thisview obviously conflicts with the 1940 Statement ofPrinciples, which says:

Termination for cause of a continuous appointment, orthe dismissal for cause of a teacher previous to the expira-tion of a term appointment, should, if possible, be con-sidered by both a faculty committee and the governingboard of the institution. In all cases where the facts arein dispute, the accused teacher should be informed beforethe hearing in writing of the charges against him andshould have the opportunity to be heard in his owndefense by all bodies that pass judgment upon his case.He should be permitted to have with him an adviser ofhis own choosing who may act as counsel. There shouldbe a full stenographic record of the hearing availableto the parties concerned. In the hearing of charges ofincompetence the testimony should include that of teachersand other scholars, either from his own or from otherinstitutions. Teachers on continuous appointment whoare dismissed for reasons not involving moral turpitudeshould receive their salaries for at least a year from thedate of notification of dismissal whether or not they arecontinued in their duties at the institution.

Later correspondence between the President and ProfessorGara regarding the payment of salary for the year 1962-

2 President Harker to Professor Gara, February 27, 1962.3 President Harker to Professor W. B. Hesseltine, January 29,

1962.

4 Professor Gara to President Harker, April 2, 1962.5 President Harker to Professor Gara (copy, no date given), in

Gara to Washington Office, April 5, 1962.

1 6 A A UP BULLETIN

63 has no bearing on the denial of academic due processin the dismissal proceedings.6

The action of the College administration in the caseof Professor Gara fails most seriously to measure up tothe principles and procedures given in the 1940 Statementof Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure or to the1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Vacuity Dis-missal Proceedings.7 The latter document spells out inconsiderable detail the procedures that should be followedin a dismissal action against a faculty member who hastenure or whose term of appointment has not expired. Insuch cases, the following steps should be taken: theappropriate administrative officer should discuss the matterwith the faculty member in personal conference; if thematter is not mutually settled at this point, a standing orad hoc committee of the faculty should inquire into thesituation and attempt to effect a settlement; if suchsettlement is not effected, more formal proceedings may beundertaken before a separately elected committee of thefaculty, the faculty member having the procedural rightsset forth in the 1940 Statement of Principles on AcademicFreedom and Tenure (quoted above). The final decisionrests with the governing body of the institution, whichmay, but ordinarily would not, make a judgment contraryto that given by the faculty hearing committee; if thejudgment is adverse to the teacher, the hearing committeeshould have a second opportunity to consider the case,along with the board's view, and again to send the matterup to the governing board.

Conclusions

The Investigating Committee concludes that:1. Although Professor Gara had been criticized ad-

e Professor Gara requested President Harker to appoint himfor the coming year (1962-63) to the Grove City CollegeFaculty, and the President replied that it was impossible for himto grant the request. In a letter of May 18, 1962, PresidentHarker informed Professor Gara that it had been their intentionfrom the outset to give "some separation allowance," and notedthat "at a recent meeting of the Executive Committee of ourBoard of Trustees, I proposed a separation allowance and wasauthorized to continue your salary throughout the next academicyear, i.e., until the first of September, 1963." On May 29Professor Gara wrote a letter accepting the offer of a separationallowance "consisting of my present salary extending until thefirst of September, 1963." He added that the acceptance of anallowance would bear no relation to any other compensationearned during the year 1962-63 and that it would not dispose ofthe matters relating to his leaving Grove City College. He alsoinsisted that President Harker owed him a public apology andretraction for statements made by the President to the press andfor the statement questioning Gara's academic competence. OnFebruary 1, 1963, Professor Gara received a letter from theCollege Treasurer saying "it was just brought to my attention youwere to receive a year's separation pay"; checks covering theperiod September, 1962, through January, 1963, were enclosed,and promise of further checks, through August, 1963, was made.

'American Association of University Professors, Bulletin,Spring, 1958, pp. 270-74.

versely by the Administration for his grade distributionand for his performance in teaching the Ancient Historycourse, these criticisms apparently had not been presentedto him as a warning concerning possible dismissal action.8

Whatever the substance of these issues might or mightnot prove to be upon trial, they were not introduced andprepared for consideration by a proper procedure.

2. Although the dismissal of Professor Gara was forstated cause, neither evidence nor argument was presentedin a hearing before any faculty committee, or any Boardcommittee, or the Board as a whole within the frame-work of any recognizable form of due process, academicor general.

3. Although this action was of an extremely serious' kind, neither a Board committee nor the Board announceda formal decision regarding the teacher's dismissal.9

4. The principles and procedures which are regardedby the American Association of University Professors asappropriate and necessary for the governance of a dis-missal action in higher education were, in all major ways,absent in this case. The Administration of Grove CityCollege denied Professor Gara any semblance of thatdue process which is the basis of adjudication.

