Letters to the Editor

ANOTHER IMPOSTOR

Dear Sir:

We have information to the effect that a man giving the name of Frank Alderman or J. H. Graves is posing as a Sigma Nu Fraternity member at the University of Virginia.

He has been cashing checks on banks where he has no account, and has succeeded in obtaining money from two members of the fraternity, besides leaving the Stetson house with a suit of clothes belonging to one of the boys and without paying his hotel bill at Deland and Orlando, Fla.

This man seems to have intimate knowledge of the University of Virginia Campus, and the activities of the chapter. He advises he is from Atlantic City, N. J., and also attended the University of Pennsylvania.

He is described as about 22 years old, five feet ten or eleven, dark brown hair, and of medium build. One distinguishing mark about him is that he has about a quarter of an inch space between his two middle upper teeth.

We are sending you this letter so that you may be informed about this man should he visit your locality or become acquainted with some of the alumni.

General Secretary

Sigma Nu Fraternity,Illinois Bldg., Indianapolis.

PEOF. MILLER'S DISMISSAL

Dear Sir:

Many Dartmouth men will be interested in the dismissal of Professor Herbert A. Miller (Dartmouth '99) from his position as a professor of sociology at the Ohio State University.

The reasons alleged by the Board of Trustees for this action are as follows: "Prof. Miller came to Ohio State University in 1924. From his very first year here, complaints were received from parents of students in his classes and from others about his teaching on the relations of the races and on domestic relations. . . Prof. Miller was on leave of absence from the University for the year 1929-30, traveling in Asia and elsewhere, and during that period it was reported that he had been escorted by the Japanese police from a public meeting in Korea, where he was making an address on matters forbidden by the Japanese authorities. On March 13, 1930, the press reported a speech that Prof. Miller made in Bombay on March 12, at a gathering of Hindus on the eve of Gandhi's 'salt march.' This address was reported to have been made at a large meeting of people opposed to British rule in India, and therefore had an international aspect." The Board of Trustees interpreted this speech as "Helping to incite the Hindus to civil disobedience."

It has been suggested that the Trustees were influenced by the fact that Prof. Miller took some of his students on inspection trips to Wilberforce University, a state-supported institution for Negroes at Xenia, Ohio, and that on one of these trips several white girls danced with colored men. It is also suggested that the Trustees were influenced by the fact that Prof. Miller was somewhat conspicuous in favoring optional military drill instead of the compulsory system now in force at Ohio State. No mention of these points is made in the Trustees' explanation of their action.

The dismissal of Prof. Miller was investigated by a committee of the American Association of University Professors; their report is published in the Bulletin of the Association for October 1931.

In regard to the Bombay speech the committee compared the available newspaper versions with Prof. Miller's own version; they concluded "that the Bombay speech (in any of its versions) was a proper expression of opinion from an authority in Dr. Miller's field, and that it aroused no objection in any responsible quarter other than the Board of Trustees of Ohio State University."

In regard to the Korea incident Dr. Miller states, "When, in my lecture, I said that the Czecho-Slovak republic was going successfully I was told to stop. ... I had uttered what was considered a 'dangerous thought.' " This version has not been contradicted.

In regard to complaints about Dr. Miller's teaching the committee could learn little. President Rightmire informed the committee "that he had not received such complaints, and that he had neither seen nor known of written complaints received by the Board. His surmise was that they had been received orally by members of the Board. He could not say whether individual complaints had been investigated. He could not say whether the complaints were in excess of the number to be expected in a controversial field though he had been told by the Trustees that they were numerous. He did say that the complaints had to do with opinions expressed by Professor Miller on matters within Miller's field (Race Relations), and that they came from organized groups as well as from parents. He said that he had not personally brought these complaints to the attention either of Professor Miller or of his department head, Professor Hagerty, or of his Dean, Professor Weidler of the College of Commerce."

The committee reports, "In his university course his views were liberal but not extreme. He taught that there are no great intrinsic differences betwen the races but that at present there are definite social objections to race mixtures. ... He did not advocate intermarriage (as sometimes reported) but emphasized rather the necessity for amicable relations." The committee concludes "That the views expressed by Dr. Miller in his writings and teaching were more moderate than those held by other distinguished workers (sociologists and anthropologists) in his field."

The general conclusion of the committee was that "the action of the Board in dismissing Dr. Miller on the basis of the counts mentioned ... is concrete evidence of an attitude toward freedom of speech for its faculty which is directly opposed to sound public policy, to good educational practice, and to long established university ideals."

Columbus, Ohio.Nov. 11, 1931.