How Leaders of the University of Minnesota Used and Abused Power

A Deep Dive into Key Documents from Two Cases

INTRODUCTION

The stories of student activism and activists and the abuse of power by University administrators, regents, and anti-progressive politicians are found in the essays and documents of the website. We created a deep dive into two cases that appear in the essays. The first case reveals the strategies used by administrators to create racist policies to exclude African American students from taxpayer-supported housing while denying that these policies existed. The second case reveals how the Dean of Student Affairs sought the support of ultra-conservatives to appoint regents who shared his ideology while denying that he had a political agenda. The language of “race science” and “America First” nationalism drove these cases, even as these administrators claimed neutrality and rationalism for their actions.

The deep dive shares these histories in an interactive format. Where the exhibit’s essays take a high-level view, weaving many documents from the exhibit’s virtual archive together to tell a single narrative, this feature focuses closely on a handful of the most important documents. The histories revealed in “A Campus Divided” live here, in these letters, minutes, and articles. By pairing these documents with annotations that provide critical, line-by-line context, we hope to share our interpretations of these sources and shed light on an untold history of the University of Minnesota.

This deep dive invites you to consider how a historian, a journalist, a political analyst, or others might engage with documents in order to interpret them. The format underlines the fact that no document should be read as a static statement. Documents have historical contexts, exist in relationship to one another, and must be understood in light of the author and their audience.

These cases are about power—the power to displace African American students from housing, the power to create social segregation, and the power to determine whose needs the University must serve and whose should be diminished. They reveal the rationales used by administrators in the exercise of power, including lying and reneging on promises made to African American leaders. They also reveal that a Dean of Student Affairs, whose position allowed him to control political speech on campus, created an alliance with a political operative who continually sought to undermine the University of Minnesota. Together, they used all the political power available to them to influence the selection of regents who would further their mission.


Case 1

Racism Without Racists

Evading Responsibility for Segregated Taxpayer-Funded Housing at the University of Minnesota, 1930-1942


Higher education began to reflect the diversity of the nation and the state of Minnesota as the number of African Americans enrolled at the University of Minnesota increased in the 1920s and 1930s. The number of African American freshmen increased, for example, from 9 to 40 between 1935 and 1936. The University of Minnesota not only expanded its campus by building more classroom buildings and labs, but also increased the number of dormitories on or near campus for students. Who was entitled to live in this housing became a question of race in 1931, when the first African American male student attempted to move into the new men’s dormitory, Pioneer Hall. On his first day on campus, John Pinkett, Jr. met the University President, Lotus D. Coffman, who came to discuss the student’s future there. Pinkett left the next day under pressure to move into the Phyllis Wheatley House, an African American settlement house in North Minneapolis. For most of the next decade, African American students were denied admission to on-campus, taxpayer-funded housing. Yet the administration and the Board of Regents insisted that “no policy” existed that denied African American male and female students the right to live on campus. The documents and narrative below can be found in the essay on segregated housing on the website. This “deep dive” will allow a close reading of some of the important documents also found here.

How was segregation created and maintained in taxpayer-funded student housing while administrators denied that a policy existed, or insisted that the Regents of the University of Minnesota created no such policy?

W.E.B. Du Bois, a philosopher, writer, journalist, and activist asked in 1903 in The Souls of Black Folk, “How does it feel to be a problem?” At the University of Minnesota, “Negro” students were a “problem.” So much so, that the papers of University presidents included folders labeled “Negro,” as they also included ones marked “Jews.” Those folders were filled with letters, memos, and administrative reports, all related to dealing with those students whose very identities and existence rendered them “problems” for the University of Minnesota. When administrators insisted that African American students could not be housed like other students, for example, then they became a problem to be solved in a variety of ways—placed away from campus in a settlement house, put into a racially segregated house off campus, or simply kept out of housing for white male and female students.

W.E.B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk: Essays and Sketches. 1903. New York: Dover, 1994.

From 1931 to 1938, African American students were ejected from Pioneer Hall, Nurses Hall, and cooperative cottages. University presidents and deans of students were involved, as well as the Dean of the Medical School, the Comptroller, the Director of Housing, the heads of dormitories and cottages, and to some extent the Regents. All enforced, or occasionally challenged, what was not a “policy”: that housing segregation required African American students to live outside of taxpayer-funded residences.

These five documents provide some of the evidence of how racial segregation was administratively rationalized, and in one case, reversed. Each reveals an administrative commitment, with one exception, to avoid any public stand on housing and race.

A similar evasion occurred in 1935 when the Board of Regents, according to their minutes, “voted to continue such policy” regarding the housing of students, and at the same time that the “administration exercised judgement and final decision as to where and how students should reside.” Who had the final say on student housing? Why did authority wobble back and forth between the administration and the Regents?

How was racism at the University of Minnesota served by evasion and the lack of a clearly articulated rationale? How was power exercised by the University’s leadership to enforce social and housing segregation?

The examples discussed here may be found in the essay “Segregated Student Housing and the Activists Who Defeated It”.

The Participants

Anne Dudley Blitz

Dean of Women, University of Minnesota

Dean Blitz was one of the major enforcers of segregated housing for women. She expressed particular concern about allowing any woman into any University residence for fear it would set a precedent to allow other African American students access to on-campus housing. She was particularly concerned about the possibility of African American and white students socializing in common spaces or dances.

W. Gertrude Brown

Head Resident, Phyllis Wheatley House

Brown was called by the University repeatedly to house African American students at the Settlement House, or to find lodging for them with families.

Lotus D. Coffman

President, University of Minnesota

President Coffman made the earliest decisions about segregated student housing and rationalized it on the basis of “race science” principles regarding the importance of the separation of the races. He was supported by the Board of Regents.

Guy Stanton Ford

Dean of the Graduate School; Acting President; President, University of Minnesota

In 1937, then Acting President Ford reversed the policy on segregated student housing. He was the only leader of the University of Minnesota who insisted that integration was a moral responsibility during this period.

William Middlebrook

Comptroller, University of Minnesota

Middlebrook oversaw all housing at the University. He too was concerned that the admission of any African American student to campus housing would create a precedent for integrating housing. He was the final authority, just below the University president, for decisions on housing.

John Pinkett, Jr.

Freshman student assigned to and removed from Pioneer Hall

Pinkett was at the center of the first storm around residential segregation.

Lena Olive Smith

President, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Minneapolis Chapter

Smith protested President Coffman’s decision to remove John Pinkett, Jr. from Pioneer Hall.

Malcolm Willey

Dean and Assistant to the President

In his role as assistant to University Presidents Coffman, Ford, and Coffey, Willey was called on to enforce a number of policies related to housing and segregation.

Roy Wilkins

Executive Director, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

As an alumnus of the University of Minnesota and a national civil rights leader, Wilkins wrote to President Coffman in 1936 to protest segregated housing at the University. He wrote to President Coffman about other concerns on the campus related to race.

The exchange

document 1

President Coffman’s Reply to the Head of the Minneapolis Chapter of the NAACP About the Removal of an African American Student from Pioneer Hall

October 5, 1931

Lotus D. Coffman

President, University of Minnesota

Lena Olive Smith

President, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Minneapolis Chapter

83

Coffman received a letter of protest from the Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP regarding the removal of an African American student. He asserted that the races have not lived together, and should not, at the University of Minnesota.

“My dear Mr. Smith”

Lena Olive Smith was, of course, a woman. Perhaps she used initials, rather than her first name, in a world where women, let alone an African American woman, were not taken seriously.

“John Pinkett, Jr. made a reservation in our University dormitory. The difficulties involved in this situation were pointed out to him. He stated that he preferred to live with those of his own color.”

The presidential papers of the University of Minnesota archive is the primary source for what happened in Pioneer Hall. President Coffman’s version of these events is suspect because there are no other sources that support what he stated. However, a number of sources support the version of events in which the new freshman was pressured to leave. Pinkett’s father wrote a letter condemning his son’s removal from the dormitory. Arthur Weisiger, a colleague of John Pinkett, Sr.’s at the National Benefit’s Life Insurance Company also wrote to Coffman. He explained that as an alumnus of the University of Minnesota he had encouraged Pinkett, Sr. to send his son to his alma mater.

Smith, as president of the Minneapolis NAACP, also protested the action. Coffman does not spell out the “difficulties in the situation.” Was his concern that the “difficulties” were for the white students, and what were they?

Pinkett’s letter may be found here.
Weisiger’s letter may be accessed at (Weisiger to Coffman 10/05/1931 University Archives, Office of the President, Administration, Box 20, folder 19 “Negro, 1920-1936”, Umedia pages 25)
“No rule has ever actually been adopted denying colored students admission to the University dormitories. No colored student has applied before for admission to the University dormitories. The good sense and sound judgment of the colored students and their parents with regard to this matter has been a source of constant gratification.”

In this letter, President Coffman began to create ambiguity, and to adopt a strategy of evasion about where African American students could live. At the time he wrote this letter in 1931, there was a single woman’s dormitory and a new men’s dormitory. There were likely more than fifty students of color at the University of Minnesota. President Coffman requested that Dr. Ruth Boynton, head of student health care, count the number of “Negro” and Jewish freshmen who received physicals the very year of this letter. He was keenly aware of the number of students who were regarded as a “problem.”

These documents may be found here.

 

His claim of a lack of interest on the part of “colored students and their parents” to live on campus and in integrated housing is overstated. It also belies the very reason that he wrote the response in the first place. A student requested a place in the dormitory. An African American parent was aggrieved by his son’s removal. President Coffman denied these facts.

