THE MIDWEST QUARTERLY

A Question of Academic Freedom:

 

The William A. Schaper Case

 

JOHN T. HUBELL

 

WAR CARRIES with it its own logic-a logic that leads to devastations of minds and morals as surely as it leads to physical destruction. When in 1917 Woodrow Wilson reflected on the probable, even inevitable, effects of war, he foresaw the substitution of "war standards" for "peace standards." Full support of the soldiers at the front would demand "illiberalism" at home-there could be no other way. "Once lead this people into war and they'll forget there ever was such a thing as tolerance. To fight you must be brutal and ruthless, and the spirit of ruthless brutality will enter into the very fibre of our national life, infecting Congress, the courts, the policeman on the beat, the man in the street .. . . . Conformity would be the only virtue, and every man who refused to conform would pay the penalty." Free speech, free assembly, would be sacrificed. (Link, Wilson: Campaigns for Progressivism and Peace, 1916-1917, (Princeton, 1965), pp. 388-390. )

 

The "war standards" of which Wilson spoke claimed their victims, among them university professors who for reasons of their own spoke against those very standards. One such victim was `'William A. Schaper, in 1917 professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. Born in 1869 in La Crosse, Wisconsin, Shaper took his B. A. and M. A.. degrees at Wisconsin, and his Ph. D. atColumbia. His dissertation, published as Sectionalism and Representation in South Carolina, won for him the Justin Winsor prize of the American Historical Association in 1900, the same year he went to Minnesota as instructor of political science. In time he rose to the chairmanship of the department and established himself as an expert on local government. He also gained the reputation of being something of a populist and earned the enmity of powerful business and financial interests in the state. As the country drifted toward war with Germany, he attracted notice for his strongly antiwar sentiments. These circumstances contributed to the personal catastrophe that overtook him at a time when he was at the apex of his intellectual powers and professional standing.

 

September 17, 1917, William A. Schaper was spending the last days of his .vacation drafting city charters for two municipalities that had engaged his expert services. While walking across campus enroute to his office he met Dr. W. L. Burton, president of the University, who informed him that the University regents wished to see him about a communication from the State Public Safety Commission: A member of the commission had presented the regents with a list of faculty members who should be investigated or watched. Fred Snyder, president of the Board of Regents, told Schaper that there were no formal charges against him, but Pierce Butler, a board member, said that someone on the Public Safety Commission had informed them that Schaper was a "rabid pro-German."

 

The tone of the questions that followed was uniformly hostile. When Snyder asked Schaper about his position on the war, Schaper reminded him of a conversation of October, 1915, a conversation conducted in "perfect good spirit," in which Schaper had told Snyder that he regarded the war as a "great calamity and a wholly wrong method of settling the difficulties between the European nations." At that time he had opposed United States entry into the war, but later, when war was declared, he asserted that every citizen owed his support to the war effort. This was reflected in his advice to young men ( who might have opposed the war) that now they must serve in the military if needed.

 

Snyder replied that this was not enough, that many people who had opposed the war now said that they had changed their minds. What was his present state of opinion? At this point Schaper suspected that he was going to be asked to propagandize for the war, "stirring up hate and hysteria" as he, put it. He deeply opposed university men taking part in such activities and so informed the regents. Advising young men to do their duty was not the same as "boosting" for war. President Burton then asked if he opposed all wars or only the war against Germany. Schaper said that war was a wrong method of settling international disputes; in this sense he opposed all wars. However, he would defend the United States from attack or aggression "from any quarter."

 

At that point Pierce Butler began questioning Schaper ( Schaper said that Butler "clearly dominated the board and directed its course."), charging that Schaper obeyed the law only to stay out of jail, that he was the Kaiser's man, and was not the purpose of the war to destroy the present form of government in Germany. Schaper replied that a citizen should obey the law out of duty, not out of fear; that the purpose of the war was not to destroy the present form of government in Germany, even if he might prefer a more representative form, and that President Wilson had not gone that far in his war message. To Butler's charge that he wanted the Kaiser to dominate the world, Schaper said that it was "utterly absurd."

