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 allowed
to become a party. This was not done in the New York case, because of the
hostility of the Corporation Counsel, who handled their defence. I cannot
endure a second time being slandered and condemned in a court of law
without any opportunity of rebutting false accusations against which no
one else can adequately defend me, for lack of knowledge.
I hope that Harvard will have the courtesy to keep me informed o?cially
of all developments, instead of leaving me to learn of matters that vitally
concern me only from inaccurate accounts in newspapers.
I should be glad if you would show this letter to the President and Fellows.
Yours sincerely
Bertrand Russell
To the Editor of the Harvard Crimson 212 Loring Avenue
Los Angeles, Cal.
May 6 1940
Dear Sir
I hope you will allow me to comment on your references in the Harvard
Crimson of April 29 to the recent proceedings concerning my appointment
to the City College of New York.
You say ‘Freedom of speech will not be the point under argument, as
was the case in the proceedings against City College of New York, when the
latter based an unsuccessful defense of its Russell appointment on the asser-
tion that Russell should be permitted to expound his moral views from a
lecture platform’.
In fact freedom of speech was not the defense of City College and the New
York Board of Higher Education. The Board and College based their defense
on the principle of academic freedom, which means simply the indepen-
dence of duly constituted academic bodies, and their right to make their own
appointments. This, according to your headline, is exactly the defense contemplated by the
Corporation of Harvard. Neither the Board of Higher Education nor the faculty
of City College at any time made the claim that I ‘should be permitted to
america. 1938–1944 453expound my moral views from a lecture platform’. On the contrary, they
stated repeatedly and with emphasis that my moral views had no possible
relevance 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 that
the classroom should not be used as an opportunity for propaganda on any
subject.
The principle of freedom of speech has been invoked, not by the New York
Board of Higher Education as their legal defense, but by many thousands of
people throughout the United States who have perceived its obvious relation
to the Controversy, which is this: the American constitution guarantees to
everyone the right to express his opinions whatever these may be. This right
is naturally limited by any contract into which the individual may enter
which requires him to spend part of his time in occupations other than
expressing his opinions. Thus, if a salesman, a postman, a tailor and a teacher
of mathematics all happen to hold a certain opinion on a subject unrelated to
their work, whatever it may be, none of them should devote to oratory on
this subject time which they have been paid to spend in selling, delivering
letters, making suits, or teaching mathematics. But they should all equally be
allowed to express their opinion freely and without fear of penalties in their
spare time, and to think, speak and behave as they wish, within the law, when
they 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 the
United States Constitution and to the works of the founders thereof.
Yours faithfully
Bertrand Russell
To Kingsley Martin 212 Loring Avenue
editor of the New Statesman Los Angeles, Cal.
May 13 1940
Dear Kingsley Martin
Thanks for your kind paragraph about my New York appointment. We still
hope to appeal, but the Mayor and corporation counsel, from respect for the
Catholic vote, are doing their best to prevent it. A similar fuss is promised
over my appointment to give the William James lectures at Harvard in the
autumn.
Actually I am being overwhelmed with friendship and support, but in this
country the decent people are terrifyingly powerless and often very naive.
This fuss is serving a useful purpose in calling attention to the sort of thing
that 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 not
so 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 were
young enough to ?ght myself I should do so, but it is more di?cult to urge
others. Now, however, I feel that I ought to announce that I have changed
my mind, and I would be glad if you could ?nd an opportunity to mention in
the New Statesman that you have heard from me to this e?ect.