Coffman’s statement of “constant gratification” for segregated housing underlines his deep, and what will be persistent, commitment to all forms of social segregation.

“The University of Minnesota has never discriminated against colored students. It has admitted them to its classes without question. They have uniformly attended all public functions that they have desired to attend.”

African American students attended the University of Minnesota beginning in the late nineteenth century. Housing was nearly impossible for them unless they lived at home or were able to stay at the Wheatley House. African American students appeared to have little access to the life of the campus. The fraternity and sorority system was segregated by race and religion. African Americans are virtually invisible in the yearbook, the Gopher. Roy Wilkins served as the Night Editor to the Minnesota Daily in the 1920s, but there were virtually no African Americans working on the newspaper in the 1930s. Restaurants around the campus did not serve African American students, according to a report in the Minnesota Daily by the YMCA.

“The races have never lived together nor have they ever sought to live together.
The relationships which we have had between the races at this institution for more than 20 years have been wholesome.”

President Coffman avidly embraced eugenics, a widespread movement in England and the United States in the late nineteenth and first decades of the twentieth century. Its ideas were closely linked to “race science” and other misappropriations of Darwinian evolution. Together, they asserted that a racial hierarchy was the natural order, and that it should be maintained by control of women’s reproduction. Politicians, religious leaders, and eugenicists exhorted white Protestant women to reproduce abundantly, while advocating for the control of the fertility of women of color, Catholic and Jewish immigrants, and those with disabilities.

Race scientists expressed constant anxiety about racial mixing for fear that if people of different races married, it could endanger the “health” and “wholesomeness” of the white race. “Wholesome,” as used by Coffman, was a eugenics movement term that focused on the ideal health of a white population. The anxiety over integrated housing persisted throughout the decade and beyond at the University of Minnesota. President Coffman was the architect of this vision.

Not only did President Coffman consistently hold that racial segregation was “natural,” another concept embraced by race “science,” but he falsely claimed that African Americans accepted this vision. The historical record demonstrates otherwise. By 1931, the Urban League of Minnesota had lobbied successfully for the integration of the School of Nursing to allow African American women to attend. Long before that, in 1885, the Minnesota State Legislature adopted an Equal Accommodations Act, and expanded its reach between 1887 and 1943 to “guarantee equal public accommodations to all citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude,” and subsequently national origin or religion. These laws undermine his false assertion that the “races” had not sought to live together.

Suggested reading on eugenics:

Sharon Leon. An Image of God: The Catholic Struggle with Eugenics. Chicago: U Chicago Press, 2013.

Lee D. Baker. From Savage to Negro: Anthropology and the Construction of Race 1896-1954. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.

Coffman received a letter of protest from the Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP regarding the removal of an African American student. He asserted that the races have not lived together, and should not, at the University of Minnesota.

“My dear Mr. Smith”

Lena Olive Smith was, of course, a woman. Perhaps she used initials, rather than her first name, in a world where women, let alone an African American woman, were not taken seriously.

“John Pinkett, Jr. made a reservation in our University dormitory. The difficulties involved in this situation were pointed out to him. He stated that he preferred to live with those of his own color.”

The presidential papers of the University of Minnesota archive is the primary source for what happened in Pioneer Hall. President Coffman’s version of these events is suspect because there are no other sources that support what he stated. However, a number of sources support the version of events in which the new freshman was pressured to leave. Pinkett’s father wrote a letter condemning his son’s removal from the dormitory. Arthur Weisiger, a colleague of John Pinkett, Sr.’s at the National Benefit’s Life Insurance Company also wrote to Coffman. He explained that as an alumnus of the University of Minnesota he had encouraged Pinkett, Sr. to send his son to his alma mater.

Smith, as president of the Minneapolis NAACP, also protested the action. Coffman does not spell out the “difficulties in the situation.” Was his concern that the “difficulties” were for the white students, and what were they?

Pinkett’s letter may be found here.
Weisiger’s letter may be accessed at (Weisiger to Coffman 10/05/1931 University Archives, Office of the President, Administration, Box 20, folder 19 “Negro, 1920-1936”, Umedia pages 25)
“No rule has ever actually been adopted denying colored students admission to the University dormitories. No colored student has applied before for admission to the University dormitories. The good sense and sound judgment of the colored students and their parents with regard to this matter has been a source of constant gratification.”

In this letter, President Coffman began to create ambiguity, and to adopt a strategy of evasion about where African American students could live. At the time he wrote this letter in 1931, there was a single woman’s dormitory and a new men’s dormitory. There were likely more than fifty students of color at the University of Minnesota. President Coffman requested that Dr. Ruth Boynton, head of student health care, count the number of “Negro” and Jewish freshmen who received physicals the very year of this letter. He was keenly aware of the number of students who were regarded as a “problem.”

These documents may be found here.

 

His claim of a lack of interest on the part of “colored students and their parents” to live on campus and in integrated housing is overstated. It also belies the very reason that he wrote the response in the first place. A student requested a place in the dormitory. An African American parent was aggrieved by his son’s removal. President Coffman denied these facts.

Coffman’s statement of “constant gratification” for segregated housing underlines his deep, and what will be persistent, commitment to all forms of social segregation.

“The University of Minnesota has never discriminated against colored students. It has admitted them to its classes without question. They have uniformly attended all public functions that they have desired to attend.”

African American students attended the University of Minnesota beginning in the late nineteenth century. Housing was nearly impossible for them unless they lived at home or were able to stay at the Wheatley House. African American students appeared to have little access to the life of the campus. The fraternity and sorority system was segregated by race and religion. African Americans are virtually invisible in the yearbook, the Gopher. Roy Wilkins served as the Night Editor to the Minnesota Daily in the 1920s, but there were virtually no African Americans working on the newspaper in the 1930s. Restaurants around the campus did not serve African American students, according to a report in the Minnesota Daily by the YMCA.

“The races have never lived together nor have they ever sought to live together.
The relationships which we have had between the races at this institution for more than 20 years have been wholesome.”

President Coffman avidly embraced eugenics, a widespread movement in England and the United States in the late nineteenth and first decades of the twentieth century. Its ideas were closely linked to “race science” and other misappropriations of Darwinian evolution. Together, they asserted that a racial hierarchy was the natural order, and that it should be maintained by control of women’s reproduction. Politicians, religious leaders, and eugenicists exhorted white Protestant women to reproduce abundantly, while advocating for the control of the fertility of women of color, Catholic and Jewish immigrants, and those with disabilities.

Race scientists expressed constant anxiety about racial mixing for fear that if people of different races married, it could endanger the “health” and “wholesomeness” of the white race. “Wholesome,” as used by Coffman, was a eugenics movement term that focused on the ideal health of a white population. The anxiety over integrated housing persisted throughout the decade and beyond at the University of Minnesota. President Coffman was the architect of this vision.

Not only did President Coffman consistently hold that racial segregation was “natural,” another concept embraced by race “science,” but he falsely claimed that African Americans accepted this vision. The historical record demonstrates otherwise. By 1931, the Urban League of Minnesota had lobbied successfully for the integration of the School of Nursing to allow African American women to attend. Long before that, in 1885, the Minnesota State Legislature adopted an Equal Accommodations Act, and expanded its reach between 1887 and 1943 to “guarantee equal public accommodations to all citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude,” and subsequently national origin or religion. These laws undermine his false assertion that the “races” had not sought to live together.

Suggested reading on eugenics:

Sharon Leon. An Image of God: The Catholic Struggle with Eugenics. Chicago: U Chicago Press, 2013.

Lee D. Baker. From Savage to Negro: Anthropology and the Construction of Race 1896-1954. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.

The exchange

document 2

President Coffman Rejects Integrating Pioneer Hall

August 1, 1935

Lotus D. Coffman

President, University of Minnesota

Theodore Christianson, Jr.

President, All-University Council

83

In response to a request from the All University Council, President Coffman and the Board of Regents declared that the policy of segregating the races in taxpayer-funded student housing was rational and desirable.

“Gentlemen
Last May I received a copy of the report from the Council suggesting that a Negro be admitted to Pioneer Hall this next year as an experiment. This report has received careful and thoughtful consideration by me and by the Board of Regents.”

In 1935, the All University Council, the name for the student government of the University of Minnesota, appointed a subcommittee consisting of students Howard Kahn, Arnold Walker, and Robert Loevinger. These men (two white and Jewish, and one African American), were strong allies in the fight to integrate student housing. Their eight-page, thoroughly researched report set out a rationale for the integration of the dormitory based on Minnesota State law, values, and the views of undergraduates. Their entire rationale was directed to a single request—the admission of one African American male student to live in Pioneer Hall in the upcoming fall semester.

The Regents discussed the proposal at their July, 1935 meeting.

The document can be found here.
“The Regents are unanimously of the opinion that the general policy with regard to the races which has been followed at this institution since its beginning, has been rational and should be continued.”

President Coffman referred to a “policy” with regard to the races. He did not say what the policy was, or what made it “general” rather than “particular.” He did not say what its source was, nor have researchers located it. Again, evoking race science, he appealed to its rationalism. The position was identical to the one he stated in his correspondence with John Pinkett, Sr. and Lena Olive Smith. Many administrators in subsequent years would go on to claim this “policy” as the basis for segregation, and many other administrators would go on to assert that the University of Minnesota had no policy on residential segregation.

“The University has maintained consistently that it should provide residential conditions in so far as possible for the accommodation of the students of the University, and that final judgment as to where students may live or may not live should reside with it.”