 

After a somewhat legalistic discussion over neutral rights and the Belgian question, Butler asked how long Schaper had held his position with the university: the answer, sixteen years. Then Butler commented, "for sixteen years you have lived off the public money of this State. It was practically your only source of income, was it not?" To which Schaper replied: "Gentlemen, I was not aware that this board was dispensing charity. I had supposed that I held an honorable position in this university. I earned every dollar I ever received from the State."

 

Other questions followed, questions in the same personally insulting vein, e. g., why wasn't Schaper in the army (he was 48 years of age at the time). When Schaper was dismissed from the meeting, approximately a half-hour had passed. Later that afternoon, he answered a second summons to the regents at which time Fred Snyder informed him that "The Board of Regents have voted unanimously that you are a disloyal American citizen. In view of the position you hold as Professor of Political Science you might have been very useful in furthering the cause. In view of the sixteen years that you have received the public money of this state, something more could have been expected of you. We now call for your resignation." When Schaper asked that any charges against him be reduced to writing and that he be given opportunity to reply, Pierce Butler remarked, "his answer is in." No other member of the board spoke. That evening at 9:30 P. M. he received the following, delivered by a Western Union messenger.

 

My Dear Prof. Schaper,

 

It becomes my serious task to transmit to you the following resolution passed by the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota at its meeting on this day:

 

`Whereas, the Minnesota Commission of Public Safety by letter addressed to the President of this Board, advised that it was claimed by informants of that commission that Professor W. A. Schaper is a rabid pro-German, and, on this day, at the request of the Board, Prof. Schaper appeared before it and was interrogated concerning his loyalty to this Government, and,

 

`Whereas, the statements made by him before this Board satisfy it that his attitude of mind, whether due to conscientious considerations or otherwise, and his expressed unwillingness to aid the United States in the present war, render him unfit and unable rightly to discharge the duties of his position as Professor in the Department of Political Science in this University, and,

 

`Whereas, this Board holds that the best interests of the University, the State, and the nation requires unqualified loyalty on the part of all teachers in the University, coupled with willingness and ability by precept and example to further the national purpose in the present crisis,

 

`Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, the relations existing between Prof. W. A. Schaper and this University be, and the same are, hereby terminated:

 

Very truly yours,

 

W. L. BURTON,

 

President of University

 

Copies of the resolution were given to reporters immediately, and on the following day Pierce Butler was quoted in the St. Paul Pioneer Press ( Sept. 14, 1917 )

 

His [Schaper's] removal is in harmony with the present tendency to silence disloyal communities, institutions, publications, officials, and individuals. We must see that sincere loyal Americans are made the instructors of our youth, and not blatherskites such as this man.

 

Schaper's reaction, in a long press statement, was that diversity of opinion is essential in a democracy: "To ruthlessly crush under the heel of authority all who hold private opinions contrary to those in power is not and cannot be a permanently successful policy in this country." Further, the regents had blundered in proceeding so precipitously; there were no deliberations, no investigation, no formal charges. In short it was a precedent that would trouble the regents in future instances.

 

In a later analysis of the proceedings, Schaper noted that never was there a specific charge brought against him, only vague accusations based upon secret information. And even if the regents had the legal right to dismiss a faculty member, common practice and decency had precluded such arbitrary treatment. They had effectively destroyed his professional standing, his "good name as a citizen," and his, "peace of mind." "Is that the penalty a member of the faculty at the University of Minnesota must pay to take an unpopular stand for truth and right as he understands it? Then I say academic freedom at that university is a myth. For even a university faculty is human confronted with professional martyrdom. Such an environment produces the timid mousie type of university man, or the institutional politician, the scholar with an ear to the ground, two not unfamiliar figures on the campus."

