Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T03:17:31.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Confrontation with Nazism at Rutgers: Academic Bureaucracy and Moral Failure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

Michael Greenberg  and
Seymour Zenchelsky
Michael Greenberg
Affiliation:
College of Staten Island, City University of New York
Seymour Zenchelsky
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Near the end of 1940 Friedrich Hauptmann secretly fled to his native Germany, forsaking Rutgers University where he was chairman of the German department at the New Jersey College for Women (N.J.C.). Despite having acquired American citizenship the previous year (several months before the start of World War II), Hauptmann traveled on a German passport, with expenses paid by the Hitler government. This was undoubtedly a reward for “serving ‘the cultural-political interests of the Reich’ in New Jersey.”

Type
Articles
Information
History of Education Quarterly , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , Fall 1990 , pp. 325 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the History of Education Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Then commonly called “N.J.C.” but now renamed Douglass College. The quotation is from Oshinsky, David M. McCormick, Richard P. and Horn, Daniel The Case of the Nazi Professor (New Brunswick, N.J., 1989), 97–99. This book offers extensive endnotes, an index, and a guide to sources but omits crucial evidence. It presents the Rutgers position on the Bergel case.Google Scholar

2 Corwin, to Clothier, 23 Nov. 1940, “Hauptmann, Friedrich J.” folder, box 24, Clothier, Robert C. Papers, Rutgers University Archives, Alexander Library, New Brunswick, N.J. These archives will be referred to hereafter as RUA.Google Scholar

3 Corwin, to Clothier, 20 Nov. 1940, ibid.; Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 93–94.Google Scholar

4 Statement to Albert Meder, 6–8, folder 6, box 4, Special Trustees Committee to Investigate the Charges of Lienhard Bergel, 1935, RUA (hereafter cited as Meder Statement); Statement of Friedrich Hauptmann, 2–3, folder 11, box 2, ibid. (hereafter cited as Hauptmann Statement); Trustees Committee report, “In the Matter of the Investigation of the Charges of Lienhard Bergel,” Rutgers University Bulletin, ser. 12 (Aug. 1935) (hereafter cited as 1935 report). Hereafter the Special Trustees Committee collection will be cited as Trustees Committee.Google Scholar

5 “The Report of the President of Rutgers University, 1934–1935,” Rutgers University Bulletin, ser. 12, no. 4 (Oct. 1935): 13; Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 57.Google Scholar

6 Hauptmann's army duties involved bullying and demeaning subordinates; Marburg “was a ‘hotbed’ of right-radical politics.” See Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 9–10. No documentary evidence that Hauptmann had passed the Staatsexamen was presented.Google Scholar

7 Memorandum from Douglass, Mabel Hauptmann personnel file, Douglass College Archives, RUA.Google Scholar

8 The 1935 report, 39; New Brunswick (N.J.) Daily Home News, 26 Mar. 1933 (hereafter cited as Home News); Statement of Lienhard Bergel, May 1935, 3–4, folder 6, box 2, Trustees Committee (cited hereafter as Bergel Statement).Google Scholar

4 The 1935 report, 2; Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 78–79 and ch. 6; Niebuhr, et al. to Board of Trustees of Rutgers University, 11 Sep. 1935 (with ACLU report), folders 7–8, box 4, Trustees Committee.Google Scholar

10 Report of observers, Committee on Academic Freedom, ACLU, 5–7, folder 7, box 4, Trustees Committee (hereafter cited as ACLU report); Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 62, 74; New Brunswick (N.J.) Sunday Times (hereafter cited as Sunday Times), 14 July 1935.Google Scholar

11 Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 53–54, 71–72.Google Scholar

12 ACLU report, 2.Google Scholar

13 The 1935 report, 24; Home News, 24 May 1985; New York Herald Tribune, 22 May 1935 (cited hereafter as Herald Tribune).Google Scholar

14 Ibid., Sunday Times, 16 June 1935.Google Scholar

15 Transcript of Wagner's Testimony, 31–57, folder 17 (book 5), box 1, Trustees Committee.Google Scholar

16 The 1935 report, 27; Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 62, n. 10.Google Scholar

17 Home News, 22 May 1935.Google Scholar

18 Sunday Times, 16 June 1935; Notes by trustees’ committee member Miriam Lippincott, 82–83, 112–13, 118–19, folders 12–13, box 1, Trustees Committee (cited hereafter as Lippincott Notes); Home News, 6, 21 June 1935; Rose Schmidt Statement, folder 6, box 3, Trustees Committee.Google Scholar

