Page 2


TECH PROFESSORS FIRED Elkins and McAshan Vie for Bank Permit Daniel appointed Hinn, Wooldridge and Wall. Lindsey presided at the board session, in the absence of Chairman Watkins, in Hawaii on vacation. Callaway also was absent from the meeting. The three teachers were fired in an executive session of the board; Abernethy’s and Greenberg’s contracts simply were not renewed; Stensland’s job was abolished. But “there is no doubt,” the Tech administrator questioned by the Observer said, that they were fired. “because of Haley.” Abernethy, keynote speaker at the founding convention of the Democrats of Texas last May, was fired because his political views differ from Haley’s and those of “a majority of other board members,” the administrator said. Greenberg, a Phi Beta Kappa educated at City College of New York and New York University, was fired, the administrator said, because he believes in racial desegregation and “Haley and others on the board do not.” Dr. Stensland, on vacation and so beyond reach of reporters, lost his place, the administrator said, because “he had the misfortune” to be a part of a program partly financed by Ford Foundation money, through that foundation’s subsidiary, the Fund for Adult Education. ‘No Comment’ Abernethy, educated at a teacher’s college at Dickinson, N. D., the University of North Dakota and the University of Iowa, has taught government at Tech 16 years. His academic rank was full professor. Greenberg, who is blind, was an assistant professor of psychology and associate director of a vocational rehabilitation counseling program. He ha d taught at Tech since 1955. Stensland worked with an adult education program. Haley denied the firings were motivated by differences with the discharged trio. Asked directly if if Abernethy and Greenberg were fired because of their political and social views, he said, it seemed significantly: “So far as that is concerned, I have no comment.” Haley said Abernethy and Greenberg were fired because “it was the conviction of the board that the two gentlemen involved do .not measure up to the high intellectual and academic standards set by the administration and the board … Hence, their contracts were not renewed.” Of Stensland, Haley said it was the board’s decision that the “socalled adult education program … was of little academic importance, considering the need for money in other vital and wellestablished educational fields : “Personally, I’ve always viewed it as a bit of plush academic boondogling that any institution genuinely devoted to the great academic traditions and the really consecrated teachers who pursue it, can ill afford.” \(Haley in 1936 was fired by the University of Texas from a job with the social science research center supported by the RockeFirst to protest the firing, and the way of the firing, was Tech’s president, Dr. E. N. Jones. Jones, who was not present at the secret board session, said he disagreed with Haley’s assessment of Abernethy and Greenberg: “… I do not find a basis for agreeing with that statement … as I interpret the word ‘academic’.” Jones said also that, since the board session was secret, he had no opportunity for presenting “reasons and viewpoints for … continuance” of the adult education program. Only Haley and Linebery have commented directly on the firings. Linebery said the board action was unanimous and that he couldn’t see what all the fuss was about. He said protests by administrators and faculty showed they do not have proper “respect” for the board. The only other board reaction was oblique: Jones said a majority of the board now favors making executive sessions possible only by majority vote. Previously, and for the firing session, a n executive session could be had at the request of a single member. Both Abernethy and Greenberg said the firings caught them offbalance. Said Abenethy: “I have no information as to why I was fired. I have never met Mr. Haley or any other member of the board of directors.” Greenberg said: “I talked for Dr. Jones and he, because he was excluded from the meeting could give me absolutely no reason for our firing, or failure to renew our contract, or what-do-you-want-tocall-it.” Do you favor racial integration? Greenberg was asked. “I favor adhering to the law of the land,” he said. He said he had made no secret of this attitude, but, on the other hand, had not shouted, either. Greenberg, 29, said he had been recommended for contract renewal and a “substantial salary increase” by his department head. What are their plans now? Abernethy said: “I will protest, as strongly as possible, in. any way possible.” Greenberg said: “That certainly goes for me, too.” But what will they do exactly? “I’m not sure,” said Abernethy. “Nor I,” said Greenberg, not exactly.” Tech’s faculty held a meeting, attended by more than 200 people, unanimously passed a resolution condemning the board action as an attack on academic freedom, the undercover method of its action and calling on the board to WASHINGTON When he shifted parties, from ,conservative Democrat to Eisenhower Republican, former Texan Robert Andersonthe about-tobe, secretary of the treasurymay have shifted other allegiances a trifle. Anderson told a Senate committee this week he would be “pleased to co-operate” in a review of the necessity for the 27 1/2 per cent depletion allowance, adding: “I do think the depletion allowance ought to be looked at historically from the standpoint of the petroleum resources of the country and their adequacy in peace and war.” The answer was drawn from Anderson by Sens. Albert Gore, D., Tenn. and Paul Douglas, D., Ill. Douglas and Gore have proposed that the treasury make a detailed study of the depletion allowance, particularly, Gore said, to see if “it is possible to make a distinction in a depletion allowance for those who actually use it to develop the country’s natural resources and those who merely invest in such properties for monetary purposes and without any intention of developing resources.” They have also proposed a treasury report on the reasons why certain banks are designated for non-interest bearing government deposits. Anderson also agreed to a “review” of this question. Elsewhere in Washington, civil rights kept center stage for the second week with the Senate still review the action in public; “to let us hear why we have been treated this way, to let us answer charges against us, if there are any …” Greenberg said. Greenberg said both he and Abernethy are in a poor-man’s quandary. “Mid-July is a horribly late time to begin looking for h teaching job,” he said, “and I want to do everything in my power to fight this thing. It is a violation of my rights as an American, as a teacher, as an academician … everything. “I want to be able to hold my head up, as a citizen, as a teacher … but … “But I think, suppose I can do nothing. My last check from Tech will come on August 1 … and then … “Still, this is more important