Why were several students kicked out of Mizzou after WWII?
Why were students kicked out of the University in the 1940s and early 1950s?Most people may know that during the Cold War there was a national fear that communists may have been working in the federal government. This fear led to the removal of many government employees who were or were rumored to be communists. Similarly, there was also a fear in Congress of homosexual employees in the federal government. This fear stemmed from the belief that homosexual employees could be blackmailed into betraying the government because of their sexuality. As a result many people were fired from their jobs. This panic known as “The Lavender Scare” spread nationwide..
There was a fear that MU was becoming a Midwest hub for homosexual students. In the late 1940s the University set up a committee to seek out gay students, faculty, and staff. As a result of this committee’s efforts, many students (hundreds by some reports) were interrogated and removed from the University. One tenured journalism professor, E.K. Johnston, was arrested in a homosexual bust outside the University. The University fired him before he ever went to trial.
T.A. Brady was instrumental in helping to start and further this committee. As you can see in the linked files from the University of Missouri archives, he was insuring that the University was putting in place “machinery for handling of discipline and homosexual cases.” He hand picked the people on the committee to ensure that it was running as well as it could. He was even taking trips to the University of Wisconsin-Madison and talking with the St. Louis police department to find out how the University of Missouri could be most efficient in ridding the University of homosexuals. The means by which homosexual students, staff and faculty were discovered and removed from the University, as outlined in several letters and memorandums written by T.A. Brady, ranged from increasing general campus awareness of the “perversion” to such extreme measures as invading private medical records and doctor-patient privileged conversations. Based on these documents found in the University of Missouri Archives, T.A. Brady would do anything to make sure that “true homos” were removed from the University because of the “danger” they posed the general student body.
We have three interviews from the National LGBT Historical Society with students who attended the University of Missouri during the late 1940s and early 1950s. One of the men interviewed was kicked out of the University. According to his accounts, literally hundreds of students were being removed from the University at that time.
T.A. Brady went above and beyond to make sure he was ruining the lives of some of the students at MU. The University of Missouri is building a new student center and has the opportunity to name it after any number of great faculty or alumni who have done their part to make this University better for all students. Why, then, would the University want to name a NEW building after a man that worked to ruin the lives of so many Mizzou students?
posted by Erin @ 11:53 PM
18 Comments:
The linked files were particularly interesting. Thanks for posting them!
I think the American Psychological Association didn't declassify homosexuality until 1975ish... and no amount of gay liberation had occurred at that point. I'm no expert.
It would be the history equilivent of when MU banned black students, everyone else did it.
hundreds of students? eh.... could be true, I doubt it though.
According to the UM Registrar, UMC had approximately 11,500 students after WWII, which decreased to around 8 thousand during the Korean War.
If we go with the everyday standard of 10% of that student body is gay, that would be 1,150 students at the max. But, we're talking about post WW2 here. How many people were actually out of the closet?
You know, I don't know. I'm in Hong Kong, but investigative reporting is always good though... now if someone could tell me what goes on inside Jesse Hall's dome at night and I know one of these authors can (or secret tunnels, or secret mazes behind the clock, or the meaning behind the Konami Code), we'll be set.
~Ken
The article in the linked files was very interesting. I wouldn't say the newspaper was that sensative to the journalism's professor's problem either. I'm very glad we don't live in that world anymore (relatively).
~Ken
Very interesting articles about Brady! I know times were different then but wow, he really went out of his way to do this...
Well, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Times temper your morality - that doesn't change all the good things Jefferson (or Brady) did.
We're not talking about Thomas Jefferson. This is about TA Brady.
And even if this was a discussion of Thomas Jefferson, his owning slaves should not be accepted in a vaccuum. These are things that should be examined, and closely.
Mr. Brady seems to have a mythology about him. We believe he was a good person. We believe he was a good person because he has a building named after him. Are we not supposed to reevaluate this mythology of Brady simply because he has a building named after him? Are we to accept him as a great leader of the university simply because his predjudices were en vogue 60 years ago? My personal opinion is no.
I will be cancelling my alumni association membership and never donating a dime to this university should this issue not be addressed by the administration.
Also, I can't help but feel that the recent proposal to name GCB Strickland Hall, after Mizzou's first full-time African-American professor, seems to be a co-opting of this whole issue.