Yours sincerely
Bertrand Russell
To Professor Hocking from John Dewey 1 West 89th St NY City
May 16th, 40
Dear Hocking
I have seen a copy of your letter to Russell and I cannot refrain from saying
that 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 view
or 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 University
would strengthen the forces of reaction – ecclesiastical and other – which are
already growing too rapidly, presumably on account of the state of fear and
insecurity now so general. I don’t think it is irrelevant to point out that the
NY City Council followed up its interference in the City College matter with a
resolution in which they asked for the dismissal of the present Board of
Higher Education and the appointment of a new one – the present Board
being mainly La Guardia’s appointments and sticking by the liberal attitudes
on acct of which they were originally appointed – in spite of the Mayor’s
recent shocking cowardice. Tammany and the Church aren’t now getting the
educational plums they want and used to get. In my opinion (without means
of proof ) the original attack on Russell’s appointment, and even more so the
terms of McGeehan’s decision were not isolated events. The reactionary catholic
paper in Brooklyn, The Tablet, openly expressed the hope that the move might
be the beginning of a movement to abolish all municipal colleges in Greater
New York – now four in number. A policy of ‘appeasement’ will not work
any better, in my judgment, with this old totalitarian institution than it has
with the newer ones. Every weakening will be the signal for new attacks. So
much, possibly irrelevant from your point of view, regarding the Harvard end
of the situation.
The point that disturbed me in your letter was not the one contained in the
foregoing gratuitous paragraph. That point is your statement of regret that
Russell raised the issue of freedom of speech. In the ?rst place, he didn’t raise
it; it was raised ?rst by McGeehan’s decision (I can’t but wonder if you have
america. 1938–1944 455ever seen that monstrous document), and then by other persons, originally in
New York institutions but rapidly joined by others throughout the country,
who saw the serious implications of passively sitting by and letting it go by
default. As far as the legal side is concerned the issue has been and will be
fought on a ground substantially identical with that you mention in the case
of the Harvard suit. But the educational issue is wider, much wider. It was
stated in the courageous letter of Chancellor Chase of NY University in a
letter to the Times – a letter which ?nally evoked from them their ?rst editorial
comment – which though grudging and ungracious did agree the case
should be appealed. If men are going to be kept out of American colleges
because 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 publications
addressed to the general public, I am heartily glad my own teaching days have
come 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 as
a kind of protected calling. If the courts, under outside group pressures,
are going to be allowed, without protest from college teachers, to con?ne
college faculties to teachers of these two types, the outlook is dark indeed. If
I express myself strongly it is because I feel strongly on this issue. While I
am extremely sorry for the thoroughly disagreeable position in which the
Russells have been personally plunged, I can’t but be grateful in view of the
number of men of lesser stature who have been made to su?er, that his case is
of such importance as to attract wide attention and protest. If you have read
McGeehan’s decision, I suppose you would feel with some of the rest of
us that no self-respecting person would do anything – such as the Times
editorial suggested he do – that would even remotely admit the truth of the
outrageous statements made – statements that would certainly be criminally
libellous if not protected by the position of the man making them. But over
and above that I am grateful for the service Russell renders the teaching body
and educational interests in general by taking up the challenge – accordingly
I am going to take the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to Russell.
Very sincerely yours
John Dewey
Dear Mr Russell
The above is self-explanatory – I know how occupied you are and it
needs no reply.
Sincerely, & gratefully yours
John Dewey
the autobiography of bertrand russell 456From Alfred North Whitehead 1737 Cambridge St
Cambridge, Mass.
April 26, 1940
Dear Bertie
Evelyn and I cannot let this occasion pass without telling you how greatly
we sympathise with you in the matter of the New York appointment. You
know, of course, that our opinions are directly opposed in many ways. This
note is just to give you our love and deep sympathy in the personal troubles
which have been aroused –
With all good wishes from us both.
Yours ever
Alfred Whitehead
Controversy 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 I
am not a Christian:
To the Editor of The Times 10, Darlington Street, Bath
Sir
In a letter to The Times which you published on October 15, Lord Russell
complains that in 1940 Protestant Episcopalians and Roman Catholics in New
York City prevented him from denying in court what he terms their ‘libels’.
The o?cial record of the decision declaring him ineligible for the
professorship in question makes it clear that his counsel submitted a brief
on his behalf which was accepted by the court. His subsequent application to
re-open the case was denied by the court on the grounds, among others, that
he gave no indication of being able to present new evidence which could
change the decision, which was unanimously upheld by two Courts of
Appeal.
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 Protestant
Episcopalians and Roman Catholics prevented him from denying in court the
charges which were largely based on his own writings?
