//essays//
Fall 2012
Behind the Lion Curtain: McCarthyism at Columbia in the 1950s
Gilana Keller
Academic censorship has become a buzzword on campus of late. The recent and short-lived Barnard policy requiring flyers to contain administrative approval caused an uproar amongst governing boards on campus. The Student Governing Board claimed, “that it unnecessarily imposes a burden on student speech on campus.” Although the administration responded swiftly, the event raises the question once again of free speech on campus. Sixty years ago a case far more dramatic and with a far less satisfactory ending, occurred on this campus.
Although Columbia University presidents and trustees maintained during the cold war that the university protected its professors from McCarthyism, the case of Gene Weltfish proves otherwise. In 1952, Weltfish was called in front of the House un-American Activities Committee, and a few months later the university dismissed her under a shady rule recently created by University President Grayson Kirk and the trustees. Although she did have ties to communist groups, Weltfish denied any personal sympathies with communist causes and distinguished herself in the Anthropology department with her academic work. Her case shows how, when faced with a professor who spoke publicly about views that aligned with communism, the University gave into the same sort of McCarthyist tendencies it publicly criticized. Worst still, President Kirk did so under the guise of “academic freedom,” stating that Weltfish’s dismissal protected academic freedom.
Gene Weltfish, lecturer of Anthropology at Columbia University for seventeen years, was dismissed in 1953, under the pretext of new university budgetary rules for non-tenured professors. Although Columbia has received limited attention as a university which fired teachers for political reasons during the McCarthy era, Weltfish serves as a case study of hushed academic censorship, cloaked in the guise of budgetary and productivity rules. Her dismissal raises questions of the meaning of academic freedom during the McCarthy era, specifically at Columbia, which purported to protect freedom in academic pursuits.
While university presidents claimed to reinterpret academic censorship during the post World War II years to enhance the protection of professors, those very presidents used the phrase academic freedom to justify the dismissal of teachers for their extra-mural expression. The Gene Weltfish case demonstrates that the term academic freedom lacked a coherent definition during the Cold War era because so many people used it differently to promote disparate political messages. Rampant concern about communist infiltration of the classrooms and the political proclivities of faculties at American universities disposed many people to reinterpret the meaning of academic freedom. While all university presidents publicly promoted the slogan of academic freedom, many felt no cognitive dissonance when they publicly dismissed their professors for communist activities.
Columbia’s Grayson Kirk is one of the few known university presidents to openly deny dismissing faculty for communist reasons, while privately discussing with trustees means of firing that would not garner public attention. When the university trustees and president thought that government prosecutors had sufficient information to prosecute Weltfish as a communist, they then dismissed her quietly.
Ellen Schrecker’s groundbreaking No Ivory Tower was the first book to broach the complicity of mid-twentieth century university presidents and trustees in the dismissal of teachers. Written in 1986, the work contends that university boards often deliberately suppressed academic freedom. Before Schrecker’s book, many historians believed the rhetoric of university officials that they were defending themselves against McCarthyism and trying to protect their faculties. As more university archives opened, later studies expanded on her thesis, uncovering more cases that expose the role of universities in quashing free expression.
Gene Weltfish and Columbia University
Gene Weltfish began lecturing in the Anthropology Department at Columbia in 1935. Her life during her time as a lecturer was marked by both academic writings and radical activities outside the university. She co-authored Races of Mankind, which argued that variations among races are cultural and not biological. Although the pamphlet was intended to support the Second World War effort, the Military Affairs Committee censored it for fear of communist connections, a move that only increased its popularity. Weltfish, an outspoken feminist and an active board member of many known communist organizations (although she consistently denied being a communist), continued her activities in an increasingly anti-communist national climate during World War II and its aftermath. Although the chair of the Anthropology department repeatedly advocated her promotion to a tenured position, the university consistently denied the request, citing an insufficient record of publications.
Professor Weltfish’s real troubles began in June of 1952 when discussing the recent Vienna meeting of the International Conference in Defense of Children. Controversially, Weltfish asserted that bacteriological warfare “should never become an instrument of this nation’s policy” and that germ warfare was unethical. Many newspapers and audience members quoted her statement as an accusation against the United States government for engaging in such actions, and political leaders labeled her as a subversive communist. By October, the Senate Internal Security Sub-committee had “summoned” her to ask about her communist affiliations. She refused to testify and pleaded the Fifth Amendment. One month later, the president and board of trustees of Columbia conveniently created new university rules that “limited the number of annual appointments which may be granted” to non-tenured professors. The rules also stated that these professors could not teach for more than five years unless the President made an exception in a specific case. No exception was made for Gene Weltfish, however, and she was forced to leave soon afterwards. Following her departure, the Senate Permanent Investigating Committee called her in one more time. She again refused to answer any questions.