19 Notes, Lippincott 48–66; Meder Supplementary Statement, folders 5–6, box 4, Trustees Committee.Google Scholar

20 Home News, 22 May 1935; Herald Tribune, 23 May 1935.Google Scholar

21 Jordan testimony, 4, folder 11, box 2, Trustees Committee; Schlimbach testimony, 2, folder 16, box 4, ibid.; ACLU report, 16–17; Meder Statement, 1–2.Google Scholar

22 Supplementary Statement of Friedrich J. Hauptmann, folder 11, box 2, Trustees Committee (cited hereafter as Hauptmann Supplementary Statement); Home News, 22 and 23 May 1935; Herald Tribune, 23 May 1935.Google Scholar

23 Atlantic City Press, 23 May 1935; Testimony, Van Dorn 3–4, folder 15 (book 2), box 1, Trustees Committee.Google Scholar

24 Hauptmann Statement; Lippincott Notes, 48–67; ACLU Report, 14.Google Scholar

25 Statement, Hauptmann 1; Hauptmann Supplementary Statement; Meder Statement, 2; Van Dorn Testimony, 5–8, folder 15 (book 2), box 1, Trustees Committee; Home News, 11, 23 May 1935; Herald Tribune, 13 May 1935; the 1935 report, 14.Google Scholar

26 Home News, 27 May 1935; Smith to Trustees Committee, 19 May 1935, folder 10, box 1, Trustees Committee; Statement of Lienhard Bergel to Clothier, Robert C. delivered by Feller, Harry S. Mar. 1935, 1, folder 11, box 4, Trustees Committee.Google Scholar

27 Home News, 30, 31 May 1935, 1, 15, 16, 21, 22 June 1935; ACLU Report, 6–8; Lippincott Notes, passim; Rose Schmidt Statement, folder 6, box 3, Trustees Committee; Geismar, Dorothy to Edward Ashmead, J., 20 June 1935, folder 4, box 1, Trustees Committee; Heiligman, Mildred to Ashmead, J. Edward 4 May 1935, folder 4, box 1, Trustees Committee; Koester, Ruth E. to Ashmead, J. Edward 10 June 1935, folder 4, box 1, Trustees Committee.Google Scholar

28 Testimony, Schlimbach Lippincott Notes, 39–40, 45–46, 82–84; Lehman Testimony, 58–59, folder 18 (book 6), box 1, Trustees Committee; Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 65–66; Home News, 30, 31 May 1935, 15 June 1935; Herald Tribune, 15 June 1935.Google Scholar

29 Varga, said she admired Hitler, “as a dictator and a man.“ See Campus News, 26 Sep. 1934. For Helen Rich's comments see ibid., 7 Oct. 1932.Google Scholar

30 Ibid., 8 Dec. 1934, 17 Apr. 1935.Google Scholar

31 Hauptmann Statement; Home News, 25 May 1935.Google Scholar

32 ACLU report, 6–11; Lippincott Notes; Home News, 21–24 May 1935. Some of this testimony was transcribed; see folders 15–18, box 1, Trustees Committee.Google Scholar

33 Home News, 7 June 1935; Shirley Smith to Trustees Committee, 19 May 1935, folder 10, box 1, Trustees Committee.Google Scholar

34 Ibid.Google Scholar

35 Ibid.Google Scholar

36 Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 10–11; the 1935 report, 9; Braun, W. A. to Meder, Albert E. 26 Oct. 1933, folder 2, box 2, Trustees Committee. French Department Chairman Eugene Huet, who had studied in Germany, testified on the superiority of Bergel's training (Home News, 22 May 1935). In 1933, Emil Jordan was completing a book on the cultural geography of Germany to be used as a “German Reader for Students in the second year.” Jordan to Clothier, 17 May 1934, Jordan personnel file, Douglass Archives, RUA.Google Scholar

37 At first Bergel ate at the German Table and later spent his time at the French Table, but he was always available to students seeking help. See Kunst Testimony, 23–35, folder 16 (book 3), box 1, Trustees Committee.Google Scholar

38 Meder Statement 6–8.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., 6–7. When testifying about the dismissal decision, Hauptmann cited Bergel's alleged inadequacies, not the three-year rule.Google Scholar

40 Meder Supplemental Statement (20 May 1935); Memorandum typed on stationery of the Bible School, Westfield Presbyterian Church (with which Meder was closely connected), folder 17, box 4, Trustees Committee. A year after Bergel's departure, Corwin noted that the three-year rule “became mandatory this year.” See Margaret Corwin, Dean's Report, 24 June 1936, box 9, ser. 3–4, subgroup I, Douglass College—Records of the Dean, RUA.Google Scholar

