Communism versus Academic Freedom Author(s): Arthur O. Lovejoy Source: The American Scholar, Vol. 18, No. 3 (SUMMER 1949), pp. 332-337 Published by: The Phi Beta Kappa Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41205209 Accessed: 23-03-2015 16:52 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The Phi Beta Kappa Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Scholar. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 192.12.13.14 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:52:27 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Communismversus Academic Freedom ArthurO. Lovejoy The question here under discussionis a society,is to furnishto othermen the re- specificand limitedone. It is not the ques- sultsof the investigationsof disinterested tionwhether the CommunistParty should expertsin the severalprovinces of thought be "outlawed,"or its membersbe denied and knowledge.The existenceof the pro- the ordinaryrights of citizenship.That is fessionrests upon the assumptionthat it is a questionwhich concernsall citizensas useful,and even needful,for societyto citizens,and it will be settledby thepolitical maintainsuch a body of trainedinvestiga- and judicial processes of constitutionaltors, and to be informedas to the con- democraticgovernment. The questionis clusionswhich they may individuallyor certainlynot whethercommunism in the collectivelyreach. Society, therefore, is not - purely economic sense the completely gettingfrom the scholar the particular serv- centralizedgovernmental control of pro- ice whichis the principalraison (Tetre of - ductionand distributionis a worse or a his calling,unless it gets from him his bettersystem than competitive private en- honestreport of whathe finds,or believes, terprise.The issueto be consideredin this to be true,after careful study of the prob- symposiumrelates to educationalinstitu- lems with which he deals. Insofar,then, tionsonly: Are theresufficient reasons for as facultiesare made up of men whose holdingthat adherentsof the Communist teachingsexpress, not the resultsof their Partyshould be excludedfrom the teach- own researchand reflectionand that of ing bodiesof schoolsand universities?The theirfellow-specialists, but ratherthe opin- presentcontribution to the discussionwill ions of other men- whetherholders of be stillfurther limited to the questionas it publicoffice or privatepersons from whom concernsuniversities. I shall contend that - endowmentsare received- just so far are irrespectiveof the answersto be givento colleges and universitiesperverted from any of the other questionsmentioned - theirproper function. This, of course,does thereare cogentreasons against admitting not meanthat experts are infallible,or that membersof the Communist Party in Ameri- othermen are under any compulsionto ca to universityfaculties. But to make accepttheir conclusions. It meansonly that thosereasons clear it is necessaryfirst to one specificand (it will be admitted) considerwhat kind of institutiona uni- highlyimportant organ of the intellectual versityis, forwhat ends it exists,and what lifeand rationalprogress of thecommunity is prerequisiteto the performanceby pro- cannotfunction at all unlessit is leftfree fessionalscholars of thespecific social func- to functionby its own method- whichis tionassigned to them. the methodof open-mindedinquiry and The distinctivefunction of universityof frankand unhampereddiscussion, car- teachersand of the institutionsin which ried on by men dedicatedto the scholar's they serve, in the economy of modern life and speciallytrained in the disciplines to whichthey devote themselves.* O ARTHUR O. LOVEJOY is now profes- sor emeritusof philosophyin JohnsHopkins University.He initiatedin 1913 the move- *This paragraphwas writtenin 1920and printed mentfor the of the American in the Nation of thatyear; it is the morepertinent organization here Associationof UniversityProfessors, was the because it was thenmade the basis of a criti- first of the its cismof the trusteesof an Americancollege for ac- secretary Association, president from a an endowmentfor a in 1919, and has beenchairman or a member cepting "capitalist" specialprofessorship to be devotedto showing"the of manyof itscommittees to investigatecon- fallacies of socialism and kindred theories and ditionsaffecting academic freedom and tenure practices."I havenow added onlythe words "hold- in individualinstitutions. ersof publicoffice." 