Academic Freedom and Suppression
Ironically, Columbia prided itself on being one of the few universities that did not publicly investigate and fire teachers for political affiliations. Schrecker cites Columbia as “perhaps the most extreme example of the extent to which an academic administration was willing to go to disguise the fact that it was dismissing a teacher for political reasons.” Initially, the Columbia presidential office had manifested contempt for suppression during World War II. But that began to change in the 1940’s as an increasing number of alumni sent Columbia letters with complaints. Many criticized the institution for keeping Weltfish and other alleged communists, counter-intuitively arguing that their presence restricted academic freedom.
Columbia Vice President Pegrem responded in 1949 to one critic by saying that “No university that professes that its members have the freedom of ordinary citizens could discharge a teacher for belonging to or being active in some organization that has been put on the ‘subversive’ list made up by an official.” This statement, in its reference to “officials,” signifies authority figures outside of the university, and therefore exercising no power over the university. Propounding freethinking, Columbia University publicly advocated for academic freedom that would not be affected by any outside figure. Indeed, Columbia had some known ex-communists on its staff. Following Weltfish’s germ warfare speech, however, the university’s language concerning academic freedom of teachers changed dramatically.
Shortly after Weltfish spoke about germ warfare, and was summoned before the Senate Committee, the public relations director and assistant to the president, Robert Harron, asserted that “communists cannot subscribe to the principles of democratic freedom, they are to be enjoined from the pursuit of free intellectual inquiry.” This jarring change in language from academic freedom for all people to the elimination of this privilege for communists indicates the university’s anxiety about investigations of faculty by the government. Columbia changed its definition of academic freedom by treating it as a contract, and rendering communists incapable of subscribing to those principles.
The university’s position on academic freedom continued to devolve as HUAC, the House Committee on Un-American Activities, gained more power. As the main congressional committees prepared to investigate universities in the spring of 1953, Columbia’s President Kirk joined with presidents from other elite universities in adopting a new ruling about the Fifth Amendment. The ruling emphasized “invocation of the Fifth Amendment places upon a professor a heavy burden of proof of his fitness to hold a teaching position.” The presidents avowed that professors have the obligation to use their free-speech rights by testifying, and their failure to do so would lead to a reevaluation of their positions. Paradoxically, President Kirk demanded that faculty exercise their ability to speak, inherent in their freedom of expression, while at the same time condemning them for any speech relating to communism. He said, invocation of the Fifth Amendment” by a faculty member “lays upon his university an obligation to reexamine his qualifications for membership in its society.” His argument shifted the concept of academic freedom from protecting professors to protecting the university.
This shift was important because, as letters from politicians about the Weltfish case indicate, many political segments of society defined academic freedom through the lens of their view of a university. A Massachusetts representative wrote, “college systems should have on their faculties only genuine Americans – those who do not sponsor or talk out of the side of their mouth for some alien philosophy.” Some politicians therefore wanted to limit the types of professors allowed to teach based on their ideology. Some newspapers also discussed the positive aspect of Weltfish’s dismissal. A writer for The New York World-Telegram and Sun wrote in response, “Few decent people, we think, will quibble over the mechanics used to get this woman out of the university.” Thus, a connection to communism precluded Weltfish from receiving any protection from academic freedom which was transformed into a vehicle of censorship.
The Gene Weltfish case highlights the distinction between internal and external censorship, between leaders of the university and political figures or the public. Internal censorship was “in part to ward off complaints from outside the University.” Censorship of academic freedom was therefore designed not merely to oust communists, but to protect the university from external interference. Internal censorship thus led to a devious type of censorship.