The 1932 policy that President Coffman refers to here required all undergraduate students to live in approved housing. That policy instituted control over students’ lives by limiting the places the administration considered appropriate housing—University-approved boarding houses, dormitories, or fraternities and sororities. This policy was a direct effort to control the morality of students. Its other effect was to make it much harder for African American and Jewish students who did not live in the Twin Cities to find residences that would accept them. If African American students could not live in dormitories, if boarding houses could refuse them with University approval, and because the Phyllis Wheatley Settlement House had a very small number of beds available to them, they were blocked from attending the University of Minnesota. Residence became a way to manage students of color and Jews.

All that the administration was willing to acknowledge was the need for more housing, which came to mean housing that segregated African American students from white ones.

“It is the unanimous opinion of the Board of Regents that the housing of Negro students in Pioneer Hall at present would not be conducive to their best interests, nor to the interests of the other students who may be residing there.”

Four years after President Coffman declared that it was natural to separate the races residentially, the Board of Regents formalized social segregation on the grounds that “it would not be conducive to their (African American students’) best interests,” despite the fact that African American students, among others, made this very request.

In March and April of 2019, members of the Board of Regents were asked to consider the findings of the Report of the Task Force on Building Names and Institutional History appointed by President Eric Kaler. They insisted that this statement of support from the Regents in 1935 constituted proof that no administrator was responsible for segregated housing on the campus. Some claimed that Coffman reluctantly agreed to a policy they initiated, although no regent provided proof. The July 31, 1935 minutes include one brief statement:

“The Regents, having under consideration the general policy with regard to the races existing at the institution since its beginning whereby the administration exercised discretion and final judgment as to where and how students should reside, voted to continue such policy and expressed unanimous opinion that the housing of Negro students in Pioneer Hall would not be conducive to their best interests nor to the interests of the other students now residing there.”

Minutes of the Board of Regents University of Minnesota, July 31, 1935, p. 20.

The University Board of Regents insisted that President Coffman bore no responsibility for segregated housing—but the proof is nowhere to be found in this statement. The Regents simply reassert their support for policy initiated by President Coffman. There is no documentation of a “general policy with regard to the races existing at the institution since its beginning.” It gives the administration final judgment as to where and how students should reside.

You may review the Report on the UMN website
here.
“The Regents recognize that deficiencies exist at the University with regard to housing and they wish to correct them as rapidly as possible for all students, including Negro students.”

Planning for housing continually assumed racial segregation. In 1936, Comptroller William Middlebrook sought information from the Office of Housing about creating an off-campus house exclusively for African American men. He did this on behalf of President Coffman. However, the University of Minnesota did not select the best way to house African American students until 1937, which was to open student housing to all students.

In response to a request from the All University Council, President Coffman and the Board of Regents declared that the policy of segregating the races in taxpayer-funded student housing was rational and desirable.

“Gentlemen
Last May I received a copy of the report from the Council suggesting that a Negro be admitted to Pioneer Hall this next year as an experiment. This report has received careful and thoughtful consideration by me and by the Board of Regents.”

In 1935, the All University Council, the name for the student government of the University of Minnesota, appointed a subcommittee consisting of students Howard Kahn, Arnold Walker, and Robert Loevinger. These men (two white and Jewish, and one African American), were strong allies in the fight to integrate student housing. Their eight-page, thoroughly researched report set out a rationale for the integration of the dormitory based on Minnesota State law, values, and the views of undergraduates. Their entire rationale was directed to a single request—the admission of one African American male student to live in Pioneer Hall in the upcoming fall semester.

The Regents discussed the proposal at their July, 1935 meeting.

The document can be found here.
“The Regents are unanimously of the opinion that the general policy with regard to the races which has been followed at this institution since its beginning, has been rational and should be continued.”

President Coffman referred to a “policy” with regard to the races. He did not say what the policy was, or what made it “general” rather than “particular.” He did not say what its source was, nor have researchers located it. Again, evoking race science, he appealed to its rationalism. The position was identical to the one he stated in his correspondence with John Pinkett, Sr. and Lena Olive Smith. Many administrators in subsequent years would go on to claim this “policy” as the basis for segregation, and many other administrators would go on to assert that the University of Minnesota had no policy on residential segregation.

“The University has maintained consistently that it should provide residential conditions in so far as possible for the accommodation of the students of the University, and that final judgment as to where students may live or may not live should reside with it.”

The 1932 policy that President Coffman refers to here required all undergraduate students to live in approved housing. That policy instituted control over students’ lives by limiting the places the administration considered appropriate housing—University-approved boarding houses, dormitories, or fraternities and sororities. This policy was a direct effort to control the morality of students. Its other effect was to make it much harder for African American and Jewish students who did not live in the Twin Cities to find residences that would accept them. If African American students could not live in dormitories, if boarding houses could refuse them with University approval, and because the Phyllis Wheatley Settlement House had a very small number of beds available to them, they were blocked from attending the University of Minnesota. Residence became a way to manage students of color and Jews.

All that the administration was willing to acknowledge was the need for more housing, which came to mean housing that segregated African American students from white ones.

“It is the unanimous opinion of the Board of Regents that the housing of Negro students in Pioneer Hall at present would not be conducive to their best interests, nor to the interests of the other students who may be residing there.”

Four years after President Coffman declared that it was natural to separate the races residentially, the Board of Regents formalized social segregation on the grounds that “it would not be conducive to their (African American students’) best interests,” despite the fact that African American students, among others, made this very request.

In March and April of 2019, members of the Board of Regents were asked to consider the findings of the Report of the Task Force on Building Names and Institutional History appointed by President Eric Kaler. They insisted that this statement of support from the Regents in 1935 constituted proof that no administrator was responsible for segregated housing on the campus. Some claimed that Coffman reluctantly agreed to a policy they initiated, although no regent provided proof. The July 31, 1935 minutes include one brief statement:

“The Regents, having under consideration the general policy with regard to the races existing at the institution since its beginning whereby the administration exercised discretion and final judgment as to where and how students should reside, voted to continue such policy and expressed unanimous opinion that the housing of Negro students in Pioneer Hall would not be conducive to their best interests nor to the interests of the other students now residing there.”

Minutes of the Board of Regents University of Minnesota, July 31, 1935, p. 20.

The University Board of Regents insisted that President Coffman bore no responsibility for segregated housing—but the proof is nowhere to be found in this statement. The Regents simply reassert their support for policy initiated by President Coffman. There is no documentation of a “general policy with regard to the races existing at the institution since its beginning.” It gives the administration final judgment as to where and how students should reside.

You may review the Report on the UMN website
here.
“The Regents recognize that deficiencies exist at the University with regard to housing and they wish to correct them as rapidly as possible for all students, including Negro students.”

Planning for housing continually assumed racial segregation. In 1936, Comptroller William Middlebrook sought information from the Office of Housing about creating an off-campus house exclusively for African American men. He did this on behalf of President Coffman. However, the University of Minnesota did not select the best way to house African American students until 1937, which was to open student housing to all students.

The exchange

document 3

Lotus Coffman responds to Roy Wilkins’ letter protesting the Removal of African American Women students from Campus Housing

June 30, 1936

Lotus D. Coffman

President, University of Minnesota

Roy Wilkins

Executive Director, NAACP

83

President Coffman’s response to alumnus and civil rights leader Roy Wilkins misrepresented the issues of segregated housing on the campus. Mr. Wilkins expressed his concern about African American students being denied the right to live in taxpayer-funded student housing. Coffman’s letter shifted again the University’s stand on integrated housing.

“In your letter you stated that the dean of women had issued an order barring colored women students from the university dormitories.

 

The University has never had any regulation with regard to admitting or refusing to admit colored students to the dormitories.”

In 1936, Roy Wilkins, a graduate of the University of Minnesota in 1923, served in the national leadership of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). His prominence as a civil rights leader was clear to President Coffman.

Mr. Wilkins did not say how he learned about Dean of Women Anne Blitz denying housing to three African American women in 1933 and 1936. There was a Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP, and Lena Olive Smith, its leader, had been involved in campus concerns about housing since 1931. She was active in efforts to integrate housing in Minneapolis as well, and had appealed to the NAACP for assistance. She might have been the source of this information.

The previous year, the Board of Regents reiterated its support for a “general policy regarding the races,” and to keep an African American student out of Pioneer Hall. In this letter, President Coffman denied that any policy existed about “admitting” or refusing to admit colored students to dormitories. He failed to explain why the three women students were denied housing.

“There have been two colored students who sought admission to the dormitory; one of these came from Washington; he was sent here by a national organization for the purpose of creating an issue.”

By 1936, John Pinkett, Jr., Norman Lyght, Ahwana Fiti, Audrey Beatrize, and Elizabeth Murphy had all been denied housing because they were African Americans. The Dean of Women was involved in the denial of housing to all of the women, who were told that it was because of a “Board of Regents policy.”

President Lotus Coffman began to insist that John Pinkett, Jr. was sent by a “national organization” at some point after his initial encounter with the student. There is no documentary proof for this statement. Contrary to this assertion, there are letters from Pinkett, Sr. about his outrage at his son’s removal from the dormitory, and a letter from a family friend, an alumnus of the University of Minnesota, who had recommended that the Pinkett family send their son to a northern University. Pinkett, Sr. and he worked together.