5. The absence of due process in this case raises inthe minds of the Investigating Committee grave doubtsregarding the academic security of any persons who mayhold appointment at Grove City College under existingadministrative practice. These doubts are of an orderof magnitude which obliges us to report them to theacademic profession at large.

Ronald V. Sires (History, Whitman College), Chair-man

Ralph S. Brown, Jr. (Law, Yale University)Madeline R. Robinton (History, Brooklyn College)

The Investigating Committee

Grove City College:Supplementary Observations

The dismissal action in this case was accompanied bycollateral controversy, disclosure of unusual attendantcircumstances, and frequent display of emotion. Manyof these elements were reported in the press and by radioand television broadcast. The investigating committeein these Supplementary Observations believes itself obligedto review such of these elements as meet two standards:(1) elements which clearly and significantly relate to the

'With respect to the Ancient History course, taught in 1959,Professor Gara states that his first adverse criticism on this pointcame from the Administration in February, 1962.

8 In a letter of February 6, 1963, President Harker states that"an announcement was made by our Board, "and that" thedismissal was fully discussed with our faculty in the spring bythe President of the Board himself." The Washington Officethereupon requested from President Harker a copy of theannouncement and an indication of the date when it was released;this information has not been received.

S P R I N G 1963 1 7

Gara case, and which would in fact have been made partof our main report if the cooperation of the Administra-tion or the possession of subpoena power had made pos-sible further inquiry, and (2) elements regarding whichsilence would be unjust, even though a resolution of eachissue may not be possible.

I. Grove City College and its Faculty

Grove City College is described in its catalogue as "asmall Christian college of liberal arts and sciences." It islocated in Grove City, Pennsylvania, a town of 8000population, about 60 miles north of Pittsburgh. TheCollege is affiliated with the United Presbyterian Church,U.S.A., and operates under the Presbyterian Standards forColleges; of the student body of a little over 1500, abouthalf are Presbyterians. The College has declared that it"practices in its admission policy no restrictions as torace, color, or creed."

Grove City College is governed by a Board of Trusteesof 30 members, of whom Mr. J. Howard Pew, a leadingPresbyterian layman, and prominent industrialist, is presi-dent. The Pew family has been closely associated withthe College since its founding in 1884; the first presidentof the Board of Trustees was J. N. Pew; and severalbuildings on the campus are gifts of members of thefamily. Since 1956 the President of the College has beenDr. J. Stanley Harker, an alumnus of Grove City Collegeand an ordained minister who holds a Ph.D. degree inhistory from the University of Pittsburgh.

Grove City College has recently been reaccredited (i.e.,had its accreditation continued) by the Middle StatesAssociation of Colleges and Secondary Schools. TheCollege offers programs leading to the degrees of Bachelorof Arts, Bachelor of Science, and Bachelor of Music. Itoffers, in the Bachelor of Science program, courses inengineering but not an engineering degree, and, in theBachelor of Arts program, courses in business administra-tion. It prepares students for elementary and secondaryschool certification in the state of Pennsylvania. Forthese instructional fields the College maintains a facultyof just under 80 full-time teachers, of whom slightlymore than 25 per cent hold the Ph.D. degree.10

In a Self Evaluation Report submitted to the MiddleStates Association in December, 1959, it is stated that1956 marked the turning point in improvement of theconditions of academic employment at the College. Therehas been an increase in the number of faculty with thehope of reducing the teaching load (p. 57). Salaries havebeen raised annually (p. 59). However, the investigatingcommittee was informed that no salary schedules arepublished, salary checks are given in envelopes marked

"confidential," and the recipient is asked to keep theinformation confidential. The Report stressed the need of"a more realistic and satisfactory arrangement with respectto the teaching in Summer School." Although the condi-tions under which a faculty member is released fromsummer teaching assignment have not been spelled out,a rotation system of two summers on and one summer offhas been established. Salary is paid on an annual basis.

Retirement provisions are not spelled out.11 The retire-ment program is a noncontributory one which has beenendowed. Faculty members stated to the investigatingcommittee that the age of retirement is not fixed; theywere uncertain whether it was 65, 70, or fluctuating.Furthermore, in order to receive benefit, one has to bein service at age of retirement; anyone who leaves beforethe last year prior to retirement has no equity in theretirement fund and will receive no compensation, regard-less of the years of service.

