Letter from Sarka B. Hrbkova to Chancellor Avery Concerning Termination of Czech Language Program
Title
Letter from Sarka B. Hrbkova to Chancellor Avery Concerning Termination of Czech Language Program
Subject
Chancellor Avery, The Board of Regents, Nebraska Council of Defense, 1918 Loyalty Trials, Women’s Committee of the Council of National Defense
Description
A four-page letter defending the Czech Language Department from being eliminated and an examination of all the factors involved.
Source
Special Collections, Love Library
Date
May 17, 1919
Language
eng
Original Format
Letter
Text
Garvanza, Los Angles, Calif.
May 17, 1919.
Chancellor Avery,
University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, Nebr.
Dear Sir:
Your letter with its notification of the drastic action of the Board of Regents with regard to the Slavonic Department has just arrived. To say I am stunned is putting it mildly.
To summarily and without notice abolish the Slavonic Department at this time and under these special circumstances on the pretext of small enrollment is an injustice which surely neither you nor the Board of Regents will wish to be responsible for. To-day, when the greatest interest and need centers on a closer knowledge of the Czechoslovaks, Poles, Jugoslavs and Russians, is a most inopportune time to drop a department which was the first to disseminate true information concerning the Slavs and which cannot fail to be of special service to those contemplating diplomatic, commercial and other positions in central and eastern Europe.
The statement that the number of students is too small to warrant continuing the department is disproved by the record on p. 15 of the Tweny-fourth Biennial Report of the University to the Governor and legislature. A comparison of the figures for the Slavonic Department with those for other optional (or required) subjects shows that the Registration Statistics of individuals students for the two years ended August. 1918, of the Slavonic Department (1 instructor) was 337 or 173 students in 1917 and 164 students in 1918. In the same period of two years, the Scandinavian Department (1 instructor), had but 38 students, 7 in 1917, 31 in 1917-1918; Greek (1 instructor), 142; Latin (3 instructors), 456; Geology (3 instructors), 364; European History (3 instructors), 457. The same statistics show that in the summer sessions of 1917 and 1918, three instructors and departments were maintained for but seven students apiece; 1 department was maintained for 5 students; two departments had but four student each; 1 other had but three, another two students, and FIVE ENTIRE DEPARTMENTS HAD BUT ONE STUDENT APIECE! In the very same summer sessions, the Slavonic Department had respectively 39 and 47 students enrolled or a total of 86. The Same proportion is borne out in several departments, during the regular school year semesters. Why single out the Slavonic Department which has averaged over 200 individual students per year, for the abolishment because of “small numbers enrolled,” when above mentioned departments enrolling from one to seven student only, during certain school sessions, continue in existence?
The failure to have a large enrollment in the purely linguistic courses of the Slavonic Department in the fall of 1918 is partly explainable by these facts:
(1) At registration time, I was called out of state to address audiences in behalf of the Fourth Liberty Loan and the support of the government’s call for nurses, etc.
(2) The fall term of 1918 was a crucial year for every school maintaining the S. A. T. C. Not only the Slavonic courses but every department which was not specifically listed in the S. A. T. C. list of requirements, suffered a dropping off of enrollment. However a comparison will show that even then the Slavonic Department held its own with others having purely optional courses.
PAGE 2
(3) Many S. A. T. C. men who tried to enroll in the Czech or Russian language courses were not permitted to do so, the Executive Dean refusing his approval even after the receipt of a telegram by Dr. Chatburn from Minneapolis Regional Director of the S. A. T. C. giving the men the privilege of choosing a Slavonic course to fill their modern language requirement.
(4) It is a matter of pride to me that in the spring of 1917, every man of military age in the Slavonic Department enlisted in the United States Army. This accounts for the loss, in the fall of 1918, of several names which would otherwise have been on the department lists.
(5) The epidemic of influenza served to thin ranks in the department of Slavonic as elsewhere.
Despite these drawbacks, the Slavonic Department in 1918-1919 had twice as many students enrolled as the German department, yet the teaching of German was not discontinued then or now.
In the second semester or early spring of 1919, my serious illness prevented my presence at registration time, yet 36 students enrolled, 14 in strictly linguistic courses and 22 in classes con-ducted in English but dealing with specifically Slav subjects.
It is only fair for broadminded men on the Board of Regents to take above facts into full consideration in (sic) accountin for the fact that the 1918-1919 registration was not up to the numerical standard of the department.