“Another was the case of a young woman who came here last summer and who entered the women’s dormitory. I knew nothing about it until after the summer session was over. I found that she had been advised by the dean of women to find other quarters. At the close of the summer session this student came in to discuss the matter with me; she seemed to me to be a very capable and intelligent woman.”

President Coffman provided an interesting story about an unnamed student. It is unclear why the student remained when asked by the Dean of Women to leave. No correspondence exists in the papers of Anne Blitz, Dean of Women, about her asking a summer session student to leave a dormitory. Why did President Coffman choose to meet with her at the end of the summer session?

The reason that the Dean of Women would have asked her to leave was because she, Comptroller Middlebrook, Dean Willey and others remained concerned that the presence of any African American student in any dormitory could be construed as a precedent for other African American students to claim the right to live in taxpayer-funded housing.

President Coffman’s response to alumnus and civil rights leader Roy Wilkins misrepresented the issues of segregated housing on the campus. Mr. Wilkins expressed his concern about African American students being denied the right to live in taxpayer-funded student housing. Coffman’s letter shifted again the University’s stand on integrated housing.

“In your letter you stated that the dean of women had issued an order barring colored women students from the university dormitories.

 

The University has never had any regulation with regard to admitting or refusing to admit colored students to the dormitories.”

In 1936, Roy Wilkins, a graduate of the University of Minnesota in 1923, served in the national leadership of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). His prominence as a civil rights leader was clear to President Coffman.

Mr. Wilkins did not say how he learned about Dean of Women Anne Blitz denying housing to three African American women in 1933 and 1936. There was a Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP, and Lena Olive Smith, its leader, had been involved in campus concerns about housing since 1931. She was active in efforts to integrate housing in Minneapolis as well, and had appealed to the NAACP for assistance. She might have been the source of this information.

The previous year, the Board of Regents reiterated its support for a “general policy regarding the races,” and to keep an African American student out of Pioneer Hall. In this letter, President Coffman denied that any policy existed about “admitting” or refusing to admit colored students to dormitories. He failed to explain why the three women students were denied housing.

“There have been two colored students who sought admission to the dormitory; one of these came from Washington; he was sent here by a national organization for the purpose of creating an issue.”

By 1936, John Pinkett, Jr., Norman Lyght, Ahwana Fiti, Audrey Beatrize, and Elizabeth Murphy had all been denied housing because they were African Americans. The Dean of Women was involved in the denial of housing to all of the women, who were told that it was because of a “Board of Regents policy.”

President Lotus Coffman began to insist that John Pinkett, Jr. was sent by a “national organization” at some point after his initial encounter with the student. There is no documentary proof for this statement. Contrary to this assertion, there are letters from Pinkett, Sr. about his outrage at his son’s removal from the dormitory, and a letter from a family friend, an alumnus of the University of Minnesota, who had recommended that the Pinkett family send their son to a northern University. Pinkett, Sr. and he worked together.

“Another was the case of a young woman who came here last summer and who entered the women’s dormitory. I knew nothing about it until after the summer session was over. I found that she had been advised by the dean of women to find other quarters. At the close of the summer session this student came in to discuss the matter with me; she seemed to me to be a very capable and intelligent woman.”

President Coffman provided an interesting story about an unnamed student. It is unclear why the student remained when asked by the Dean of Women to leave. No correspondence exists in the papers of Anne Blitz, Dean of Women, about her asking a summer session student to leave a dormitory. Why did President Coffman choose to meet with her at the end of the summer session?

The reason that the Dean of Women would have asked her to leave was because she, Comptroller Middlebrook, Dean Willey and others remained concerned that the presence of any African American student in any dormitory could be construed as a precedent for other African American students to claim the right to live in taxpayer-funded housing.

20
“There has been a Negro sorority and also a Negro fraternity at which most of the Negro students have lived. The local leaders of the Negro race apparently have preferred that separate living quarters be provided and they have undertaken to provide them on their own account.”

President Coffman persisted in misrepresenting the perspectives of African American students, the NAACP, the local black press, and the All University Council. According to Professor John Wright, whose father attended the University of Minnesota in the 1930s, there was no Negro fraternity house in that decade. John Wright attended the University in the 1960s and no Negro fraternity house existed. There was a Negro sorority, Kappa Alpha Kappa, Eta chapter. A circa 1931 photograph showed members seated together in what may have been a sorority house. The photograph appeared in Young Gifted and Black: Ninety Years of Experience and Perceptions of African American Students at the University of Minnesota 1882-1972, a publication of the General College.

“However, the University now has a building of its own in which Negro students who are not members of the fraternity or of the sorority may live.”

The University of Minnesota did not own a building where “Negro students” would live, although Comptroller Middlebrook did request information about the availability of a property that the University owned for that purpose. It was not until 1942 that the University created a house “for that purpose,” without asking the African American students assigned to it if they wished to live in a segregated house. The existence of that house created a massive student protest because it was a segregated facility.

“I doubt very much whether any serious criticism would arise in case Negro students lived in the dormitories.”

President Coffman suggests that integrating “Negro students” in dormitories would not create serious criticism. However, he never took any action to support that statement. In 1934, he wrote to the Secretary of the Farmer-Labor Party, who complained about segregation and that the University had a “right” to include or exclude students from dormitories. It would be “an act of folly,” he wrote, “to place a student—even in the name of liberty—under conditions which would be inimical to his social and intellectual development.” This was hardly the attitude of an administrator committed to integration.

Coffman to Harmon 12/14/1934; University Archives, Office of the President, Administration, Box 20, folder 19 “Negro, 1920-1936”, Umedia pages 114-115

In a single letter to a national civil rights leader, President Coffman denied that any policy existed that hindered or allowed African American students to reside in student housing. He understated the number of those students who were removed from student housing. He insisted that African American leaders wanted students to live in segregated housing. He lied about the existence of a segregated house for African American men as well as the presence of residential Black fraternities, and concluded that someday “Negro students” would live in dormitories, as though he supported a change to integrate students of different races.

Coffman engaged in evasion and outright lies. He used his position as president and his power at the University of Minnesota to deny the reality of segregation and take responsibility for it.

“There has been a Negro sorority and also a Negro fraternity at which most of the Negro students have lived. The local leaders of the Negro race apparently have preferred that separate living quarters be provided and they have undertaken to provide them on their own account.”

President Coffman persisted in misrepresenting the perspectives of African American students, the NAACP, the local black press, and the All University Council. According to Professor John Wright, whose father attended the University of Minnesota in the 1930s, there was no Negro fraternity house in that decade. John Wright attended the University in the 1960s and no Negro fraternity house existed. There was a Negro sorority, Kappa Alpha Kappa, Eta chapter. A circa 1931 photograph showed members seated together in what may have been a sorority house. The photograph appeared in Young Gifted and Black: Ninety Years of Experience and Perceptions of African American Students at the University of Minnesota 1882-1972, a publication of the General College.

“However, the University now has a building of its own in which Negro students who are not members of the fraternity or of the sorority may live.”

The University of Minnesota did not own a building where “Negro students” would live, although Comptroller Middlebrook did request information about the availability of a property that the University owned for that purpose. It was not until 1942 that the University created a house “for that purpose,” without asking the African American students assigned to it if they wished to live in a segregated house. The existence of that house created a massive student protest because it was a segregated facility.

“I doubt very much whether any serious criticism would arise in case Negro students lived in the dormitories.”

President Coffman suggests that integrating “Negro students” in dormitories would not create serious criticism. However, he never took any action to support that statement. In 1934, he wrote to the Secretary of the Farmer-Labor Party, who complained about segregation and that the University had a “right” to include or exclude students from dormitories. It would be “an act of folly,” he wrote, “to place a student—even in the name of liberty—under conditions which would be inimical to his social and intellectual development.” This was hardly the attitude of an administrator committed to integration.

Coffman to Harmon 12/14/1934; University Archives, Office of the President, Administration, Box 20, folder 19 “Negro, 1920-1936”, Umedia pages 114-115

In a single letter to a national civil rights leader, President Coffman denied that any policy existed that hindered or allowed African American students to reside in student housing. He understated the number of those students who were removed from student housing. He insisted that African American leaders wanted students to live in segregated housing. He lied about the existence of a segregated house for African American men as well as the presence of residential Black fraternities, and concluded that someday “Negro students” would live in dormitories, as though he supported a change to integrate students of different races.

Coffman engaged in evasion and outright lies. He used his position as president and his power at the University of Minnesota to deny the reality of segregation and take responsibility for it.

The exchange

document 4

“U Policy Permits Negroes to Use Housing Units”

February 1, 1938

Guy Stanton Ford

Dean of the Graduate School; 
Acting President; President, University of Minnesota

90

President Ford turned to the Minnesota Daily to reiterate the announcement that student housing would now be integrated. He had originally informed administrators of the change in housing policy. As he noted in the article, that change was ignored when an African American student was again excluded from a women’s cooperative college. He used the Minnesota Daily as a vehicle to widely spread information about housing and his commitment to integration, including his memo to Comptroller Middlebrook. Serving as the president of the University of Minnesota in 1937 appeared to be insufficient to change the behavior of administrators in charge of housing, who appeared to remain committed to segregation. Ford had to persist in enforcing the right of African American students to live on campus.

“The Board of Regents has never taken any action excluding Negroes from housing facilities controlled by it.”

In a letter to Comptroller William Middlebrook, who oversaw all student housing, Acting President Ford stated that all student dormitories would be open to “Negro students.” Acting President Ford, however, emphasized that no “action” was taken to exclude these students from housing in the past.