The 1959 Self Evaluation Report stated: "Some typeof tenure policy, also, is an aim for the best conditionsof academic employment" (p. 50). However, there is asyet no written statement describing such a policy. Facultymembers, when interviewed by the ad hoc committee,agreed that there was no written statement on tenure, andthat appointment was on annual contract; still, some be-lieve that a de facto system of tenure has been in opera-tion. Two recently appointed people stated that at theirinitial interview with Dean Swezey they had been toldthat it was very seldom that a contract was not regularlyrenewed after the second or third year. The faculty, somemembers said, had a feeling of security because it wasgenerally understood that contracts would be renewedexcept in very rare cases. A number of faculty membershave accepted unquestioningly the prerogative of anadministration to dismiss anyone who is for any reasonunsatisfactory to his employer.

The faculty also apparently accepted, at the time ofthe 1959 Self Evaluation Report, the fact that appoint-ments, salaries, salary increases, promotions, and retire-ment were effectively in the hands of the President,consulting with the Dean. It became clear that evenchairmen of departments were consulted perfunctorily(if at all) on recruitment of members of their depart-ments.12 Some chairmen said that they were not shownthe credentials of persons to be appointed and met themonly at the time of their interview on campus. TheReport indicates (p. 61) that prior to 1956 departmentshad existed in name only and that only since then have

10 Grove City College Bulletin: Catalogue Issue for 1962-63,pp. 135-43. The Administration, in February, 1963, states thatthere are 91 faculty members and that over one third holdearned doctorates.

"President Harker informs the Washington Office that theretirement program has been mimeographed and distributed, buta request for a copy of the statement and an indication of thedate it was placed before the faculty has not yielded thisinformation for the Association files.

"The Administration states, in February, 1963, that thisdescription is "utterly false" in regard to present practice.

1 8 AAV? BULLETIN

departments been created and chairmen named by thePresident to head them.

The Report stated that the "faculty takes an activepart in the planning and formulation of policies, bothacademic and administrative. Academic policy is formu-lated in the Curriculum and Instruction Committee andthen approved by the faculty as a body. Three membersof the faculty also serve on the Administrative Council,which is an executive body, in the formulation of college-wide policies." The present 1962 catalogue of the Collegeindicates that membership of the Curriculum Committeeconsists of the Deans and Chairmen of departments; theCurriculum Committee reports to the faculty any recom-mendations for changes in the curriculum, and the facultyvotes on the Committee's recommendations. The threefaculty members appointed to sit on the AdministrativeCouncil are also departmental chairmen. Faculty membersstated to the ad hoc committee that the AdministrativeCouncil did not report to the faculty and that its minuteswere not circulated to the faculty.

II. Events Following Professor Gara's Dismissal

Events and attitudes that developed after ProfessorGara was notified that he would not be reappointedwarrant brief recital. First, they created a climate ofmistrust and bitterness that has obviously clouded therecollections and judgments of some of the faculty mem-bers interviewed by the investigating committee. Second,these occurrences cast some light on administration-facultyrelationships at Grove City College, especially as theybear on the security of a faculty member in his post.Third, they help explain the shift of the college admin-istration to a hostile attitude toward the American Asso-ciation of University Professors; a shift which resultedin the decision of the administration not to cooperatewith the investigating committee.

After Professor Gara discussed with colleagues hismeeting on February 14 with three administrative officers,and his conference on February 16 with President Harkerand Dean Swezey, the faculty was astir with surpriseand excitement about the dismissal. Some members ob-tained interviews with the President and the Dean. OnFebruary 19, eighteen faculty members met with Pro-fessor Gara to hear his side of the controversy. Thenext day Dean Swezey met with sixteen faculty members(not identical with the group that had met with Gara).A number of those who attended the meeting with theDean stated to the ad hoc committee their belief that hisattitude toward those questioning Professor Gara's dis-missal was a menacing one; others perceived no menacesor threats. In late March one faculty member who hadattended this meeting circulated a statement of confidencein the Administration which 49 faculty members of atotal of just under 80 signed. One faculty member, whowanted to maintain a neutral position on this problem,

sent a separate letter to Dean Swezey expressing similarsentiments.