The department of Slavonic has had a steady but sure growth in spite of every discouragement placed in the way of its development, such as:
(1) Locating the (sic) class room in a building out to the way of the Liberal Arts students and totally separate from the structure housing the other language departments. (Removal to University Hall to rooms 111 and 112 took place in October, 1918, at the re-quest of the WAR Department for the old quarters of the Slavonic department.)
(2) At every registration time, freshman students wishing to take Czech (Bohemian) or Russian courses have not been permitted to do so but were forced to take German as their modern language. The requirement by the College of Medicine of a dabbling of German, with no recognition of other languages, kept out many who preferred a Slavic language.
The assertion in your letter that “ it was understood that such work as might be required in regard to the history, literature and culture of the…Slavonic people as would naturally be given in English be given in the departments of history and sociology”, gives no assurance whatever that the specific courses in Czech, Polish, Jugoslav and Russian life and problems will be give or that the departments mentioned, with the mass of work already required of them, are equipped to present detailed and authoritative discussions of Slav subjects.
No department in the university at present gives work covering the special lines embraced in the Slavonic department courses. A course dealing specifically with the Slavic immigrants to this country was dropped two years ago when a course in immigration in general was introduced in the Political Science department. There is not and had not been any duplication of courses given by other departments and hence it is eminently unfair to reduce the
Page 3
number of student in the Slavonic department by half because about 50 per cent of them were enrolled in courses given in English but dealing exclusively with Slavonic subjects which were not discussed in any other courses. It would be as unjust to cut out of Prof. Barber’s registration in the Latin department all students taking his course of lectures on Roman archaeology or to reduce Prof. Lees’ or Prof. Barbour’s enrollment because some of their students were in lecture classes and not technically linguistic or science courses.
A fair comparison of the enrollment in my classes by the Board of Regents with these points in view would surely have deterred them from action which, on the face of it, and, taken in connection with other things, is plainly discrimination against me. If the abolishment of the Slavonic department were not a direct blow at me, why were not departments with as few or fewer students abolished, also? When the Scandinavian and Hebrew were to be abolished, the instructor was not dismissed but instead was provided for in a recent meeting of the Board of Regents by simply changing his title to “Assistant professor of modern languages”. No such careful provision was made for the instructor in Slavonic. When the law classes of Dean Hastings were dispersed by the war and he had practically no students, he was not dismissed but was given the post of Acting Chancellor during the chief official’s absence in Washington.
When you came to me at the Slavonic Department office shortly after your return from Washington and notified me that the Board of Regents demanded my resignation from the Nebraska State Council of Defense as they were still resentful against the Council because of its action relative to those members of the faculty of “hesitating, halting loyalty”, I was much astonished, especially as you yourself had recommended me to Governor Neville for the appointment as woman member of the Council of Defense. I explained to you then that my position as Chairman of the Women’s Committee of the Council of National Defense was one to which the women of Nebraska had elected me and that the Board of Regents were evidently confusing the two bodies.
I can scarcely believe even now that the Board would voluntarily repudiate its distinct promise at the opening of the trial of the professors, not to retaliate or punish any of those whom it summoned to testify. There had been a rumor on the campus that the element in the state and in the university disaffected by the trial and by the staunch opposition to all pro-Germanism was laying plans to secure the dismissal of three women of the faculty who had been witnesses. One of these women to be removed, in some fashion or other, was myself, according to the rumor. I trusted, however, to the word of honor of the Board of Regents not to visit any reprisals on those whom it summoned to testify.
You will recall that at that trial I said nothing concerning the fact that the original charge, relative to the disloyal statements made by Prof. G. W. A. Luckey at the Open Forum meeting, came from you and that you wished me to have the State Council call him up for an investigation. I sought to shield you from the heated criticism of the time but have fared ill myself for no protection has been given me, not so much as a warning that the Board intended to abolish the department and dismiss the instructor, on
Page4
the thinly veiled pretext of small numbers enrolled, the “small enrollment” for the entire department being attained by manipulating the figures in a manner not applied to other departments which likewise conduct some instruction in English.
Many who have written me are amazed that the Board of Regents should choose this particular time when I am suffering from illness due to two years’ ceaseless war work along with my university duties, as a propitious moment to abolish the Slavonic Department and dismiss me. It was done in my enforced absence from Lincoln without previous notice or chance to explain.
Every effort is justly made to give soldiers returning from service a job, The women who have done their war bit, day in and day out, in essential but unpaid government work are dismissed, at the close of the war, from an institution they have served faithfully without even being given the chance to speak in their own behalf.