It isn't the fact that Thomas Jefferson only owned slaves. I think that if you are going to disregard Jefferson when talking about T.A. Brady, I think you should educate yourself on the subject matter.
In 1785, Jefferson wrote:
"Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of color in the white race, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black that covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, and their own judgment in favor of the whites, declared by the preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Orangutan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior beauty is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs and other domestic animals; why not in that of man?"
And:
"They secrete less by the kidneys and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odor. They seem to require less sleep. . . . They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. In general their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labor. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to whites; in reason, much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless and anomalous. . . . The Indians will astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, and their imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration."
And...
"In music, they are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time. . . . I believe that disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their situation, and not to any depravity of the moral sense. The man, in whose favor no laws of property exist, probably feels himself less bound to respect those made in favor of others. . . Notwithstanding these considerations which must weaken their respect for the laws of property, we find among them numerous instances of the most rigid integrity, and as many as among their better instructed masters, of benevolence, gratitude, and unshaken fidelity. The opinion that they are inferior in the faculties of reason and imagination must be hazarded with great diffidence. To justify a general conclusion, requires many observations . . . where our conclusion would degrade a whole race of men from the rank in the scale of beings which their Creator may perhaps have given them."
Not one Civil Rights issue is more important than another. Hopefully you can understand that. As a homosexual, I understand your perspective. As a person of color, I disrespect your disregard for an utterly racist president who basically called people of other color animals.
The AP story was picked up in several MO newspapers today and can be found here:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/missouristatenews/story/8752C288253F2F1A862571FD00672EA7?OpenDocument
this oughta rile up all the queers in Lawrence.
Brady was and is correct. While homosexuals should not be hated or abused, but it is equally true that lifestyle has NO justification and should be banned.
D.H. from S.C.
How 'bout renaming it the Paige Student Union?
My point was, that in Jefferson's time, no one (or very few) thought that pointing out differences between races was an evil thing. Similarly, in the much more culturally homogeneous and question-free time of Brady, no one would think that maybe homosexuals had rights too.
Don't crucify someone because they mirror the mores of their time. They simply don't know any better, and shouldn't be expected to. Future generations may do it to us.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
There are a bevvy of shameful things about pretty much any person. This means it is highly likely that there are skeletons in the closet of any given important person as well. This is not about the fact that Mr. Brady made some decisions that are looked down upon today. Mr. Brady probably did a lot of wonderful things. As I see it, the point here is that in light of these hitherto little-known facts, there may be someone more fit, as a whole, to be honored than him.
Thanks again!
I think the problem here is the slippery slope. If one renames the student center because Brady did unfavorable things in the past, one could make an argument for anything. I think that's where the Jefferson thing comes into play. I don't think the problem is with the actual actions of the person, but the legal doorway that it opens. I mean, if we're really crazy about it, I say we rename the capitol of the US. Washington was a liar and a womanizer. Franklin had over 20 children, all from different women. The point is, are we really trying to rename this because the opportunity is available or, because we're honestly offended? If we are honestly offended by it, why has this issue only now surfaced? Why do we wait until it's convienent to change things?
No one has made any massive effort to name any of the SIX new dorms. No one has made an effort to name GCB after any humanitarian. Where are our motives?
I am writing a biography of Ward Dorrance, a French professor who was forced to leave the university in 1953 because he was gay. There are letters about Dorrance in the Thomas A. Brady collection at the Western Historical Manuscript Collection, but the files are restricted and need permission from his son. I've written for that, but have heard nothing (and don't expect to). My next step, I guess, is to file an F.O.I. request--but the last two requesting info on Dorrance were stonewalled by the university until the Attorney General's office leaned on them and then they "couldn't find anything."
Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can get into the Brady papers at the WHMC?
Joel Vance (jvance@socket.net)
This has to be one of the dumbest protests I have ever seen. You all want to preach tolerance and acceptance but can't let some guy from many years ago believe what was socially accepted at the time? Talk about lack of tolerance and understanding. This whole website is one big example of ignorance pretending to be intelligence.
that last comment is pretty dead on. we're forgeting the context of the historical moment. but, whatever. I know the people who made this blog and also know that this story ran out of anything substantial quick.
Homosexuality was a disease at that time. Segregation was a common occurrence. Your judgments are based on present day morals, not on those of the time.Today homosexuality isn't a disease but perhaps stupidity should be, as in Patrick's case.
Post a Comment
<< Home