I ask now, in advance, that I may be o?cially noti?ed of any legal proceed-ings taken against the University on account of my appointment, and allowedto become a party. This was not done in the New York case, because of thehostility of the Corporation Counsel, who handled their defence. I cannotendure a second time being slandered and condemned in a court of lawwithout any opportunity of rebutting false accusations against which noone else can adequately defend me, for lack of knowledge.I hope that Harvard will have the courtesy to keep me informed o?ciallyof all developments, instead of leaving me to learn of matters that vitallyconcern me only from inaccurate accounts in newspapers.I should be glad if you would show this letter to the President and Fellows.Yours sincerelyBertrand RussellTo the Editor of the Harvard Crimson 212 Loring AvenueLos Angeles, Cal.May 6 1940Dear SirI hope you will allow me to comment on your references in the HarvardCrimson of April 29 to the recent proceedings concerning my appointmentto the City College of New York.You say ‘Freedom of speech will not be the point under argument, aswas the case in the proceedings against City College of New York, when thelatter based an unsuccessful defense of its Russell appointment on the asser-tion that Russell should be permitted to expound his moral views from alecture platform’.In fact freedom of speech was not the defense of City College and the NewYork Board of Higher Education. The Board and College based their defenseon the principle of academic freedom, which means simply the indepen-dence of duly constituted academic bodies, and their right to make their ownappointments. This, according to your headline, is exactly the defense contemplated by theCorporation of Harvard. Neither the Board of Higher Education nor the facultyof City College at any time made the claim that I ‘should be permitted toamerica. 1938–1944 453expound my moral views from a lecture platform’. On the contrary, theystated repeatedly and with emphasis that my moral views had no possiblerelevance to the subjects I had been engaged to teach.Even if I were permitted to expound my moral views in the classroom,my own conscience would not allow me to do so, since they have no connec-tion with the subjects which it is my profession to teach, and I think thatthe classroom should not be used as an opportunity for propaganda on anysubject.The principle of freedom of speech has been invoked, not by the New YorkBoard of Higher Education as their legal defense, but by many thousands ofpeople throughout the United States who have perceived its obvious relationto the Controversy, which is this: the American constitution guarantees toeveryone the right to express his opinions whatever these may be. This rightis naturally limited by any contract into which the individual may enterwhich requires him to spend part of his time in occupations other thanexpressing his opinions. Thus, if a salesman, a postman, a tailor and a teacherof mathematics all happen to hold a certain opinion on a subject unrelated totheir work, whatever it may be, none of them should devote to oratory onthis subject time which they have been paid to spend in selling, deliveringletters, making suits, or teaching mathematics. But they should all equally beallowed to express their opinion freely and without fear of penalties in theirspare time, and to think, speak and behave as they wish, within the law, whenthey are not engaged in their professional duties.This is the principle of free speech. It appears to be little known. If there-fore anyone should require any further information about it I refer him to theUnited States Constitution and to the works of the founders thereof.Yours faithfullyBertrand RussellTo Kingsley Martin 212 Loring Avenueeditor of the New Statesman Los Angeles, Cal.May 13 1940Dear Kingsley MartinThanks for your kind paragraph about my New York appointment. We stillhope to appeal, but the Mayor and corporation counsel, from respect for theCatholic vote, are doing their best to prevent it. A similar fuss is promisedover my appointment to give the William James lectures at Harvard in theautumn.Actually I am being overwhelmed with friendship and support, but in thiscountry the decent people are terrifyingly powerless and often very naive.This fuss is serving a useful purpose in calling attention to the sort of thingthat happens constantly to people less well known.the autobiography of bertrand russell 454The news from Europe is unbearably painful. We all wish that we were notso far away, although we could serve no useful purpose if we were at home.Ever since the war began I have felt that I could not go on being a paci?st;but I have hesitated to say so, because of the responsibility