I am asking that you lay the foregoing facts before the Board of Regents in an effort to have them reconsider their action. I feel confident that a fair examination of the facts in the case, in an unbiased manner, will result in the retention of the department and its instructor.
Awaiting an early response, I am
Very truly,
Sarka B. Hrbkova
Address:
228 West Ave. 66,
Garvanza, Los Angles, Calif.
May 17, 1919.
Chancellor Avery,
University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, Nebr.
Dear Sir:
Your letter with its notification of the drastic action of the Board of Regents with regard to the Slavonic Department has just arrived. To say I am stunned is putting it mildly.
To summarily and without notice abolish the Slavonic Department at this time and under these special circumstances on the pretext of small enrollment is an injustice which surely neither you nor the Board of Regents will wish to be responsible for. To-day, when the greatest interest and need centers on a closer knowledge of the Czechoslovaks, Poles, Jugoslavs and Russians, is a most inopportune time to drop a department which was the first to disseminate true information concerning the Slavs and which cannot fail to be of special service to those contemplating diplomatic, commercial and other positions in central and eastern Europe.
The statement that the number of students is too small to warrant continuing the department is disproved by the record on p. 15 of the Tweny-fourth Biennial Report of the University to the Governor and legislature. A comparison of the figures for the Slavonic Department with those for other optional (or required) subjects shows that the Registration Statistics of individuals students for the two years ended August. 1918, of the Slavonic Department (1 instructor) was 337 or 173 students in 1917 and 164 students in 1918. In the same period of two years, the Scandinavian Department (1 instructor), had but 38 students, 7 in 1917, 31 in 1917-1918; Greek (1 instructor), 142; Latin (3 instructors), 456; Geology (3 instructors), 364; European History (3 instructors), 457. The same statistics show that in the summer sessions of 1917 and 1918, three instructors and departments were maintained for but seven students apiece; 1 department was maintained for 5 students; two departments had but four student each; 1 other had but three, another two students, and FIVE ENTIRE DEPARTMENTS HAD BUT ONE STUDENT APIECE! In the very same summer sessions, the Slavonic Department had respectively 39 and 47 students enrolled or a total of 86. The Same proportion is borne out in several departments, during the regular school year semesters. Why single out the Slavonic Department which has averaged over 200 individual students per year, for the abolishment because of “small numbers enrolled,” when above mentioned departments enrolling from one to seven student only, during certain school sessions, continue in existence?
The failure to have a large enrollment in the purely linguistic courses of the Slavonic Department in the fall of 1918 is partly explainable by these facts:
(1) At registration time, I was called out of state to address audiences in behalf of the Fourth Liberty Loan and the support of the government’s call for nurses, etc.
(2) The fall term of 1918 was a crucial year for every school maintaining the S. A. T. C. Not only the Slavonic courses but every department which was not specifically listed in the S. A. T. C. list of requirements, suffered a dropping off of enrollment. However a comparison will show that even then the Slavonic Department held its own with others having purely optional courses.
PAGE 2
(3) Many S. A. T. C. men who tried to enroll in the Czech or Russian language courses were not permitted to do so, the Executive Dean refusing his approval even after the receipt of a telegram by Dr. Chatburn from Minneapolis Regional Director of the S. A. T. C. giving the men the privilege of choosing a Slavonic course to fill their modern language requirement.
(4) It is a matter of pride to me that in the spring of 1917, every man of military age in the Slavonic Department enlisted in the United States Army. This accounts for the loss, in the fall of 1918, of several names which would otherwise have been on the department lists.
(5) The epidemic of influenza served to thin ranks in the department of Slavonic as elsewhere.
Despite these drawbacks, the Slavonic Department in 1918-1919 had twice as many students enrolled as the German department, yet the teaching of German was not discontinued then or now.
In the second semester or early spring of 1919, my serious illness prevented my presence at registration time, yet 36 students enrolled, 14 in strictly linguistic courses and 22 in classes con-ducted in English but dealing with specifically Slav subjects.
It is only fair for broadminded men on the Board of Regents to take above facts into full consideration in (sic) accountin for the fact that the 1918-1919 registration was not up to the numerical standard of the department.
The department of Slavonic has had a steady but sure growth in spite of every discouragement placed in the way of its development, such as:
(1) Locating the (sic) class room in a building out to the way of the Liberal Arts students and totally separate from the structure housing the other language departments. (Removal to University Hall to rooms 111 and 112 took place in October, 1918, at the re-quest of the WAR Department for the old quarters of the Slavonic department.)