 

Some years later Schaper again raised the question of due process. Four essentials of a fair hearing were: (1) due notice of time and place designated, ( 2 ) right to have charges stated in writing, and be confronted by the accuser, ( 3 ) right to appear with and have the aid and advice of counsel, ( 4 ) right to submit testimony, and to compel attendance of witnesses, and production of books and papers.

 

That none of these criteria obtained was obvious in view of the hasty summons, the secret accuser, the absence of faculty and students still on vacation, the virulent antiforeign, anti-German atmosphere in the land. On the board were three prominent attorneys-not one of whom showed the least regard for the rights of the individual directly affected by the board's decision.

 

Further, the charges against Schaper had no basis in fact. He had opposed entry into the war ( as had marry, many others), opposition which he made no effort to hide. However, as be stressed time and again, once war was declared he advocated that each citizen do the duty of a citizen, including voluntary service in the armed forces. At the same time, he saw the war for nothing but the tragedy that it was, a distasteful task to be completed with as great dispatch as possible. Letters from several of his former students testify to the truth of these statements.

 

So William Schaper, his life shattered by events, his spirit crushed by bullying tactics suitable, as be said later, to a czarist regime, turned for aid to the AAUP. On December 4, 1917, be received from Arthur O. Lovejoy ( of Johns Hopkins) a letter asking for more information on the hearing and any statements of his at the hearing that might have lent support to the board's charges. Schaper sent to Lovejoy a long statement that he based upon notes written immediately after the first meeting, the statement he had given to the press, and his own memory. "This must therefore be regarded as my personal impression and understanding of the affair." He asked President Burton for permission to use any stenographic record kept of the meeting, but Burton said that no such records were made. Schaper told Lovejoy that his so-called unwillingness to aid in the war effort referred to his refusal to make public speeches "for the purpose of stirring up the fighting spirit." He had advocated proper service, "But  to require me to enthuse over the war under all the circumstances is to compel me to descend to the brute; against that outrage all the humanity within me revolts."

 

At the national meeting of the AAUP in Chicago, in December 1917, the Association considered several cases, including Schaper's. Among other things the Association adopted the principle of procedural safeguards, including specific charges, impartial investigations, fair hearings, definite findings referring to precise acts. "The importance of maintaining these procedural safeguards against hasty or unjust action is, if possible, even greater at a time of popular excitement and heightened passions than under normal conditions" ( Bulletin AAUP, IV (1918 ) , p. 46. ) .

 

The Association's statement was general, designed not so much for the relief of an individual but "to secure the recognition of a general principle of academic freedom to prevent similar disasters in the future." However, investigations by Max Lowenthal and Felix Frankfurter; while connected with the United States Labor Conciliation Commission in December 1917, raised a number of questions and proposals. Lowenthal called upon Fred Snyder and asked for a rehearing for Schaper on two grounds: 1) procedural, 2) substantive-that is, Schaper had said or done nothing that might constitute disloyalty to the United States. Snyder said that the entire board would resign rather than conduct a rehearing, even should Schaper make a formal demand for a rehearing. In February, 1918, Low­enthal asked Schaper if he wished a formal demand for rehearing and Schaper declined. "It seemed to me an inopportune time to take such a step. The greatest crisis of the war was approaching, some friction between state and federal authorities on the local strike situation required conciliatory action. Under the circumstances I had no desire to become the center of political strife and more sensational action, resulting in further embarrassment to myself and others." Lowenthal also proposed to Snyder that a "disinterested body" of men of "colonial American ancestry," then serving in war related departments of the government, members of the judiciary, or distinguished academicians from other universities be appointed by the Board to study the case. Snyder refused: An alumni group made similar proposals, and they accomplished nothing. Finally, in April, 1922, letters collected by Lowenthal were presented to Pierce Butler and the governor, accompanied by a letter from Schaper in which he restated his arguments of previous months: "The facts are that in one afternoon without warning, I was deprived of my profession and my good standing as an American citizen. The federal author­ities, I am informed, looked into the case and requested the regents to permit the case to be reopened, but so far this has not been done. I have no desire to teach again at the University of Minnesota and do not seek reinstate­ment, but I would like to have that war-time charge against me expunged from the records, so that other universities who want my services would not be barred by public prejudice from giving me a call. I have been informed that so long as the record stands on the minutes of the regents at Minnesota, that no other American university would dare to give me a call for fear of public criticism, even though that university wholly disagreed with the pro­ceedings and findings in my case."