The climactic events, in an atmosphere of increasinglybad feeling, began with the declaration on March 14 byfive faculty members that they would not accept re-appointment for the following year. The five who re-signed included three assistant professors, the collegelibrarian, and one instructor. Two of the assistant pro-fessors were in their fifth year at Grove City College.The librarian was in her third year; the other two whoresigned had come to Grove City College in 1961. Ofthe five, only one, a colleague in the History Department,appears to have had close personal and professional tieswith Professor Gara. In their letter of March 14 toPresident Harker, the five wrote, "We have decided notto accept your offer to return to Grove City College nextyear because of the dismissal of Dr. Larry Gara for un-satisfactory teaching. We find this charge against Dr.Gara incomprehensible. . . ." Concurrently with theirshort letter of resignation, the five sent a long letter toeach of the Trustees, and released both documents to thepress. These letters received considerable publicity inlocal and Pittsburgh papers on March 15. On the nightof March 15, a dormitory disturbance, which beganwithout any established connection with the Gara case,developed into a noisy demonstration of men studentson his behalf. Two hundred or more students werepersuaded to gather in the college auditorium where DeanSwezey addressed them.

On March 16 a television camera and crew fromPittsburgh station KDKA, as well as radio reporters,arrived on the campus. Mimeographed handbills (ofunknown origin) had appeared in the classroom buildingthat morning announcing this impending visit. A num-ber of brief interviews were broadcast by KDKA thatevening, mostly with supporters of Professor Gara, butthere was also included a statement by President Harkerin which he repeated his charge of incompetence.

There were no further public events, but there wasconsiderable published correspondence in the Pittsburghpapers, and, not surprisingly, close journalistic attentionto the possibility of any further developments in thecase.

Correspondence between the Washington Office of theAmerican Association of University Professors and Presi-dent Harker had commenced on February 27 with normalinquiries about the facts and offers of mediation. OnMarch 29, the Washington Office wrote to PresidentHarker proposing, among other alternatives, a visit by anad hoc committee of the Association to Grove City Col-lege. President Harker, acknowledging this letter onApril 4, justified the dismissal at some length. On April11, after intervening telephone conversations, the Wash-ington Office staff member handling this case advisedPresident Harker of the composition of the investigating

S P R I N G 1 9 6 3 19

committee and confirmed May 29 and 30 as the datesfor the visit. The letter from the Office said:

When the American Association of University Pro-fessors conducts an investigation every effort is madeto minimize publicity. Neither this ofEce nor the investi-gating committee makes an announcement of the visit.If news reporters approach the members of the investi-gating committee at the time they are on the campus, thecommittee members will confine themselves to (a) astatement that they are present for their stated purpose,(b) identifying themselves, and (c) indicating the generalnature of inquiries by an Association investigating com-mittee—without reference to the case in hand and withas much brevity as possible. The committee members willrefer all other questions to your office.

A question had been raised whether the situation atGrove City College might also warrant an investigationand a report to the Association's Committee T onCollege and University Government. Thereupon, theGeneral Secretary wrote to all the Association membersat Grove City College on April 23, stating that an in-vestigating committee would shortly visit the campus,inviting the cooperation of the addressees, and requestingtheir opinion whether an inquiry, concerning itself withfaculty-administration relations, might also need to bedeveloped for study by Committee T. Through this letterabout one fourth of the faculty, in addition to the prin-cipal parties, became aware of the impending investigationregarding academic freedom and tenure. As is customaryin such a letter, there was both a "Confidential" super-scription and an explicit emphatic assurance that opinionsgiven would be held confidential.

On May 3, a staff member in the Washington Officein response to inquiries from journalists, confirmed thedates of the investigating committee visit, and suppliedbackground information about the general functioning ofsuch committees. As reported in the Pittsburgh andlocal papers, this exchange was characterized, inexactly,as an "announcement" by the Washington Office. OnMay 8, President Harker wrote to Association head-quarters complaining that information had been releasedabout the investigation. The reply from the WashingtonOffice, on May 11, explained that since the press alreadyhad knowledge of the investigation it seemed inappro-priate to try to ignore or suppress the fact that one wouldoccur.

On May 18, President Harker wrote to the Associationstaff member in charge of this case, acknowledging hisletter of April 11, and stating that, on instructions fromthe Board of Trustees, "We . . . are not authorized andwill not be able to receive the Committee on May 29and 30." Then, on May 23, President Harker sent a letterto each member of the faculty declaring that in violationof a commitment to him, "AAUP had made at least twopress releases, very prejudiced releases, too," and ex-pressing indignation that he had been "instructed [by the

Association] to select certain students" to refute studenttestimony in favor of Professor Gara.13

President Harker's letter to the faculty concluded bysaying that "On instructions from Our Board no officialcooperation will come from the College. Feel free to doas you wish in this matter, but I will not be invitinganyone to appear before the Committee."