involved. If I wereyoung enough to ?ght myself I should do so, but it is more di?cult to urgeothers. Now, however, I feel that I ought to announce that I have changedmy mind, and I would be glad if you could ?nd an opportunity to mention inthe New Statesman that you have heard from me to this e?ect.Yours sincerelyBertrand RussellTo Professor Hocking from John Dewey 1 West 89th St NY CityMay 16th, 40Dear HockingI have seen a copy of your letter to Russell and I cannot refrain from sayingthat I am disturbed by one portion of it – especially as coming from you.Of course I do not feel quali?ed to speak from the Harvard point of viewor to give advice on the matter as far as it is Harvard’s administrative concern.But I am sure of one thing: Any weakening on the part of Harvard Universitywould strengthen the forces of reaction – ecclesiastical and other – which arealready growing too rapidly, presumably on account of the state of fear andinsecurity now so general. I don’t think it is irrelevant to point out that theNY City Council followed up its interference in the City College matter with aresolution in which they asked for the dismissal of the present Board ofHigher Education and the appointment of a new one – the present Boardbeing mainly La Guardia’s appointments and sticking by the liberal attitudeson acct of which they were originally appointed – in spite of the Mayor’srecent shocking cowardice. Tammany and the Church aren’t now getting theeducational plums they want and used to get. In my opinion (without meansof proof ) the original attack on Russell’s appointment, and even more so theterms of McGeehan’s decision were not isolated events. The reactionary catholicpaper in Brooklyn, The Tablet, openly expressed the hope that the move mightbe the beginning of a movement to abolish all municipal colleges in GreaterNew York – now four in number. A policy of ‘appeasement’ will not workany better, in my judgment, with this old totalitarian institution than it haswith the newer ones. Every weakening will be the signal for new attacks. Somuch, possibly irrelevant from your point of view, regarding the Harvard endof the situation.The point that disturbed me in your letter was not the one contained in theforegoing gratuitous paragraph. That point is your statement of regret thatRussell raised the issue of freedom of speech. In the ?rst place, he didn’t raiseit; it was raised ?rst by McGeehan’s decision (I can’t but wonder if you haveamerica. 1938–1944 455ever seen that monstrous document), and then by other persons, originally inNew York institutions but rapidly joined by others throughout the country,who saw the serious implications of passively sitting by and letting it go bydefault. As far as the legal side is concerned the issue has been and will befought on a ground substantially identical with that you mention in the caseof the Harvard suit. But the educational issue is wider, much wider. It wasstated in the courageous letter of Chancellor Chase of NY University in aletter to the Times – a letter which ?nally evoked from them their ?rst editorialcomment – which though grudging and ungracious did agree the caseshould be appealed. If men are going to be kept out of American collegesbecause they express unconventional, unorthodox or even unwise views(but who is to be the judge of widsom or lack of wisdom?) on political,economic, social or moral matters, expressing those views in publicationsaddressed to the general public, I am heartily glad my own teaching days havecome to an end. There will always be some kept prostitutes in any institution;there are always [the] more timid by temperament who take to teaching asa kind of protected calling. If the courts, under outside group pressures,are going to be allowed, without protest from college teachers, to con?necollege faculties to teachers of these two types, the outlook is dark indeed. IfI express myself strongly it is because I feel strongly on this issue. While Iam extremely sorry for the thoroughly disagreeable position in which theRussells have been personally plunged, I can’t but be grateful in view of thenumber of men of lesser stature who have been made to su?er, that his case isof such importance as to attract wide attention and protest. If you have readMcGeehan’s decision, I suppose you would feel with some of the rest ofus that no self-respecting person would do anything – such as the Timeseditorial suggested he do – that would even remotely admit the truth of theoutrageous statements made – statements that would certainly be criminallylibellous if not protected by the position of the man making them. But overand above that I am grateful for the service Russell renders the teaching bodyand educational interests in general by taking up the