Jane Lathrop Stanford Papers

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.