Search News


Browse Archives

News

Higher Ed and the Third Reich

June 17, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A new book examines American colleges’ ties to Nazi Germany in the 1930s -- and chronicles a record characterized by indifference, complicity and collaboration.

“In order to understand the whole course of development that leads us to the Holocaust, I think it’s very important to see what influential sectors in the United States were doing. And in the case of higher education, it’s a very shameful record of complicity and indifference to atrocities committed against the Jews from 1933 onward -- and actually a lot of collaboration, in terms of participating in well-organized student exchange programs, participating in well-orchestrated Nazi festivals in Germany, sending delegates to those and ignoring protests,” says Stephen H. Norwood, a professor of history at the University of Oklahoma and author of The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower: Complicity and Conflict on American Campuses, new from Cambridge University Press.

In an interview, Norwood describes university leaders as indifferent to evidence of a barbaric regime rising abroad in part because of their own polices of anti-Semitism and exclusion back home. "They just didn't care very deeply about Jews and anti-Semitism because they were themselves involved in maintaining quota barriers against Jewish students. There were very, very few Jews on the faculties of American universities throughout the entire inter-war period. And there are whole fields that were basically off-limits to Jews," he says.

Norwood’s book begins by laying out the evidence of Germany’s “unprecedented relapse into barbarism” in the months immediately following Hitler’s ascent to power: “The Nazis’ anti-Semitic terror in 1933 precipitated demonstrations and boycotts on an unprecedented scale, often initiated at the grassroots level,” Norwood writes.

“But although academicians were the Americans most conversant with European affairs, few engaged in public anti-Nazi protest. As many working and lower-middle-class Americans marched in the streets and struggled to organize a nationwide boycott of German goods and services, American universities maintained amicable relations with the Third Reich, sending their students to study at Nazified universities while welcoming Nazi exchange students to their own campuses. American’s most distinguished university presidents willingly crossed the Atlantic in ships flying the swastika flag, openly defying the anti-Nazi boycott, to the benefit of the Third Reich’s economy. By warmly receiving Nazi diplomats and propagandists on campus, they helped Nazi Germany present itself to the American public as a civilized nation, unfairly maligned in the press.”

Two of Norwood’s chapters feature his research on "legitimating Nazism" and "complicity and conflict" at Harvard and Columbia Universities, respectively; that research, when previously presented in other forums, has provoked controversy (more on that later).

The book goes well beyond the Ivies, however, and another chapter focuses on the all-female Seven Sisters Colleges -- which, despite Nazi-era quotas limiting women's enrollment at German universities, staunchly promoted the Junior Year in Munich up until the start of the war. (“In September 1939,” Norwood writes, “with war looming, a ‘dauntless group’ of juniors assembled in New York City eager to sail to Europe for a year of study at the University of Munich; it was prevented from doing so only by the outbreak of hostilities.”)

While much of the book details failures of university leadership, one chapter, called Nazi Nests, focuses on the faculty -- specifically those of German programs. “University German departments, often staffed by faculty members sympathetic to the Hitler regime, and the German clubs they sponsored, constituted important bases of support for Nazi Germany in the United States,” writes Norwood. German departments at the Universities of Minnesota and Wisconsin hosted receptions for Hans Luther, Nazi Germany's ambassador to the United States, and German faculty members were prominently represented at anniversary celebrations for the Universities of Heidelberg and Goettingen, in 1936 and 1937, respectively.

The chapter also traces the termination of the single anti-Nazi German faculty member at the New Jersey College for Women (now Douglass Residential College, a part of Rutgers University), as illustrative: “The issues involved in [Lienhard] Bergel’s termination are complicated,” Norwood acknowledges, “but what is most alarming about the case is the administration’s indifference to having an all-Nazi German department at NJC, and the Rutgers’ trustees’ obvious hostility to committed opponents of Nazism."

Another chapter throws an unflattering spotlight on the University of Virginia's Institute of Public Affairs' roundtables, which, from 1933 to 1941, "provided a major platform and an aura of academic legitimacy for Nazi Germany's supporters and for the propagation of antisemitism," Norwood argues. Charged with presenting "both sides of questions," Virginia's administration worked closely with Nazi Germany's embassy in Washington to find speakers, and, Norwood writes, they "accorded great respect to the Nazi spokespersons, some of whom the U.S. government later arrested as seditionists, as unregistered German agents, or for disseminating Nazi propaganda."