Yours truly
Schuyler N. Warren
To the Editor of The Times Plas Penrhyn
Penrhyndeudraeth
Merioneth
Sir
In 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 his
points one by one.
First as to ‘libels’. I wrote publicly at the time: ‘When grossly untrue
statements as to my actions are made in court, I feel that I must give them the
lie. I never conducted a nudist colony in England. Neither my wife nor I ever
paraded nude in public. I never went in for salacious poetry. Such assertions
are deliberate falsehoods which must be known to those who make them to
have no foundation in fact. I shall be glad of an opportunity to deny them on
oath.’ This opportunity was denied me on the ground that I was not a party
to the suit. The charges that I did these things (which had been made by
the 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 a
brief 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 New
York City refused to appeal when urged to do so. The suggestion that I could
have brought an action for libel could only be made honestly by a person
ignorant of the atmosphere of hysteria which surrounded the case at that
time. 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 truly
Russell
From and to Schuyler N. Warren 10, Darlington Street
Bath
10th January, 1958
Dear Lord Russell
I am writing with regard to your letter which appeared in the Times on
November 26th. In this letter dealing with the controversy and subsequent
litigation over your appointment as a Professor of Philosophy in the college
in the City of New York you contradicted statements made by me in a letter
that was published in the Times on November 23rd.
I enclose photostats of both decisions of the Supreme Court for your
information, one revoking your appointment and the second denying your
application to reopen the case. I also enclose copy of the letter from Mr
Charles 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, and
that no appeal was made on your behalf, the enclosed decisions con?rm the
correctness of my statements. In the appendix of the volume Why I am Not a
Christian, Professor Edwards mentions Mr Osmund K. Fraenkel as having been
the autobiography of bertrand russell 458your Attorney and of his unsuccessful appeals to the Appellate Division and
to the Court of Appeals.
Very truly yours
Schuyler N. Warren
Plas Penrhyn
13 January, 1958
Dear Mr Warren
Your letter of January 10 with the enclosed photostats does not bear out
your stated view as to what occurred in my New York case in 1940. The
appeal 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 quite
grasped the peculiarity of the whole a?air. The defendants wished to lose the
case – as at the time was generally known – and therefore had no wish to see
McGeehan’s verdict reversed on appeal. The statement that I was kept
informed 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 to
what 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 properly
what was happening. It remains the fact that I was not allowed to become a
party to the case, that I was unable to appeal, and that I had no opportunity
of giving evidence in court after I knew what they were saying about me.
Mr Fraenkel, whom you mentioned, was appointed by the Civil Liberties
Union, not by me, and took his instructions from them.
Yours truly
Russell
From Prof. Philip P. Wiener The City College
New York 31, N.Y.
Department of Philosophy
Oct. 4, 1961
To the Editor of the New York Times
For myself and many of my colleagues I wish to express our distress at the
unfairness 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 educated
world on moral grounds condemned Judge McGeehan’s character assassin-
ation of one of the world’s greatest philosophers, and that the courts did not
allow Russell to enter the case. Now that this great man is almost ninety years
old and ?ghting for the preservation of humanity (though some of us do not
agree with his unilateral disarmament policy4
), we believe your columnist
owes him and the civilised world an apology.
Philip P. Wiener
Professor and Chairman
america. 1938–1944 459289 Convent Avenue
New York City
Dec. 8, 1940
Dear Professor Russell
After having enjoyed your timely lecture before the P.E.A.
5
and friendly
chat at the Penn. R.R. terminal, I reported to my colleagues that we had
indeed been ?lched of a great teacher who would have brought so much of
light 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 their
interests. John Dewey is working on an analysis of the McGeehan decision in
so 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 to
co-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 of
the communists named by the State Legislative Committee investigating
subversive political activities of city college teachers, in order to condemn
the Board of Higher Education and recommends its reorganisation under
more reactionary control. You may have noticed in yesterday’s N.Y. Times that
President Gannon of Fordham University recommended that ‘subversive
philosophical activities’ in the city colleges be investigated!
