This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Malamud at Oregon State: A Digital Humanities Project

Pauling vs. The Barometer (1 of 2)

This page has paths:

Contents of this path:
1. Pauling's Thoughts on Spitzer
2. The Outcry for Academic Freedom
3. For Your Reconsideration
4. Inadequate Grounds for Dismissal ADDRESSED TO: President Strand | AFFILIATION: Oregon State College | LOCATION: Corvallis, OR | WRITER: Linus Pauling | CONTENTS: In his letter, Pauling calls out Strand and accuses him of firing Spitzer because he believed Spitzer was affiliated with communism. Pauling deems a political reason as unsatisfactory grounds for dismissal and argues that Strand misunderstood the message Spitzer was trying to convey in his letter to Chemical and Engineering News.
5. Pauling Appeals to Strand (1 of 2) ADDRESSED TO: President Strand | AFFILIATION: Oregon State College | LOCATION: Corvallis, OR | WRITER: Linus Pauling | CONTENTS: In his letter, Pauling conveys his concern regarding Strand’s failure to continue Spitzer’s employment. He chronicles their relationship, starting from how they met at Cornell University, where Pauling was a George Fisher Baker lecturer and Spitzer was a student. While Pauling does not agree with politics, he wants to defend Spitzer’s right to have his own beliefs.
7. Pauling's Price is Too High For Strand • ADDRESSED TO: Linus Pauling • AFFILIATION: California Institute of Technology • LOCATION: Pasadena, CA • WRITER: President Strand • CONTENTS: Strand responds to Pauling’s letter to him. Strand confirms that he took Spitzer’s article in the Chemical and Engineering News as affirmation of his affiliation with the communist party. Strand tells him that, “if by this action, Oregon State College has lost your respect and support, all I can is that your price is too high. We’ll have to get along without your aid”.
8. Pauling vs. The Barometer (1 of 2)
9. Pauling vs. The Barometer (2of 2)
10. Request for Publication in Chemical & Engineering News
11. Spitzer Detained in Europe
12. Spitzer Explains His European Disaster ADDRESSED TO: Editor of the New York Times | AFFILIATION: The New York Times | LOCATION: New York, NY | WRITER: Ralph Spitzer | CONTENTS: In his letter to the editor, Spitzer responds to The New York Times article, “U.S. Voids Passport of Savant Abroad”, which chronicled Spitzer’s detainment. Spitzer explains he was in Europe to present his paper about Isaac Newton and was preparing to go to England when he was seized by Dutch police on September 9th, 1950. The American Consul then gave Spitzer an invalidated passport and Spitzer was put on a ship against his will. Spitzer blames the actions of the State Department and calls for a protest against the American and Dutch government’s actions because they infringed upon his right to travel and study.
13. Pauling Calls for a Protest
14. No Guts • ADDRESSED TO: Linus Pauling • AFFILIATION: N/A • LOCATION: New York, NY • WRITER: Harlow Shapley (of the Harvard College Observatory) • CONTENTS: Shapley writes in regards to Pauling regarding Spitzer’s ejection from Europe. Shapley inquires whether the National Academy of Sciences or the American Association for the Advancement of Science can also join in the protest. Shapley ends the letter by writing “apparently the chemists of American officially haven’t guts enough to take action in this particular case?” which was later crossed out.
15. Joining the Protest
16. Support Given but Questions Raised WRITER: George Calingaert | AFFILIATION: Hobart and William Smith Colleges | LOCATION: Geneva, NY | ADDRESSED TO: Linus Pauling | CONTENTS: After reading the article about Spitzer’s passport situation, Calingaert writes to Pauling for more information. Calingaert wants to know why the State Department did that to Spitzer when he was not breaking any laws, how the Dutch imprisoned a peaceful foreign visitor, and how Spitzer is funding his travels as an unemployed man.
17. Questions for Spitzer ADDRESSED TO: Ralph Spitzer | AFFILIATION: N/A | LOCATION: New York, NY | WRITER: Linus Pauling | CONTENTS: As an advocate for Spitzer, Pauling has been fielding many questions regarding Spitzer’s detainment. Pauling writes to Spitzer to ask him two questions he cannot answer himself, which are whether Spitzer invalidated his passport by going to Czechoslovakia and whether Spitzer got into conflict with the Dutch Police by upsetting the Dutch government somehow.
18. Spitzer Responds to Inquiries ADDRESSED TO: Linus Pauling | AFFILIATION: N/A | LOCATION: N/A | WRITER: Ralph Spitzer | CONTENTS: Spitzer answers the questions Pauling raised in his letter. The first question, whether he was permitted to go to Czechoslovakia, was yes, his passport allowed him entry into the country. In regards to the second question about whether he upset the Dutch government, Spitzer answers no. He explains that he was “killing time waiting for my wife” by working on his paper and enjoying tourist activities. When his wife arrived, they went to the seashore for four days and as they were preparing to depart to England, the detainment fiasco occurred.
19. Petition to the State Department (1 of 6) WRITER: ? (Illegible) | AFFILIATION: National Council for the Arts, Sciences and Professions inc. | LOCATION: New York, NY | ADDRESSED TO: Linus Pauling | CONTENTS: The writer encloses his letter to Pauling with fifty signatures petitioning the State Department’s actions. The writer anticipates that a statement with the list of signers will be sent to the Secretary of State and offers to forward the documents if Pauling is unable to do so. The writer also suggests releasing a public statement as well as contacting journals such as Science and Nature. The American Association of Scientific Workers, A.A.A.S. and the National Executive Committee of ASP also anticipate getting involved.
25. Condemning the Department of State ADDRESSED TO: Department of State | AFFILIATION: Department of State | LOCATION: N/A | WRITER: N/A (likely spearheaded by Linus Pauling) | CONTENTS: The writer condemns the Department of State for restricting cultural and scientific interchange by interfering with the freedom of travel (and therefore the freedom of scientific investigation). The writer decries the Department of State for obstructing the advancement of knowledge and recommends that their first step be to revalidate Spitzer’s passport.