Regarding Little Hall and the Legacy of C.C. Little October 21, 2019 Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy President of the University of Maine Kevin C. Fitzpatrick Chair of YDSA To whom it may concern, The relationship we have to our history is, in its nature, complicated. In analyzing our history it is important to both be an impartial observer while remaining cognizant of the world we live in today and what we want that world to become. History must be reflected upon or we risk never learning from the mistakes of the past, and inadvertently holding back much-needed progress. In reflecting on this history, we must look closely at which parts of our history we chose to honor and hold as an example to others, as this tradition of namesakes relates directly to how the University chooses to represent itself and its values. UMaine prides itself on the diversity of its student body and its commitment to advancement in various fields. With that, it seems relevant that we discuss the legacy of Clarence Cook Little, for whom Little Hall is named, and how his life and achievements fit into these values. This letter will attempt to give a fair look at Little’s legacy and argue in favor of changing the name of Little Hall to better reflect the University of Maine and the UMaine community as a whole. Looking into Clarence Little’s life, it is easy to see why he is influential in the way that he is. Prior to his tenure as University President, Little pioneered various advances in the field of genetics and cancer research. One of the more famous examples is the development of inbred mice with a high susceptibility to cancer, something which has proven indispensable in cancer research during the following decades1. Most of his work concerns the genetic factors regarding cancer with some notable examples being the genetic factors involved with how tissue may or may not take during a transplant (something which his inbred mice proved invaluable.) C.C. Little came into the Presidency already distinguished in his field and as President of UMaine, he would further distinguish himself as the youngest serving President of the University. Little instituted “Welcome Week” as an annual tradition, something that continues today, as well as pushing for academic rigor and student participation. Little, at the time, is quoted as saying that one should “challenge the mind and the body.” The first Dean of Women was chosen under Little’s Presidency, Caroline Colvin, whose namesake is used for Colvin Hall. Caroline Colvin is honored due to her struggle pushing for women’s rights and women’s academics at UMaine. Of all of Little’s contributions to UMaine, none are greater than the founding of Jackson Laboratories following his presidency. Little was dedicated to furthering the scientific pursuits of students and others and pushed long and hard for Jackson Laboratories to be founded, securing funding eventually from one Roscoe P. Jackson. Jackson Labs continues today as an integral part of the UMaine academic community as well as the scientific community as a whole in the United States. Following this, Little held 1 Auchincloss, H. and Winn, H. J., “Clarence Cook Little (1888–1971): The Genetic Basis of Transplant Immunology,” American Journal of Transplantation 4 (2004), 155–159 a variety of titles, holding high positions in both the American Cancer Society and the Tobacco Industry Research Committee. I describe all of these achievements and successes in order to illustrate the case for why he would be honored in the first place while also giving a full picture of Little as a person. When reading through Clarence Little’s biography on the University President’s website you see many of these achievements extolled as reasons for his excellence. Little was excellent in his commitment to furthering the academics of students, but to look no further is to do a disservice to the totality of people affected by Clarence Little’s full legacy. When looking at UMaine materials regarding Little, there are two glaring omissions to his legacy which I believe craft a lengthy argument in favor of reconsidering the name of Little Hall: His vocal and vociferous support for eugenics and his defense of Big Tobacco while supporting their pro-smoking PR campaign. To preface this section regarding Little’s support of eugenics, it is important to note that supporting eugenics during the 1920’s was not unusual, but many institutions are having to reckon with the morality of continuing to honor people’s participation by having their names mark official buildings (two notable examples are the University of Michigan and University College London)23. Little’s influence on the Eugenics movement within the United States is expansive and pervasive, transcending passive support for the idea/movement. Little held numerous positions of power within the American eugenics movement: President/Director of the Euthanasia Society of America, President of the American Eugenics Society, President of the 1928 Race Betterment Conference, Vice President of the Immigration Restriction League, and General Secretary of the 1932 6th International Congress on Genetics. In being fair to his legacy, Little never directly promoted racial hierarchies in his rhetoric, but it can be found subtextually through his support for the movement as well as numerous statements made over his career as a eugenics advocate/activist. I believe it best to go into each group individually as well as the effects of this activism in the coming decades. One of Littles most prolific positions was his eighteen year tenure as Director of the American Eugenics Society, along with his brief stint as their President. While President, although briefly, Little greatly expanded the network of AES branches at the state level which expanded their influence at the state level (something which still affects groups late into the 20th century). An early advocate of the AES, Little remained involved with the group for a number of years and eventually served