The substance of this communication not surprisinglyfound its way to the press. When asked, the WashingtonOffice declined to comment on it. This fact, along withthe news of the administration's non-cooperation, ap-peared in the Pittsburgh papers under a Washington date-line—a circumstance which may have led PresidentHarker to an erroneous conclusion that the WashingtonOffice had disclosed to the press his letter to the faculty.This mistaken understanding led him to write on May 26a letter to the Washington Office embodying a furtherstatement of indignation regarding the press releasequestion.

It was in this climate that the investigating committeearrived, three days later, at Grove City College. Despitethe announced position of "no official cooperation," Dr.Frederick S. Kring, Dean of Men, called the committeeto offer a l;st of faculty members, mostly departmentchairman, who wished to appear before the committee,and volunteered to appear himself. His statements, andinformation which he later supplied to the committee,were quite helpful.

A remarkable number of the faculty members whoappeared before the committee had very little to say aboutthe issues of Professor Gara's dismissal, but were full ofcomplaints about subsequent events. They—though to aless emotional degree than the President—regretted thepublicity that had come to the College because of thedismissal and resignations. They deplored the involve-ment of the student body in the affair (which spokesmenfor both sides had indiscreetly deepened by discussing thecase in the classroom). They seemed to think that thepublicity was avoidable, and that Professor Gara and hissupporters had some positive obligation to disavow or

1S The letter from the Washington Office to President Harkeron the point about student witnesses read as follows:

Since the issue of incompetence has been raised, the investi-gating committee may wish to discuss the conduct of ProfessorGara's courses with a few students. I am sure you will agreewith us that in this delicate matter students should be protected,not only from pressure, but also from conspicuous involvement.I will therefore suggest that the investigating committee talkto a few students who will be introduced to the committee by aresponsible senior member of the faculty; the faculty memberwill vouch for their status but it will probably be possible toconduct satisfactory interviews without identifying the students.Professor Gara will suggest some of the students to be inter-viewed; perhaps you will also wish to suggest some studentinterviewees. I would think that no student presently in coursewith Professor Gara should be interviewed.

The investigating committee in fact decided not to hear anystudents currently at the College.

2 0 AAUP BULLETIN

even to repress public discussions of the situation.Further, the investigating committee was told repeatedlythat a "smear campaign" had been launched against theAdministration. This term was never clearly defined; itseemed to the ad hoc committee that every untowardevent and wild rumor in the spring of 1962 was attributedto Professor Gara's supporters on the one hand or (asthe circumstances varied) to the President and Deans.Some presumably responsible faculty members repeatedbefore the committee charges and countercharges em-bodying most offensive elements.

It appears to the investigating committee that in a freecountry with a free press suppression of the unhappyevents at Grove City College in 1962 was neither possiblenor desirable. Still, the flood of rumors and unprovedallegations that deluged the campus, and was a significantcause of the undesired publicity, might have beendiminished had there been in existence a regular procedurefor dealing with charges in a dismissal action—if theadministration believed that charges had to be made.

III. The Question of Competence

The reason professed for not renewing Professor Gara'scontract was that he was incompetent. Ordinarily con-sideration of such an allegation is for the jurisdiction ofa judicially minded and functioning committee of ateacher's peers, and the conclusions arrived at, barringevident grave defect in the proceedings, would not bereviewed in appellate fashion by an ad hoc committeeof the Association, nor would parallel investigation andconclusions be offered as an alternative judgment. But,unhappily, in this case there was no such normal con-sideration; there is simply the Administration complaint,in some degree particularized; and, above all, there isthe extraordinary publicity given the charge of incompe-tence, culminating in President Harker's repetition of theallegation on television broadcast.

This committee has some knowledge about the issueof Professor Gara's competence. It is due him that westate what we know, even if our information is less thanfull, and even if cross-examination, for and against, hasnot been possible. There follows what could be gleanedby hearing the opinion of a considerable number offaculty members, by examination of President Harker'sviews in correspondence made available to us, and bydiscussion at length with Dean of Men Frederick S.Kring.

The investigating committee tried without much successto elicit from various faculty members what the criteriafor competence are at Grove City College, and judgmentswhether Professor Gara met such criteria. Some of thosewho appeared before the committee said that they hadnever visited Professor Gara's classes and therefore couldnot express an opinion about his competence as a teacher.Others expressed varying opinions on the subject and a

few suggested that another ground than "incompetence"might have been used as a cause for dismissal. No onegave any evidence whatsoever that Professor Gara wasincompetent as a scholar or that his graduate training inhistory had been defective. A faculty member whosestatements to the committee were generally unfavorableto' Gara ended the discussion of competence by saying,"I am stuck on that issue." A person unfriendly toProfessor Gara admitted that he was "quite challenging"although habitually taking the opposite point of view onall matters at issue. He added somewhat haltingly thatthe dismissed professor was always forcing students tothink, but "this is not bad." A close colleague of Pro-fessor Gara said that he had the highest regard for himin relation to his subject matter although the two hadfriendly differences on the writings of certain historians.Another person who appeared before the ad hoc com-mittee said that Professor Gara was the "most competentteacher barring none that we have ever had on thecampus." One person friendly to Professor Gara referredto him as one of the "intellectual ornaments" on thecampus and one of the better teachers, while another saidthat he was one of the four productive scholars on thefaculty.

