Jane Lathrop Stanford Papers

49

Contd

Exhibit "S"

---COPY---

San Francisco, Cal.

(Date any time after May 21,)

Dear Dr. Ross:

After seven years of association I was able to write of you recently to Mrs. Stanford in the following terms:

''At the University Dr. Ross has been a constant source of strength. He is one of the best teachers, always just, moderate and fair. He is beloved by his students and has steadily risen in the estimation of his colleagues.''

''In the time of trouble in the University he has been most loyal, accepting extra work and all kinds of embarrassments without a word of complaint. The sickness of Dr. Warner, the failure of Dr. Clark, and the sudden departure of Prof. Powers left him on each of three years with half the work of another man in addition to his own. But he took this uncomplainingly and I did not know till it was over that he was in consequence not strong enough to stand up to lecture and had to spend his afternoons in bed. If he had been a selfish man he would not have overtaxed himself.''

He is ''a wise learned and noble man, one of the most loyal and devoted of all the band we have brought together.''

You are at liberty to use this letter in seeking a position.

(Signed)

50

Exhibit "J."

The Dismissal of Professor Ross

REPORT OF - - - - - - -

COMMITTEE OF ECONOMISTS

Report of the Committee of Economists on the Dismissal of Professor Ross from Leland Stanford Junior University

The committee appointed at the meeting of the economists in Detroit, December 28, 1990, to enquire into the causes of the dismissal of Professor Ross from Leland Stanford University, have earnestly endeavored to learn the fact of the case. In addition to a careful examination of the statements made in the newspapers, we have asked Professor Jordan for a full and frank statement of the causes which led to Professor Ross's removal, and have obtained the replies printed in the appendix, in which Professor Jordan declines to give specific information in regard to them. We have also in our possession copies of letters bearing upon this case from various persons, including letters from Professor Ross, as well as from President Jordan, not only to Professor Ross, but also to others.

The following facts are, we believe, undisputed:

It is customary for professors in the Leland Stanford University to be reappointed early in May of each year. Professor Ross failed to receive his annual reappointment early in May, 1900. He was, however, reappointed on June 2. On June 5, he handed to President Jordan his resignation as follows:

''Dear Dr. Jordan: - I was sorry to learn from you a fortnight ago that Mrs. Stanford does not approve of me as an economist, and does not want me to remain here. It was a pleasure, however, to learn at the same time of the unqualified terms in which you had expressed to her your opinion of the work and your complete confidence in me as a teacher, a scientist and a man.

While I appreciate the steadfast support you have given me, I am unwilling to become a cause of worry to Mrs. Stanford or of embarrassment to you. I, therefore, beg leave to offer my resignation as professor of sociology, the same to take effect at the close of the academic year, 1900-1901.''

8

The undersigned have examined the evidence submitted by the above committee, and believe that it justifies the conclusions which they have drawn:

Horace White, editor of Evening Post, New York.

John B. Clark, Columbia University.

Henry C. Adams, University of Michigan.

Frank W. Taussig, Harvard University.

Richard T. Ely, University of Wisconsin.

Simon N. Patten, University of Pennsylvania.

Richmond Mayo-Smith, Columbia University.

John C. Schwab, Yale University.

Sidney Sherwood, Johns Hopkins University.

Franklin H. Giddings, Columbia University.

William J. Ashley, Harvard University.

Charles H. Hull, Cornell University.

Davis R. Dewey, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Henry C. Emery, Yale University.

Henry R. Seager, University of Pennsylvania.

9

Appendix.

December 30, 1900.

President Jordan, Leland Stanford Junior University,

Palo Alto, Cal.:

Dear Sir:- In behalf of a considerable number of economists, recently assembled in Detroit and much interested in the resignation of Professor Ross from the Leland Stanford University, we venture to address you on the subject. We understand from the public prints as well as from other sources, that Professor Ross was asked to sever his connection with the University owing to the loss of confidence in him by Mrs. Stanford, and that this loss of confidence was due primarily to the opinions expressed by him in a lecture on the subject of coolie immigration as well as to incidental remarks on the problem of municipal ownership.

May we inquire whether, as it has been alleged in some of the Eastern journals, there are any other reasons than those mentioned for the resignation of Professor Ross, and may we hope that, if such other reasons exist, you may be disposed to communicate them to us? Many university men have been led to believe that in this case the legitimate freedom of thought without which no progress in science is possible has been discouraged. As this is a matter which concerns not a single university, but the interests of scholarship all over the country, we believe that we are not overstepping the bounds of propriety in asking information which will enable university teachers to form a just opinion on the merits of the case.

14

based upon the statements first made in the public press. A mere denial of the truth of the statements made by him will not be apt to satisfy gentlemen who are not willing to believe that any of the parties concerned in the question would intentionally make a false statement, and facts alone will enable them to reconcile assertions that would otherwise seem contradictory. It is for that reason that we venture again to express the hope that a more explicit answer may be given to our questions.

Very truly yours,

Edwin R. A. Seligman,

Henry W. Farnam,

Henry B. Gardner.

Leland Stanford University, Cal.,

Feb.7, 1901.

Professors

Edwin R. A. Seligman,

Henry W. Farnam,

Henry B. Gardner.

Gentlemen:—

Your letter of January 30th is at hand asking further information as to the reasons for the dismissal of Professor Ross. When I expressed my willingness to answer further questions I did not mean to indicate that I would enter into any circumstantial description of events leading to or following from Professor Ross's dismissal. Nor do I consider it expedient or proper to go into a discussion of extracts from my letters or conversations or of my statements or alleged statements, or those of others, as published in the newspapers. There are, however, certain assurances which it is within the privilege of the public to ask, and which it is my desire to furnish, that the

15

public may be assisted in forming a judgment as to the position of the University upon important questions. It seems to me that I shall answer these questions best by certain plain statements which involve the important facts concerning the University. it will be necessary for you to assume my knowledge of all the facts, also that the interpretation herewith presented is authoritative from the University standpoint.

First: Professor Ross was not dismissed on account of his views on Oriental immigration nor on account of his opinions on any economic question.

Second: Professor Ross was dismissed because in the judgment of the University authorities he was not the proper man for the place he held. The responsibility for the correctness of this judgment belongs to the University authorities and to them alone.

Third: No ground exists for any interpretation of his dismissal reflecting on his private character, of which your letter seems to imply a fear.

Fourth: The judgment that Professor Ross was not the proper man for the place he held is not incompatible with my appreciation of many good qualities he possesses, nor with my wishes or efforts at any time to further his prospects. I have been neither ignorant of his professional shortcomings nor inappreciative of his good qualities. Of such appreciation Professor Ross has himself adduced several expressions from my letters.

In the hope that you may find in the above a substantial answer to the questions involved in your inquiries, I remain,

Very truly yours,

David L. Jordan.