President Kirk wrote in a “personal and confidential” memorandum that “No evidence [exists] that Dr. Weltfish has used her position as a teacher of Anthropology for purposes of Communist indoctrination. … Her colleagues … insist that she is a good scholar and a capable teacher.” Still, because of her alleged accusation of the U.S. government, he was determined to find a way to discharge her without galvanizing more public protest. Kirk concluded that his “own proposal is that [we] rid ourselves of Dr. Weltfish….” He rejected the idea of public dismissal because it “might be charged with an arbitrary act taken for political reasons.” Yet this is exactly what Kirk was doing. Kirk went so far as to bar the tenure committee from discussing the issues because it would take the position that the “University should not be concerned with the outside activities….” Her “elimination from the faculty could not therefore be the subject of as violent an internal storm as we would be compelled to weather ….”
Therefore, the president and trustees created new university policies solely to suppress certain professors. Suppression of academic freedom also resulted in deception, not just of Weltfish but of the university community and the public. Kirk’s consistent public response to her dismissal was that she was one of many teachers who were not retained. The New York Times commented that the university “denied that her political activities had anything to do with its decision.”
Protests and Failed Protests
The reaction to the dismissal of Dr. Weltfish incurred the anger of many students and professors. They, too, rallied behind the cry of academic freedom, but one that entailed protection of the professor. A closer scrutiny of their actions, though, rather than just the content of some letters, indicates that many remained silent for fear of dismissal and persecution. Censorship of a professor therefore led to the chilling of free speech of many other university members.
The university archives preserved several letters from angry students and faculty, who invoked academic freedom to defend Weltfish. Anthony Leeds, Assistant Head of the Department of Anthropology, wrote to President Kirk that he “heard with bitter shock of the dismissal, or failure to reappoint, Dr. Gene Weltfish. …” Leeds’s letter indicates that he had requested her promotion many times, and that as a professor Weltfish displayed excellent skills. Furthermore, his assertion that she “encouraged free and active discussions” and never discussed any political opinions illustrates the professor’s view of academic freedom as protecting the professor. The Dean of the Journalism school “deplored the violation of ‘freedom of the individual, independent expression of opinion on controversial subjects.’”
Students also protested Weltfish’s dismissal. The Student Committee for Academic Freedom passed a resolution expressing its “disapproval of refusal to reply to the questions submitted by [the] organization concerning Weltfish’s dismissal” and of President Kirk silence on the original questions about Weltfish’s dismissal. Furthermore, the students signed a protest against her dismissal. The chairman of Students for Democratic Action also accused the University of not properly separating the “political and academic question,” in light of academic freedom. Columbia Spectator published an article quoting many professors outraged by the dismissal. A Professor Giddings commented that the dismissal was “the most serious defeat American education has suffered in years. The student protests, while unsuccessful, illustrate that while the university succeeded in firing Weltfish, it failed in its goal of concealing the actual reason for her dismissal.
While these letters paint a picture of protest against academic censorship, it is uncertain whether they represent the majority or even a significant portion of the student and faculty. As Schrecker notes, the letter from the anthropology students contained one hundred forty signatures, yet there were seven hundred people in the department. To make matters worse, some of those protestors may have been cowed into silence out of fear of retaliation. Columbia University archives contain one letter from a student who signed the protest document asking President Kirk to remove his signature. The student promised he was not a communist and expressed concern that his signature would make it “possible to infer much about me…
I am neither a Communist … I do not wish to overthrow our government and I would give no support to anyone who does.”Kirk’s response was chilling: “You were considerate to write as you did.”
Epilogue
Weltfish struggled to obtain another teaching position until 1961, when she became a professor at Farleigh Dickinson. Books on the social history of Columbia often mention Weltfish in passing, and emphasize the pressure imposed on President Kirk by the trustees. The university webpage about previous presidents comments that his presidency was marked by conflict because of his actions in 1968, when he ultimately was forced to retire, but does not discuss the Weltfish case. Without doubt, Kirk, like many other presidents, was burdened by impending threats from HUAC. Kirk also decided to retain other faculty members despite their previous communist activities. However, because there was not a threat of a public hearing for these other professors, Kirk turned his attention exclusively to Weltfish. Kirk’s decision to conceal his reasons for dismissing Weltfish compounds the perversion of the term academic freedom at Columbia during the McCarthy era. The power and meaning of academic freedom remained in the hands of the president and trustees. Ironically, those charged with safeguarding academic freedom rarely entered the classrooms themselves.