as President, which undeniably displays his long term work and commitment to the cause of eugenics. Even prior to his involvement, Little spoke at the International Birth Control Convention (while still President of UMaine) and spoke thusly regarding interracial marriage: “[Little] compared the United States to a soda fountain, with the races being different flavors. Instead of allowing these flavors to mix at random, they should corrected to blend in proportion to desired racial characteristics,”4 laying bare the subtext beneath the rhetoric of eugenics. Little served as President in 1927 when a pamphlet was dispersed which included a quote stating “You will never be able to make eugenics popular until you can make the man in the street feel the pinch of the defective classes on his pocketbook”5. This kind of quote gets to the core of the eugenics movement in the early 20th century, that certain people are to be deprived of rights and that a concerted effort must be made in order to convince people that sterilization, euthanasia, and other cruel 2 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/dec/06/ucl-launches-inquiry-into-historical-links-with-eugenics 3 https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/03/29/c-c-little-university-michigan/470471002/ 4 New York Times Mar 29, 1925 5 https://belmont.bme.umich.edu/c-c-little-and-the-american-eugenics-society/ methods were the way to solve a manuafactured problem. This very same year he spoke as the President of the 3rd Race Betterment Conference, a position which he used to get many east coast intellectuals involved with the broader movement. As Vice Director of the Anti-Immigration League, a pamphlet titled “The Immigration Problem Today” was disseminated and used antisemetic rhetoric to paint Jewish people as one of the major elements “which hamper our immigration laws, and are urging legislation to weaken these laws.”6 In this pamphlet Little is listed as one of the coordinators of the League at the time. Finally, as these two go hand in hand, Little’s comments at the 1932 International Congress and involvement in the Euthanasia Society of America demonstrate a disregard for bodily autonomy and individual human rights that we hold dear to our values today. Euthanasia as a political issue is still discussed to this day in the context of “death with dignity” and the voluntary stopping of ones life, but early in the 20th century this issue expanded beyond the scope of which we know now. ESA in their early writings does support what we now know as death with dignity, the group viewed it as an avenue to eventually be able to euthanize “non-volunteers beyond the help of medical science.”7 This paternalistic attitude of knowing what is best is reflected in Little’s comments as well, specifically regarding forced sterilization: “When a sink is stopped we shut off the faucet. We favor legislation to restrict the reproduction of the misfit...we must segregate them so they do not perpetuate their kind. Voluntary sterilization already exists in many states, but compulsory sterilization is just around the corner.”8 And, he was right, it was. Maine passed its compulsory sterilization law for the “feeble minded” in 1925 while Little was still President of the University of Maine, but was amended into its final form in 1932 around the time when he gave those comments at the 1932 conference. The law gave power to institutions to determine that “feebleminded” people were worthy of sterilization in order to prevent the reproduction of supposedly deviant social disorders. The forced sterilizations of Maine’s past are shameful to say the least, and the advocacy of people like Clarence Little played no small part in the public support for such measures. On the record there are a recorded 323 people in the state of Maine who were sterilized between the laws passage and its eventual repeal in 1963. However, this number may be an understatement, as the Attorney General of Maine is quoted as saying that “many more operations had been performed than had been reported but that they shall go by the records.”9 These laws disproportionately affected women as 86% of these sterilizations were performed on women10, which is indicative of the treatment of women in those times and the use of institutions to confine women considered unruly/feebleminded. The consequences of this cruel practice still echo till this day, with the 126th Legislature just a few years ago being the first legislature to recognize the effects of this practice and remember/reflect on the matter, and it is time we reflect well on Little’s influence on not just Maine’s policy but on other states as well. Littles advocacy and rhetoric has tangible effects on the weakest of all of us, and that in itself should be reason enough to reconsider his legacy. But, Little does more than decry diversity and use his power to push for the deprivation of essential rights from the mentally infirm, he represents a culture which can still be seen by those who use his kind of rhetoric to decry the humanity of 6 https://www.jta.org/1934/12/09/archive/immigration-laxity-laid-to-u-s-jews 7 “’Mercy’ Death Law Proposed in State,” New York Times, January 27, 1939. 