Board Meeting Minutes November 17, 1968
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MINUTESOF PROCEEDINGS,NOVEMBER 17, 1952 617 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK HELD NOVEMBER 17, 1952 AT THE CONFERENCE ROOM, HUNTER COLLEGE 695 PARK AVENUE-BOROUGH 0% MANHATTAN The Chairman called the meeting to order at 8:15 P. M. There were present: Ordway Tead, Chairman Mary S. Ingraham Ruth S. Shoup, Secretary Lawton Mackall John Adikes John J. Morris Renato J. Azzari Gustave G. Rosenberg Joseph B. Cavallaro Arthur Rosencrans Porter R. Chandler Fred H. Schildwachter John E. Conboy Joseph Schlossberg Gladys M. D.orman Henry E. Schultz Ha&y Gertz Ella S. Streator Archiebald F. Glover Charles H. Tuttle President Buell. G. Gallagher, The City College President George N. Shuster, Hunter College President John J. Theobald, Queens College Dean Thomas E. Coulton, Brooklyn College Mrs. Pearl Max, Administrator The absence of ~r.Pope was excused. A. The Chairman introduced the following new members of the Board and outlined the way in which the Board performs its functions: Hon. Porter R. Chandler Hon. Archibald I?. Gl.over Hon. John E. Conb-oy Hon. John J. Morris Hon. Gustave G. Rosenberg B. Committee on Intercollegiate Basketball: Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried unanimously the following report of the Committee on Intercollegiate Basketball, in which the Committee reports that it prefers charges of neglect of duty, conduct unbecoming a teacher, and disobedience of a direction of this Board and this Committee, against Professor Frank S. Lloyd, Associate Professor Nat Holman, and Mr. Harry Sand, was received and placed on file, and it was agreed that the Board await further procedure in accordance with the re- port. November 17, 1952 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE BASKETBALL The first sentence of the Findings in this Committee's Report on April 30; 1951 reads "One of the fundamental principles of democratic living is that each individual must accept responsibility for his own acts even though circumstances may make it hard for him to follow the straight and narrow path. On the basis of this principle we have considered, in the matter of the basketball fix, the individuals ir~volved in or concerned with it-the players themselves .*,>. .-7; ,,,,.,- and the college and Board authorities responsible for the administration of the athletic program." %. 2;: .>.,, In the light of this principle this second report of the Committee is likewise made, and, for this . ;i . reason, the Committee brings (:barges of conduct unbecoming a teacher, neglect of duty, and dis-. obedience of a direction of the Board and this Committee, against three members of the faculty of City College, Professor Frank S. Lloyd, Associate Professor Nat Holman, and Mr. Harry Sand. The reasons for bringing these charges are herewith outlined. As we did not excuse the players' betrayal of their honor and their college, neither can we now excuse faculty members from their responsibility in the improper administration of the athletic program and for concealment from the President of the College and from this Committee of the facts concerning the program which were < sought from them before the first Report was made and since that time. 618 BOARDOF HIGHEREDUCATION Introductiolt On January 18, 1951, the District Attorney of Bronx County announced that two former basket- ball players from a metropolitall college had been arrested on bribery and conspiracy charges growing out of alleged "fixing" of basketball games. Subsequently, the District Attorney of New York County announced additional arrests, including seven players from 'City College. On February 19, 1951 at a meeting of the Board of Higher Education a resolution was adopted in which the Board pledged "to the people of this City that it will use all its powers to the utmost to maintain integrity in the athletic activities at the municipal colleges." The resolutiori authorized the appointment of a special committee-"three members of the Board with full powers to investigate every phase of this matter, to ascertain the fundamental causes thereof, to study the whole problem created by the increased emphasis on intercollegiate basketball, to cooperate with the public authorities, to consider what changes should be made in administration, curricular activities, and athletic practices, and to make a report of the facts, together with their recon~mendations" to the Board. These "facts" were earnestly sought by the Committee. A number of interviews were held with the members of the City College faculty responsible for the conduct of intercollegiate basketball and for coaching. These men were asked specifically to bring forward any information pertinent to the inquiry, especially in relation to adnlission and recruitment of players, scholastic standards of players, professionalism in athletics and gambling on games. The Committee while fortunately coming to sound conclusions and recommendations