Professor Gara's academic vita shows that he has hadexcellent graduate training and that he has been a produc-tive scholar in his field. He has to his credit a total of19 published articles or edited documents and 26 articlesor edited documents issued jointly with another scholar.He has published four books in the fields of AmericanHistory, the best known being The Liberty Line; TheLegend of the Underground Railroad, the last beingA Short History of Wisconsin which appeared in April,1962.14 Professor Gara's professional interests are re-flected in his membership in a total of twelve historicalassociations or societies. He has read papers or participatedat meetings of the Mississippi Valley Historical Associa-tion, the American Historical Association, the Pennsyl-vania Historical Association, and other groups. He is acontributor to the 'New Standard Encyclopedia and theDictionary of Wisconsin Biography and in 1956 receiveda research grant for travel from the American Philosophi-cal Society. This, in the opinion of the investigatingcommittee, is a productive record by the standards of anycollege or university.

One of the most important specific criticisms of Pro-fessor Gara was that of "ruthless grading." The generalpicture emerging from the views expressed by personsadversely critical of him was as follows: (1) a few yearspreviously the Dean of the College had made variousattempts to get certain faculty members and departmentsto conform generally to what was called the "Michigancurve" of grade distribution; (2) some faculty members

14 A textbook written for the Extension Division of the Uni-versity of Wisconsin.

S P R I N G 1 9 6 3 2 1

or departments were found to be giving too large apercentage of high grades and some too large a percentageof low grades; Professor Gara, in the latter category,received a suggestion from the Dean of the College thathe give a smaller percentage of D and F grades and thusget his grade distribution more in harmony with that ofother departments and the general wishes of the admin-istration; (3) Dean Frederick S. Kring has submitted tothe committee an official but incomplete tabulation ofthe percentage of D and F grades given by Professor Garain the freshman history course, beginning with the firstsemester of the academic year 1958-59. In that year thetotal of D and F grades was 37.6 per cent in the firstsemester and 43.5 per cent in the second. In the firstsemester of 1959-60 the D and F total had fallen to 30.5per cent and in the first semester of 1960-61 to 27.5 percent. For the first semester of 1961-62 Professor Garagave a total of D and F grades of 27.3 per cent, adistribution that Dean Swezey referred to as "anotherslaughter of the innocent."

It is clear that the figures submitted by the Administra-tion show a notable decline in the percentage of total Dand F grades given by Professor Gara. It should also benoted that the information provided by Dean Kring showsthat another member of the history department gave asomewhat larger percentage of unsatisfactory grades thanthat given by Professor Gara. The decreasing percentageof total D and F grades given by Professor Gara throwslight on the note sent by Dean Swezey to Gara on August19, 1961. The communication said, among other things:"This note is intended only to express my personalappreciation and thanks to you for your support andcooperation in the past. I appreciate the job that youare doing and your efforts to help bring your Departmentback into the same grade picture as the others. I knowthat it has been tough, but I think that it has improved."

Professor Gara was also criticized for what PresidentHarker has described as "absurd testing." Professor Garasays that, while he gives objective examinations in sectionsof the freshman American History course because of thelarger number of students involved, he prefers "mixed"examinations involving both objective and essay ques-tions. He states that his general practice is to give twotests and a final examination and to require some outsidereading in each course. The ad hoc committee examineda selection of tests given by Professor Gara in recentyears. The objective examination for the course inAmerican History was an attempt to test for knowledgeof historical details and relationships and could by nomeans be described as "absurd testing." The final examina-tion for an upper division course entitled RepresentativeAmericans showed the following elements: a one-pagematching test to determine the student's ability to identifythe principle persons dealt with in the course; an essaytest in which the student was asked to "include enough

specific but selective data to support [his] generaliza-tions;" and a brief question in which the student was toreport on outside reading. An examination in constitu-tional history of the United States called for brief state-ments of fact or interpretation on a number of importantaspects of the subject. A second examination in the samecourse tested the student's knowledge of a number ofbasic Supreme Court decisions and other important mattersin the field. This Committee has seen no evidence whichwould support the accusation of "absurd testing"; we haveseen evidence which could properly be used to supporta claim to professional competence in the examination ofstudents.

