Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:51:55.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Private Bias and Public Responsibility: Anti-Semitism at Rutgers in the 1920s and 1930s

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

During the 1920s and 1930s Rutgers University restricted the number of Jewish students it admitted, a practice common at that time. This covert policy was resisted by the Jewish community, which pointed to the university's support by public funds. Despite having evolved from a small college to a university by means of public funds, Rutgers was still governed by private trustees. In the 1920s and 1930s these trustees continued to exercise virtually autonomous control, even though Rutgers was accepting increasing amounts of public money. But the state of New Jersey was beginning to challenge this exclusive control. This challenge and the related issue of funding forced Rutgers authorities to participate in an internal struggle over the nature, identity, and role of the institution. The history of Rutgers during these two decades illuminates the connection between the anti-Semitic admissions policy and the debate over the university's role. It was not until after the Second World War—when Rutgers became the true State University of New Jersey—that discriminatory admissions policies were ended and the question of the university's role was settled.

Type
Articles
Information
History of Education Quarterly , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , Fall 1993 , pp. 295 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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 Appropriately, two years after Rutgers became the State University of New Jersey in 1956, President Lewis Webster Jones resigned to accept the presidency of the National Council of Christians and Jews. On Rutgers see: McCormick, Richard P., Rutgers: A Bicentennial History (New Brunswick, N.J., 1966); Schmidt, George P., Douglass College: A History (New Brunswick, N.J., 1968); and Demarest, William H. S., A History of Rutgers College, 1766–1924 (New Brunswick, N.J., 1924). These official histories say little or nothing about anti-Semitism at Rutgers, but some aspects of the subject are discussed in Patt, Ruth Marcus, The Jewish Experience at Rutgers (East Brunswick, N.J., 1987), chs. 3–5.Google Scholar

2 Levine, David O., The American College and the Culture of Aspiration, 1915–1940 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1986); Wechsler, Harold S., The Qualified Student: A History of Selective College Admission in America (New York, 1977); Jencks, Christopher and Riesman, David, The Academic Revolution (Garden City, N.Y., 1968), ch. 6.Google Scholar

3 See McCormick, , Rutgers; and Schmidt, , Douglass. The argument for a women's college was strengthened by the state's requirement that high school teachers be college trained.Google Scholar

4 “Report to Trustees, Oct. 1924,” “Dean Walter Marvin” folder, box 3, Thomas Papers, Rutgers University Archives (RUA), Rutgers University Library, New Brunswick, N.J.; “Minutes of the Board of Trustees, Jan. 1923,” “1923” folder, box 15, Trustee Minutes and Papers, RUA. See also “Jan.–May 1925” folder, box 16, Trustee Minutes and Papers; Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 Jan. [1924], YMCA, Newark, N.J., “Religious Education” folder, box 12, Demarest Papers, RUA; and Report of the meeting held 11 Apr. 1924, Newark, N.J., “Bible” folder, box 9, Demarest Papers.Google Scholar

5 In the 1920s three-quarters of those seeking higher education left the state. See “New Jersey College Student Statistics” folder, box 11, Demarest Papers.Google Scholar

6 McCormick, , Rutgers, ch. 9.Google Scholar

7 Ibid. The legal obligations attending the acceptance of public funds are found in the federal land-grant acts and in the New Jersey civil rights laws of the time.Google Scholar

8 On the 1920s, see Chalmers, David, Hooded Americanism: The First Century of the Ku Klux Klan, 1865–1965 (Garden City, N.Y., 1965); Merz, Charles, The Dry Decade (Garden City, N.Y., 1931); Higham, John, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925 (New Brunswick, N.J., 1955); Murray, Robert K., Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919–1920 (Minneapolis, 1955); and Preston, William Jr., Aliens and Dissenters: Federal Supression of Radicals, 1903–1933 (Cambridge, Mass., 1963). On anti-Semitism, see Dinerstein, Leonard, Uneasy at Home: Anti-Semitism and the American Jewish Experience (New York, 1987). On the dependence of right-wing reaction on anti-Semitism in the 1930s, see Strong, Donald, Organized Anti-Semitism in America: The Rise of Group Prejudice during the Decade 1930–40 (Washington, D.C., 1941). Also on the 1930s, see Herzstein, Robert Edwin, Roosevelt and Hitler: Prelude to War (New York, 1989).Google Scholar

