Academic Freedom Imperiled: The Mccarthy Era At The University Of Nevada

1: Dictators and "Reducators"

Introduction Throughout its first six decades in Reno as the only institution of higher learning in the state, the University of Nevada (un) had experienced a relatively placid existence. From the admission of the first students in 1886 until World War II, the university had evolved into a traditional land-grant institution with particular emphasis upon the liberal arts and sciences along with special professional programs in engineering, mining, agriculture, nursing, and education. It was viewed by the citizenry of the state as a quiet, conservative, and secure place where the relatively small number of college-bound graduates from the state’s few high schools could pursue an undergraduate degree, perhaps prepare themselves for admission to law or medical school, but more than likely leave campus prepared to assume a leadership role in their communities . It was not until 1927 that the enrollment reached the magic figure of 1,000, and in 1940, with the state’s population hovering at just 110,000, the university enrolled just 1,255 students.1 Thus, the small university ‘‘up there’’ on the hill overlooking the small city of Reno fulfilled its modest role—offering basic undergraduate programs, fielding usually underachieving athletic teams, and offering its students a secure and comfortable academic and social environment in the age of in loco parentis. The faculty hired to this frontier academic outpost reflected the social and political conservatism of the community; they taught a standard traditional curriculum and engaged in research that often related to the particular needs of the state. Although the University of Nevada held land-grant status, the tree-lined quadrangle of redbrick buildings gave visitors the distinct impression of an eastern liberal arts college. And indeed the faculty took seriously their responsibilities for providing a sound liberal arts education, carefully sculpting those requirements around the professional curricula that gave testimony to the land-grant obligations. Safe, solid, conservative, and traditional, the university found itself unprepared, both financiallyand philosophically , to cope with the sudden period of enrollment growth that burst upon the campus in the autumn of 1945 when a flood of veterans came back from the war, armed with the gi Bill and eager to get on with their postmilitary lives. By the 1947–1948 academic year, enrollment had jumped 36 percent above the prewar figure to 1,974. Not only were the numbers overwhelming , but so too were the expectations and demands of a new type of student—older, focused, career oriented, many recently married, their atti- 2 Academic Freedom Imperiled tudes and outlooks tempered by the fires of war. These self-assured, mature students had fought for democracy abroad and would accept no less at home; they helped challenge the old conservative order and pushed the university toward becoming a modern, competitive educational institution. What transpired at un in the postwar years reflected what was occurring across the land as once quiet campuses became convulsed by enormous enrollment growth.2 Many institutions were placed under extreme pressures to expand their faculties, modify their curricula, and find monies to build expensive new facilities to meet the needs of enlarged student bodies.The result often was conflict and division as administrators and faculties scrambled to respond to the demands of a new academic era.The ensuing tensions produced by unprecedented growth, however, were greatly exacerbated by national political issues growing out of the cold war.With the United States engaged in a war of competing ideologies, universities naturally became central to national security, not only for their science and engineering capabilities, but also as centers for the studyof ideas and values. Historian Ellen Schreckerconcludes, ‘‘[B]y the 1950s the academy had displaced all other institutions as the locus of America’s intellectual life.’’ However, the shrill demands from patriotic and conservative political forces on behalf of ideological purity produced a fundamental conflict between loyalty and freedom of academic expression. As historian William Manchester explains, America’s campuses were ‘‘torn by a double allegiance, to the flag and to academic freedom.’’3 On the national political front, one of the most important issues of the 1950s was the effort of opportunistic politicians to exploit widespread public fears about the threats posed to U.S. security by the Soviet Union and the international Communist movement. Several shrewd politicians of both parties created the impression that a vast conspiracy existed internally within the United States...