Sixty years later the political climate on campus is radically different. Although there are always disparate reactions to presidential fireside chats, their very existence indicates willingness for greater transparency. The quick resolution to the flyering problem demonstrates a strong commitment on behalf of the administration to take seriously questions of freedom of expression. Still, this case emphasizes the importance of shunning complacency, and reflecting upon the evolution of the university in the recent past.
Although Columbia University presidents and trustees maintained during the cold war that the university protected its professors from McCarthyism, the case of Gene Weltfish proves otherwise. In 1952, Weltfish was called in front of the House un-American Activities Committee, and a few months later the university dismissed her under a shady rule recently created by University President Grayson Kirk and the trustees. Although she did have ties to communist groups, Weltfish denied any personal sympathies with communist causes and distinguished herself in the Anthropology department with her academic work. Her case shows how, when faced with a professor who spoke publicly about views that aligned with communism, the University gave into the same sort of McCarthyist tendencies it publicly criticized. Worst still, President Kirk did so under the guise of “academic freedom,” stating that Weltfish’s dismissal protected academic freedom.
Gene Weltfish, lecturer of Anthropology at Columbia University for seventeen years, was dismissed in 1953, under the pretext of new university budgetary rules for non-tenured professors. Although Columbia has received limited attention as a university which fired teachers for political reasons during the McCarthy era, Weltfish serves as a case study of hushed academic censorship, cloaked in the guise of budgetary and productivity rules. Her dismissal raises questions of the meaning of academic freedom during the McCarthy era, specifically at Columbia, which purported to protect freedom in academic pursuits.
While university presidents claimed to reinterpret academic censorship during the post World War II years to enhance the protection of professors, those very presidents used the phrase academic freedom to justify the dismissal of teachers for their extra-mural expression. The Gene Weltfish case demonstrates that the term academic freedom lacked a coherent definition during the Cold War era because so many people used it differently to promote disparate political messages. Rampant concern about communist infiltration of the classrooms and the political proclivities of faculties at American universities disposed many people to reinterpret the meaning of academic freedom. While all university presidents publicly promoted the slogan of academic freedom, many felt no cognitive dissonance when they publicly dismissed their professors for communist activities.
Columbia’s Grayson Kirk is one of the few known university presidents to openly deny dismissing faculty for communist reasons, while privately discussing with trustees means of firing that would not garner public attention. When the university trustees and president thought that government prosecutors had sufficient information to prosecute Weltfish as a communist, they then dismissed her quietly.
Ellen Schrecker’s groundbreaking No Ivory Tower was the first book to broach the complicity of mid-twentieth century university presidents and trustees in the dismissal of teachers. Written in 1986, the work contends that university boards often deliberately suppressed academic freedom. Before Schrecker’s book, many historians believed the rhetoric of university officials that they were defending themselves against McCarthyism and trying to protect their faculties. As more university archives opened, later studies expanded on her thesis, uncovering more cases that expose the role of universities in quashing free expression.
Gene Weltfish and Columbia University
Gene Weltfish began lecturing in the Anthropology Department at Columbia in 1935. Her life during her time as a lecturer was marked by both academic writings and radical activities outside the university. She co-authored Races of Mankind, which argued that variations among races are cultural and not biological. Although the pamphlet was intended to support the Second World War effort, the Military Affairs Committee censored it for fear of communist connections, a move that only increased its popularity. Weltfish, an outspoken feminist and an active board member of many known communist organizations (although she consistently denied being a communist), continued her activities in an increasingly anti-communist national climate during World War II and its aftermath. Although the chair of the Anthropology department repeatedly advocated her promotion to a tenured position, the university consistently denied the request, citing an insufficient record of publications.
Professor Weltfish’s real troubles began in June of 1952 when discussing the recent Vienna meeting of the International Conference in Defense of Children. Controversially, Weltfish asserted that bacteriological warfare “should never become an instrument of this nation’s policy” and that germ warfare was unethical. Many newspapers and audience members quoted her statement as an accusation against the United States government for engaging in such actions, and political leaders labeled her as a subversive communist. By October, the Senate Internal Security Sub-committee had “summoned” her to ask about her communist affiliations. She refused to testify and pleaded the Fifth Amendment. One month later, the president and board of trustees of Columbia conveniently created new university rules that “limited the number of annual appointments which may be granted” to non-tenured professors. The rules also stated that these professors could not teach for more than five years unless the President made an exception in a specific case. No exception was made for Gene Weltfish, however, and she was forced to leave soon afterwards. Following her departure, the Senate Permanent Investigating Committee called her in one more time. She again refused to answer any questions.