9 On elite schools, see Wechsler, , Qualified Student; and Synnott, Marcia G., The Half-Opened Door: Discrimination and Admissions at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, 1900–1970 (Westport, Conn., 1979). On non-elite schools, see Carron, Malcolm S.J., The Contract Colleges of Cornell University: A Cooperative Educational Enterprise (Ithaca, N.Y., 1958); and Strum, Harvey, “Discrimination at Syracuse University,” History of Higher Education Annual (1984): 101–21. Also see Steinberg, Stephen, The Academic Melting Pot: Catholics and Jews in American Higher Education (New York, 1974); and Levine, , Culture of Aspiration. Google Scholar

10 When studies of intelligence tests used during the First World War seemed to show that Jews did not score as well as native-born Americans, these tests were incorporated into the admissions process (Wechsler, , Qualified Student, ch. 7). For a review of the army test results, see Brigham, Carl C., A Study of American Intelligence (Princeton, N.J., 1923), sec. X. See below Dean Walter Marvin's 1922 recommendation for use of intelligence tests at Rutgers.Google Scholar

11 Synott, , Half-Opened Door, ch. 4; Oren, Dan A., Joining the Club: A History of Jews and Yale (New Haven, Conn., 1985), ch. 3; New York Times, 4 Mar. 1986. Robert Corwin kept a file labeled “Jewish Problem,” and from 1920 until his retirement in 1933 he labored diligently to restrict Jewish enrollment to 10 percent of any entering class.Google Scholar

12 A 1920–21 religious census at Rutgers found 24 “Hebrews” out of 703 students whose religion could be determined. To the editor of the “Intelligencer,” box 11, Demarest Papers. Four years later another survey showed the following percentages of Jewish students: 5.5 in the class of 1925; 10.4 in the class of 1926; 15.3 in the class of 1927; and 12.6 in the class of 1928. At the time of the survey, the percentage for the college as a whole was 11.5. “New Jersey College Student Statistics,” box 11, Demarest Papers. A 1927–28 survey found the percentage of Jewish students in the class of 1928 to be 16.5 and of those in the class of 1932 to be 21.3 (see below). Patt (Jewish Experience at Rutgers, 21) claimed that in 1913 Jews constituted 15 percent of the Rutgers student body, but this figure appears unlikely. Although the Jewish presence at Rugers was minimal during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there were several noteworthy individuals at the school then. Jacob G. Lipman, hired in 1901, later served as dean of the agricultural college (1915–39). Before 1925, two other faculty members were known to be Jewish, one of whom, Dr. Selman A. Waksman, later received a Nobel Prize for his discovery of streptomycin. An acknowledged Jew, Otto Khan, served on the Board of Trustees, as did August Heckscher who described himself as “of Jewish descent some two centuries ago on my father's side.” A. Heckscher to President Robert C. Clothier, 27 Sep. 1935, folder 1, box 5, “Special Trustees Committee to Investigate the Charges of Lienhard Bergel, 1935,” RUA. Patt (Jewish Experience at Rutgers, 32) estimates that by the 1930s the Rutgers men's colleges had eight Jewish faculty members, while “the picture was even bleaker” at N.J.C., where there was only one, the head of the education department. On the Jewish community of New York, see Moore, Deborah Dash, At Home in America: Second Generation New York Jews (New York, 1981).Google Scholar

13 Phi Epsilon Pi had been recognized in 1915, but, over the years, its property suffered theft and vandalism, including painted epithets. Patt (Jewish Experience at Rutgers, ch. 5) includes copies of letters and editorial comments from Targum for the following dates: 17 Feb. 1920, 2 and 9 Mar. 1920, and 8 Feb. 1921. One writer explained: “‘Ikey’ came and liked it and brought ‘Izzie,’ and the next year ‘Bennie’ and ‘Abbie’ came.” So, eventually, C.C.N.Y. and New York University came to be viewed as “Jewish Institutions.” Google Scholar

14 Congregational Minutes, Anshe Emeth Temple (New Brunswick, N.J.), Apr. and May 1920, folder 3–1 (Rutgers University Anti-Semitism), box 18, Jewish Historical Society of Central Jersey, New Brunswick, N.J.; Committee Representing Jewish Organizations of New Brunswick to Demarest, 9 Apr. 1920, “Complaints” folder, box 2, Clothier Papers.Google Scholar

15 Congregational Minutes, Anshe Emeth Temple (New Brunswick, N.J.), Mar. 1921, folder 3–1 (Rutgers University Anti-Semitism), box 18, Jewish Historical Society of Central Jersey.Google Scholar