Little need be said about Professor Gara's teaching ofthe course in Ancient History. In every small collegesome faculty member has to give a course for which heis not specially prepared, and Professor Gara had not beenexamined in Ancient History in his comprehensive ex-aminations for the Ph.D. degree. It must be noted thatat the time that he was relieved of the course, in 1959,no intimation was given that the Administration con-sidered him incompetent as a scholar and teacher or thathe might not be reappointed.

Other criticisms of Professor Gara's work at GroveCity College dealt with matters of administrative nature:his presumed refusal to accept excused absence slips fromthe Dean's office and inadequate attention to his duties ashead of the department of history and political science.The college catalogue15 says specifically that ". . . noabsence allowance is granted as a policy of the College"and makes it clear that excused absences do not relievethe student of any work required in a course. Yet theinstructor is to give an excused absence to any studentnamed on a Dean's list of students taking part inauthorized college activities or to a student who presentsa certificate from a doctor or the college nurse stating thathe has been ill. Beyond these limitations the instructoris to announce at the beginning of a course what hispolicy on absences will be. The criticism levelled againstProfessor Gara was that he had refused to give excusedabsences to those having authorized excuses as describedabove. It is difficult to see what bearing his refusal hason the question of competence. Professor Gara states thatthe subject never came up in any discussion with theAdministration.

With regard to the allegation that he gave inadequateattention to his duties as a department head,16 ProfessorGara stated to the Committee that he did not take theduties of the chairmanship very seriously since they werelargely matters of mechanical detail. A member of thedepartment favorable to Gara said that meetings were

15 Grove City College Bulletin: Catalogue Issue for 1962-63,p. 36.

16 Professor Gara became chairman of the Department ofHistory and Political Science in 1958.

2 2 AAUP BULLETIN

few and that some matters were dealt with throughdepartmental reactions obtained by means of individualmemoranda. The committee has in its possession a four-page mimeographed statement entitled "Chairman of De-partment (Effective Sept. 1, 1958)," which gives thefunctions and duties of a departmental chairman at GroveCity College in considerable detail. It is not known tothe committee to what extent Professor Gara or otherdepartmental chairmen at Grove City College performedor delegated all of the functions and duties named.

If the number of major students in a given departmentmay be taken as a rough estimate of either its popularityor its quality, the figures for majors in history and politicalscience seem to show that there is no real student dis-satisfaction with the department. Professor Gara hasstated17 that, for the second semester of 1961-62, therewere about 120 majors in the department, including thoseto be graduated in June, 1962. A tabulation prepared bythe College, entitled "Teacher Certification—Fall 1961,"lists History as lower only than Elementary Educationand English in the number of students planning to earnteaching certification in the various fields. Professor Garahas submitted to the committee copies of his "annualdepartmental report" for 1959, 1960, and 1961, whichadequately cover the subjects usually dealt with in suchdocuments.

IV. The Question of Academic Freedom

First. President Harker has insisted that the refusal torenew Professor Gara's contract had nothing to do withideology, including Professor Gara's well-known beliefin pacifism. Faculty members who appeared before thecommittee were all agreed that the Administration hadnot to their knowledge interfered with the interpretivecontent of any course in the College, and Professor Garahimself says that no attempt had been made by theAdministration to restrict his academic freedom in theclassroom.

Second. The question may arise whether Professor Garahas used his classes as a means of instilling in the mindsof his students the particular social or religious viewswhich he personally espouses. Professor Gara has insistedto the committee that he does not promote a belief inpacifism through or by means of his classroom work;and the Administration of the College has not chargedGara with advocating any views that might be classedloosely as "leftist." As for pedagogical philosophy, Pro-fessor Gara gave to the committee an extemporaneousstatement of his idea of the nature of teaching on thecollege level: The purpose of teaching is to help studentsto "grow up" and to see things in their full perspective;students must be taught to deal with the tangible contentof a course and to use that content in the process ofthinking. In attempting to do all of this the teacher must

M Professor Gara to Washington Office, February 20, 1962.

always take into account the different levels of comprehen-sion in a given group of students.

This summary review suggests to the InvestigatingCommittee that academic freedom as a safeguard of theclassroom, apart from other aspects of academic freedom,was not violated by Professor Gara or by the Administra-tion.