challenge – accordinglyI am going to take the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to Russell.Very sincerely yoursJohn DeweyDear Mr RussellThe above is self-explanatory – I know how occupied you are and itneeds no reply.Sincerely, & gratefully yoursJohn Deweythe autobiography of bertrand russell 456From Alfred North Whitehead 1737 Cambridge StCambridge, Mass.April 26, 1940Dear BertieEvelyn and I cannot let this occasion pass without telling you how greatlywe sympathise with you in the matter of the New York appointment. Youknow, of course, that our opinions are directly opposed in many ways. Thisnote is just to give you our love and deep sympathy in the personal troubleswhich have been aroused –With all good wishes from us both.Yours everAlfred WhiteheadControversy over my appointment to C.C.N.Y. did not end in 1940.From The Times, November 23rd and 26th, 1957, on the publication of Why Iam not a Christian:To the Editor of The Times 10, Darlington Street, BathSirIn a letter to The Times which you published on October 15, Lord Russellcomplains that in 1940 Protestant Episcopalians and Roman Catholics in NewYork City prevented him from denying in court what he terms their ‘libels’.The o?cial record of the decision declaring him ineligible for theprofessorship in question makes it clear that his counsel submitted a briefon his behalf which was accepted by the court. His subsequent application tore-open the case was denied by the court on the grounds, among others, thathe gave no indication of being able to present new evidence which couldchange the decision, which was unanimously upheld by two Courts ofAppeal.He could also have brought an action for libel against anyone for state-ments made out of court, but he failed to do this.In these circumstances is it fair to state, as Lord Russell does, that ProtestantEpiscopalians and Roman Catholics prevented him from denying in court thecharges which were largely based on his own writings?Yours trulySchuyler N. WarrenTo the Editor of The Times Plas PenrhynPenrhyndeudraethMerionethSirIn your issue of November 23 you publish a letter from Mr Schuyler N.america. 1938–1944 457Warren which shows complete ignorance of the facts. I shall answer hispoints one by one.First as to ‘libels’. I wrote publicly at the time: ‘When grossly untruestatements as to my actions are made in court, I feel that I must give them thelie. I never conducted a nudist colony in England. Neither my wife nor I everparaded nude in public. I never went in for salacious poetry. Such assertionsare deliberate falsehoods which must be known to those who make them tohave no foundation in fact. I shall be glad of an opportunity to deny them onoath.’ This opportunity was denied me on the ground that I was not a partyto the suit. The charges that I did these things (which had been made bythe prosecuting counsel in court) were not based on my own writings,as Mr Warren a?rms, but on the morbid imaginings of bigots.I cannot understand Mr Warren’s statement that my counsel submitted abrief on my behalf. No counsel representing me was heard. Nor can I under-stand his statement that two Courts of Appeal upheld the decision, as NewYork City refused to appeal when urged to do so. The suggestion that I couldhave brought an action for libel could only be made honestly by a personignorant of the atmosphere of hysteria which surrounded the case at thattime. The atmosphere is illustrated by the general acceptance of the prosecut-ing counsel’s description in court of me as: ‘lecherous, libidinous, lustful,venerous, erotomaniac, aphrodisiac, irreverent, narrow-minded, untruthful,and bereft of moral ?ber.’Yours trulyRussellFrom and to Schuyler N. Warren 10, Darlington StreetBath10th January, 1958Dear Lord RussellI am writing with regard to your letter which appeared in the Times onNovember 26th. In this letter dealing with the controversy and subsequentlitigation over your appointment as a Professor of Philosophy in the collegein the City of New York you contradicted statements made by me in a letterthat was published in the Times on November 23rd.I enclose photostats of both decisions of the Supreme Court for yourinformation, one revoking your appointment and the second denying yourapplication to reopen the case. I also enclose copy of the letter from MrCharles H. Tuttle, then as now, a member of the Board of Higher Education.In view of your denials that no counsel representing you was heard, andthat no appeal was made on your behalf, the enclosed decisions con?rm thecorrectness of my statements. In the appendix of the volume Why I am Not aChristian, Professor Edwards mentions Mr Osmund K. Fraenkel as having beenthe autobiography of bertrand russell 458your Attorney and of his unsuccessful appeals