Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1950 [PAGE 1277]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

i95°J

STATE OF ILLINOIS} C O U N T Y O F COOK j

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

c c b b

I269

I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that , personally known to me to be the President of the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, a body politic and corporate of the State of Illinois, and _ 1 personally known to me to be the Secretary of said corporation and personally known to me to be the same persons whose names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument, appeared before me this day in person and severally acknowledged that as such President and Secretary they signed and delivered the said instrument and caused the corporate seal of said corporation to be affixed thereto as their free and voluntary act and as the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein set forth. G I V E N under my hand and notarial seal this day of , 1950. Notary Public REPORT ON CASE OF PROFESSOR R. H. BLODGETT REPORT OF FACT-FINDING Provost C.R. Griffith 207 Administration (East)

DEAR PROVOST G R I F F I T H :

COMMITTEE June 12, 1950

On May 18 you wrote, asking us to serve as a "fact-finding group on the question of possible violation of academic freedom in the Department of Economics." You wrote that you did not wish to prejudice the case by assuming that there was a violation of academic freedom, which might be the implication if you presented the question to the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom. You concluded by stating, "What I really need is assistance in the determination of prior fact, viz., has anything occurred with respect to Professor Blodgett either directly or indirectly, which requires that a question about academic freedom be raised ?" From the outset, the members of the Committee have assumed that this was an assignment of major significance to the University and to all individuals concerned with the question. In consequence the Committee has worked very hard. Whatever else you may conclude about our report, I am sure you will grant that we have gone about this task seriously and with industry. W e have, of course, interviewed Professor Blodgett, Dean Bowen, and Professor Hagen. In all, we have heard twenty individuals and, in doing this, we have sought out, so far as we could determine them, all varying points of view. This has not been a one-sided examination. Each individual who appeared before us gave the Committee his full cooperation. While some said they had no objection to their names being used in our report in relation to this testimony, the members of your Committee are deeply sensitive to the fact that they are the repositories of confidences that must not be violated. We wish to record the fact, also, that while wide divergences in opinion and judgment were expressed, the testimony on the essential facts brought out before the Committee was amazingly uniform. All the statements made were sincere and frank. After hearing the successive statements of those who testified and after observing their demeanor and their efforts to be fair in all they said, the Committee is puzzled over the fact that individuals apparently so candid and reasonable could have so much difficulty in getting along with each other. But here we are ahead of our report. The commission to the Committee, according to your letter of May 18, had to do with the question of academic freedom. The Committee finds it undesirable, if not impossible, to report on that question alone. The issue of academic freedom is inextricably woven into a wider texture. We could give an answer to the academic freedom question but if we dealt with that alone, it would be an answer out of con-