41 “Memorandum: Reasons for confirming decision not to reappoint Dr. Lienhard Bergel,” folder 11, box 4, Trustees Committee. Compare the second paragraph with the first full paragraph on page 5 of Corwin Statement.Google Scholar

42 Home News, 20 Aug. 1935. Remaining from Hauptmann's testimony are his statement and reports in the press.Google Scholar

43 The verdict of the 1935 report remains the Rutgers position on the Bergel case despite the subsequent revelations. Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 113–14.Google Scholar

44 The 1935 report, 20, 21; Campus News, 16 Feb. 1932.Google Scholar

45 The 1935 report, 39–41.Google Scholar

46 New York World Telegram, 23 May 1935.Google Scholar

47 See ACLU report, 16 and cover letter. Niebuhr et al. to the Board of Trustees of Rutgers University, 11 Sep. 1935, folders 7–8, box 4, Trustees Committee.Google Scholar

48 “Trustees Object to Irrelevancy of Exile's Testimony,” Home News, 7 June 1935; “Jews-Discrimination” folder, box 42, Clothier Papers. On teacher as role model, see “The Report of the President of Rutgers University, 1933–1934,” Rutgers University Bulletin,ser. 11, no. 4 (Aug. 1935): 7.Google Scholar

49 The 1935 report, 10; Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 74.Google Scholar

50 The 1935 report, 21; Meder Statement, 5–6, 9–10; Home News, 23, 31 May 1935; Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 44–45, 89; Transcript, “Dean Meder Interview” (1985), 19, Files of the 1985–86 Bergel-Hauptmann Committee, RUA.Google Scholar

51 For the successive reasons given to Bergel, see Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 29.Google Scholar

52 Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 83–87. Clothier asked the trustees to investigate “stirring up public agitation” by “members of the faculty.” Clothier, Robert C. to Ashmead, J. Edward 20 July 1935, folder 10, box 4, Trustees Committee. See also Transcript, “Dean Meder Interview” (1985), 19–20, 24–25.Google Scholar

53 Oshinsky, David M. chairman, Horn, Daniel and McCormick, Richard P. “Report on the Bergel-Hauptmann Case,“ Rutgers University, 1986 (cited hereafter as 1986 report), 88; Sunday Times, 16 June 1946; Parisi, Peter Home News, 15 and 16 May 1985, 17 June 1985, 24 July 1985, 9 and 11 Aug. 1985, 29 Sep. 1985; editorial, New York Times, 29 Sep. 1985.Google Scholar

54 Home News, 16 May 1985; McCormick, Richard P. Rutgers: A Bicentennial History (New Brunswick, N.J., 1966), 238; Bloustein, Edward J. to Silver, Alan 1 July 1985, files of the 1985–86 Bergel-Hauptmann Committee, RUA; Bloustein, Edward J. to Silver, Alan 7 Aug. 1985, ibid.Google Scholar

55 The 1986 report.Google Scholar

56 Challener, Richard D. review of The Case of the Nazi Professor, by Oshinsky, et al., in Home News, 29 Jan. 1989 (hereafter cited as Challener's review). The Rutgers historians maintained that Hauptmann was not “a ‘rabid’ Nazi” (Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 101), but merely a “pre-holocaust” or “run-of-the-mill” Nazi (Home News, 5 May 1985; New York Times, 18 Dec. 1986).Google Scholar

57 Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 84 108–12; Home News 17, 19, and 16 Apr. 1987. The historians stated that Bergel “published perhaps a dozen articles” (first citation above) when more than three times that number exist. Copies of Bergel's papers and correspondence are located in the Rare Book and Manuscript Library of Columbia University; his publications list is held in the office of the Graduate Program in Comparative Literature of the City University of New York.Google Scholar

58 The function of the Deutsche Akademie (German Academy) was to spread German influence. Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 99–100.Google Scholar

59 Bergel's charge of political bias was the reason that public pressure forced the 1935 hearings upon an unwilling Rutgers and also the reason for the ACLU's involvement. ACLU report, 1–3. For the questions chosen by the 1985 panel of historians, Clothier's questions to the 1935 trustees, and the trustees’ own choice, see Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 6 54, 56.Google Scholar

60 For the biased conduct of the 1935 hearings, see ACLU report, 3–8; Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 57–74, 116–17. For the duplicity of Clothier, and Corwin, see ibid., 92–95, 117. For the private memoranda of Meder, and Corwin, see this essay.Google Scholar

61 Oshinsky, Nazi Professor, 112.Google Scholar

62 The quotation indicates President Bloustein's recognition of the centrality of Bergel's charge. Bloustein, Edward J. to Silver, Alan 1 July 1985, files of the 1985–86 Bergel-Hauptmann Committee, RUA.Google Scholar