Undergraduates Celebrate Second Consecutive Virtual Housing Day
Dean of Students Office Discusses Housing Day, Anti-Racism Goals
Renowned Cardiologist and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Bernard Lown Dies at 99
Native American Nonprofit Accuses Harvard of Violating Federal Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
U.S. Reps Assess Biden’s Progress on Immigration at HKS Event
(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld. Only letters under 400 words can be printed because of space limitations.)
To the Editor of the "Crimson":
The CRIMSON, more through unfamiliarity with the facts than through intent, has failed to grasp the true significance of the Glenn Frank issue at the University of Wisconsin. Almost as with one voice, the college dailies of the country, assisted by a certain graduate group in the East, particularly New York City, have raised the cry of "academic freedom."
The question at Wisconsin is not one of academic freedom but of efficiency of administration. The president of a university of over ten thousand students must be an administrator as well as an educator. Glenn Frank has, in the minds of the regents and a large number of people of the state of Wisconsin, failed as an administrator of public funds. In each of the crises which the university has faced in the last two years, the Snell "affair" at the Extension Division in Milwaukee in 1935, the Spears-Meanwell athletic flareup last spring and the present budget question which brought about this latest trouble, Frank has failed to take a strong stand and has remained "unavailable" until the crisis was past. It is on these grounds that the regents seek to remove him, not because Governor LaFollette wants to run the state university and seeks to replace Frank with a "more pliant" party henchman.
Of course the question of academic freedom is bound to be involved when the governor is able to appoint the members of the ruling board of the university. It is with this in mind that Governor LaFollette has put himself on record as favoring appointing the regents one third by the state supreme court, one third by the alumni and one third by the governor, a bill for which is being prepared for introduction into the next session of the state legislature by one of the "political henchmen" of the Governor.
Let us try the case on its merits, with full recognition of the facts and factors involved. A great number of the people of Wisconsin, as well as a majority of the board of regents, feel that Glenn Frank has failed as an administrator, if not an educator, in his eleven years as head of the state university. He, in turn, has demanded an open hearing on the subject and it has been set for January sixth. There the regents and the president will be granted equal opportunity to present their views, along with the alumni, and there the case should be decided on merits alone. In the meanwhile, be assured that no one, particularly Governor LaFollette, seeks to storm and take the citadel of academic freedom at Wisconsin. James F. Stern '30
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.