I noted with interest your plan to devote the next four years to the history
of philosophy. I always regarded your work on Leibniz next in importance
only to your Principles of Mathematics and Principia Mathematica. If you made similar
analytical and critical studies from primary sources of the most in?uential
philosophers – even if only a few – e.g. Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes,
Hume, Kant and Hegel, you would have contributed to the critical history of
philosophy what only a philosopher equipped with modern instruments of
analysis and a direct knowledge of the texts could do. This would be philo-
sophically signi?cant as a union of analytical and historical methods of
investigating pervasive ideas like that of freedom (which exists mainly as an
idea).
I should like to have a chance to discuss this matter with you, since the
whole subject lies close to my chief interest and activity connected with the
Journal of the History of Ideas. I may be in Philadelphia for the Amer. Philosophical
Assoc. Symposium, Dec. 28, 1940, and should like to phone you if you are
free that evening or the next day (Sunday, Dec. 29).
Yours sincerely
Philip P. Wiener
P.S. – Professor Lovejoy might be free to come along to see you if I knew
when you were free to talk history of philosophy.
the autobiography of bertrand russell 460To and from Robert Trevelyan 212 Loring Avenue
Los Angeles, Cal., U.S.A.
22.12.39
Dear Bob
Ever since I got your letter a year ago I have meant to write to you, but I felt
like God when he was thinking of creating the world: there was no more
reason for choosing one moment than for choosing another. I have not
waited as long as he did.
I am established here as Professor of Philosophy in the University of
California. John and Kate came out for the summer holidays, and stayed when
the war came, so they are having to go to the university here. John has a
passion for Latin, especially Lucretius; unfortunately your Lucretius is stored
in Oxford with the rest of my books. (I had expected to come back to England
last 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 not
know what his views were at the end.
Americans all say ‘you must be glad to be here at this time’, but except for
the children’s sake that is not how we feel.
Much love to both you and Bessie from us both. Write when you can – it is
a comfort to hear from old friends.
Yours ever a?ectionately
Bertrand Russell
The Shi?olds
Holmbury St Mary, Dorking
11 Febr. 1940
Dear Bertie
It was very nice hearing from you the other day, and to know that all is
well with Peter and you and the children (I suppose they are hardly children
any longer now). We are fairly all right here – at present at any rate. Bessie
keeps quite cheerful, though her eye is no better. I read to her in the evening
now, instead of her reading to me.
We are very glad the children are staying in America, I hope it won’t be for
ever, though. At present things look pretty hopeless. I have sent you a copy of
my Lucretius for John, as it might be a help to him. I have also sent my Poems
and Plays, as a Christmas present. Of course, I don’t expect you to read them
from the beginning to the end: in fact, my advice, is, if you feel you must
read in them at all, that you should begin at the end, and read backwards (not
line 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 be
Whitmaniac, 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 much
as or more than most poets. I have quite come back to my old Cambridge love
of 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 I
know. 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 about
the treatment of the emigrants, I can’t tell about that; but it seems to me a
rather great book, in an epic sort of way. We are now reading aloud Winifred
Holtby’s South Riding, which also seems to me very nearly a great book, though
perhaps 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 Cambridge
Press is bombed, which hardly seems likely. I have a book of prose too getting
ready; 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.) sound
undigni?ed, and some of the material is highly serious. Bessie won’t let me
call 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 hope
another year won’t pass before we hear from you again. We have had the Sturge
Moores here since the war began. He is rather an invalid now. We had a pleasant
visit 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 to
get a lot out of his lectures. We have also an Italian boy, a Vivante, a nephew
of L. de Bosis, to whom I teach Latin and Greek. He’s just got a scholarship at
Pembroke 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?ectionately
Bob
212 Loring Avenue
Los Angeles, Cal., U.S.A.
19 May 1940
Dear Bob
Thank you very much for the ?ne volumes of your works, which arrived
safely, and which I am delighted to have.
At this moment it is di?cult to think of anything but the war. By the time
you get this, presumably the outcome of the present battle will have been
decided. I keep on remembering how I stayed at Shi?olds during the crisis of
the 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