Despite seven years of segregation, Ford continued to insist that no policy existed on exclusion of “these students” from housing controlled by the University.

“This policy and these principles happen to be those I adhere to personally but I should adhere to them as an obligation of the acting president of the University of Minnesota even if I disagreed with them.”

Acting President Ford’s assertion of an African American student’s right to live in University dormitories was unprecedented in this decade. He took this stand as a University president, asserting that it was incumbent to his position, and not only as a personal stand.

President Ford assumed the power of his office as the leader of a public university, which should be serving all Minnesotans. He made a moral statement and an assertion of his formal power. This was the sole statement made by a University of Minnesota administrator in favor of housing integration.

President Ford turned to the Minnesota Daily to reiterate the announcement that student housing would now be integrated. He had originally informed administrators of the change in housing policy. As he noted in the article, that change was ignored when an African American student was again excluded from a women’s cooperative college. He used the Minnesota Daily as a vehicle to widely spread information about housing and his commitment to integration, including his memo to Comptroller Middlebrook. Serving as the president of the University of Minnesota in 1937 appeared to be insufficient to change the behavior of administrators in charge of housing, who appeared to remain committed to segregation. Ford had to persist in enforcing the right of African American students to live on campus.

“The Board of Regents has never taken any action excluding Negroes from housing facilities controlled by it.”

In a letter to Comptroller William Middlebrook, who oversaw all student housing, Acting President Ford stated that all student dormitories would be open to “Negro students.” Acting President Ford, however, emphasized that no “action” was taken to exclude these students from housing in the past.

Despite seven years of segregation, Ford continued to insist that no policy existed on exclusion of “these students” from housing controlled by the University.

“This policy and these principles happen to be those I adhere to personally but I should adhere to them as an obligation of the acting president of the University of Minnesota even if I disagreed with them.”

Acting President Ford’s assertion of an African American student’s right to live in University dormitories was unprecedented in this decade. He took this stand as a University president, asserting that it was incumbent to his position, and not only as a personal stand.

President Ford assumed the power of his office as the leader of a public university, which should be serving all Minnesotans. He made a moral statement and an assertion of his formal power. This was the sole statement made by a University of Minnesota administrator in favor of housing integration.

The exchange

document 5

Willey’s Confidential Statement to Coffey

June 29, 1942

Malcolm Willey

Dean and Assistant to the President

Walter Coffey

President, University of Minnesota

20

This memo was drafted by Dean and Assistant to the President Malcolm Willey for President Walter Coffey. It responded to a 1942 fight over segregated housing.

You may find a full discussion of these events in the essay on segregated housing in the section “President Walter Coffey Created a Jim Crow House for African American Male Students During WWII. The Largest Mobilization Against Campus Racism Followed.”

This memo from Dean Willey offered a strategy to President Coffey to maintain segregated student residences, despite what he had told the leadership of the local NAACPs. His plan was to place all African American male students interested in campus housing into the former International House, which would henceforth be called a boarding house. White students could live there if they wished, but preference would be given to African American men. In addition, Willey acknowledged the growing unacceptability of segregation in Minnesota and the nation, and at the same time offered a strategy to keep Pioneer Hall exclusively white. This approach was already in place when the head of Pioneer Hall Verne Mohns invited Mr. Moses Blackwell, an African American undergraduate student, to leave Pioneer Hall and move to the newly opened International House in March of 1942.

“The Board has already authorized you to make solutions according to your best judgment.”

Who holds formal power and authority in making decisions at the University of Minnesota? That question is one of the most important ones to ask in order to understand the history of an institution like the University of Minnesota. The simple answer is the Board of Regents, which has the final authority. However, the regents more often than not chose to allow the administration to use its “best judgment” on many matters, particularly ones with regard to student life.

This 1942 memo makes clear that the issue of segregated housing was a national issue as well as a campus issue. Dean Willey reminded President Coffey that it would be up to him as to how segregation would be handled. The Dean laid out a plan whose intent was to avoid taking a public stand, the same position followed by the University of Minnesota beginning in 1931.

This memo was drafted by Dean and Assistant to the President Malcolm Willey for President Walter Coffey. It responded to a 1942 fight over segregated housing.

You may find a full discussion of these events in the essay on segregated housing in the section “President Walter Coffey Created a Jim Crow House for African American Male Students During WWII. The Largest Mobilization Against Campus Racism Followed.”

This memo from Dean Willey offered a strategy to President Coffey to maintain segregated student residences, despite what he had told the leadership of the local NAACPs. His plan was to place all African American male students interested in campus housing into the former International House, which would henceforth be called a boarding house. White students could live there if they wished, but preference would be given to African American men. In addition, Willey acknowledged the growing unacceptability of segregation in Minnesota and the nation, and at the same time offered a strategy to keep Pioneer Hall exclusively white. This approach was already in place when the head of Pioneer Hall Verne Mohns invited Mr. Moses Blackwell, an African American undergraduate student, to leave Pioneer Hall and move to the newly opened International House in March of 1942.

“The Board has already authorized you to make solutions according to your best judgment.”

Who holds formal power and authority in making decisions at the University of Minnesota? That question is one of the most important ones to ask in order to understand the history of an institution like the University of Minnesota. The simple answer is the Board of Regents, which has the final authority. However, the regents more often than not chose to allow the administration to use its “best judgment” on many matters, particularly ones with regard to student life.

This 1942 memo makes clear that the issue of segregated housing was a national issue as well as a campus issue. Dean Willey reminded President Coffey that it would be up to him as to how segregation would be handled. The Dean laid out a plan whose intent was to avoid taking a public stand, the same position followed by the University of Minnesota beginning in 1931.

83
“It is clear, however, that the time is at hand when some move must be made.
… The University is now at a point where it appears inescapable that one of two alternatives must be chosen: 1) either it must be said that negroes cannot have use of University facilities, meaning specifically the housing facilities on a nonsegrated basis; or 2) some provision for nonsegrated negro housing must be offered.”

Dean Willey presented the options that President Coffey and the University of Minnesota faced. As late as 1942, on the cusp of entering WWII to fight Nazism and fascism, the administration remained unwilling and even frightened to advocate for integration in housing, despite President Ford’s decision to do so. In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an Executive Order to ban discrimination in defense hiring to avoid a massive march on Washington organized by A. Philip Randolph of the Sleeping Car Porters Union. In 1942, the Congress on Racial Equality organized sit-ins in Chicago, St. Louis, and Baltimore to desegregate public facilities, which were already integrated by law in Minnesota.

The University of Minnesota cowered in the face of taking a stand on dormitory integration when the American civil rights movement was in full swing. Instead, the leadership remained committed to social separation of white and African American students.

Dean Willey never capitalized the word “Negro,” which was always viewed as a sign of disrespect by African Americans.

“Unless it is the judgment of the Board that it should not be done, I propose that the house at 623 Washington Avenue S.E. be reopened this fall, as the Washington Avenue Student House, with applications for residence in it to be received from any male student of the University, such applications to be filed as of a given date, and selection of the residents to be made subsequent to such date. It would be further understood that first preference in making room assignments would be given to negro students, but that if applications from white students are also received, a number of them (yet to be determined) will be assigned to quarters there. Residence in the House will, of course, be entirely on a voluntary basis.”

Dean Willey provided a plan that would create a house whose primary purpose was to serve “Negro students,” but which might be integrated if white students applied. The administration continued to insist that there was a housing shortage specific to African American men students, rather than all students. Segregation was presumed.

The Report of the Task Force on Building Names and Institutional History notes that as early as the Coffman era, administrators feared that they were out of compliance with federal law to provide equal, if separate, accommodations for all students (23).

“The pressures are now such that the failure to reopen the house as suggested, would almost certainly force the President and the Board into a statement that negroes may not be housed in University facilities, and such a statement would unquestionably have a most unfortunate result. At the present time there are countrywide movements designed to check discrimination against negroes and these movements have the backing of important leaders in public life, nationally and locally.”

At the time Dean Willey drafted this memo, President Coffey had already met with the heads of the St. Paul and Minneapolis NAACP and promised them that the house would open in the fall as an integrated living space for male students. Neither the leadership of the African American community nor on-campus organizations nor students advocated for African American-only housing.

Although the President had the right to decide what would become of the house, it is clear that his decision would be affected by people and organizations beyond the University. The memo mentions that President Coffey continued to receive letters about the unfairness of segregation during the summer. “Important public leaders” suggests that the administration was conscious of many forms of political and social pressure.

Willey did not make clear what the forces were that supported segregation, only those that opposed it.

“It is clear, however, that the time is at hand when some move must be made.
… The University is now at a point where it appears inescapable that one of two alternatives must be chosen: 1) either it must be said that negroes cannot have use of University facilities, meaning specifically the housing facilities on a nonsegrated basis; or 2) some provision for nonsegrated negro housing must be offered.”

Dean Willey presented the options that President Coffey and the University of Minnesota faced. As late as 1942, on the cusp of entering WWII to fight Nazism and fascism, the administration remained unwilling and even frightened to advocate for integration in housing, despite President Ford’s decision to do so. In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an Executive Order to ban discrimination in defense hiring to avoid a massive march on Washington organized by A. Philip Randolph of the Sleeping Car Porters Union. In 1942, the Congress on Racial Equality organized sit-ins in Chicago, St. Louis, and Baltimore to desegregate public facilities, which were already integrated by law in Minnesota.

The University of Minnesota cowered in the face of taking a stand on dormitory integration when the American civil rights movement was in full swing. Instead, the leadership remained committed to social separation of white and African American students.

