In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

52 Academic Freedom Imperiled The final impetus for an investigation came from Allvar H. Jacobson, an associate professor of sociology, who was distraught over the ‘‘inhuman and capricious treatment [of faculty] which seems to be Dr. Stout’s stock in trade.’’ In a February 16, 1955, letter addressed to Chairman Ross, he also expressed ‘‘‘disgust’ with Professor Richardson’s ‘trial,’ and condemned Dr. Stout for discrimination against those members of the faculty who had supported Professor Richardson.’’ He further stated that Stout’s tactics were ‘‘unbearable,’’ that Stout did not trust his subordinates, and that he was an ‘‘unprincipled administrator’’ whose continuation as president would be ‘‘disastrous to the University.’’ Jacobson copied his letter of complaint to the regents, the governor , and key members of the state legislature, including Gary Adams. Arts and Science dean Fredrick Wood called a meeting of departmental chairmen at which they voted nearly unanimously not to offer a contract to Jacobson for the coming year; Charlton Laird recalls that Professors J. Craig Sheppard, Robert Griffin, and Maurice Beesley abstained from voting.47 Jacobson was called before a special executive session of the Board of Regents on March 5, 1955, to defend his charges. In testimony taken later by the aaup investigating committee, it was pointed out that in attendance at the special session were Jacobson, the five regents, Attorney General Harvey Dickerson, an attorney who appeared as a friend of Jacobson, three state assemblymen , a student reporter for the U of N Sagebrush, the Alumni Association president, as well as newspaper, radio, and television reporters. Professor Charles H. Monson Jr., then president of the Nevada aaup chapter, requested to have a faculty member or representative of the aaup attend the session, but his request was denied by the Board of Regents. In response to much close questioning by the regents and the attorney general during the morning session, Jacobson defended his charges. At the afternoon session, the deans appeared and expressed their confidence in Stout’s administration.48 Because of the seriousness of Jacobson’s charges, or perhaps the breadth of the circulation of his charges, the legislature believed it could no longer avoid addressing the question of an investigation. Speaker of the assembly Cyril Bastian, a recipient of Jacobson’s letter, asked ‘‘several assemblymen to find out if an agency exists that can study the institution from top to bottom.’’ He further stated that he would vote for an appropriation to fund such an independent study. Stout, again demonstrating the techniques of an ‘‘organization man,’’ backed the proposal for an independent probe of the university. However , his sense of self-assurance led him to interpret an independent investigation from an entirely different angle. In a public statement that reaffirmed his confidence and corroborated the correctness of his chain-of-command philosophy, he stated: Who Is the Boss, Anyway? 53 I consider it immediately imperative to thewelfare of this universityand its students that an inquiry be conducted into all phases of my administration by an impartial board of nationally recognized men qualified to evaluate the programs of land grant colleges. This university cannot continue to function effectively in the face of destructive letters such as this, letters filled with innuendo and accusation and very little fact. If there are those who challenge my administration let them publicly present their arguments and back them up with facts. I stand on my record as president. In the last two years I feel this university has made splendid progress.49 But Stout was not the only person singled out for criticism; the Board of Regents bore the brunt of another letter to the governor. This letter, dated February 28, 1955, and signed only as ‘‘A member of the teaching staff, ‘on tenure,’’’ queried Governor Russell on the possibility of changing membership on the Board of Regents from elective to appointive. It suggested that the governor was naturally the best possible person to appoint competent regents who would have the best interests of the university at heart. In two responses to E. Allan Davis dated April 9, 1956, and November 12, 1957, Governor Russell endorsed the idea of appointing members of the Board of Regents . ‘‘I have always held that the Regents should be appointed in this way, and in this way there would be a closer relationship with the State government .The men named should not be politicians, but should have the good of the University in mind.’’ In addition...

Share