Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1946 [PAGE 623]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

A-5

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Deans whose tenure is biennially put at the mercy of an administration which for any reason or no reason thinks it has the power to remove them, incalculable harm will result to the school. No matter what happens in this case, this vicious condition at Illinois should be corrected and your Deans given some semblance of reasonable tenure. The President of the University, perhaps after he began to realize whither the unusual procedure adopted in this case was leading him and his colleagues, has, through interviews and press statements, steadily tried to ignore, and persuade the public to forget that in July, 1944, he claimed that his action against Dean Benner was based on written charges which he then said were the only charges against the Dean and the only charges which the nine had made against him. With a startling lack of intellectual candor he and others have recently endeavored to have it appear that this is the ordinary case where an instructor or some person on a temporary or term appointment is not recommended for reappointment for another term. He now overlooks the fact that in such cases no charges are made a part of the records of the institution, branding forever the victim and destroying his reputation. The question before this Board now is not whether an ordinary or routine recommendation of the President should be accepted as it ordinarily, of course, would and should be; the ultimate question is whether his recommendation concerning Dean Benner can be approved by this Board without serious injury to the University. I want to say that again, because I firmly believe that this statement represents the correct position of this Board. The ultimate question is whether his recommendation concerning Dean Benner can be approved by this Board without serious injury to the University. And I pause to interject the statement here that that is the question before this Board ultimately upon every recommendation that the President may make to you for action concerning the University, whether it can be adopted and should be adopted, having in mind the interests of the institution which is in your keeping. This can be answered only by the Board itself, in the circumstances of this case. And for the decision this Board alone will be held responsible by the people of this State and by the men and women in the United States interested in soundness and integrity in educational administration and academic procedures. To answer this question this Board, will have to examine testimony and exhibits with the most conscientious care, with open minds, uncolored by preconceptions of every kind. You sit like a Court to decide whether charges in writing on which the President of the University has repeatedly said he based his action against Dean Benner, and on none others, are true and of sufficient substance to justify a recommendation that a man who has served for fourteen years as Dean should be demoted and incidentally disgraced in the process, because don't let us quibble about anything on this point, you can not demote a man who came here as Dean without disgracing him in the process, even if you leave his tenure as Professor alone, which of course has to be done. Such is the question before you, for on these charges you granted a request for hearing, and to these charges we propose to address our proof. The burden is not on the man accused to disprove the charges filed against him, the burden is on the men who made them and on your agent, who says that he is acting on them. He has no right to expect you to accept blindly any recommendation, if it be arbitrary and without substantial support in reason. You have no right to act on the opinion of any one unless it be supported by good reasons, for you are the guardians of the public interest. Nevertheless, we propose to offer affirmative proof that these charges are without substance or foundation in fact. We also propose to prove that approval of the unprecedented procedure here adopted would be nothing less than a crime against the University, which, considering the resources of the State of Illinois, ought to be and can be, under sound and honorable leadership, one of the great universities in the United States. It is respectfully submitted that the question before the Board can best be and should be stated this way in its ultimate essence: Can the recommendation of the President to demote Dean Benner, when all the circumstances are considered, be approved without grave detriment to the University. Now, we think, members of the Board, that the evidence will show that that can not be done, at least in our view of the evidence.