Page 2
University Daily Kansan Monday. Dec. 11, 1961
The Emporia Situation
Two pages of today's issue are devoted to a situation the Kansan feels needs exposure. It involves recent activities at the College of Emporia.
THIS IS A VALUABLE NEWS STORY in its own right. We feel that the circumstances surrounding the situation aired in the news columns of this issue of the Kansan are of interest to all students. This story has largely been untold. A Kansan editor recently spent an entire day at Emporia collecting facts for the Kansan's account.
It is possible that the situation at the College of Emporia will not be corrected unless the facts are widely known. Public opinion cannot act unless it is informed.
EVEN THE STUDENTS AT EMPORIA ARE not aware of the state of their college. A student leader estimated yesterday that only about 20 per cent of the student body at the college is aware of the present circumstance of the institution. The administration has discouraged students and faculty members from discussing the plight of the school. Two students who were concerned with the case of the Rev. David A. Butterfield were told by an administration official that they should direct their attention to classroom affairs and forget Rev. Butterfield. The student newspaper has been muzzled and is unable to do its job.
Rev. Butterfield was not notified of his dismissal. He did not have an opportunity to appear before the board of trustees to defend himself. The board of trustees of a university should allow an individual opportunity to defend himself—as a test of their own conclusions, if for no other reason.
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES has never supplied Rev. Butterfield with a reason for his dismissal.
However, at the Dec. 2 Board meeting, the following matters concerning Butterfield were brought up:
- He sent a letter to the student newspaper condemning the apathy shown by students when the student body president was forced to resign.
- He wears a beard.
IRRESPONSIBLE RUMORS HAVE flourished in the vacuum created by the board's refusal to list its reasons for Rev. Butterfield's dismissal.
The resignations of several prominent administration officials — over Butterfield's dismissal — also indicate that there is strong dissension at the college. Two members of the board of trustees submitted written resignations expressing their disapproval of the manner in which the Butterfield case was handled.
The financial condition of the college, no doubt, required that the administration be particularly sensitive to the demands of those who keep the school financially solvent. The administrators of the college were evidently attempting to maintain a noncontroversial atmosphere so that donors or lenders would not withhold their support.
Finances have long been one of the major problems in the operation of the college. The Butterfield case could lead to the conclusion that the administrators of the college, in their pre-occupation with financial matters, placed second the academic purpose of the college.
It is unfortunate that in tending to the business needs of the college the administrators have completely disregarded the academic responsibilities of the college. A college is primarily an institution of higher learning, not a business.
ONE STUDENT OF THE COLLEGE of Emporia commented that the "administrators haven't entered into the academic current of the times." Some faculty members have said that the college might not survive this crisis. "On the other hand," they said, "if it's going to be run like this maybe it doesn't deserve to survive."
The future of the College of Emporia is the responsibility of its board of trustees. If the board of trustees is intent on preserving this future, they should put more emphasis on improving the academic situation at the college with less concern for physical facilities. The physical plant of a college or university is a secondary consideration when compared to the preservation of the academic freedom of that institution.
—Ron Gallagher
Guest Editorial
The Butterfield Case
(Editor's note: The following editorial concerning the Butterfield case is excerpted from the Emporia Gazette of Nov. 23. It was written by William L. White, publisher.)
This is a big world, and in it are better college presidents than Richard Hanna. But none is available for the money the College of Emporia can afford to pay. And the College trustees will find no man at any price who is of sounder character, more devoted to this school, more eager to build it into a solid liberal arts college of which its graduates can be proud.
NOR WILL THE COLLEGE of Emporia Trustees ever find a college president of any caliber who will submit to the indignities that led Richard Hanna to offer his resignation. A college president, if he is to function at all must have the respect of his faculty and student body, which he can only get if he sees that they are treated decently and fairly, as human beings.
Whatever may be the human frailties of the Rev. David Butterfield, President Hanna had no choice but to come to his defense when a small group of the trustees demanded that he be fired for no good cause, abruptly and without warning, after he had moved to Emporia and bought a house for his wife and three children, with a fourth on the way.
THIS IS NO WAY TO RUN ANYTHING not even a slaughter house, let alone a college. It
It is further charged against the Reverend Butterfield, that he has whiskers. Well, he had them when they hired him, and they are no longer now than then. Furthermore, the growing of whiskers is in itself not prima facie evidence of a violation of the Mann Act, nor of any other statute.
was an act of cheap, tin-pot tyranny. If the Board of Trustees, when it assembles, ratifies this injustice by accepting the letter of resignation which President Hanna properly proffered them under these disgraceful circumstances, they will fail to find a first-rate man who will ever touch the job.
IN THE OPINION OF THIS EDITOR, what the College of Emporia needs is not a new president, but a revamped Board of Trustees. There are some good men on the present Board: why do they not speak up when they see that an injustice is being done? For too many of them seem to know little about the traditions of higher education, and to care even less. There are in Kansas, Presbyterians of real culture, with an appreciation of the problems of higher education, and the desire to build a fine school. Why are not more of them on that Board? For desk pounding and bullying this little faculty are not substitutes for brains. Nor for kindliness.
Bearded Prof-
If this could be brought about, it would be a day of real Thanksgiving for the College, for this town, and for the Presbyterians over the state.
(Continued from page 1)
This is the same reply given by Laughlin and Hermon Arrasmith, dean of students.
Butterfield says he assumes he was fired primarily for two reasons:
- Certain administrators object to his beard, which they reportedly have criticized as making him look like a "beatnik."