332 This content downloaded from 192.12.13.14 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:52:27 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AMERICAN SCHOLAR FORUM This, I suggest,is what may be called systemessentially similar to that which the basic "philosophy"of academicfree- now existsin the Soviet Union. dom. Such freedomis not morenecessary 3. That systemdoes not permitfreedom for the communityat large thanfreedom of inquiry,of opinion,and of teaching, in general- of speech,of the press,of reli- eitherin or outsideof universities;in it the gion,of politicalaction. But for universities, political government claims and exercises and forthe guildof scholars,it is literally the rightto dictateto scholarswhat con- vital;without the Luft der Freiheitthey clusionsthey must accept, or at leastprofess cannotexist as universitiesand as mem- to accept,even on questionslying within bersof thatguild. It is no luxurygenerously theirown specialties - for example, in philos- grantedby therest of society to a privileged ophy,in history,in aestheticsand literary classof eccentricscalled professors; for if it criticism,in economics,in biology. is indispensableto themfor the carrying 4. A memberof the CommunistParty is on of the taskallotted to them,and if the thereforeengaged in a movementwhich performanceof that task is itselfindis- has alreadyextinguished academic freedom - pensablein a civilizedsociety, then the in manycountries and would if it were maintenanceof the scholar'sintellectual successfulhere - resultin the abolitionof freedomshould be a matterof concernto such freedomin Americanuniversities. all enlightenedmembers of society.But the 5. No one,therefore, who desiresto main- protectionof thisessential condition for the tainacademic freedom in Americacan con- dischargeof theirfunction is for scholars sistentlyfavor that movement, or give in- in universitiesa primaryand special con- directassistance to it by acceptingas fit cern.It is as muchan obligationas a right. membersof the facultiesof universities, Freedomof teachinghas been won, to the personswho have voluntarilyadhered to considerabledegree in which it has been an organizationone of whose aims is to won in all reputableinstitutions, by a long abolishacademic freedom. and hard struggle,and everynew threat Of thesefive propositions, the first is one to it should encounterthe determinedof principle.For thosewho do not accept resistanceof theentire academic profession. it, the conclusion does not follow. The argu- Now one reasonwhy I thinkthat mem- mentis addressedonly to those who do bers of the CommunistParty should not acceptthat premise. The second,third and be appointedto universityfaculties is that fourthpropositions are statementsof fact. I hold thisbelief in the indispensabilityof I submitthat they cannot be honestlygain- academicfreedom. Yet I findother pro- said by any who are acquaintedwith the fessedbelievers in it who draw fromthat relevantfacts. With respectto the second, belief preciselythe opposite conclusion. it willbe notedthat it doesnot say thatthe From an identicalpremise, contrary con- Americansection of the CommunistParty sequencesare inferred.I must therefore try seeks to overthrowour presentform of to stateas clearlyas I can the argument government"by forceand violence."That whichappears to me to showthat the em- is at leastdenied by mostAmerican Com- ploymentof Communistteachers is inimical munists;it is not directlypertinent to the to academicfreedom. It is a very simple specificissue of academicfreedom; and, at argument;it can bestbe put,in the logician's the date of writingthis, it is a question fashion,in a seriesof numberedtheorems: which is before the Federal courts for 1. Freedomof inquiry,of opinion,and judicial determination.But whateverthe of teachingin universitiesis a prerequisite,means by which AmericanCommunists if the academicscholar is to performthe proposeto accomplishtheir end - whether functionproper to his profession. by peacefulor (if a favorableopportunity 2. The CommunistParty in the United arises) by violentmethods - no one who Statesis an organizationwhose aim is to reads the manifestoesand publicationsof bringabout the establishmentin thiscoun- the Partycan have any doubt about the try of a politicalas well as an economic natureof the end. It is to set up in thç 333 This content downloaded from 192.12.13.14 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:52:27 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR UnitedStates a systemmodeled upon that that the Mendelian - gists-namely, theory, of the SovietUnion a so-called"dictator- thebasis of all modernscientific genetics, is ship of the proletariat"(in reality,of a