Ross Affair: Notebook containing D. S. Jordan's statement with exhibits and ptd. report of Committee of Economists

6

any time when the interest of the University should seem to demand such action. His reappointment from year to year and the granting of the leave of absence were in furtherance of this plan to enable him to withdraw quietly and without reference to the original offense as was his expressed wish.

c. The probationary arrangement was, in accordance with its conditions, terminated in 1900, because circumstances had arisen which seemed to indicate that by no possibility could Dr. Ross be considered as a permanent member of the University faculty. The immediate occasion of this decision was the appearance of Dr. Ross before a political mass meeting in San Francisco, on May 7th, held in the interests of the exclusion of oriental immigration. Dr. Ross has assigned as a cause of his dismissal his views as publicly expressed on this occasion. This address he has summarized at some length in his public statement (Exhibit "H"). The closing words of the address, as reported in the San Francisco Call (Exhibit "M") are not given in this summary. They were as follows: "And should the worst come to the worst it would be better for us if we were to turn our guns upon every vessel bringing Japanese to our shores rather than to permit them to land." It was to the tone of these words in connection with the spirit of the meeting, as shown by the headlines of the paper in describing it (Exhibit "M"), that objection was made by Mrs. Stanford and other interested friends of the University. This was justly characterized as incendiary and dangerous, as not befitting the dignity of a University professor, and in short, as constituting a repetition of the offense of 1896.

7

d. That the President should have consulted with the Trustee of the University as to ways and means of severing Dr. Ross's connection with the institution calls for no justification. Such consultation may be assumed as inherent in the relations of Trustee and President. The appointment was made subject to her approval and its continuance or termination was naturally subject to her consideration. Nor is it strange that differences of opinion as to ways and means of procedure in a case of this kind should have arisen between the Trustee and President.

e. To Dr. Ross personally and in the letter accepting his resignation the President expressed kindly appreciation of Dr. Ross's work as a student and teacher and of his character as a man. Those matters are aside from the vital question in hand and might be passed by without comment were it not for the fact that they were used by Dr. Ross to confuse and obscure real issues. It was wholly irrelevant what the President thought of Dr. Ross in other regards than the one in question, namely, that of his relation to academic dignity. Dr. Ross could hardly have remained seven years at Stanford University or anywhere else, if a great deal of good could not have been said of him by those who were associated with him. It must be said further that these statements were made in reliance upon Dr. Ross's expressed intention to withdraw quietly and without embarrassment to the University authorities. It was in deference to the spirit of this wish and out of desire not to occasion him unnessary inconvenience or hardship that the terms of his withdrawal were made the subject of discussion and were made easy by the cooperation of the Trustee with the President.

This explanation applies also to a particular letter of the President

8

to the Founder under date of May 21, 1900. This letter came eventually to play an important place in the history of this case and may be here considered in detail. The circumstances connected with it are these: When in May, 1900, Dr. Ross was notified by the President of the fact that the termination of his connection with the University was contemplated, the President informed him in confidence that his appearance at the mass meeting on Japanese immigration was criticised by Mrs. Stanford. Dr. Ross asked permission to write directly to Mrs. Stanford in his own vindication. This permission was granted and thus by Dr. Ross's own act she was made his arbiter. At the especial request of Dr. Ross the President wrote a letter saying what he could in favor of Dr. Ross regarding his work as a student and teacher and his personal character, matters not under discussion in the question of his retention or dismissal. This letter contained in its closing paragraph an expression of the understanding under which it was written, in these words: "If Dr. Ross fails to justify your good opinion, it is understood that he will seek another position and withdraw quietly from Palo Alto, and from 'the dearest hopes of his life.'"

A copy of this letter of May 21st was loaned to Dr. Ross for his information in confidence and with permission to use it in one or two cases where he was to become an applicant for a position. In violation of this understanding Dr. Ross used the letter in the presentation of his case and supplied extracts from it to the committee of eastern economists which passed judgment upon the University and whose report was largely based upon it.

It is not the purpose here to defend the wisdom of this letter but

9

merely to explain the conditions surrounding its writing and its subsequent use. The purpose of the letter was not to justify the permanent retention of Dr. Ross but to remove possible prejudice and misapprehansion, and to justify leniency in providing for his withdrawal. The letter in full (Exhibit "N") is appended herewith. In this connection it is but fair also to place on record (Exhibit "O") the letter of appeal by Dr. Ross which was referred without comment by the Trustee to the President. The President's letter was intended to supplement this letter.

f. The final dismissal of Dr. Ross in November, 1900, was due to the nature of his public statement to the press.

This statement of Dr. Ross (Exhibit "H") may be here considered somewhat in detail. It contains, by implications at least, these assertions: 1. That he was a professor in good standing in the University at the time of his dismissal. 2. That he was dismissed by the Founder of the University, Mrs. Stanford. 3. That his dismissal was due to public expression of his views on coolie immigration and municipal ownership of public utilities. 4. That it was in opposition to the will and authority of the President and at the instance of outside pressure, presumably capitalistic.

In the light of the preceding discussion and documents presented it is not necessary to point out the misleading nature of these assertions.

It may be noted further that the report omits all reference to the offense of 1896. It does not mention "Honest Dollars". It ignores the action of the President with regard to his removal in 1896 and his reappointment on a probationary basis in 1897. In a word it omits all reference

10

to the official acts of the President and by indirection leaves the burden of responsibility with Mrs. Stanford.

In his statement Dr. Ross asserts that professors in the University "are appointed from year to year". The purpose of this statement was to establish the fact of the regularity of his own appointment. As a matter of fact it states truthfully the conditions of that appointment -- one "from year to year". Regular appointments in the University are for an indefinite period depending on good behavior or mutual satisfaction. At as late a date as May, 1901, Dr. Ross sought to reestablish this statement by circular letter (Exhibit "P") addressed to members of the Stanford faculty. This letter was written at Lincoln, Nebraska, but mailed from San Francisco. In reply to it the Secretary of the University cited the documents relating to the matter (Exhibit "Q") and there has been no rejoinder by Dr. Ross. In this connection is appended (Exhibit "R") a letter from Dr. George E. Howard which seems to show that Dr. Ross had deceived his friends as to nature of his appointment or was himself deceived as to it.

Upon the appearance of Dr. Ross's public statement the President sought by personal request to secure from Dr. Ross certain letters loaned to him and misused by him. This request and an official demand by the Secretary of the University met with refusal except on condition that a statement in the nature of a "clearance paper" signed by the President should be given in exchange. The correspondence relating to this matter is appended herewith (Exhibit "S"). The letters were afterwards voluntarily returned by Dr. Ross. But notwithstanding the written and verbal assurance (Exhibit "S") that he would not publish or retain copies of the