16 The following documents are in Trustee Minutes and Papers: “Report of Committee of Instruction and Discipline, 4 Apr. 1922,” “1922” folder, box 15; Minutes, 4 Jan. 1925, “Jan.-May 1925” folder, box 16; Minutes, 8 Oct. 1926, folder 1 (June–Dec. 1926), box 17; Philip M. Brett to President John M. Thomas, 27 Apr. 1926, “January to May 1926” folder, box 16; Minutes, 8 Oct. 1926, folder 1 (June-Dec. 1926), box 17; Minutes, 13 Jan. 1928, “Jan.–May 1928” folder, box 17. Statistics on Jewish students are in “Fraternities” folder, box 3, Thomas Papers.Google Scholar

17 This survey, “Distribution of Students by County and Religious Affiliation,” is located in box 6 of the Thomas Papers. In addition to the tables cited below, box 6 also contains: “Table 1. Distribution of the Population of New Jersey”; “Table 6. Distribution of Male Students at Rutgers … According to Average Scholastic Grade, Classes of 1928–1932”; and “Table 7. Distribution of Male Students at Rutgers … Withdrawing before Graduation.” Graphs of the data are located in “Rutgers College Statistics” folder, box 7, Thomas Papers. The sheer magnitude of this effort suggests the degree of concern that Rutgers officials must have felt over the Jewish presence.Google Scholar

18 “Table 2. Distribution of Students Admitted to the Freshman Class at Rutgers University, Colleges for Men, Classes 1928–1932,” box 6, Thomas Papers. Most of the Jewish students came from the populous counties close to New Brunswick.Google Scholar

19 “Table 4. Distribution of Holders of State Scholarships … Classes of 1928–1932,” box 6, Thomas Papers. The legislature instituted these state scholarships in 1890. Each year, in return for funds from the state, Rutgers would award one scholarship to a student in every one of the state's assembly districts. “Thirty-three scholarship students were admitted in September 1890 on the basis of competitive examinations administered by the city and county superintendents of education.” The subsequent history of these scholarships is complex. They were terminated by the legislature in 1929 on the recommendation of the Duffield Commission. For details, see McCormick, , Rutgers, chs. 6–10.Google Scholar

20 See below Mabel Douglass–Leonor Loree correspondence on admissions; also see “Table 3. Distribution of Students Admitted to the Freshman Class at the New Jersey College for Women, Classes 1928–1932,” box 6, Thomas Papers.Google Scholar

21 “Table 3. Distribution of Students Admitted to the Freshman Class at the New Jersey College for Women, Classes 1928–1932,” box 6, Thomas Papers.Google Scholar

22 The breakdown by religious affiliation was computed from data in an unsigned document found in “Admissions 30–31, 34–36” folder, box 40, Douglass College Records, RUA. For the superior credentials of Jewish applicants, see Campbell, Anna M. to Douglass, Dean Mabel, 5 Dec. 1929, “Admissions 30–31” folder, box 40, Douglass College Records.Google Scholar

23 McCormick, , Rutgers, 171; Schmidt, , Douglass College, 36. The Loree-Corwin correspondence, consisting of three thick folders, labeled “1919–24,” “1925–29,” and “1930–35,” are found in box 26, Douglass College Records. Although Douglass could feign a self-effacing modesty (see Dean Douglass to William Courly, 27 Jan. 1932, “Status as a Coordinate College” folder, box 33, Douglass College Records), she worked with Loree as an equal and used his imprimatur when she found it expedient. Dr. Clark's testimony is reported in New York Times, 23 May 1935.Google Scholar

24 Douglass, to Loree, , 10 May 1927, and 1 May 1929, “1925–1929” folder, box 26, Douglass College Records. On scholarships, see Douglass to Edward D. Duffield, 27 Oct. 1928, “Investigating Committee” folder, box 25, Douglass College Records.Google Scholar

25 Douglass, to Loree, , 10 May 1927, “1925–29” folder, box 26, Douglass College Records.Google Scholar

26 Douglass, to Loree, , 1 May 1929, “1925–29” folder, box 26, Douglass College Records.Google Scholar

27 Ibid.Google Scholar

28 Ibid.Google Scholar

29 Trager, George to Thomas, , 25 June 1927, “Complaints” folder, box 2, Clothier Papers. On training teachers as a reason for founding the women's college, see 1920 fund-raising letter in “Gifts, 1919–46” folder, box 22, Douglass College Records. Before the founding of N.J.C., women high school teachers “without exception” were being trained “outside the state.” Demarest, , Rutgers College, 517.Google Scholar