 

When the board again refused to reconsider, Schaper decided to carry his fight outside the ordinary academic channels. He was especially delighted that the state legis­lature attempted to curb the arbitrary power of the regents. He did not suggest that the regents, representative of the general public, did not have final responsibility for faculty appointments and removals; he simply wanted the process grounded in fairness, in keeping, in fact, with the guide­lines of the AAUP. Even when proposed legislation failed of passage, he was encouraged by the public expressions of protest against what he referred to as the forces of "organized greed."

 

Schaper's battle for vindication reached the national arena when, in 1922, President Warren G. Harding nomi­nated Pierce Butler to the Supreme Court. Progressives from across the nation opposed the outrage, and Schaper's name became prominent in the debate. His objection to the nomination, shared by other academics, was that Butler lacked the requisite sensitivity to civility and civil rights to be a judge. As Schaper himself put it in a deposition before the Senate sub-committee conducting hearings on the nomination: "There is but one conclusion to draw from this case, that it was a travesty on American principles of justice and right and that the action was taken on the direct advice of Pierce Butler, who dominated the Board, who took the leading part in hurling unfounded accusations at me, and finally advised the Regents to refuse the hearing I demanded, and repeated at that tune. It must be plain to Senators sitting on this Committee that Mr. Butler showed utter lack of those fine qualities of even tempered sense of justice that we look for in a Justice of the Supreme Court."

 

Of course, the effort to block Butler's confirmation failed; the Senate passed him through with little opposition. Schaper, sorely disappointed, almost surrendered his hopes of returning to the academic world and continued to sup­port himself through various business ventures. However, in 1925 his star rose again as he accepted a position as professor of economics at the University of Oklahoma. In 1938, through the efforts of Guy Stanton Ford and other faculty members at Minnesota, the University Regents rescinded the action of September 13, 1917, reinstated Schaper to the faculty with the rank of professor emeritus of political science and voted him the sum of $5,000 for his loss of salary during the academic year 1917-1918. Schaper, only a year away from retirement, accepted the gesture without bitterness. He died in 1955.

 

Even a bare-bones description of what came to be called the Schaper Case illustrates the fragile nature of academic freedom, which is, after all, but a corollary to basic freedoms common to all people. As historians, as teachers, we necessarily agree that the episode was partic­ularly outrageous. But should it surprise us?

Many observors, including Schaper, attributed his mis­fortune to the general wartime hysteria of 1917. Yet, it seems that more was involved. Hysteria, yes-war evokes the worst in a people, even in (especially in?) a democracy. More probable is that the attack was calculated. Men in privileged positions took advantage of social turmoil to attack the enemy. Schaper opposed the war, but before that (and after) he opposed the excesses, even the criminality, of concentrated economic power, that segment of society so carefully protected and nurtured by Pierce Butler. The primary threat to civil liberties stems not from the great unwashed, or the long feared tyranny of the majority, but from "gentlemen of property and standing," their servants and hirelings, including some, sadly enough, among the academic community. That Schaper's political views were momentarily out of favor, coupled with his apparent absence of personal popularity, led to his isolation and vulnerability.'

 

Protection of academic freedom, protection of all free­dom, derives from organized and continued struggle against arbitrary authority, and particularly that authority which violates the law while pretending to uphold it.