James McKeen Cattell, Nicholas Murray Butler, and Academic ...

102 SOKAL
faced those at Columbia who wished to defend academic freedom, and he closed
his typed letter with a handwritten postscript, “Can I do anything?”
Seligman presented (and others responded to) the creation of the Committee
of Nine as triumph for faculty interests. No wonder Woodbridge replied to the
news with “elation” and praise for “how splendidly [Seligman had] managed the
whole affair.” 147 Cattell, however, found serious fault with the Committee. Most
of its members were Deans, and Cattell argued that, as one of them, Seligman
should not chair it. Indeed, he charged that “as a man of independent means and
wide influence [Seligman did] not in equal measure feel the danger of subservience
through the suppression of freedom of speech and freedom of action within
the university.” 148 This attack on his defender further angered others. Woodbridge,
for example, called it “not only meanly unjust” but also “an illustration of
his ungenerous and irrational mind.” 149 To be sure, he admitted that Cattell was
probably not “disingenuous.” However, he praised Columbia for supporting “real
freedom of thought and expression” and complained that “Cattell has done
nothing to promote” this reputation, but instead had “done much to destroy it.” In
his view, then, “for many years [Cattell] has injured the University,” and he
repeated that he would like to see Cattell retired. He still admitted that, if the
trustees took “summary action” against Cattell “our position [in support of
academic freedom] will be weakened.” He again concluded that “I do not see how
we can make a good case” for Cattell before the trustees. Dewey and others at
Columbia also took Cattell to task for criticizing Seligman as he had, and warned
him against “say[ing] anything which gives people a handle against you.” 150 But
again, this was the kind of warning Cattell never took seriously.
As the Committee of Nine examined “the conditions of education . . . in the
university,” it reviewed Cattell’s “scientific standing,” and even asked if he spent
enough time on campus to be considered a full-time faculty member. 151 Formal
reports from Woodworth and Thorndike (for the Department of Psychology)
testified that Cattell did devote appropriate attention to his professorship and
proved especially positive, as did a statement signed by members (including many
of Cattell’s critics) of the Faculty of Pure Science. 152 Nevertheless, months before
Cattell took the actions that others have long claimed led to his dismissal, the
Committee formally considered resolutions calling for Cattell’s retirement. Indeed,
only the intercession Dewey—who as a Committee member asked if
“scholars should be retired because of eccentricities”—prevented a vote before
Cattell had a chance to defend himself. 153 The next day a self-described “cold
blooded” letter from Dewey told Cattell that if he did not apologize for his
“invidious personal reference to the President” he would be dismissed. 154
Cattell did express regret at having written his letter and signed a twosentence
a letter of apology prepared by Seligman that the Committee accepted.
(He later reported, with much hyperbole, that “Seligman was much moved” when
he signed the apology, and that he thanked Cattell “again and again with tears in
his voice, and held my hand as long and as close as if I had been his sweetheart.”)
155 An original draft report called for the letter to be sent to those who
received Cattell’s original “Confidential Memorandum” on the Faculty Club and
forwarded to the trustees “for such use as [they] deem wise.” Apparently at
Cattell’s request, however, Dewey moved a “gentlemen’s agreement” for the
removal of these stipulations, to which the Committee apparently agreed, though