30 Spiegelman, William Z. to “The Dean, Rutgers College,” 29 Nov. 1927, and Thomas, to Spiegelman, , 30 Nov. 1927, “Complaints” folder, box 2, Clothier Papers. The prominent Jews whom Thomas identified with Rutgers included a trustee, an honorary-degree recipient, and the dean of the agricultural college.Google Scholar

31 For Finn's report, dated Jan. 1931, see “Annual Reports of Admissions Office” folder, box 7, Douglass College Records.Google Scholar

32 For the expectation of an entering class of five hundred, see Loree to Douglass, 19 Feb. 1929, “1925–29” folder, box 26, Douglass College Records. On the desire to attract students from small towns, see Douglass to Loree, n.d., “1919–1924” folder, box 26, Douglass College Records. For efforts to attract students from out of state and from private schools, see Tirrell, Sarah R. to Meder, Albert, 24 Dec. 1930, “Admissions I” folder, box 12, Douglass College Records.Google Scholar

33 Marvin, Walter T. to Thomas, , 14 Oct. 1930, “Marvin, Walter T.” folder, box 3, Thomas Papers. In 1921 Dean Marvin advocated the use of intelligence tests, suggesting a minimum score of fifty as the requirement for admission; see “1921” folder, box 15, Trustee Minutes and Papers. Writing to Clothier, in 1932, Marvin complained that the scores of students in the class of 1936 were “markedly below the Thorndike standard”; see Walter Marvin to Clothier, 16 Dec. 1932, “Marvin, Walter T.” folder, box 2, Clothier Papers. For details about Marvin, see McCormick, , Rutgers, ch. 9.Google Scholar

34 The following documents are in box 1, Thomas Papers: Peskoe, Max to Thomas, , 22 Aug. 1929, “Admissions” folder; Larson, Governor to Thomas, , 31 July 1929; and Thomas, to Larson, , 1 Aug. 1929.Google Scholar

35 McCormick, , Rutgers, 203–7. In November 1930 (one month after Thomas's departure) the trustees rejected a proposal by the regents to give the state control over the publicly funded units (including N.J.C.), while allowing Rutgers to operate as a private college within a federated state university. McCormick discusses the internal conflict but ignores the anti-Semitic admissions policy and its impact on Rutgers and the state.Google Scholar

36 New York Times, 15 Oct. 1930; for details of the complaint to the board of regents, see “Brief for the Complainants,” “Jews, Discrimination” folder, box 42, Clothier Papers. The 1929 state termination of the scholarship program, which had begun in 1890, followed the recommendation of the Duffield Commission (McCormick, , Rutgers, ch. 10).Google Scholar

37 “Brief for the Complainants,” “Jews, Discrimination” folder, box 42, Clothier Papers.Google Scholar

38 Ibid. Information on the students' religion, grade-point average, and whether they were accepted at Rutgers can be found in “Elizabeth Public Schools,” “Jews, Discrimination” folder, box 42, Clothier Papers.Google Scholar

39 Newark Evening News, 3 Mar. 1932; Jung, Charles H. to Dr.Raven, H., 12 Dec. 1930, and Hurrell, Alfred to Brett, , 9 Feb. 1931, “Jews, Discrimination” folder, box 42, Clothier Papers.Google Scholar

40 J. Edward Ashmead to the Board of Regents, Apr. 1931, “Jews, Discrimination” folder, box 42, Clothier Papers.Google Scholar

41 Jung, to Ashmead, , 22 July 1931, “Jews, Discrimination” folder, box 42, Clothier Papers; Newark Jewish Chronicle, 15 Mar. 1932.Google Scholar

42 Newark Evening News, 3 Mar. 1932.Google Scholar

43 These methods for limiting the number of Jews were commonly used by colleges at the time; see Steinberg, , Academic Melting Pot, ch. 1. Wechsler (Qualified Student, ch. 7) found that Columbia considered, but rejected, a proposal to limit Jewish admissions through a residence requirement. On the failure to attract students from southern New Jersey, see Hawes, Esther W., June 1931, “Registration Report” folder, box 8b, Douglass College Records. On repeated efforts to attract students from that area, see Meder, Albert E., 9 Feb. 1934, “Dean's Report 1928–1935” folder, box 9, Douglass College Records. On the use of psychological tests, see Corwin, Margaret, 7 July 1934, and Corwin, Margaret, 6 June 1936, “Dean's Report 1935–36” folder, box 9, Douglass College Records. On efforts to enlist alumni clubs in the allocation of scholarships, see President Clothier's letter to the clubs, 4 Apr. 1933, “Alumni Association” folder, box 1, Clothier Papers. On Clothier's reminder to the trustees regarding private funding, see Minutes, 4 Oct. 1932, “1932” folder, box 21, Trustees Minutes and Papers.Google Scholar