than me and more important than Byron. I want to be teaching 50 years from now … “There has been no charge that I do not teach well.” Randolph, Daniel Mrs. R. D. Randolph of the Democrats of Texas, agreed with Abernethy that attempts to use the firing politically would be wrong. In a statement calling on Gov. Price Daniel to ask the ooard why it had not followed “due process,” she said: “I believe … that no liberal or conservative cause should be made of a misfortune so great … It would be just as reprehensible if a liberal board were to fire a conservative for his political beliefs … Such violations of academic freedom, of which this is not only the latest but one of the most flagrant, can not help but result in making it more and more difficult for Texas educational institutions to attract competent professors.” Gov. Daniel subsequently said he would take no side in the controversy and that he thought “it was a mistake not to have an open discussion so that both sides could be heard.” deep in preliminary debate. Thus far, the 18 Southern senators dedicated to killing the Administration sponsored measure ha v e carefully avoided anything resembling .a filibuster and are arguing with relevance. But a filibuster is certain, and passage of the bill unlikely, unless the senate can agree on several amendments. These key amendments include a direct statement that the legislation does not authorize the use of troops to enforce court decisions, the striking of any authority by the federal government to bring civil suits in the school integration field and the replacement of the injunction passage now in the bill with a provision for jury trials. Even with the amendments, the bill may not passand extended debate on. it may keep Congress in session six or eight weeks longer than normal as well as keeping other legislation from passage. Sen. Lyndon Johnson has talked of the civil rights measure only in generalities. Sen. Ralph Yarborough has maintained silence. Both Yarborough and Johnson this week kept up a rattling drumfire at the administration on the question of oil imports. Their position: Texas independents are being run out of business by excessively high imports of foreign oil. Sen. Wiley of Wisconsin took Johnson to task for his import stand, saying he believed mandatory restrictions would be against \(Continued on Page \(Continued from page the earliest applicant was awarded the charter. In two of the disputes one of the contestants had filed a national bank charter request; in the third, both contestants wanted a state charter. In the current case, Wilson told the Observer: “They all \(both plenty of money behind them.” Falkner said: “There was some thought one side could make a go and the other couldn’tthat City National could. I don’t go along with that thinking. They are both powerful groups.” Lawyers f o r the applicants have until next Monday to file briefs for their applications. Wilson says the matter will likely be decided at the August meeting of the board. Wilson apparently is not happy with his involvement in the issue. He said at the State Bar conventon two weeks ago he will ask to be removed from the Banking Board. Originally it had been his and Falkner’s position that Houston doesn’t need any more banks, but he told The Observer he is now “inclined to agree” that if Meyerland is a good location, it ought to be allowed to have a bank, even if Houston overall doesn’t need any more of them. “It’s one of those things where you have to finally get down and vote on it,” he said. Priority of the applications among qualified applicants is “certainly some factor,” Wilson said, although “to what extent priority enters into it” he had not yet decided. The argument on the other side, he said, “is that they and if there are going to be any fruits of it, they are entitled to them.” The Arguments Ed Clark of Looney, Clark, and Moorhead spoke for the Robinson Nance of Baker, Botts, Andrews, and Shepperd spoke for the McAshan group. Clark said that when he gathered that Falkner was opposed to a rehearing, he had sent Wilson a memorandum citing cases showing the board had the authority to grant it. Apparently he did not send the memo to either Falkner or James. He said he sent it to Wilson “in an effort to be helpful.” Wilson said he had read it. He agreed the board had the right to grant a rehearing if it wished. Nance agreed the board had the authority. Clark pleaded that Robinson had “fought, bled, and died and pledged his corporate credit and his personal fortune” to Meyerland. Robinson said construction to date at the center totals $10 million and will go higher; mortgage loans are now at $70 million, he said. Wilson said while James had felt there was a need for the bank, “Mr. Falkner and myself both Harris County; with bank deposits on the decrease and probably more banks in Harris County than in any other area, by population, deposits, or any other standard you want to use.” “We just felt like they’re probably enough banks in Harris County,” Wilson said. Nance said that if the Texas National group were to lose out they would take it to the courthouse. He intimated the appeal might include contentions based on the rehearing issue. Clark and Charley Mathews o f Looney, Clark and Moorhead said they would not appeal on that basis, and Mathews added, “I just don’t think that lawyers in good faith can take contrary positions.” “Two members of the board held we were all qualified applicants except for the need for the bank,” Nance said. “We still want it. We came here first. We think both sides present are showing there is a public necessity.” He added he could not see what new evidence a rehearing would turn up. Falkner interjected to say: “It is silly to say City National or the Texas National couldn’t make a go, because they subsidize ’em” Wilson said he had been”following the recommendations of the Banking Department. That’s their job.” The finding had been there was no need for a new bank, he said. “But maybe the parties weren’t given a fair crack at it,” he added. McAshan, addressing Wilson, asked: “How could you ever administer your affairs” if the board granted rehearings. “You would be requested for rehearing on every decision. It would go on ad infinitum.” “That’s correct,” Wilson. replied. “We thought the board’s decision was final. It always had been,” said Nance. Three days later, Wilson voted with James to grant both requests for rehearing. Falkner voted no. Falkner said that on the next vote the McAshan group’s application ought to be voted on first again. He said both applications were tuned down before on the basis of public necessity. “‘The only factor that was voted on negatively sufficient to turn the applications down” was the need, he said. Falkner said this was the “first time a petition for rehearing has been acted upon favorably.” Such a motion was filed last year and rejected; Falkner said he had turned down two other such re