for a new program for the conduct of intercollegiate athletics (outlined in appendix A), did so despite the deliberate withholding by these members of the athletic faculty of information on what had actually happened at City College. A policy of silence on all questionable aspects of the situation that were not already exposed by the arrests of the players was followed by those questioned. The responsibility of a professor and teacher of young people is an affirmative one. He must do more than avoid perjury or questionable acfs. His own moral values must be so certain and aboveboard that those younger and more pliable will be molded by a fine example. Much more is expected of him than of the less critically placed citizen. Therefore, the duty of these teachers to the original Board Investigating Committee was to instruct and guide the Cominittee in its study, to bring together facts, incidents, attitudes and prac- tices which would have given them an honest picture. This would have taken courage and would have been a painful process but would have been the course of self-respecting men. Instead they were determined to maintain a system of big-time athletics, regardless of the cost to the youngsters who had been entrusted to them and to the college. Progress of Events On November 19, 1951, in imposing sentence upon seven players from City College and seven others who were found guilty, Judge Streit denounced the system of big-time basketball whlch had played so large a part in the corruption of the players and, among other things, stated that the high school records of certain of the convicted players upon which their admission to City College was based had been altered in order to secure their admission. At its meeting that evening the Board of Higher Education adopted a resolution requesting the special Committee to make a thorough investigation concerning the circumstances surrounding the admission of these students to City College and their continuance therein and stating the purpose of the Board to take "such punitive action and such other measures as the preservation of the good name bf the College and the main- tenance of truth and honor throughout the administrative staff may require." Pursuant to this mandate the Committee employed a special examiner to make an intensive investigation of all the pertinent facts. This examiner served full time from February 6, 1952 through July 15, 1952, and has served on a part-time basis since. Every discoverable source of information both within the College and outside was explored. Witnesses who might throw light on the situation weresought not only in. New York but in other cities. In view of the fact that information had not been voluntarily presented when it had been requested previously, the Com- mittee was resolved by direct interrogation of all persons in any way connected with intercollegiate athletics and by careful analysis of all pertinent data to secure a comprehensive and thorough report of the circumstances which led up to the basketball scandals. This present report comes to the Board as a result of the investigations of its special examiner, of testimony taken before the Com- mittee and of careful study of all pertinent documents and records. Interim Action by Presidefit Wright Prior to the retirement of President Harry N. Wright as of August 31, 1952, he informed our Committee in a letter dated July 31, 1952, of the administrative action he had taken to reorganize the conduct of intercollegiate athletics at City College, pending the report of our Committee. Presi- dent Wright stated that he had assigned to other members of the faculty the responsibility for administering intercollegiate basketball formerly carried by Professors Frank S. Lloyd, Samuel Winograd, w at Holman and Mr. Harry Sand. Professors Frank Lloyd and Samu&l Winograd were reassigried to other duties. Professor Nat Holman is on sabbatical leave of absence. Mr. Harry Sand is on leave of absence with pay, pending this Committee's report. President Wright made it clear that the reorganization of intercollegiate athletics which .he had I4egun constituted interim- action and that "the whole question of what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken" remained. to be determined, and he recommended "that this phase of the situation not be neglected." Our Committee was in full accord with the action taken by President Wright and with the views expressed in his letter. The ~limateof Ofiiniorr In its April 30, 1951 Report the Conlmittee wrote, LLI + * we consider college officials and faculty and ourselves as members of the Board, culpable in permitting intercollegiate basketball to continue under conditions which brought major temptation to the players of City College." Again we acknowl-edge that we consider college o.fficials and faculty and ourselves as members of the Board, culpable for having been part of the climate of acceptance of the prestige of big-time basketball without critical inquiry concerning it.