44 Kelsey, David L. to Thomas, , 22 Nov. 1928, and Thomas, to Kelsey, , 27 Nov. 1928, “Msc. correspondence” folder, box 7, Thomas Papers. The Independent Order of Brith Sholom, which claimed a membership of fifteen to eighteen thousand, endorsed the state university objective. Writing on its behalf in 1928, Kelsey told President Thomas that “no State has a complete educational system if it lacks a fully developed university.” Brith Sholom would later join in a discrimination suit against Rutgers. On the state university struggle, see also McCormick, , Rutgers, chs. 9–12, and on the failure to secure private funds, see ch. 10.Google Scholar

45 For a critical account of the Bergel case, see Greenberg, Michael and Zenchelsky, Seymour, “The Confrontation with Nazism at Rutgers: Academic Bureaucracy and Moral Failure,” History of Education Quarterly 30 (Fall 1990): 325–49. For the official Rutgers position, see Oshinsky, David M., McCormick, Richard P., and Horn, Daniel, The Case of the Nazi Professor (New Brunswick, N.J., 1989). An exchange between the respective authors appears in History of Education Quarterly 31 (Summer 1991): 315–19. Information on the student petition is located in folders 3 and 8, box 2, “Special Trustees Committee to Investigate the Charges of Lienhard Bergel.” Google Scholar

46 For the quotations, see Oshinsky, , McCormick, , and Horn, , Nazi Professor, 34, 74; and “In the Matter of the Investigation of the Charges of Lienhard Bergel,” Rutgers University Bulletin, ser. 12 (Aug. 1935): 10, 11, 41. Observers at the 1935 hearings reported that Rutgers officials “seemed at times to put words into the mouths of witnesses where they indicated hostility to Mr. Bergel, but were careful to avoid damaging evidence against Mr. Hauptmann.” Report of observers, Committee on Academic Freedom, American Civil Liberties Union, pp. 5–7, folder 7, box 4, Trustees Committee.Google Scholar

47 After serving in the 1920s as executive secretary of Yale's graduate school, Margaret Corwin left shortly after her father's retirement in 1933. How much of his anti-Semitism she shared is unclear, but we find no sign that the advent of the Nazi regime diminished her admiration for Germany, which she shared with Robert Corwin. On her cooperation with the Carl Schurz Foundation (Berlin), see Margaret Corwin to President Max Ilgner, 18 Sep. 1934, Hickmann (Emily G.) personnel file, Douglass College Records; Albert W. Holzmann to Clothier, 4 Mar. 1935, and Holzmann to Clothier, 13 Mar. 1935, “Holzmann, Dr. Albert W.” folder, box 25, Clothier Papers. On the propaganda role of the Carl Schurz Foundation, see Herzstein, , Roosevelt and Hitler, ch. 11. Five years after Bergel's ouster, when Hauptmann secretly fled to wartime Germany, Margaret Corwin and President Clothier conspired to conceal the extent of their knowledge regarding the matter. This cover-up included lying to the press as well as to the police. See Greenberg, and Zenchelsky, , “Nazism at Rutgers,” 325–49; and Oshinsky, , McCormick, , and Horn, , Nazi Professor, 97–99. Dean Corwin gave her impressions of Germany in (N.J.C.) Alumni Bulletin, 9 Sep. 1936. “Corwin article,” “Margaret Corwin” folder, box 16, Douglass College—Records of the Dean, RUA.Google Scholar

48 Corwin's, remarks are found in Campus News, 21 Mar. 1933, “July to December” folder, box 21, Trustee Minutes and Papers. For the recruitment efforts, see Tirrell to Margaret Corwin, 12 Apr. 1934, “Dean Margaret Corwin, 1934–1938” folder, box 23, Clothier Papers.Google Scholar

49 This draft of Corwin's testimony, containing the implied threat, is located in Bergel's personnel file (Douglass College Records).Google Scholar

50 For concern with commuters, see memorandum prepared by Fredericka Belnap on instructions from Margaret Corwin, 23 Nov. 1936, “Belnap, Fredericka Miss” folder, box 22, Clothier Papers; and Clothier to Registrar Luther Martin, 12 Dec. 1936, “Luther Martin, 34–40” folder, box 28, Clothier Papers, in which Clothier informed Martin about the limitation on commuters' enrollments. In previous years, Dean Douglass had defended the need to delay the acceptance of new students because so many of the early applications were from Jews living in and around New Brunswick.Google Scholar