Dean Willey never capitalized the word “Negro,” which was always viewed as a sign of disrespect by African Americans.

“Unless it is the judgment of the Board that it should not be done, I propose that the house at 623 Washington Avenue S.E. be reopened this fall, as the Washington Avenue Student House, with applications for residence in it to be received from any male student of the University, such applications to be filed as of a given date, and selection of the residents to be made subsequent to such date. It would be further understood that first preference in making room assignments would be given to negro students, but that if applications from white students are also received, a number of them (yet to be determined) will be assigned to quarters there. Residence in the House will, of course, be entirely on a voluntary basis.”

Dean Willey provided a plan that would create a house whose primary purpose was to serve “Negro students,” but which might be integrated if white students applied. The administration continued to insist that there was a housing shortage specific to African American men students, rather than all students. Segregation was presumed.

The Report of the Task Force on Building Names and Institutional History notes that as early as the Coffman era, administrators feared that they were out of compliance with federal law to provide equal, if separate, accommodations for all students (23).

“The pressures are now such that the failure to reopen the house as suggested, would almost certainly force the President and the Board into a statement that negroes may not be housed in University facilities, and such a statement would unquestionably have a most unfortunate result. At the present time there are countrywide movements designed to check discrimination against negroes and these movements have the backing of important leaders in public life, nationally and locally.”

At the time Dean Willey drafted this memo, President Coffey had already met with the heads of the St. Paul and Minneapolis NAACP and promised them that the house would open in the fall as an integrated living space for male students. Neither the leadership of the African American community nor on-campus organizations nor students advocated for African American-only housing.

Although the President had the right to decide what would become of the house, it is clear that his decision would be affected by people and organizations beyond the University. The memo mentions that President Coffey continued to receive letters about the unfairness of segregation during the summer. “Important public leaders” suggests that the administration was conscious of many forms of political and social pressure.

Willey did not make clear what the forces were that supported segregation, only those that opposed it.

10
“This proposal begs for the moment the question of negroes in the other University housing facilities, but the existence of such a house will make far less likely the request by any number of negro students for admittance to the other dormitories, and will divert any concerted movement on the part of outside organizations to make an issue of negro housing at the University by backing negro applications for admission to Pioneer Hall.”

Indirection and evasion were among the most important strategies employed by the administration to deal with segregated housing.

Dean Willey suggested that the proposed plan had an even more important purpose. The goal remained to hold off any “concerted movement” to demand that Pioneer Hall be integrated. Eleven years after John Pinkett, Jr. was removed and three years after President Guy Stanton Ford called for the integration of all student housing, Dean Willey continued to fight for segregation. Dean Malcolm Willey served as dean to four presidents of the University of Minnesota.

“It must be concluded, however, that if a negro student applies for admission to the dormitories, and after discussion of what might be involved, still insists on admission, the student will have to be admitted.”

Dean Willey noted that the policy of segregation (the housing of “Negroes” as a group, as in the so-called International House created by the administration in 1942), was becoming untenable for the University of Minnesota because of outside opinion, and not the leadership of its president or the Board of Regents.

Dean Willey and Dean of Student Affairs Williamson developed a protocol to deal with African American students who might apply to live in Pioneer Hall. Each young man had to meet with the Dean of Student Affairs, who would discourage him from living there. If the student persisted, he would be told about the strict rules. Their assumption was that this conversation might well discourage the student and he could be directed to the “House” on Washington Avenue. No white students were subjected to this humiliating behavior.

“The procedure here suggested is calculated to obviate the necessity of any public statements, and is a means of meeting a problem with the least possible public attention.”

It remained self-evident to the administration and the Board of Regents that their preference for segregation needed no explanation or rationalization.

The University of Minnesota’s leaders’ goal was to exercise power through avoiding confrontation and public attention—to create a plan that hopefully isolated African American men for as long as possible. This document reveals the informal power of interest groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the power of evasion by the leaders of the University of Minnesota.

“This proposal begs for the moment the question of negroes in the other University housing facilities, but the existence of such a house will make far less likely the request by any number of negro students for admittance to the other dormitories, and will divert any concerted movement on the part of outside organizations to make an issue of negro housing at the University by backing negro applications for admission to Pioneer Hall.”

Indirection and evasion were among the most important strategies employed by the administration to deal with segregated housing.

Dean Willey suggested that the proposed plan had an even more important purpose. The goal remained to hold off any “concerted movement” to demand that Pioneer Hall be integrated. Eleven years after John Pinkett, Jr. was removed and three years after President Guy Stanton Ford called for the integration of all student housing, Dean Willey continued to fight for segregation. Dean Malcolm Willey served as dean to four presidents of the University of Minnesota.

“It must be concluded, however, that if a negro student applies for admission to the dormitories, and after discussion of what might be involved, still insists on admission, the student will have to be admitted.”

Dean Willey noted that the policy of segregation (the housing of “Negroes” as a group, as in the so-called International House created by the administration in 1942), was becoming untenable for the University of Minnesota because of outside opinion, and not the leadership of its president or the Board of Regents.

Dean Willey and Dean of Student Affairs Williamson developed a protocol to deal with African American students who might apply to live in Pioneer Hall. Each young man had to meet with the Dean of Student Affairs, who would discourage him from living there. If the student persisted, he would be told about the strict rules. Their assumption was that this conversation might well discourage the student and he could be directed to the “House” on Washington Avenue. No white students were subjected to this humiliating behavior.

“The procedure here suggested is calculated to obviate the necessity of any public statements, and is a means of meeting a problem with the least possible public attention.”

It remained self-evident to the administration and the Board of Regents that their preference for segregation needed no explanation or rationalization.

The University of Minnesota’s leaders’ goal was to exercise power through avoiding confrontation and public attention—to create a plan that hopefully isolated African American men for as long as possible. This document reveals the informal power of interest groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the power of evasion by the leaders of the University of Minnesota.

Conclusion

Social segregation was the avowed policy of a number of University presidents, administrators who reported to them, or reported to those who reported to the presidents. The members of the Board of Regents supported these policies, but most often left it up to the presidents of the University of Minnesota to regulate student housing, including in the case of segregation. Only President Guy Stanton Ford, who served from 1937–1941, rejected segregated housing, and he too was supported by the Board of Regents. It is impossible to know how successfully any student residence was or was not integrated under his leadership. However, his commitments were reversed by President Walter Coffey as evidenced in the effort to remove an African American student from Pioneer Hall, and to create a boarding house that would first serve to house all African American men.

The one constant across these administrations and Boards of Regents was the insistence that the University did not oppose integration “as a policy,” despite maintaining segregation. Even President Ford denied that segregation was a policy, despite needing to change the “rules” to stop it.

What does it feel like to be a problem?

This startling evasion and denial of the reality of the lives of African American students, and to a lesser extent Jewish students, is an example of what Du Bois meant by his question, “what does it feel like to be a problem?” The incessant denial of what is happening to a person of color or a Jew, or even blaming these young men and women for their own lack of housing, provides an insight into student life for minorities in the 1930s and beyond at the University of Minnesota.

Evasion involved a powerful and persistent strategy that allowed the University of Minnesota to enforce segregation while denying that was what they were doing. They pursued racist policies while insisting that they were not racists, and appealed to rationalism or the “natural order” as they created social segregation. Only one leader, President Guy Stanton Ford, spoke to the moral imperative to stop segregation and disavowed the “race science” that demanded social segregation was the norm in a world dominated by the “white race.”

Case 2

Secret Negotiations

Secret Negotiations to Influence the Selection of Members of the Board of Regents, 1937


The Regents of the University of Minnesota in the 21st century, as in the 1930s, have the final authority over the institution. That authority was established as a result of a Supreme Court case that they won in 1928: “University of Minnesota et al. v Ray P. Chase, State Auditor” established the autonomy of the University from the state. The members of the Board of Regents exercised that autonomy when, for example, in the 1930s, they voted to reverse the requirement that all male students participate in on-campus military drills. They also supported President Lotus D. Coffman’s commitment to segregate student housing in their 1935 vote.

Nowhere is the intersection of the University of Minnesota and state politics more evident than in the nomination and the selection of regents. Throughout the University’s history, regents have been nominated by a variety of methods. They were, however, always chosen by the votes of both houses of the Minnesota State Legislature. However, this process has been anything but transparent. The formal exercise of power in the votes of legislators conceals far more than it reveals about how power is exercised, and how politicians are influenced.

Nowhere is the intersection of the University of Minnesota and State politics more evident than in the nomination and the selection of regents.

In 1937, four new regents were to be chosen by the Minnesota Legislature, which was divided between a Farmer-Labor-dominated House and a Republican-majority Senate. Each party sought to advance nominees for regents who represented their ideas about what the University’s commitments should be. Conservatives wanted as little money spent as possible at the University and a tight check on student activism. More progressive candidates were committed to the free exchange of ideas, academic freedom for faculty, and welcoming all students in Minnesota, regardless of race or religion.

A remarkable exchange of two letters between Dean of Student Affairs Edward E. Nicholson and Republican operative Ray P. Chase in January of 1937 reveals an aggressive, covert effort to exercise power in order to assure the appointment of conservative regents. What is startling about the exchange is that it reveals an alliance between a University administrator and a political partisan attempting to shape the choice of regents through back channels.

The Participants

Edward E. Nicholson

Dean of Student Affairs, 
University of Minnesota

Dean Nicholson initiated this exchange and sought Ray Chase’s help in influencing the choice of regents to reflect his own conservative politics.

