“A Veritable Refuge for Practicing Homosexuals:”

The Johns Committee Persecution of Homosexuals at the University of South Florida

 

Dan Bertwell

University of South Florida

           

In early 1962, members of the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (commonly referred to as the Johns Committee) turned their attention toward the University of South Florida (USF). The committee searched for communists, homosexuals, and atheists on staff at the school. Those accused of homosexuality met with persecution and received little support from either the public or the university. Though their trials have been largely forgotten in historical memory, gay academics found themselves limited and intimidated by investigative committees and a culture of fear. Most analyses of this time consider the effects of government intimidation on communists, but avoid discussing the persecution of ‘sex deviants,’ to use the nomenclature of the day. 

Established in 1956 and opened for classes in 1960, USF could have been devastated by damaging allegations of harboring sex deviants, communists, and atheists. Neither the school’s administration nor the Johns Committee wished to defend homosexuality or homosexuals for fear that their presence would be harmful to students and to the school’s reputation. During a time when universities were expected to act in loco parentis, taking over certain parental obligations, the presence of homosexual men seemed a real danger to school administrators. The beliefs that homosexuality was a psychological disorder and that gay men would target young men, combined with the vulnerability of a new school establishing itself, made USF an easy target for investigation.

An analysis of the Johns Committee uncovers worries concerning the influence of educators over their impressionable students. Ostensibly fearful for the morality and safety of the state’s children, cold warriors focused much of their investigative energy toward homosexual (or allegedly homosexual) educators. Even thirty years after the fact, supporters of the committee described their actions as a defense of students rather than an attack on educators[1] During an interview in 1977, Charlie Johns proclaimed that he wished he had “been naïve and never knowed all that about homosexuals,” implying that the investigations had led to many hassles, but he knew homosexuals were a danger.[2] Johns Committee investigator R. J. Strickland was “very pleased” with “the service [he] did for the people,” specifically children. Strickland felt that he was “a part of exposing a serious problem in the school system.”[3] 

The actions of the Johns Committee and internal investigators reveal Cold War biases against and stigmas attached to homosexuals. The lack of public and administrative support for persecuted professors demonstrates the isolation of homosexuals during the Cold War era, which allowed the Johns Committee to pursue the easiest targets in a time when the committee was up for renewal in state funding.  Allegations of homosexuality were very successful in exposing ‘guilty’ parties and those accused of ‘sex deviance’ were particularly vulnerable to charges of moral turpitude. Furthermore, an analysis of the investigations reveals that university administrators and the public considered the school, and not the accused, as victims in the whole affair. This research demonstrates that USF President John Allen did not advocate for the accused faculty; rather he worked with the committee to expunge suspected homosexuals whenever possible, recreating the school to meet their standards of a safe and healthy learning environment.[4] Johns Committee investigators hoped to shield students from the influence of homosexual educators and internal USF investigators hoped to protect the school from damaging charges; neither were interested in protecting the rights of suspected homosexuals. Furthermore, the investigations reveal vestiges of a separation in committee members’ minds between homosexual actions and homosexuality.

Educators at the USF were well aware that contemporary society deemed homosexuals a danger to the public. On 24 April, 1963, President Allen stood before the State Legislature determined to defend his school from the Johns Committee charges. The previous week, Mark Hawes, an attorney for the Johns Committee, had directed disparaging comments toward USF. In his rebuttal, Allen described Hawes’ statements as “a skillful blend of truths, half-truths, and omissions.”[5] In a written transcript of Allen’s words, sandwiched between two pages defending the school from charges of being ‘soft’ on Communism and two pages refuting the assertion that USF’s faculty was ‘anti-religious,’ were three paragraphs describing “the area of homosexual behavior,” and related allegations levied against the university and its faculty.[6]

            Dr. Allen asserted that the Johns Committee’s investigation had uncovered just one case of homosexuality among the school’s five hundred staff and faculty members.  USF administrators accepted the gay man’s resignation and reported the case to the Board of Control, a statewide governmental committee that oversaw university matters.  Allen claimed that while charges were made against two other employees, both had left the school for unrelated reasons. The administration had also found two students with “homosexual tendencies,” both of whom had since left school and were undergoing psychiatric treatment. Allen cited these results as “an indication of our careful screening.”[7] 

            By November, 1961, USF had been conducting classes for little more than a year when Charley Johns wrote a letter informing President Allen that the fledgling institution would be under investigation “in regard to the infiltration into state agencies by practicing homosexuals.”[8] Johns told Allen that the committee would attempt to ascertain “the extent of this problem,” rather than attacking or identifying specific people on campus.[9] According to Senator Johns, the committee hoped to gather information on the administration’s policies for dealing with the presence of homosexuals on campus, determine avenues for removing them from employment in state agencies, and establish legislative guidelines to discourage them from further state employment.  Johns promised to run the investigation with “a very high level of dignity.” In the two-page letter, the Senator never mentioned communism or religion; homosexuality remained the only issue officially discussed.[10]

This issue was important for a number of reasons. Investigators genuinely believed that ‘queer’ professors were a danger to students, but they were also easy targets who did not enjoy popular support in mainstream society. At a time when the committee was up for renewal in state funding, attacks on homosexuals at USF seemed a simple and effective means to many ends; providing targets that many in the public would not support and positive publicity for the committee. Finding university faculty who had actually engaged in homosexual acts proved a much easier task than uncovering those vaguely accused of ‘communism,’ or ‘treason.’

