Twentieth Alexander Meiklejohn Award

Nomination

The executive committee of the AAUP chapter at Washington University in St. Louis has great pleasure in forwarding the name of Dr. William H. Danforth for consideration for the Alexander Meiklejohn Award for 2000. Dr. Danforth was chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis for twenty-four years, 1971-95.

This award has usually been given in recognition of a single outstanding action taken by an administrator or a board of trustees. However, there is another role that is no less important for the defense of academic freedom and tenureæthat role is the daily, consistent defense of academic freedom over an entire career by a leader in higher education. It is for his contributions in this style that Bill Danforth is being nominated. Before describing his contributions that extended over so many years, it will be helpful to describe the political and academic climate at Washington University when he assumed the chancellorship in July 1971.

This was a difficult time for many colleges and universities. Washington University has a strong tradition of respecting academic freedom, but during the 1950s, it was also a favorite target of the morning newspaper, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, now no longer being published. One of Dr. Danforth's predecessors as chancellor, Ethan A. H. Shepley, had received the Meiklejohn Award for 1959 for his vigorous defense of the university and of academic freedom against attacks from the Globe and its supporters, such as occurred when Linus Pauling was invited to speak and used the occasion to launch his famous and influential petition calling for the cessation of nuclear weapons testing.

A dozen years later, as the war in Vietnam grew more intense, Washington University was again the focus of critical commentary. The campus was the scene of antiwar protests culminating in the burning of the campus ROTC buildings in May 1970. Shepley's successor, Chancellor Thomas H. Eliot, had been equally vigorous in defending freedom of expression and the right of peaceful assembly on the campus. He was called upon to defend both the ways in which the university's disciplinary apparatus had dealt with student protesters and the university's refusal to rein in outspoken faculty. Eliot survived a no-confidence vote in the board of trustees by the narrowest of margins, but stepped down in 1971 on reaching the usual retirement age.

It was against this background that Dr. Danforth assumed the position of chancellor. Before that, he had been a highly regarded professor of medicine and then vice chancellor for medical affairs. By the early 1960s, tensions had been mounting, descending to open hostilities, between Edgar Monsanto Queeny, chair of the board of the Barnes Hospital group, and the dean of the School of Medicine. The chair of the university's board of trustees was James S. McDonnell (of McDonnell Aircraft), and the principals were noted for the vigor with which they defended their positions. While financial matters were at the root of the problem, Queeny did not seem to appreciate the role of full-time medical faculty, as compared to the physicians whose only role was seeing patients. An agreement between the university and the hospitals was reached in 1964, but when Dr. Danforth assumed the vice chancellorship one year later, there were still many scars, and it was his quiet diplomacy that was largely responsible for the smooth implementation of a complex agreement.

As the activism on campus increased and with it criticism of the role of some faculty, it was realized that the university policy on tenure and academic freedom required review. The relevant document was then little more than a slim pamphlet; it set forth the correct values but had little to say on the details and procedures. In 1970 Chancellor Eliot asked the executive committee of the Washington University chapter of the AAUP to draft a new statement of policy. This was a major undertaking. Drawing on the 1940 Statement of Principles and the AAUP's Recommended Institutional Regulations, the AAUP executive committee produced a draft, which was then taken up by the faculty senate council with later review by the educational policy committee of the board of trustees. After extended discussions, the final result, carrying the title "Policy on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure," gained the approval of the faculty senate. Though some administrations resist the adoption of clear and written procedures (or simply ignore them), this has never been a problem at Washington University. With the unwavering support of Dr. Danforth, the new policy was adopted by the board of trustees in 1975. This document has served us well. There have, of course, been changes over the years, responding to changing circumstances, but there has never been any doubt about where Dr. Danforth stood. Support for and belief in academic freedom have been a constant factor in his career as chancellor.

Memories of events of the 1960s and early 1970s were still fresh when members of the board of trustees found themselves having to vote on the proposed promotion of some members of the faculty, and it required Dr. Danforth's clear, firm, and quiet insistence that these promotions be based solely on normal academic criteria. Confidentiality precludes any specificity, but he has expressed his strongly held views:

The traditions of Washington University, fashioned in part by the AAUP, made my job easier, a lot easier. When I was asked, as occasionally I was, by people outside and occasionally inside the university to rein in this or that individual who seemed especially irksome, I was able to respond, "You have to understand what kind of an institution Washington University is. We value what we call 'academic freedom.' That means we defend the right of each individual to seek the truth and to report it as he or she sees it no matter how unpleasant, irritating, or wrongheaded you or I may think the results. We never compromise on that issue."

Academic freedom can also be defended by abstaining from some actions. In his typically quiet way, he did not intervene to prohibit the production on campus of a play about a fictional character, Sister Mary Ignatius, though there were strident protests off campus, and some other places refused to allow it on their stages.

A document proclaiming the university's policy on academic freedom, tenure, and responsibility cannot stand in isolation. Just as essential are robust institutions of faculty governance. Here again we find that Dr. Danforth's respect and support have been clear. Each of the several schools that constitute Washington University has its own system of elected faculty committees. University-wide there is the faculty senate council, which has displayed a vigorous and principled independence, even to the extent (in 1971) of recommending the discontinuation of the ROTC program. Not once did Dr. Danforth impose his will on these faculty bodies. The senate council meets with the chancellor on a regular basis, and he participated in numerous other committees and groups. Where there were initially differences of opinion requiring the seeking of compromise solutions between administration and faculty, the discussions were principled and conducted with a genuine mutual respect.