Academic Freedom and Suppression
Ironically, Columbia prided itself on being one of the few universities that did not publicly investigate and fire teachers for political affiliations. Schrecker cites Columbia as “perhaps the most extreme example of the extent to which an academic administration was willing to go to disguise the fact that it was dismissing a teacher for political reasons.” Initially, the Columbia presidential office had manifested contempt for suppression during World War II. But that began to change in the 1940’s as an increasing number of alumni sent Columbia letters with complaints. Many criticized the institution for keeping Weltfish and other alleged communists, counter-intuitively arguing that their presence restricted academic freedom.
Columbia Vice President Pegrem responded in 1949 to one critic by saying that “No university that professes that its members have the freedom of ordinary citizens could discharge a teacher for belonging to or being active in some organization that has been put on the ‘subversive’ list made up by an official.” This statement, in its reference to “officials,” signifies authority figures outside of the university, and therefore exercising no power over the university. Propounding freethinking, Columbia University publicly advocated for academic freedom that would not be affected by any outside figure. Indeed, Columbia had some known ex-communists on its staff. Following Weltfish’s germ warfare speech, however, the university’s language concerning academic freedom of teachers changed dramatically.
Shortly after Weltfish spoke about germ warfare, and was summoned before the Senate Committee, the public relations director and assistant to the president, Robert Harron, asserted that “communists cannot subscribe to the principles of democratic freedom, they are to be enjoined from the pursuit of free intellectual inquiry.” This jarring change in language from academic freedom for all people to the elimination of this privilege for communists indicates the university’s anxiety about investigations of faculty by the government. Columbia changed its definition of academic freedom by treating it as a contract, and rendering communists incapable of subscribing to those principles.
The university’s position on academic freedom continued to devolve as HUAC, the House Committee on Un-American Activities, gained more power. As the main congressional committees prepared to investigate universities in the spring of 1953, Columbia’s President Kirk joined with presidents from other elite universities in adopting a new ruling about the Fifth Amendment. The ruling emphasized “invocation of the Fifth Amendment places upon a professor a heavy burden of proof of his fitness to hold a teaching position.” The presidents avowed that professors have the obligation to use their free-speech rights by testifying, and their failure to do so would lead to a reevaluation of their positions. Paradoxically, President Kirk demanded that faculty exercise their ability to speak, inherent in their freedom of expression, while at the same time condemning them for any speech relating to communism. He said, invocation of the Fifth Amendment” by a faculty member “lays upon his university an obligation to reexamine his qualifications for membership in its society.” His argument shifted the concept of academic freedom from protecting professors to protecting the university.
This shift was important because, as letters from politicians about the Weltfish case indicate, many political segments of society defined academic freedom through the lens of their view of a university. A Massachusetts representative wrote, “college systems should have on their faculties only genuine Americans – those who do not sponsor or talk out of the side of their mouth for some alien philosophy.” Some politicians therefore wanted to limit the types of professors allowed to teach based on their ideology. Some newspapers also discussed the positive aspect of Weltfish’s dismissal. A writer for The New York World-Telegram and Sun wrote in response, “Few decent people, we think, will quibble over the mechanics used to get this woman out of the university.” Thus, a connection to communism precluded Weltfish from receiving any protection from academic freedom which was transformed into a vehicle of censorship.
The Gene Weltfish case highlights the distinction between internal and external censorship, between leaders of the university and political figures or the public. Internal censorship was “in part to ward off complaints from outside the University.” Censorship of academic freedom was therefore designed not merely to oust communists, but to protect the university from external interference. Internal censorship thus led to a devious type of censorship.
President Kirk wrote in a “personal and confidential” memorandum that “No evidence [exists] that Dr. Weltfish has used her position as a teacher of Anthropology for purposes of Communist indoctrination. … Her colleagues … insist that she is a good scholar and a capable teacher.” Still, because of her alleged accusation of the U.S. government, he was determined to find a way to discharge her without galvanizing more public protest. Kirk concluded that his “own proposal is that [we] rid ourselves of Dr. Weltfish….” He rejected the idea of public dismissal because it “might be charged with an arbitrary act taken for political reasons.” Yet this is exactly what Kirk was doing. Kirk went so far as to bar the tenure committee from discussing the issues because it would take the position that the “University should not be concerned with the outside activities….” Her “elimination from the faculty could not therefore be the subject of as violent an internal storm as we would be compelled to weather ….”