Third. Some faculty members interviewed by the adhoc committee are convinced that related events occurringsince the spring of 1961 indicate an ideological struggleon the campus—a struggle that led to the dismissal ofProfessor Gara. Three of these events which embodycertainly relevant facts are here set forth:

a. In the spring of 1961 a heated debate onAmerican foreign policy and nuclear war took placein several issues of the Collegian, the Grove CityCollege newspaper. Two of the chief participants wereProfessor Gara and the head of another department;the first was charged by the latter with taking a "ratherred than dead" position. This dispute would have nosignificance for the issue of academic freedom if itwere not for these facts:

(1) The attack upon Professor Gara by his col-league included an expression of wonder whether:

the intellectual level of [Gara's} . . . exchange isindicative of the academic atmosphere in the re-spective history classes. If this is the case [thewriter continued] I feel pity for the hundreds ofGrove City students who must endure, oftenagainst their own will, not only the atmosphere of"rather red than dead," but also instruction thatemphasizes satire rather than reasoning, person-alities rather than ideas.

(2) Professor Gara's critic has for some yearsbeen a member of the editorial staff of AmericanOpinion, a magazine published by the John BirchSociety. The President of the Board of Trustees ofGrove City College is a member of the editorialadvisory board of American Opinion. The JohnBirch Society is reportedly operating as a congeriesof local chapters with secret memberships, and withthe right of an individual to continue as a memberavowedly under the control of its top leadership.It is the stated purpose of the John Birch Societyto reconstitute American education by standardswhich are in part nonacademic.

b. In the fall of 1961, there occurred a controversywithin the College curriculum committee, of which bothProfessor Gara and his critic of some months earlierwere members. A proposal was made that the fresh-man American history course requirement be expandedto permit choice from among that course and coursesin economics and sociology. A recommendation to thiseffect by the curriculum committee was rejected by thefaculty. The investigating committee heard from

S P R I N G 1 9 6 3 23

faculty members substantial expression of opinion thatthis controversy, not resolved until November, 1961,was in a considerable degree a continuation of theconflict which began some months earlier in theCollegian.

c. Professor Gara informs the ad hoc committee that,in January of 1962, two private investigators appearedin Grove City and on the College campus. They spent'a number of days informing themselves about thecontent of Professor Gara's writings and in workingthrough the files of the Collegian and the local press.According to Dean Kring, the Administration of theCollege assumes no responsibility for the appearanceof the investigators; President Harker, in a letter ofFebruary 6, 1963, to the General Secretary, states thatneither he nor, by implication, any other member of theCollege administration, knew of the investigation at thetime it is said to have occurred. But no evidence waspresented to the investigating committee that theAdministration took any steps to inquire into orregulate this activity, and we are told that the Collegemerely established the fact of the presence of theinvestigators—after the event.

No proof of direct causal connection between theactivity of the, investigators and the dismissal of Pro-fessor Gara has been submitted to the ad hoc com-mittee. Nevertheless, we regret this activity becauseit is unsuited to an academic scene and by its veryexistence requires a properly alert administration todetermine its meaning for the freedom of the teacherson the campus. In this instance it is also necessary toobserve that this intrusion upon Professor Gara'sprofessional privacy occurred about four weeks beforehe was told of his dismissal.

V. Conclusion to the Supplementary Observations

The observations which we have appended to thisreport embrace important material facts which are relevantto the central event of Professor Gara's dismissal; theevents require recital, in our opinion, because they havebeen very widely publicized and have probably been givenat least tentative consideration by those who have somereason to interest themselves in Professor Gara as aprofessional teacher and scholar, and all who have aninterest in academic freedom at Grove City College.

Ronald V. Sires (History, Whitman College), Chair-man

Ralph S. Brown, Jr. (Law, Yale University)Madeline R. Robinton (History, Brooklyn College)

The Investigating Committee

Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure hasby vote authorized publication of this report in theAAUP Bulletin:

David Fellman (Political Science), University of Wis-consin, Chairman.

Members: Richard P. Adams (English), Tulane Uni-versity; Frances C. Brown (Chemistry), Duke University;Clark Byse (Law), Harvard University; William P. Fidler(English), Washington Office, ex officio; Ralph F. Fuchs(Law), Indiana University; Bentley Glass (Biology), TheJohns Hopkins University; Louis Joughin (History),Washington Office; Fritz Machlup (Economics), Prince-ton University, ex officio; Walter P. Metzger (History),Columbia University; Paul Oberst (Law), University ofKentucky; C. Herman Pritchett (Political Science), Uni-versity of Chicago; John P. Roche (Political Science),Brandeis University; Warren Taylor (English), OberlinCollege.

24 AAUP B U L L E T I N