(2) At every registration time, freshman students wishing to take Czech (Bohemian) or Russian courses have not been permitted to do so but were forced to take German as their modern language. The requirement by the College of Medicine of a dabbling of German, with no recognition of other languages, kept out many who preferred a Slavic language.
The assertion in your letter that “ it was understood that such work as might be required in regard to the history, literature and culture of the…Slavonic people as would naturally be given in English be given in the departments of history and sociology”, gives no assurance whatever that the specific courses in Czech, Polish, Jugoslav and Russian life and problems will be give or that the departments mentioned, with the mass of work already required of them, are equipped to present detailed and authoritative discussions of Slav subjects.
No department in the university at present gives work covering the special lines embraced in the Slavonic department courses. A course dealing specifically with the Slavic immigrants to this country was dropped two years ago when a course in immigration in general was introduced in the Political Science department. There is not and had not been any duplication of courses given by other departments and hence it is eminently unfair to reduce the
Page 3
number of student in the Slavonic department by half because about 50 per cent of them were enrolled in courses given in English but dealing exclusively with Slavonic subjects which were not discussed in any other courses. It would be as unjust to cut out of Prof. Barber’s registration in the Latin department all students taking his course of lectures on Roman archaeology or to reduce Prof. Lees’ or Prof. Barbour’s enrollment because some of their students were in lecture classes and not technically linguistic or science courses.
A fair comparison of the enrollment in my classes by the Board of Regents with these points in view would surely have deterred them from action which, on the face of it, and, taken in connection with other things, is plainly discrimination against me. If the abolishment of the Slavonic department were not a direct blow at me, why were not departments with as few or fewer students abolished, also? When the Scandinavian and Hebrew were to be abolished, the instructor was not dismissed but instead was provided for in a recent meeting of the Board of Regents by simply changing his title to “Assistant professor of modern languages”. No such careful provision was made for the instructor in Slavonic. When the law classes of Dean Hastings were dispersed by the war and he had practically no students, he was not dismissed but was given the post of Acting Chancellor during the chief official’s absence in Washington.
When you came to me at the Slavonic Department office shortly after your return from Washington and notified me that the Board of Regents demanded my resignation from the Nebraska State Council of Defense as they were still resentful against the Council because of its action relative to those members of the faculty of “hesitating, halting loyalty”, I was much astonished, especially as you yourself had recommended me to Governor Neville for the appointment as woman member of the Council of Defense. I explained to you then that my position as Chairman of the Women’s Committee of the Council of National Defense was one to which the women of Nebraska had elected me and that the Board of Regents were evidently confusing the two bodies.
I can scarcely believe even now that the Board would voluntarily repudiate its distinct promise at the opening of the trial of the professors, not to retaliate or punish any of those whom it summoned to testify. There had been a rumor on the campus that the element in the state and in the university disaffected by the trial and by the staunch opposition to all pro-Germanism was laying plans to secure the dismissal of three women of the faculty who had been witnesses. One of these women to be removed, in some fashion or other, was myself, according to the rumor. I trusted, however, to the word of honor of the Board of Regents not to visit any reprisals on those whom it summoned to testify.
You will recall that at that trial I said nothing concerning the fact that the original charge, relative to the disloyal statements made by Prof. G. W. A. Luckey at the Open Forum meeting, came from you and that you wished me to have the State Council call him up for an investigation. I sought to shield you from the heated criticism of the time but have fared ill myself for no protection has been given me, not so much as a warning that the Board intended to abolish the department and dismiss the instructor, on
Page4
the thinly veiled pretext of small numbers enrolled, the “small enrollment” for the entire department being attained by manipulating the figures in a manner not applied to other departments which likewise conduct some instruction in English.
Many who have written me are amazed that the Board of Regents should choose this particular time when I am suffering from illness due to two years’ ceaseless war work along with my university duties, as a propitious moment to abolish the Slavonic Department and dismiss me. It was done in my enforced absence from Lincoln without previous notice or chance to explain.
Every effort is justly made to give soldiers returning from service a job, The women who have done their war bit, day in and day out, in essential but unpaid government work are dismissed, at the close of the war, from an institution they have served faithfully without even being given the chance to speak in their own behalf.
I am asking that you lay the foregoing facts before the Board of Regents in an effort to have them reconsider their action. I feel confident that a fair examination of the facts in the case, in an unbiased manner, will result in the retention of the department and its instructor.
Awaiting an early response, I am
Very truly,
Sarka B. Hrbkova
Address:
228 West Ave. 66,
Garvanza, Los Angles, Calif.