Therefore, the president and trustees created new university policies solely to suppress certain professors. Suppression of academic freedom also resulted in deception, not just of Weltfish but of the university community and the public. Kirk’s consistent public response to her dismissal was that she was one of many teachers who were not retained. The New York Times commented that the university “denied that her political activities had anything to do with its decision.”
Protests and Failed Protests
The reaction to the dismissal of Dr. Weltfish incurred the anger of many students and professors. They, too, rallied behind the cry of academic freedom, but one that entailed protection of the professor. A closer scrutiny of their actions, though, rather than just the content of some letters, indicates that many remained silent for fear of dismissal and persecution. Censorship of a professor therefore led to the chilling of free speech of many other university members.
The university archives preserved several letters from angry students and faculty, who invoked academic freedom to defend Weltfish. Anthony Leeds, Assistant Head of the Department of Anthropology, wrote to President Kirk that he “heard with bitter shock of the dismissal, or failure to reappoint, Dr. Gene Weltfish. …” Leeds’s letter indicates that he had requested her promotion many times, and that as a professor Weltfish displayed excellent skills. Furthermore, his assertion that she “encouraged free and active discussions” and never discussed any political opinions illustrates the professor’s view of academic freedom as protecting the professor. The Dean of the Journalism school “deplored the violation of ‘freedom of the individual, independent expression of opinion on controversial subjects.’”
Students also protested Weltfish’s dismissal. The Student Committee for Academic Freedom passed a resolution expressing its “disapproval of refusal to reply to the questions submitted by [the] organization concerning Weltfish’s dismissal” and of President Kirk silence on the original questions about Weltfish’s dismissal. Furthermore, the students signed a protest against her dismissal. The chairman of Students for Democratic Action also accused the University of not properly separating the “political and academic question,” in light of academic freedom. Columbia Spectator published an article quoting many professors outraged by the dismissal. A Professor Giddings commented that the dismissal was “the most serious defeat American education has suffered in years. The student protests, while unsuccessful, illustrate that while the university succeeded in firing Weltfish, it failed in its goal of concealing the actual reason for her dismissal.
While these letters paint a picture of protest against academic censorship, it is uncertain whether they represent the majority or even a significant portion of the student and faculty. As Schrecker notes, the letter from the anthropology students contained one hundred forty signatures, yet there were seven hundred people in the department. To make matters worse, some of those protestors may have been cowed into silence out of fear of retaliation. Columbia University archives contain one letter from a student who signed the protest document asking President Kirk to remove his signature. The student promised he was not a communist and expressed concern that his signature would make it “possible to infer much about me…
I am neither a Communist … I do not wish to overthrow our government and I would give no support to anyone who does.”Kirk’s response was chilling: “You were considerate to write as you did.”
Epilogue
Weltfish struggled to obtain another teaching position until 1961, when she became a professor at Farleigh Dickinson. Books on the social history of Columbia often mention Weltfish in passing, and emphasize the pressure imposed on President Kirk by the trustees. The university webpage about previous presidents comments that his presidency was marked by conflict because of his actions in 1968, when he ultimately was forced to retire, but does not discuss the Weltfish case. Without doubt, Kirk, like many other presidents, was burdened by impending threats from HUAC. Kirk also decided to retain other faculty members despite their previous communist activities. However, because there was not a threat of a public hearing for these other professors, Kirk turned his attention exclusively to Weltfish. Kirk’s decision to conceal his reasons for dismissing Weltfish compounds the perversion of the term academic freedom at Columbia during the McCarthy era. The power and meaning of academic freedom remained in the hands of the president and trustees. Ironically, those charged with safeguarding academic freedom rarely entered the classrooms themselves.
Sixty years later the political climate on campus is radically different. Although there are always disparate reactions to presidential fireside chats, their very existence indicates willingness for greater transparency. The quick resolution to the flyering problem demonstrates a strong commitment on behalf of the administration to take seriously questions of freedom of expression. Still, this case emphasizes the importance of shunning complacency, and reflecting upon the evolution of the university in the recent past.