Ray P. Chase

Head, Ray P. Chase Institute, Republican operative, past Minnesota State Auditor, and Republican candidate for many elective offices

Ray Chase partnered with Dean Edward Nicholson on a number of issues, and was willing to help him in the matter of the appointment of regents.

The exchange

document 1

Dean Nicholson Contacts Ray P. Chase about Selecting Regents

January 4, 1937

Edward E. Nicholson

Dean of Student Affairs, University of Minnesota

Ray P. Chase

Head, Ray P. Chase Institute, Republican operative

83

Edward Nicholson contacted Ray P. Chase to discuss the issues he believed they should work on together to advance a politically conservative agenda. He judged the appointment of new members of the Board of Regents his highest priority.

“I have been waiting to see how things were shaping up. To me the most vital thing in connection with the University at the present time is the appointment of the Regents.”

This letter reveals an alliance that Dean Nicholson built with a conservative Republican created to influence not only state politics, but those specifically devoted to the University of Minnesota.

Dean of Students Edward Nicholson sent this letter to Republican operative Ray Chase at his office in Chicago. The Chase Institute was dedicated to influencing elections and state politics by offering information, regardless of its veracity, about the opponents of political conservatives. This passage suggests that Edward Nicholson worked with Ray Chase on other political issues in the past. He was creating an agenda with this notorious conservative about the University to make the choice of regents his top priority.

The very month this letter was written, the Minneapolis City Council, as reported in the Minneapolis Star, called on the University to remove Nicholson from his position because of what appeared to be his effort to influence new members of the Grand Jury with which he worked. That same month, letters to the Minnesota Daily also supported and opposed Dean Nicholson for his conservative, off-campus politics.

The article about Dean Nicholson’s activity with the Grand Jury may be found here:
acampusdivided.umn.edu/index.php/text/council-asks-ouster-of-nicholson-u-dean
The Minnesota Daily letters may be found here: acampusdivided.umn.edu/index.php/text/letters-to-the-editor-for-and-against-dean-nicholson

Edward Nicholson provided Ray Chase with information about the University of Minnesota that appeared in Chase’s attack on Governor Benson’s candidacy for governor the following year in 1938.

These issues are discussed in the essay “Political Surveillance of the University of Minnesota.”

“There will be four new Regents appointed this year. The basis of the appointments will be the important thing. If they are sound, substantial men, pledged merely to use their own judgment and do the best they can for the state and for the University, it is immaterial whether they are Farmer-Labor, Republican, or Democratic.”

Dean Edward Nicholson claims to want regents appointed regardless of their political affiliation. However, it is worth considering if that is true. Why was this letter sent to Chase, a man who was committed to conservative and even extreme politics, and whose institute had as its avowed purpose to defeat any person who did not share an “America First” outlook and was a member of the Farmer-Labor Party?

“But I very much fear that Floyd’s policy is to be followed out, and that men are to be appointed who will be obligated to party interests. By that I mean that an attempt will be made to fill the University with Farmer-Labor people, making it a tool of the party instead of an independent educational institution of the state.”

Governor Floyd Olson (whom Nicholson refers to by his first name) served as Minnesota’s governor over three terms from 1932 until his death in 1936. He ran on the ticket of the progressive Farmer-Labor Party that captured statewide and local seats following the Great Depression of 1929. By the time that Dean Nicholson wrote this letter, Governor Olson was dead. He had, indeed, recommended a number of regents who were affiliated with the Farmer-Labor Party. Nevertheless, the Board’s chair remained Fred B. Snyder, who was a conservative Republican. The only evidence of the Farmer-Labor Party’s influence on the University was the close vote that rescinded the requirement that all male students participate in mandatory military drills, one of the most important student issues of the early 1930s.

Governor Olson and the Farmer-Labor Party of his era were anti-war activists, and opposed to the United States entering another war. Dean Edward Nicholson never expressed his views on war, at least in writing.

Governor Olson was committed to organized labor and to the rights of farmers and the poor during the Depression, but those issues did not appear on the docket of the Board of Regents. Students were involved in many of these political issues, however, and Dean Nicholson worked to contain political protest.

“It is too early as yet, as I see it, to do much planning on the matter of appropriations. But I do feel that if there is any way in which we can bring influence to bear in the matter of appointment of Regents, it is exceedingly vital that we do so.”

Dean Nicholson’s reference to “appropriations” refers to the power of the Minnesota Legislature to allocate funding to the University of Minnesota. The Legislature controlled the purse of the taxpayers’ dollars, which was its greatest influence over the University of Minnesota. Nicholson made a link between “the matter of appropriation,” and “the matter of appointment of regents.” The 50th Minnesota Legislature convened on January 5, 1937. Nicholson wrote his letter on the previous day to gear up a political campaign to influence the outcome of the vote on the regents.

It is remarkable that as an administrator at the University of Minnesota, Dean Nicholson worked outside of the University to undertake this covert campaign, with no apparent support from those to whom he reported. Not only did he engage in this political work—he did it at the expense of the University itself. He sought to use the very power of the legislature to fund the University as leverage to appoint conservative regents. The Legislature had, by necessity, cut funding to the University during the Great Depression. Dean Nicholson’s strategy stood to further risk that funding.

Dean Nicholson engaged in an informal exercise of power. He used no formal channels inside the University that may be found in the papers of the institution. He drew on a political network to influence other conservatives to affect the views of Minnesota State Senators and Representatives. His political work was invisible to those at the University.

“I do not know Ernest Lundeen. I knew his brother, Dave, quite well, but do not believe that I have ever met Ernest. Would it be possible, in your judgment, to use him in any way so that this matter of appointment of Regents might be controlled to some extent.”

Ernest Lundeen was a complicated political figure. He was a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1933–1937 and the United States Senate from 1937 until his death in 1940. He was a Republican until he joined the Farmer-Labor Party, on whose ticket he was elected in the 1930s. He ran unsuccessfully for governor and the House of Representatives as a Republican throughout the 1920s, though he was elected to the House as a Republican from 1917–1919.

The Farmer-Labor Party was committed to an “isolationist” position as war loomed in Europe. Lundeen not only shared that position, but was pro-German and pro-Nazi. He opposed aid to England prior to the United States’ entry into the war. His politics were, therefore, undeniably conservative. Dean Nicholson and Ray Chase agreed to turn to Senator Lundeen in an effort to influence members of the Minnesota Legislature to select conservative regents. At the same time, he was a member of the Farmer-Labor Party that they hoped to undermine.

A full discussion of Senator Lundeen’s politics and relationships to Germany may be found on the MinnPost website here.

“In fact I think you can help on all matters, but it would be unfair to call on you to put in your time on non-essentials.”

Dean Nicholson makes a clear appeal to Chase to involve him in a variety of political activities, but tells him he will focus only on high priorities. Chase will congratulate Nicholson in his letter on his abilities as a conservative politician.

Edward Nicholson contacted Ray P. Chase to discuss the issues he believed they should work on together to advance a politically conservative agenda. He judged the appointment of new members of the Board of Regents his highest priority.

“I have been waiting to see how things were shaping up. To me the most vital thing in connection with the University at the present time is the appointment of the Regents.”

This letter reveals an alliance that Dean Nicholson built with a conservative Republican created to influence not only state politics, but those specifically devoted to the University of Minnesota.

Dean of Students Edward Nicholson sent this letter to Republican operative Ray Chase at his office in Chicago. The Chase Institute was dedicated to influencing elections and state politics by offering information, regardless of its veracity, about the opponents of political conservatives. This passage suggests that Edward Nicholson worked with Ray Chase on other political issues in the past. He was creating an agenda with this notorious conservative about the University to make the choice of regents his top priority.

The very month this letter was written, the Minneapolis City Council, as reported in the Minneapolis Star, called on the University to remove Nicholson from his position because of what appeared to be his effort to influence new members of the Grand Jury with which he worked. That same month, letters to the Minnesota Daily also supported and opposed Dean Nicholson for his conservative, off-campus politics.

The article about Dean Nicholson’s activity with the Grand Jury may be found here:
acampusdivided.umn.edu/index.php/text/council-asks-ouster-of-nicholson-u-dean
The Minnesota Daily letters may be found here: acampusdivided.umn.edu/index.php/text/letters-to-the-editor-for-and-against-dean-nicholson

Edward Nicholson provided Ray Chase with information about the University of Minnesota that appeared in Chase’s attack on Governor Benson’s candidacy for governor the following year in 1938.

These issues are discussed in the essay “Political Surveillance of the University of Minnesota.”

“There will be four new Regents appointed this year. The basis of the appointments will be the important thing. If they are sound, substantial men, pledged merely to use their own judgment and do the best they can for the state and for the University, it is immaterial whether they are Farmer-Labor, Republican, or Democratic.”

Dean Edward Nicholson claims to want regents appointed regardless of their political affiliation. However, it is worth considering if that is true. Why was this letter sent to Chase, a man who was committed to conservative and even extreme politics, and whose institute had as its avowed purpose to defeat any person who did not share an “America First” outlook and was a member of the Farmer-Labor Party?

“But I very much fear that Floyd’s policy is to be followed out, and that men are to be appointed who will be obligated to party interests. By that I mean that an attempt will be made to fill the University with Farmer-Labor people, making it a tool of the party instead of an independent educational institution of the state.”

