One of the things that is so nice about stumbling through the hathitrust.org collection is that you really never know when you’re about to discover an interesting but really obscure publication. Today we get to attend hearings conducted in the Spring of 1949 at the Illinois House of Representatives regarding communists among the students and faculty of the University of Chicago and Roosevelt College. In the excerpt below we have part of the opening statement of the Chancellor of the University of Chicago as well as his responses to a hostile line of questions regarding the distinguished Chicago economics professor, Oscar Richard Lange, who had been on leave from the University to serve as Polish Ambassador in Washington and whohad by 1949 returned to Poland. Chancellor Hutchins acquitted himself honorably.
Just how “red” was Oscar Lange in fact? I think the greatest lower bound lands him comfortably in the category “useful idiot economist”.
Notes from a 2 hour 15 minute official meeting of Oscar Lange with Joseph Stalin and V. M. Molotov, May 17, 1944.
One partially encrypted message regarding Oscar Lange, a.k.a. “Friend” (August 1944) from the Venona project.
_____________________
Investigation of the University of Chicago and Roosevelt College, 1949, special report;
public hearings held in House of Representatives Chamber, State Capitol Building,
April 21, 22, 23, 1949, May 19, 1949.
(pp. 25-28 for Q&A)
Robert M. Hutchins, Chancellor of the University of Chicago
examined by Dr. J. B. Matthews, Chief Investigator
…Mr. Chairman, I should like, first of all, to express my appreciation for the courtesy shown me in allowing me to make my opening statement. My name is Robert M. Hutchins, and I have been chief executive officer of the University of Chicago for twenty years, and I am now Chancellor of the University. The subpoena which I have received summons me to testify concerning subversive activities at the University of Chicago. This is a leading question, and the answer is assumed in the question. I cannot testify concerning subversive activities at the University of Chicago because there are none….
…The Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble. The American way has been to encourage thought and discussion. We have never been afraid of thought and discussion. The whole educational system, and not merely the University of Chicago is a reflection of the American faith in thought and discussion as the path to peaceful change and improvement. The danger to our institutions is not from the tiny minority who do not believe in them. It is from those who would mistakenly repress the free spirit upon which those institutions are built. The miasma of thought control that is now spreading over the country is the greatest menace to the United States since Hitler. There are two ways of fighting subversive ideas. One is the policy of repression. This policy is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution of this country. It cannot be justly enforced, because it is impossible to tell precisely what people are thinking; they have to be judged by their acts. It has been generally thought that the widest possible latitude should be given to freedom of speech and publication, on the ground that the expression of differing points of view, some of which are bound to be unpopular, is the way to progress in the State. Hyde Park Corner in London, where anybody may say anything, has long been a symbol of the confidence of the Anglo-Saxon world in the ability of democratic institutions to withstand criticism and also even to nourish itself upon it. There are numerous laws already on the books which provide for the punishment of subversive acts. The policy of repression of ideas cannot work and never has worked. The alternative to it is the long and difficult road of education. To this the American people have been committed. It requires patience and tolerance, even in the face of intense provocation. It requires faith in the principles and practices of democracy, faith that when the citizen understands all forms of government he will prefer democracy, and that he will be a better citizen if he is convinced, rather than he would be if he were coerced….
Q. Doctor, you are quite definite in your statement that there are no subversive activities on the campus of the University of Chicago, is that my correct understanding?
A. I say that no professor is a Communist, or has ever advocated the overthrowing of the government by violence. I say that one or two students have announced publicly that they are Communists. However, if they have advocated the overthrowing of the government by violence, then the proper officials of this State should institute proceedings other than Seditious Activities, or rather, Seditious proceedings against them.
Q. If a professor’s name was carried as an active professor, or a professor emeritus, or on leave of absence, is it not true that that individual is still connected with the University?
A. I don’t understand the tendency of your question. I am sorry. Professor Oscar Lange, Professor of Economics, is listed as “on leave of absence”.
Q. Would you give us the present status of Professor Lange?
A. Well, the present status is that he is on leave of absence. He, therefore, is not in contact with our students or with his colleagues on the faculty. That’s all there is to it.
Q. But the fact that his name is still carried in the University’s catalogue means there is some kind of connection in that….
A. (Interrupting) …He has no connection with the University while on leave of absence, if that is what you mean.
Q. Just a minute…I did not finish my question. You interrupted me.
A. I beg your pardon. Go ahead.
Q. Would it be true that he is what is known as on Tenure?
A. He is on a leave of absence.
Q. Do you have any doubts about Professor Lange being a Communist?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. You know, do you not, that he renounced his American citizenship in order to become an ambassador to a Communist form of government?
A. If that is because he regarded it his patriotic duty to his native land, then it would be my guess that he would be assassinated rather shortly if he were here.
Q. Was that sentence concluded.
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Do you know where he is now at the moment?
A. No. I should think it would be very dangerous for him to be at home.
Q. You think, in other words, that it would be very dangerous for him to be in this country?
A. I believe I said “at home”.
Q. You stated, I believe, that his patriotic duty to the land of his birth compels him to renounce his American citizenship. Does anyone have a duty to the land of his birth if he is a citizen of the country in which he is residing?
A. You recall the situation when Professor Lange was repressed by the government of his country. The war had just been concluded. The Polish State has just been reconstructed. The choice he had to make was extremely difficult because both sides felt that he should make great contributions with, or to the leaders between the United States and Poland. He had that choice to make which was extremely difficult.
Q. Were you so apprized by the government at Washington…by the economic department of the University regarding that information?
A. I don’t know the sources of the information; but in view of the demand under which it was made, it should only be reasonable.
Q. Are you acquainted with the record of voting by Professor Lange at the United Nations?
A. I am.
Q. Did he vote with the so-called Soviet Block?
A. I don’t know that he did.
Q. Just a minute, Doctor. Let me ask the question this way: did he vote consistently with the so-called Soviet Block?
A. I don’t know that he did. It all depends upon what the word “consistently” means as you are using it. I don’t suppose that is correct, but if you mean that he usually did, I would say it was.
Q. You would not state then, Doctor, that he consistently voted that way?
A. That is not my recollection.
Q. In view of this, would Professor Lange be received back at the University of Chicago if he asked to come back?
A. I am not acquainted with Professor Lange’s present views. If his views are now what they were when he went on leave of absence…if we had the money to pay his salary…he would be welcome back. I don’t know if his views are different now from what they were.
Q. Do you recall that he made a statement renouncing the United States?
A. I do.
Q. But he will be taken back, as a professor at the University of Chicago, if he so desires, is that right, even though he is an objector of this form of government?
A. This certain policy of the United States is the same to which many loyal Americans objected.
Q. How long is it a practice to carry such a professor as he on leave of absence status?
A. Well, we carried the present vice-president of the Marshall-Field Company for ten years; and the vice-president of the Ford Motor Company for ten years….J. O. McKenzie also for about ten years.
Q. Since you do not know where Professor Lange is at the present time, are you prepared to state when the University last heard from him?
A. I do not know. It is not my understanding that your information is correct. It is not my understanding that he is carried in the catalogue of the University.
Q. For your information, Doctor Hutchins, I would like to note here that the latest available catalogue from the University of Chicago was dated May 25, 1948, and is the catalogue from which I take the information that he is still listed, although designated as on leave of absence.
A. To my knowledge, that is incorrect.
Q. Then there is a later catalogue?
A. Yes. [Note: Lange was not listed in the 1949-50 catalogue published July 1, 1949]
Image source: Wikipedia/commons.