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

Index

bibliography This study is based primarily upon a large body of university documents, including the files of the Board of Regents and the external review committee created by the state legislature. The University of Nevada Oral History Project provided important perspectives of several major figures involved in the controversy. The wealth of documentation from the American Association of University Professors provided useful insights from outside the state. Despite its importance, the issue has received scant academic attention, with two notable exceptions. Both studies, however, examine the controversy within much larger historical contexts and necessarily provide only a broad commentary. Interestingly, these two treatments aptly reflect the two major camps that existed during that academic war. James W. Hulse first wrote about the controversy as a young reporter for the Nevada State Journal, and he revisited the issue in 1974 when he undertook the writing of a history of the university upon its centennial. Hulse’s sentiments clearly rest with the imperiled faculty, reflective of his distinguished career as a member of the history department and his lifelong support of academic freedom. Although the historian Mary Ellen Glass does not overtly come to the defense of the Stout administration and the resolute Board of Regents in her wide-ranging study of the contentious Nevada political and economic environments of the 1950s, she takes special care to emphasize the conservative, anti-intellectual climate of opinion that was prevalent in the state at that time. Public opinion, she implies, undoubtedly greatly influenced the outlook and actions of the elected Board of Regents. Glass makes clear that during this turbulent time, genuine concerns about the philosophy and practice of education were rightfully examined, but because Nevada politics was based on close personal interaction , and truculence on both sides, the enmities and bitterness of those discussions would not dissipate. Numerous archival collections informed this study. Especially useful were the papers of the Friends of the University that provided the extreme anti-Stout viewpoint, the Minard W. Stout audiotapes for the opposite view, the minutes of the Board of Regents that provided the administrative view, and the James W. Hulse Papers that provided a comprehensive collection of all points of view. The papers of the state attorney general were valuable for their focus on the legal aspects of the controversy as well as the state supreme court appeal proceedings. The Governor Charles H. Russell Papers provided a variety of aspects on the controversy and some of the politics behind it. The files from the aaup were extremely helpful in providing the view of the academic institution from outside the state. Oral histories, though extremely insightful, must be used with caution; hindsight is sometimes tainted with faulty memory. However, I found the oral histories of Pro- 124 Bibliography fessors Robert M. Gorrell and Everett W. Harris, presidential secretary Alice Terry, and Dr. Frederick M. Anderson to be quite beneficial. The oral history of Silas E. Ross, even though written fourteen years after he left the Board of Regents, seemed to be very judicious, though limited in its information about the dissension of the 1950s.The interviews were of great benefit because through them I was able to obtain insight into the recovery of the university and how the turbulence of the Stout era informed the future growth and attitudes of the university system. The most extensive and consistent sources available for this study were the Nevada newspapers, in particular the Nevada State Journal and the Reno Evening Gazette. These two Reno newspapers not only had the most coverage, but their points of view were also sufficiently different to provide a contrast of opinion. Although neither was staunchly for or against any faction in the controversy, it was apparent that the Reno Evening Gazette was more willing to accept the administration and Board of Regents’s viewpoint, at least during the first four years of the conflict. It was instructive to follow the slowly changing editorial attitude, especially after the retirement of board chairman Ross and the influx of new perspectives on the board. The evidence of change, most noticeable in the Gazette, was less obvious in the Journal because that newspaper had consistently maintained a more objective view of all sides. Other newspapers around the state provided more biased opinions; some, like the Elko Independent , were extremely biased. But their inclusion here shows the extent to...