- He allegedly tried to "excite student opinion" by writing an 8-sentence letter to the campus newspaper. The letter, which Butterfield later described as "rather innocuous," complained that students were too apathetic about the forced resignation two weeks earlier of the student body president on the grounds that he had attended a beer party.
ON DEC. 4, the Emporia Gazette reported that at a meeting of the board of trustees two days earlier, "much time was given to a discussion of the Butterfield matter, including an unpublished letter he had submitted to the newspaper College Life, his beard, and whether or not he had been inciting the student body to protest and dissent.
"A small but frequently vocal minority on the board supported Hanna and Butterfield."
Regarding his carefully-trimmed beard, Butterfield says, "I like it and my wife likes it—that's all that matters to me." He has worn the beard about two years, which means it predates his hiring by the college in August 1560.
AS FOR THE LETTER—which was never published—Butterfield denies any intention of writing it to stir up a controversy, explaining he "was just concerned because students seemed to have no interest in the action taken against their student body president."
This has led to charges from several students that they are being "oppressed" by a "petty" administration. These students concede, however, that administrative attempts to discourage criticism of the board's actions are probably made in hopes of stabilizing the present uneasy situation, thus giving the board a chance to concentrate on the school's financial crisis.
STATEMENTS PERKINS made at a faculty meeting Dec. 4 led to a protest letter to him from three faculty members. The letter said Perkins had told the faculty that "the board had decided with finality on certain issues facing the college . . . and that this decision made unnecessary further discussion of the matter."
"Further," the letter continues, "since these issues were now to be seen and understood as 'history', faculty was directly discouraged from further comments, either among themselves or with students.."
The letter to Perkins adds that by certain of his remarks at the faculty meeting, "the faculty was intimidated in a rather direct fashion," and the faculty got "the distinct feeling that it had been threatened."
IN A LETTER to the three faculty members, Perkins replied that it was not his intention to encroach on the right of the faculty to make "legitimate inquiry," but he added that this right carried a corresponding responsibility.
The same issue of the Gazette reported the following statement of Perkins, made on Dec. 4:
"All persons involved realize that the final responsibility for the administration of the affairs of the College of Emporia rests with the board of trustees. A full and complete report was made to the board of trustees of the action of the Executive Committee (regarding Butterfield), as well as the events which followed.
"The board of trustees, after hearing all persons present who asked to be heard, accepted and approved the action of the Executive Committee and accepted the resignation of Mr. Hanna.
"A PUBLIC AIRING of the administrative details of the College of Emporia would be of no benefit to either the College of Emporia or to the principals involved.
"The matter has been determined and closed. The board of trustees is united in its desire and determination to work toward building a stronger and better college and to this end solicit the support of the many friends of the college."
A major point of contention among some students and faculty at present is an apparent attempt by Perkins to squelch criticism on the campus of the board's action.
PERKINS' ANSWER DID NOT refer, however, to an additional complaint of the three faculty members that "Mr. Butterfield has never been apprised of the reasons for his dismissal, and has never been given an opportunity to defend himself."
Butterfield said he asked to appear before the board when it was considering his case, but he was not allowed to do so.
The letter from the faculty members implied that appeals will be made to the American Association of University Professors and the North Central Association, by which the school is accredited.
THE LETTER ADDTS that "as a matter of course, contact will be sustained with presbytery and synod courts." The Presbystarian Synod of Kansas is responsible for the administration of the college.
One of the professors supporting Butterfield was asked how other faculty members feel about the firing.
"Most of them sense that something is wrong in the disposition of Butterfield," he said, "but they are not willing to come into the open and criticize the situation."
Laughlin said:
IN INTERVIEWS, Perkins, Laughlin and Arrasmith all indicated they wanted no publicity of the situation at the college.
"I'm aware Mr. Butterfield is attempting to get publicity about this matter. A lot of rumors have been publicized, and I think that the less said, the better."
Arrasmith added:
"I WOULD MENTION that in this matter of publicity I think the future of certain students—beyond this college—is at stake." Asked to elaborate, Arrasmith said, "Well, we'll just leave it at that."
Previously, this reporter talked to a student involved in the situation who had expressed apprehension that if his name appeared in the newspapers he might be "kept out of medical school."
In a discussion of why Butterfield was fired Perkins made the statement that "sometimes religion must be caught, rather than taught." He did not relate this statement to Butterfield, but it is known that Butterfield has been criticized as being somewhat modernistic in his religious views.
BUTTERFIELD'S BEARD has also been cited by his critics to substantiate what his friends say is a frequent charge that "he doesn't look like a professor of religion is supposed to look."
Mr. and Mrs. Butterfield, who have three children and are expecting another one, have remained at their home in Emporia since his dismissal. Perkins said Butterfield is still under contract, and will be paid along with other faculty members. Butterfield is 33 years old.
In the last two years, the College of Emporia has had five presidents. Luther Sharp in 1960 was followed by Robert McAdoo, who in July 1960 was succeeded by Francis Walters, who on March 15th, 1961, was succeeded by Richard Hanna, who now has been succeeded by Joseph Laughlin.
THE CURRENT PROBLEM of paying the faculty salaries is not unique for the college, which has a history of financial emergencies. In 1941, financial difficulties led to talk of disbanding the school.
In 1859, a proposal to merge the Emporia school with Sterling College. Kans., was voted down by the Presbyterian Synod of Kansas. The merger was suggested as a way to operate the two Presbyterian schools more economically.
About 600 students are enrolled at the College of Emporia.