Dr. Danforth's overall view was neatly summarized when, as the keynote speaker, he addressed the May 1999 meeting arranged by the AAUP on the subject "Academic Freedom and the Transition of the American Medical School." He talked of problems in health-care delivery that confront medical schools today, and how these impinge on the traditional values of tenure and academic freedom. He noted that when the [Meiklejohn] award [to Chancellor Shepley] was announced, Daniel Fitzpatrick, then a cartoonist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, drew a picture of a flag bearing the words "The Blessings of Liberty," flying from one of the towers of Brookings Hall, the Tudor gothic symbol of Washington University. During my years as chancellor, I kept a copy of that cartoon on the wall of the office to remind myself and anyone who came into the office what Washington University was all about.

Dr. Danforth comes from a distinguished and prominent family in St Louis, and he established himself as a tenured faculty member in one of this country's major schools of medicine. But he has done far more than that. As his brother, former senator John Danforth, once described it, "Public service was expected of us. A very important part of our upbringing was the idea of having a purpose beyond grabbing things for ourselves." Bill Danforth set out on a career based on study, teaching, and service in academic medicine. His accession to the presidency of a major research university was neither sought nor automatically awarded, but his gifts were recognized by Chancellor Eliot in his quiet involvement in the selection of Dr. Danforth to succeed him.

During more than twenty years, when his university grew and prospered, he fostered the values of the academy. His own commitment was never in doubt and gave strength to the faculty in its involvement in governance. It is for his quiet yet demonstrated and deeply held faith in the value of academic freedom that we are privileged to nominate William H. Danforth for this great award.

Danforth Response

Second, this award means a lot because my name was put forward by my friends in the Washington University chapter of the AAUP. Their dedication to academic freedom, their persistence, their hard work and good sense, and their balanced judgments kept academic freedom always alive and well at Washington University. It is they who did the real work, the day-to-day, nitty-gritty work. It is they who should be honored tonight. One of those special people is here with us, Michael Friedlander, a long-time leader of the AAUP at both the local and national levels. Living up to the traditions of academic freedom is not always simple. The wise course is not always clear cut. How do you deal most effectively with a violation of fair treatment that arises out of a personality clash between a faculty member and his or her department head? How do you craft a solution that really works so that those two individuals can go on working productively together? How do you deal with the question of whether someone is defacing property or exercising free speech? What about the professor whose research does not fit the agenda of the department, and, in fact, seems inappropriate to many? What about the professor who uses his or her class to push a political agenda, or the professor who claims that she has been denied tenure unfairly because she and her friends are the only ones capable of judging her work, or the student who submits a work of art showing gays being mutilated? At what point does the right to protest trample on free speech?

I could always look to our chapter of the AAUP not only to defend academic freedom, but also to sort out wisely such difficult and problematic issues. Perhaps we were fortunate that issues of academic freedom were raised occasionally. These challenges kept us on the alert and gave occasion to educate a new generation of students and of young faculty. Jeane Kirkpatrick came up to me over coffee at a national meeting and said, "I just want to tell you how much I appreciate Washington University. When I was under attack, yours was the only campus where I was treated with courtesy." To me that was high praise. It was not praise of a chancellor or any single individual who held off the attackers. Rather, she was saying something about the ambience of Washington University, an ambience that our chapter of the AAUP played a central role in creating by paying attention to the small as well as the great issues.

Third, I am happy with this award because I believe it is recognition of a wonderful tradition at Washington University. It is recognition of what has gone before, but even more important, the award will help to strengthen and perpetuate that tradition as we older folks fade from the scene. Tradition powerfully shapes actions. Academic freedom will continue alive and well so long as the faculty of Washington University or of any university believe in their hearts something like the following: "We at our institution value and protect academic freedom, that is just the kind of people we are; to violate our principles would be unthinkable." Last week, I went to see our current chancellor, Mark Wrighton. Outside his office hangs the Alexander Meiklejohn Award given to Ethan Shepley in 1959, reminding all who enter that academic freedom is at the heart of Washington University. Forty-one years later, the award given by the AAUP is still influencing behavior in St. Louis. I thank you for reinforcing a great tradition.

Previous Recipients of the Alexander Meiklejohn Award

1959 Chancellor Ethan A. H. Shepley of Washington University in St. Louis

1960 Dean Guerdon David Nichols of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences of the University of Arkansas

1961 Dr. Robert W. Mance, a trustee of Allen University

1962 President Arthur S. Flemming of the University of Oregon

1963 Mr. Henry L. Bowden, chair of the board of trustees of Emory University

1964 President Clark Kerr and the board of regents of the University of California

1965 President Willis M. Tate of Southern Methodist University

1966 President Mason W. Gross and the board of governors of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

1968 President J. W. Maucker of the University of Northern Iowa

1969 President George W. Starcher of the University of North Dakota

1970 Reverend Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C., president of the University of Notre Dame

1973 President Thomas E. O'Connell of Berkshire Community College

1975 The board of trustees of the University of Maine

1978 The board of trustees of Wake Forest University

1984 Vice President for Academic Affairs Dale Nitzschke and Dean of the Graduate College James F. Adams of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas

1988 President W. Randall Lolley of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

1995 President Sean Fanelli of Nassau Community College

 Printer-Friendly Page