Meanwhile, Norwood criticizes American Catholic universities for keeping up friendly relations with Benito Mussolini's Fascist government, and also for their support of the Fascist General Francisco Franco in Spain ("Catholic leaders in the United States and Europe considered Franco's war against the democratically elected Loyalists a religious crusade against Communism," Norwood writes). Norwood writes about the firing of Moyer Springer Fleisher, a bacteriology professor at Saint Louis University, for sponsoring a pro-Loyalist lecture.

It's Norwood's research on Harvard and Columbia, however, that -- at least to date -- has been most high profile. Norwood writes, among other things, of then-Columbia President Nicholas Murray Butler's "warm" reception of the German ambassador, Luther, describing him in 1933 as "the official diplomatic representative to the Government of the United States on the part of the government of a friendly people." The university dismissed a Jewish instructor of art history, Jerome Klein, who signed a protest against the invitation to Luther, and also expelled a student, Robert Burke, who had protested the university's decision to send a delegate to the University of Heidelberg's 550th anniversary celebration, in 1936.

Columbia released a statement on Norwood's research in 2006 that the university spokesman, Robert Hornsby, said still stands. “It is true, as Professor Norwood claims, that an official of the German government spoke on the Columbia campus in 1933 and that the University sent a representative to the University of Heidelberg in 1936 to attend the celebration of its 550th anniversary.

"In retrospect, one might wish that no one who believed in democratic values would have had any connection with Germany after Hitler’s accession to power. But in fact, American interactions with Nazi Germany – financial, commercial, cultural, academic, and political -- were extensive throughout the 1930s and even into the first months of World War II. If the events that Professor Norwood describes are examples of ‘collaboration,’ then the collaborators include many thousands of leaders and citizens of the United States, Britain, and many other nations," the statement reads, in part.

“The President of Columbia in the 1930s, Nicholas Murray Butler -- like many presidents of elite universities of his era -- tried for a time to limit Jewish enrollment at the University, an effort of which Columbia is not proud. But Butler himself called the Nazi regime the chief threat to democratic institutions in the world in1937.... Professor Norwood is entitled to his extravagant interpretation of Columbia’s modest interactions with Germany in the 1930s. Few historians would take it seriously as a reasonable response to the facts he has assembled."

Norwood, a graduate of Columbia's Ph.D. program, says he's "truly shocked that Columbia is standing by its earlier statement. It's completely beyond comprehension that a university administration which is supposedly committed to exploring the truth and promoting learning is shutting off its mind completely to critically important issues.... I think it's irresponsible, it's anti-intellectual ... their view that everybody's doing it so what's the big deal?" Norwood points, too, to the well-known Holocaust scholars who have endorsed his book. It's blurbed by David S. Wyman, author of The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945, and Steven Katz, director of the Elie Wiesel Center for Judaic Studies at Boston University, among others.

Many have called on universities to dust off and study the skeletons in their closets in recent years, especially since Brown University released its landmark study into its own ties to the slave trade in 2006. "I'm hoping people read the book and come to grips with what happened, and at least devote more study to this period and try to learn the lessons so that we don't repeat the mistakes that higher education leaders made in that period," says Norwood.

The period under scrutiny ends in 1938 after the Kristallnacht pogroms in Germany. Only then, Norwood writes, "did American universities become significantly involved in protest against Nazism. Even then, the initiative came largely from students."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Higher Ed and the Third Reich

  • sounds familiar
  • Posted by craig clemens on June 17, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • the schools and the media
    sounds familiar

  • Columbia, Butler, and the Nazis
  • Posted by Stan Nadel , Adjunct Profesor at U of Portland--Salzburg Austria Center on June 17, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • As a Columbia University History PhD I share Norwood's disappointment with the lame response of Columbia U. to the material he has uncovered. It's true enough that Columbia wasn't alone in collaborating with Nazi Germany, but shared shame is no less shameful.

  • 1930s 'Anti-Semitism' Revisited
  • Posted by Keith Wheelock , Professor at Raritan Valley Community College on June 17, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • Professor Norwood provides valid insights into the anti-Semitic sentiments in various U. S. academic institutions during the 1930s. At times this was reflected in a pro-German posture. Support for Italian fascism was, at times, also present. Clearly Columbia University, Harvard, and other institutions of higher learning are embarrassed to have these facts spelled out. The same might be said of the State Department at that time. (This is documented in the AMERICAN EXPERIENCE documentary "America and the Holocaust: Deceit and Indifference" and elsewhere.) Regarding fascism, in Ron Cernow's HOUSE of MORGAN, J. P. Morgan and, specifically, Thomas Lamont openly provided support and PR for Mussolini in the 1930s. The was a time with New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty received a Pulitzer Prize for his white-wash reporting of Stalinist Russia, the deliberate starvation of 3-6 million Ukranians, and the fraudalent public trials of persons pre-condemned to death.

