Then How About Koch?
(Editorial from The Nation, 2 March 1964, pages 206–207))
Revilo P. Oliver,
a professor in the Classics Department of the University of Illinois and a
member of the John Birch Society, recently got into the papers with a sensational
article he had written for the society’s publication, American Opinion.
Oliver asserted that Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested as a suspect in the shooting
of former Major General Edwin A. Walker, but released “through the personal
intervention of Robert F. Kennedy.” Of John F. Kennedy, Oliver wrote that he
had been a Communist “working in close collaboration with Khrushchev,” and
“if the international vermin succeed in completing their occupation of our
country, Americans will remember Kennedy while they live, and will curse him as
they face the firing squads or toil in a brutish degradation that leaves no hope
for anything but a speedy death.”
Gary Porter, writing in the Daily
Illini, calls attention to the parallel between Oliver’s case and that of
Professor Leo Koch, who wrote a letter to that paper condoning pre-marital
sexual relations. Unless that University of Illinois differs from all other
American institutions of learning, a certain amount of extra-marital intercourse
takes place among the students and even among the faculty. The subject is much
discussed, and Koch trespassed only in that he did not condemn those goings on,
but thought something might be said for the transgressing students. He was
promptly fired.
The university says it has no intention of
disciplining Professor Oliver. The university is to be commended. Oliver, like
any other citizen, has the right to air his opinions, even when they are as
offensive as they are in this instance. Free speech is not the privilege of the
wise and judicious alone, but of everyone who has the good fortune to live in a
democracy. Offensive views are precisely the ones that must be tolerated; if
there is any merit to democracy, every variety of opinion will find its own
level in good time.
But where does this leave the University
of Illinois? Koch’s views, while offensive to some, were far less inflammatory
that Oliver’s, and it is hard to see why one man should be dismissed and the
other retained. In dismissing professor Koch, the university trustees asserted
that he failed to make it clear that the letter presented only his individual
views and that he was not writing as a spokesman for the university. But Oliver
displayed his faculty position prominently in his American Opinion
article, and it is the university, not Oliver, that has issued the required
disclaimer.
If, then, the university is right now (as The
Nation feels it is), then it was wrong in the Koch case. In the interest of
its own reputation for consistency and equity, it should offer to reinstate
Professor Koch.
Back
to Pre-WC Reactions of the Left
Back to
Pre-WC Reactions
Back to WC Period