to the Appellate Division andto the Court of Appeals.Very truly yoursSchuyler N. WarrenPlas Penrhyn13 January, 1958Dear Mr WarrenYour letter of January 10 with the enclosed photostats does not bear outyour stated view as to what occurred in my New York case in 1940. Theappeal which you mentioned was not an appeal to the substance of the case,but on whether I should be allowed to become a party. You have not quitegrasped the peculiarity of the whole a?air. The defendants wished to lose thecase – as at the time was generally known – and therefore had no wish to seeMcGeehan’s verdict reversed on appeal. The statement that I was keptinformed of the proceedings is perhaps in some narrow legal sense defens-ible, but I was held in Los Angeles by my duties there, the information as towhat was happening in New York was sent by surface mail, and the proceed-ings were so hurried-up that everything was over before I knew properlywhat was happening. It remains the fact that I was not allowed to become aparty to the case, that I was unable to appeal, and that I had no opportunityof giving evidence in court after I knew what they were saying about me.Mr Fraenkel, whom you mentioned, was appointed by the Civil LibertiesUnion, not by me, and took his instructions from them.Yours trulyRussellFrom Prof. Philip P. Wiener The City CollegeNew York 31, N.Y.Department of PhilosophyOct. 4, 1961To the Editor of the New York TimesFor myself and many of my colleagues I wish to express our distress at theunfairness and the poor taste shown by your Topics’ editor’s attempted comi-cal rehashing of the Bertrand Russell case. It is well known that the educatedworld on moral grounds condemned Judge McGeehan’s character assassin-ation of one of the world’s greatest philosophers, and that the courts did notallow Russell to enter the case. Now that this great man is almost ninety yearsold and ?ghting for the preservation of humanity (though some of us do notagree with his unilateral disarmament policy4), we believe your columnistowes him and the civilised world an apology.Philip P. WienerProfessor and Chairmanamerica. 1938–1944 459289 Convent AvenueNew York CityDec. 8, 1940Dear Professor RussellAfter having enjoyed your timely lecture before the P.E.A.5and friendlychat at the Penn. R.R. terminal, I reported to my colleagues that we hadindeed been ?lched of a great teacher who would have brought so much oflight and humanity to our students that the harpies of darkness and corrup-tion might well have cringed with fear of a personality so dangerous to theirinterests. John Dewey is working on an analysis of the McGeehan decision inso far as it discusses your books on education. That will be Dewey’s contribu-tion to the book to be published by Barnes. Our department has o?ered toco-operate with the editors, but we have not yet heard from Horace Kallen,who appears to be directing the book.The Hearst papers link your appointment to City College with that ofthe communists named by the State Legislative Committee investigatingsubversive political activities of city college teachers, in order to condemnthe Board of Higher Education and recommends its reorganisation undermore reactionary control. You may have noticed in yesterday’s N.Y. Times thatPresident Gannon of Fordham University recommended that ‘subversivephilosophical activities’ in the city colleges be investigated!I noted with interest your plan to devote the next four years to the historyof philosophy. I always regarded your work on Leibniz next in importanceonly to your Principles of Mathematics and Principia Mathematica. If you made similaranalytical and critical studies from primary sources of the most in?uentialphilosophers – even if only a few – e.g. Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes,Hume, Kant and Hegel, you would have contributed to the critical history ofphilosophy what only a philosopher equipped with modern instruments ofanalysis and a direct knowledge of the texts could do. This would be philo-sophically signi?cant as a union of analytical and historical methods ofinvestigating pervasive ideas like that of freedom (which exists mainly as anidea).I should like to have a chance to discuss this matter with you, since thewhole subject lies close to my chief interest and activity connected with theJournal of the History of Ideas. I may be in Philadelphia for the Amer. PhilosophicalAssoc. Symposium, Dec. 28, 1940, and should like to phone you if you arefree that evening or the next day (Sunday, Dec. 29).Yours sincerelyPhilip P. WienerP.S. – Professor Lovejoy might be free to come along to see you if I knewwhen you were free to talk history of philosophy.the autobiography of bertrand russell 460To and from Robert Trevelyan 212 Loring AvenueLos