    Academics and academic institutions have a responsibility to display integrity. It affects both their reputation and the credibility of what is being taught and written. For another fascinating insight into the complexities of academe and anti-Semitism in America of the 1930s, I recommend the 2000 Cinema Guild documentary FROM SWASTIKA To JIM CROW. This is the story of Jewish German professors were fled to the U. S. and were not welcomed by top American academic institutions. Anti-Semitism and the Great Depression were factors for this exclusion. This is the story of how a number of Jewish professors sought teaching positions in black colleges in the South. The clash of cultures and Jim Crow rendered this a difficult transition. What is also overlooked is how this infusion of Jewish German professors into southern black colleges made a major contribution to educating African Americans who formed an intellectual elite in latter 20th century America.

    Keith Wheelock

     

     

  • yes, but...
  • Posted by theron on June 17, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • While I deplore the quiet response and the anti-semitism displayed during the interwar years (note the role of fraternities and sororities as well in this), I would like to take Columbia's explanation a step further. Note the general, societal response to fascist acts and the anti-fascist, anti-war movements against both Vietnam and the Iraq war. Note, too, the general response in the USA against the anti-war movements starting in 1917. In 1919 we had the Palmer raids, (read the New York Legislature's three-volume "study" of the period) the anti-communist hysteria, tacit support of Franco and the blacklisting of 'premature anti-fascist' volunteers in the International Brigades, the German Bund, the isolationist movements etc. Look too at how little outcry met the rounding up of Japanese-Americans during WWII. During the Vietnam, the first Gulf war and the Iraq war, people in the streets were attacked, shot, branded as anti-American.

    Given the general responses to fascist acts and the the anti-fascist, anti-war movements over time, then Columbia's retort to this new work sounds reasonable. Perhaps the point SHOULD be that educators should know better..but when educators did speak out, they suffered. Too, since most educational systems reflect the societies out of which they grew, then why expect anything other than a mirror of the society? To point fingers at one element of a broad indifference is OK...but the tone seems to be too shrill.

  • Posted by G. Tod Slone on June 17, 2009 at 9:44am EDT
  • Excellent report! And let’s not forget the AAUP during the McCarthy hearings! Academe has perhaps always been a place where few with courage roam.

    G. Tod Slone, Ed.

    www.theamericandissident.org

  • We're all guilty of som'thing
  • Posted by Libertarian on June 17, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • I see Norwood as a self-serving scandalmonger a la Goldhagen. Now lets follow his logic: Since virtually all American institutions, whether Christian, Jewish or non-denominational/non-religious, did not have their students and faculty immolate themselves on da streets, and cut all ties of whatever kind to the states practicing legal segregation and lynching in the 1920s and 1930s, ALL American institution are guilty of abetting passively or actively a monstrous, barbaric form of racism that actually gave the Nazis ideas (the Nurember laws were, after all, inspired by American racial legislation). Now lets look at real important issues today. What does Norwood say about colleges having close ties with the Chinese communist dictatorship, for example?

  • Boycott?
  • Posted by Philosophy Prof on June 17, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • It's a bit difficult to argument for the viciousness of these 1930s activities of the academy with recent prominent arguments *against* academic boycotts of Israel in response to its various recent aggressions and contraventions of International Law (boycotts which have been debated epsecially in Britain). Israel today does not of course look as bad as Germany of the 1930s does, but that's not what most of the arguments against boycott are supposed to turn on. Whatever happened to academic freedom, influence through discourse, exchange of ideas, and the notion that universities and professors do not set public policy and so are not responsible for it?