Governor Floyd Olson (whom Nicholson refers to by his first name) served as Minnesota’s governor over three terms from 1932 until his death in 1936. He ran on the ticket of the progressive Farmer-Labor Party that captured statewide and local seats following the Great Depression of 1929. By the time that Dean Nicholson wrote this letter, Governor Olson was dead. He had, indeed, recommended a number of regents who were affiliated with the Farmer-Labor Party. Nevertheless, the Board’s chair remained Fred B. Snyder, who was a conservative Republican. The only evidence of the Farmer-Labor Party’s influence on the University was the close vote that rescinded the requirement that all male students participate in mandatory military drills, one of the most important student issues of the early 1930s.

Governor Olson and the Farmer-Labor Party of his era were anti-war activists, and opposed to the United States entering another war. Dean Edward Nicholson never expressed his views on war, at least in writing.

Governor Olson was committed to organized labor and to the rights of farmers and the poor during the Depression, but those issues did not appear on the docket of the Board of Regents. Students were involved in many of these political issues, however, and Dean Nicholson worked to contain political protest.

“It is too early as yet, as I see it, to do much planning on the matter of appropriations. But I do feel that if there is any way in which we can bring influence to bear in the matter of appointment of Regents, it is exceedingly vital that we do so.”

Dean Nicholson’s reference to “appropriations” refers to the power of the Minnesota Legislature to allocate funding to the University of Minnesota. The Legislature controlled the purse of the taxpayers’ dollars, which was its greatest influence over the University of Minnesota. Nicholson made a link between “the matter of appropriation,” and “the matter of appointment of regents.” The 50th Minnesota Legislature convened on January 5, 1937. Nicholson wrote his letter on the previous day to gear up a political campaign to influence the outcome of the vote on the regents.

It is remarkable that as an administrator at the University of Minnesota, Dean Nicholson worked outside of the University to undertake this covert campaign, with no apparent support from those to whom he reported. Not only did he engage in this political work—he did it at the expense of the University itself. He sought to use the very power of the legislature to fund the University as leverage to appoint conservative regents. The Legislature had, by necessity, cut funding to the University during the Great Depression. Dean Nicholson’s strategy stood to further risk that funding.

Dean Nicholson engaged in an informal exercise of power. He used no formal channels inside the University that may be found in the papers of the institution. He drew on a political network to influence other conservatives to affect the views of Minnesota State Senators and Representatives. His political work was invisible to those at the University.

“I do not know Ernest Lundeen. I knew his brother, Dave, quite well, but do not believe that I have ever met Ernest. Would it be possible, in your judgment, to use him in any way so that this matter of appointment of Regents might be controlled to some extent.”

Ernest Lundeen was a complicated political figure. He was a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1933–1937 and the United States Senate from 1937 until his death in 1940. He was a Republican until he joined the Farmer-Labor Party, on whose ticket he was elected in the 1930s. He ran unsuccessfully for governor and the House of Representatives as a Republican throughout the 1920s, though he was elected to the House as a Republican from 1917–1919.

The Farmer-Labor Party was committed to an “isolationist” position as war loomed in Europe. Lundeen not only shared that position, but was pro-German and pro-Nazi. He opposed aid to England prior to the United States’ entry into the war. His politics were, therefore, undeniably conservative. Dean Nicholson and Ray Chase agreed to turn to Senator Lundeen in an effort to influence members of the Minnesota Legislature to select conservative regents. At the same time, he was a member of the Farmer-Labor Party that they hoped to undermine.

A full discussion of Senator Lundeen’s politics and relationships to Germany may be found on the MinnPost website here.

“In fact I think you can help on all matters, but it would be unfair to call on you to put in your time on non-essentials.”

Dean Nicholson makes a clear appeal to Chase to involve him in a variety of political activities, but tells him he will focus only on high priorities. Chase will congratulate Nicholson in his letter on his abilities as a conservative politician.

The exchange

document 2

Ray P. Chase Responds to Dean Nicholson Concerning the Choice of New Regents

January 13, 1937

Edward E. Nicholson

Dean of Student Affairs, University of Minnesota

Ray P. Chase

Head, Ray P. Chase Institute, Republican operative

40

Ray Chase responded to Dean Nicholson by commending his political acumen to advance conservative politics and promising to help him when Nicholson was ready.

“If you are not careful you and Glenn Frank will find yourselves heading a conservative ticket in the coming campaign.”

Ray P. Chase at this point in his career was heading the Chase Institute, whose purpose was to provide “facts” for political campaigns on behalf of Republicans. He also offered “information” to the University of Minnesota to prove that it was infiltrated by radicals. He was interested in the election of conservative politicians for state office.

Chase praised Dean Edward Nicholson’s letter, sent ten days earlier, asking him to work with the Dean of Student Affairs to influence the vote of the Minnesota Legislature on the selection of regents. He refers to the upcoming vote for governor and legislators when he suggests that Dean Nicholson demonstrates admirable political skills. There was no conservative party in Minnesota; however, there were conservative politicians. Ray P. Chase was certainly one of them. His opposition to public spending, his motto of “America First,” and his unceasing accusations against Farmer-Labor politicians accusing them of being communists were all part of his “conservative” political agenda.

Ray Chase linked Dean Nicholson to Glenn Frank, who on January 7, 1937, was dismissed by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin as its president. Although a proponent of academic freedom, he did not have the support of the faculty. He was a political conservative who was critical of President Franklin Roosevelt and progressive Wisconsin politicians Governor Philip La Folletee and Senator Robert La Follette, Jr. Frank did run for office against Robert la Follettee, Jr. but died before the election. Chase linked the two men, however lightheartedly, because of their shared conservative politics, which they expressed while serving in official roles at their respective publicly funded universities.

A brief biography of Glenn Frank may be found at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries website here.

“Ernie and Dave Lundeen are both friends of mine. I think Ernie can help us and I can talk to him.”

Dean Nicholson calls on Ray Chase’s political influence, which is far greater than his. This political network will be helpful because these men will be in a position to affect the votes of legislators and convince them of a conservative agenda. Senator Lundeen is a powerful politician.

“If it is your wish that I do so please let me have the necessary information as soon as it is available.”

Ray Chase follows Dean Nicholson’s lead in this work to shape the outcome of the choice of regents. Chase is not initiating this conservative political work, but following Nicholson’s agenda.

What is the information that Ray Chase requests? The letter does not make that clear. It is useful that the nature of the information is not spelled out because it seems to be obvious to Chase what Nicholson would be able to provide for him to give to Senator Lundeen.

One can only speculate on what would be useful information that Dean Nicholson could provide—names of men and women who agree with their politics, or perhaps information about nominees that would make them undesirable to conservatives.

Ray Chase responded to Dean Nicholson by commending his political acumen to advance conservative politics and promising to help him when Nicholson was ready.

“If you are not careful you and Glenn Frank will find yourselves heading a conservative ticket in the coming campaign.”

Ray P. Chase at this point in his career was heading the Chase Institute, whose purpose was to provide “facts” for political campaigns on behalf of Republicans. He also offered “information” to the University of Minnesota to prove that it was infiltrated by radicals. He was interested in the election of conservative politicians for state office.

Chase praised Dean Edward Nicholson’s letter, sent ten days earlier, asking him to work with the Dean of Student Affairs to influence the vote of the Minnesota Legislature on the selection of regents. He refers to the upcoming vote for governor and legislators when he suggests that Dean Nicholson demonstrates admirable political skills. There was no conservative party in Minnesota; however, there were conservative politicians. Ray P. Chase was certainly one of them. His opposition to public spending, his motto of “America First,” and his unceasing accusations against Farmer-Labor politicians accusing them of being communists were all part of his “conservative” political agenda.

Ray Chase linked Dean Nicholson to Glenn Frank, who on January 7, 1937, was dismissed by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin as its president. Although a proponent of academic freedom, he did not have the support of the faculty. He was a political conservative who was critical of President Franklin Roosevelt and progressive Wisconsin politicians Governor Philip La Folletee and Senator Robert La Follette, Jr. Frank did run for office against Robert la Follettee, Jr. but died before the election. Chase linked the two men, however lightheartedly, because of their shared conservative politics, which they expressed while serving in official roles at their respective publicly funded universities.

A brief biography of Glenn Frank may be found at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries website here.

“Ernie and Dave Lundeen are both friends of mine. I think Ernie can help us and I can talk to him.”

Dean Nicholson calls on Ray Chase’s political influence, which is far greater than his. This political network will be helpful because these men will be in a position to affect the votes of legislators and convince them of a conservative agenda. Senator Lundeen is a powerful politician.

“If it is your wish that I do so please let me have the necessary information as soon as it is available.”

Ray Chase follows Dean Nicholson’s lead in this work to shape the outcome of the choice of regents. Chase is not initiating this conservative political work, but following Nicholson’s agenda.

What is the information that Ray Chase requests? The letter does not make that clear. It is useful that the nature of the information is not spelled out because it seems to be obvious to Chase what Nicholson would be able to provide for him to give to Senator Lundeen.

One can only speculate on what would be useful information that Dean Nicholson could provide—names of men and women who agree with their politics, or perhaps information about nominees that would make them undesirable to conservatives.

Conclusion

This brief correspondence offers an important glimpse into the politics of the University of Minnesota and the State of Minnesota. Chase and Nicholson cooperated repeatedly on responses to their perception of the dangers of activism and progressive politics on campus. If Ray Chase turned to Edward Nicholson for information about the University of Minnesota, Nicholson turned to Chase for help in negotiating state politics as well. Their relationship was built on information and influence in the service of conservative politics based on the archival records.