Angeles, Cal., U.S.A.22.12.39Dear BobEver since I got your letter a year ago I have meant to write to you, but I feltlike God when he was thinking of creating the world: there was no morereason for choosing one moment than for choosing another. I have notwaited as long as he did.I am established here as Professor of Philosophy in the University ofCalifornia. John and Kate came out for the summer holidays, and stayed whenthe war came, so they are having to go to the university here. John has apassion for Latin, especially Lucretius; unfortunately your Lucretius is storedin Oxford with the rest of my books. (I had expected to come back to Englandlast spring.)Thank you very much for the list of misprints.I wonder what you are feeling about the war. I try hard to remain a paci?st,but the thought of Hitler and Stalin triumphant is hard to bear.C.A. [Cli?ord Allen]’s death must have been a great sorrow to you. I do notknow what his views were at the end.Americans all say ‘you must be glad to be here at this time’, but except forthe children’s sake that is not how we feel.Much love to both you and Bessie from us both. Write when you can – it isa comfort to hear from old friends.Yours ever a?ectionatelyBertrand RussellThe Shi?oldsHolmbury St Mary, Dorking11 Febr. 1940Dear BertieIt was very nice hearing from you the other day, and to know that all iswell with Peter and you and the children (I suppose they are hardly childrenany longer now). We are fairly all right here – at present at any rate. Bessiekeeps quite cheerful, though her eye is no better. I read to her in the eveningnow, instead of her reading to me.We are very glad the children are staying in America, I hope it won’t be forever, though. At present things look pretty hopeless. I have sent you a copy ofmy Lucretius for John, as it might be a help to him. I have also sent my Poemsand Plays, as a Christmas present. Of course, I don’t expect you to read themfrom the beginning to the end: in fact, my advice, is, if you feel you mustread in them at all, that you should begin at the end, and read backwards (notline by line backwards, but poem by poem), until you get exhausted.america. 1938–1944 461I don’t think I shall write much more poetry. If I do, it will perhaps beWhitmaniac, in form, I mean, or rather in formlessness; though no one had a?ner sense of form than W. W., when he was inspired, which he was as muchas or more than most poets. I have quite come back to my old Cambridge loveof him, of his prose as well as his poetry. His Specimen Days seems to me(especially the part about the Civil War) one of the most moving books Iknow. I’ve been reading, another American book, which will hardly be popu-lar in California, I mean Grapes of Wrath. It may be unfair and exaggerated aboutthe treatment of the emigrants, I can’t tell about that; but it seems to me arather great book, in an epic sort of way. We are now reading aloud WinifredHoltby’s South Riding, which also seems to me very nearly a great book, thoughperhaps not quite.I am bringing out a book of translations of Horace’s Epistles and two Mon-taigne essays, which I will send you some time this year, unless the CambridgePress is bombed, which hardly seems likely. I have a book of prose too gettingready; but that will hardly be this year. I cannot think of a title – it is a‘Miscellany’, but all the synonyms (Hotch potch, Olla Podrida etc.) soundundigni?ed, and some of the material is highly serious. Bessie won’t let mecall it ‘A Faggot of sticks’, as she says that suggests it only deserves to be burnt.Bessie is, I believe, intending to write to you soon, and after that I hopeanother year won’t pass before we hear from you again. We have had the SturgeMoores here since the war began. He is rather an invalid now. We had a pleasantvisit from G. E. M. in August. He is lecturing at Oxford to large audiences.Francis Lloyd says a lot of Dons go, and are amused or shocked. She seems toget a lot out of his lectures. We have also an Italian boy, a Vivante, a nephewof L. de Bosis, to whom I teach Latin and Greek. He’s just got a scholarship atPembroke Oxford. It is clear to me now I ought to have been a school-master.Much love to you both from B. and me.Yours ever a?ectionatelyBob212 Loring AvenueLos Angeles, Cal., U.S.A.19 May 1940Dear BobThank you very much for the ?ne volumes of your works, which arrivedsafely, and which I am delighted to have.At this moment it is di?cult to think of anything but the war. By the timeyou get this, presumably the outcome of the present battle will have beendecided. I keep on remembering how I stayed at Shi?olds during the crisis ofthe battle of the Marne, and made you walk two miles to get a Sunday paper.Perhaps it would have been better if the Kaiser had won, seeing Hitler is so