  • Higher Ed and the Third Reich
  • Posted by Louis Barbash , National Director-Communications at UNCF (United Negro College Fund) on June 17, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • There was a major and honorable exception to the pattern of indifference chronicled in Prof. Norwood's book. Private historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) such as Tougaloo College in Mississippi, Talladega College in Alabama, Howard University in Washington, D.C. and Hampton Institute in Virginia welcomed Jewish refugees from Germany to their faculties and their communities. (Tougaloo and Talladega Colleges are member of the organization I work for, UNCF--the United Negro College Fund.) The mark of how welcome these refugee academics were made to feel is that many of them made their careers at these small, mostly Southern HBCUs, where they influenced many students who went on to lead the Civil Rights movement. The full story of this significant and moving episode has been told in a book, a PBS documentary and an exhibit, all entitled "From Swastika to Jim Crow." The documetary 's web site is at http://www.pbs.org/itvs/fromswastikatojimcrow/index.html) and the exhibit is currently at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York.

  • Fascism
  • Posted by Adjunct George on June 17, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Has anyone else read "Liberal Fascism" by Goldberg? It makes for fascinating reading and puts many of the things that have happened and are happening in perspective. I for one would claim that the anti-Vietnamese riots were facist, not anti-fascist because the rioters were trying to force the public to think as they were.

  • Higher Ed responsibility for anti-semistism
  • Posted by Charlotte Borst , Professor of History at Rhodes College on June 17, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • I am currently writing a book "Choosing the Student Body: Gender and Race and Admission to Medical School, 1920-70" --a part on the history of the MCAT has already been published (History of Education Q). Thus, I am familiar with the material in Professor Norwood's excellent book, and I believe we must come to terms with America's racialized past.. Beginning in the late 1920s, and continuing well into the WW2 years, many universities and their medical school admissions committees constructed a vision of a gendered racial profile for their students. With the rising profile of scientific research in the US, medicine and scientific research perported to be able to identify real "merit", yet the ideal "student body" was a product of substantial anti-semistism, anti-black and anti-Asian ideologies. This student body was also a product of a gendered construction--women found it much more difficult to get into medical school, and men who played sports were lauded by medical school deans as "real men." What Professor Norwood has documented with Harvard and even Saint Louis University in terms of their flirtation with the Nazis was true of their medical school admissions' policies. It should be remembered, however, that the Catholic Jesuit Universities (and their 5 medical schools) were also reacting to substantial anti-Catholic sentiment among the more elite Protestant majority.

  • Universities & the technology of power
  • Posted by Peter on June 17, 2009 at 8:45pm EDT
  • Unfortunately much of the outrage of both the history and the reaction is embedded in an unabashed and unself reflective liberal ideological view of universities as bastions of the enlightenment.

    Surely we can do better than that in our analysis of the function of universities in the production of knowledge and social relations.

    I would liked to have seen Norwood's research grounded more in a broader archeaology of the role of universities in the reproduction and revolutionizing of technologies of power.

  • Are we guilty?
  • Posted by Dr. Anonymous on June 18, 2009 at 5:45am EDT
  • I believe that Philosophy Prof and Libertarian make good points. After World War Two did our universities boycott Stalinist Russia (Soviet Union)? Did we and do we boycott Communist China? Do we boycott the state of Isreal? Certain academic activities, such as commemorating the founding of great universities or establishing and maintaining campus-abroad programs, should be encouraged no matter what the regime of the time.

  • Columbia's statement
  • Posted by justaguy , parent & taxpayer on June 19, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • Would this be the same Columbia University that welcomed holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with open arms in 2007?

  • Academic freedom
  • Posted by Dan on June 22, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • Not surprisingly academic freedom was brought up: there is a difference between discussing and promoting. Its also seems that the higher the intelligence the greater the ignorance in action. Knowledge is not wisdom.

    Higher intelligence has a greater responsibility. Just like when a serious injustice case is thrown out on a technicality - being clever does not necessarily mean being wise or prudent. Programming disaster and disorder versus instilling values and principles may be the same action but the intend, aim, goal, and outcome are very different. The justice system MUST evolve as the brightest lawyers sometimes do not speak values. Educational facilities and institutions have a grave role to play or society will be churning out clones of evil intent.

  • High IQ low intelligence
  • Posted by Dan , President at Community of self -reliance on June 22, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Not surprisingly academic freedom was brought up: there is a difference between discussing and promoting. Its also seems that the higher the intelligence the greater the ignorance in action. Knowledge is not wisdom.

    Higher intelligence has a greater responsibility. Just like when a serious injustice case is thrown out on a technicality - being clever does not necessarily mean being wise or prudent. Programming disaster and disorder versus instilling values and principles may be the same action but the intend, aim, goal, and outcome are very different. The justice system MUST evolve as the brightest lawyers sometimes do not speak values. Educational facilities and institutions have a grave role to play or society will be churning out clones of evil intent.