8 “”Sees a Super Race Founded By Science New York Times August 24 1932 9 "'Three Generations of Imbeciles Are Enough': State Eugenic Sterilization Laws in American Thought and Practice." James Paul, 1965 10 “Involuntary Sterilization in the United States: A Surgical Solution.” Phillip R. Reilly 1987 other groups in the modern day. In this sense, Little is antithetical to the principle of inclusion and diversity that UMaine so strongly prides itself in. Moving forward, away from Little’s eugenics history, it is important to examine his involvement in the Tobacco Industry Research Council, which is mentioned in his UMaine website biography. But, although mentioned, the truth of the matter remains unsaid. The TIRC was formed in 1953, a time where many were finding conclusive evidence that smoking was categorically linked to lung cancer. In December of said year, after tobacco CEOS met with PR consultants from Hill & Knowlton, that forming a research committee was the best PR move to be made in an increasingly antagonistic age for Big Tobacco. Little, in taking this position, shocked many people within the scientific community. Evarts Graham, a prolific thoracic surgeon at the time, pondered that “It seems astonishing to me that a man of his eminence in the field of cancer and genetics would condescend to take a position like that.”11 Little oversaw a budget of over 1 million dollars, but with over half of it going to Hill & Knowlton and advertisements. Along with playing an administrative role, Clarence Little acted as the public face to the tobacco industry and a voice of skepticism in the wake of massive amounts of evidence to the contrary. Although numerous clinical studies had been conducted at the time rgearding the carcinogenic effect of cigarratte smoke, Little asserted that “the existence in tobacco smoke of substances carcinogenic to the lungs of men has not been and cannot be proved by statistical associations.” The term “statistical assertions/associations” appears frequently in Littles downplaying of the effects of cigarettes, but rings hollow when considering the amount of consensus on these facts there was at the time. Aroung the same time (the mid 1950’s) there was a letter published in the Atlantic by David M. Rutstein M.D which encapsulates this point in this paragraph: “You have consistently ignored or brushed off all of the human evidence whenever a statement relating cigarette smoking and lung cancer has been released to the press by a research worker, by the British government through its Medical Research Council, or by the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service speaking for the United States government. You have stated that there is nothing new, that the evidence is merely "statistical," and that no "cause and effect relationship has been demonstrated." Your statement troubles me because I had always thought that such evidence is valid; I had been taught to believe that it is essential for medical research workers to follow statistical principles in all their investigations. What is wrong with a statistical study? Do not statistical principles come into play whenever anything is counted in any scientific study whether performed in the laboratory or in the field? Statistics are, after all, the rules by which things are counted, and it is impossible to do any experiment without counting up the results.”12 It seems to be slightly ironic that a research committee supposedly pledgeing to further prgoress regarding cancer and cigarettes would so easily go against the grain of the predominant opinion in the medical field, but when looking at the health industries perspective of the TIRC it becomes clear how little this group actually dedicated itself towards its stated goals. The American Cancer Society in the same year as David M. Rusteins letter stated in a bulletin that the TIRC’s express purpose was to “‘’deny repeatedly’’ and ‘’mislead’’ and ‘’to convince the trusting tobacco-consuming public of the industry’s eleemosynary, ‘lasting interest in people’s health.’’13 In 11 “Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics” Allen Brandt 12 avid D. Rutstein, M. D. 1957 “An Open Letter to Dr. Clarence Cook Little” The Atlantic, D 13 Bulletin of Cancer Progress, American Cancer Society, CA – March-April 1958 1998 when the TIRC and other research groups are eventually dissolved due to their involvement as propagansists for the tobacco industry, a U.S District Court Judge stated that the TIRC was “a sophisticated public relations vehicle based on the premise of conducting independent scientific research - to deny the harms of smoking and reassure the public,”14 this being in relation to United States v. Phillip Morris. Little aided and abateed this group well into his final days and served longer than his tenure at UMaine and UMichigan combined. UMaine’s motto is “I Guide”, which can be applied numerous ways. The University of Maine prides itself on the efforts of students and resarchers in the STEM fields and the advancements which come from their years of hard work. It prides itself on the diversity of it’s student body, this being featured heavily in marketing materials for the University of Maine. Also, the University of Maine sets the course in numerous ways: setting progressive green energy goals, being one of the top 100 research institutes in the nation, and having the only fight song to reach the top of the pop charts. In discussing Little and his legacy, we all want the University of Maine to live up to its reputation and consider changing the name to move towards a better future. Little was a trailblazer in his time regarding his academic works, but more often than not he served as a force which opposed a prosperous and better future. Little in his life seeked to alienate others and stifle the scientific progress in the same field which he spent so much time researching and inovating in; both of these aspects are contrary to the ideals which the university has held for decades. We do not seek to erase or write over history, we seek to honor the history that better represents us as a UMaine community while also being honest about the figures of our past. If the name is changed, Little should also be recognized for all of who he is, not just what we choose to feature. There are numerous individuals which better uphold the ideals and traditions we all hold dear, and we hope one of them will get to replace Little (to mention one name, Penobscot Nation member Donna Loring.) Being honest about your past and acknowledging one’s mistakes is the first step towards building a more honest future, and changing Little Hall would be an excellent first step. Kevin Fitzpatrick Chair of YDSA 14 United States District Court: Civil Action Number 99-2496 (GK), 1998
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-