USF had been one school in a long line of Johns Committee victims. Founded in 1956 and officially named the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (FLIC), its initial purpose was to undermine the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and other groups that supported school integration[11] The Johns Committee was just one of many McCarthy-influenced committees in the south opposing racial integration. Historian Jeff Woods refers to them as “mini-HUACs,” an allusion to the House Un-American Activities Committee.[12]  The committee’s investigators searched for a “conspiratorial web uniting Communists with political liberals, civil rights activists, and integrationists,” but by 1958, members of the committee were trying to establish “a causal link between homosexuality and political subversion.”[13] This was not a secret transition. After the committee had been on the USF campus for months, The St. Petersburg Times mentioned that their focus had changed from race to sex over the course of the previous two years.[14]

In the late 1950s, FLIC became most commonly associated with State Senator and committee chair Charley Johns. The Johns Committee was a powerful example of McCarthyism at work on a local level. Investigators scrutinized the morals and loyalty of

State employees, particularly in education, at both secondary schools and public universities. The transition from searching for communists in the NAACP to searching for homosexuals occurred in the summer of 1958 at the University of Florida (UF), where the committee had encountered difficulty uncovering communists, but had little trouble finding allegations of homosexuality.[15] They had gone to UF seeking communists, but had inadvertently encountered accusations of homosexuality toward professors.[16] According to historian Bonnie Stark, the committee’s initial report on homosexuality was “well received by the legislature,” and they were “praised for doing a fine job of investigating and cleaning up the problem” at UF. The legislature expanded the committee’s powers to include investigating charges of ‘sex deviance’ and increased their funding appropriation, meaning that from 1959 forward the Johns Committee searched for homosexuals.[17]

            In their 1961 report to the Legislature, members of the Johns Committee asserted that homosexuals worked at Florida’s universities, and they found the scope of the problem both “shocking” and “appalling.”[18] The committee also discovered that homosexuals would “almost invariably” attempt to recruit young people as sex partners. Because of the influence a teacher held over many students, investigators believed educators could do “tremendous damage” to their young charges. Despite the perceived danger to children, committee members believed that a combination of “administrators ignoring the problem” and “lenient dealing with the individual when caught” made “the public educational system in Florida a veritable refuge for practicing homosexuals.”[19] 

            The Committee began secretly questioning USF students on 10 April, 1962 without the knowledge of the school’s administrators. Students were taken without a university representative to a room in the Hawaiian Village Motel on Dale Mabry Highway and asked about “alleged wrongdoing” at the school.  President Allen learned of this situation on 16 May. The Committee promised Allen that they would move the investigation to a room on campus, and would question students “in the presence of a Board of Control observer and a University employee who would tape record all proceedings.”[20] Committee members were only true to their word for two weeks, at which time they moved to secret locations off campus. Over the course of the two weeks on campus, investigators had interrogated twenty faculty members and ten students.[21] 

            Thomas Wenner, a (soon-to-be-former) political science instructor made the accusations, describing USF as a “campus of evil.” President Allen defended USF, stating that Wenner’s charges sprung from a “prejudiced mind.”[22] All the while, Allen received letters of encouragement from around the country. University professors and presidents, ministers, bank presidents, and citizens sent letters to Allen professing their support for the school. In an effort to express their “approval of the action” Allen took regarding the investigation, 1,016 USF students signed a petition of support for the school.[23] The USF Chapter of the American Association of University Professors also wrote a letter praising Allen for his defense of academic freedom; none of the letters of support defended the rights of homosexuals.[24]   

Expressions of support took many forms, but invariably touted academic freedom not civil rights for homosexuals. Tampa Television station WTVT issued two editorials attacking the Johns Committee and stated that “a committee on higher learning, and not a committee looking around for targets” should have been searching for communists and ‘sex deviants’ on USF’s campus.[25] The editor worried that “loose, not fully specified charges of homosexual activity” and other “highly undesirable characteristics” would have a permanently detrimental effect on the young school.[26] Invariably, those who defended the school did not come out in support of rights for homosexual educators, but argued that the school should not be hurt by allegations. The university itself became the victim of the investigations, not the accused.

Those who defended the school in the public arena did not defend homosexuals, but worried that the committee was overstepping its boundaries. More often than not, letter writers worried about ‘academic freedom’ as it applied to the teaching of religion and communism. They rarely mentioned homosexuality and never defended same-sex sexual activity. When describing troubling aspects of the investigation, editors at the St. Petersburg Times wrote that the state needed to establish a reputation as an educational center, and destroying academic freedom would not accomplish this goal. The editorialist maintained that the charges of pornography, communists, homosexuals and liberals being on campus were unsubstantiated and that academic freedom should be maintained.[27]

            The Johns Committee investigations led to accusations of ‘sex deviance’ being leveled toward four men at USF: educational resources staff member James Teske and professor John MacKenzie, both accused of performing homosexual acts on students, plus theater professor John Caldwell and music professor R. Wayne Hugoboom, both accused of less concrete charges.[28] Teske and MacKenzie were terminated because of the charges. Caldwell and Hugoboom chose to appeal their cases. Presumably, those who felt particularly confident of their own innocence chose this recourse, but the school’s administration made the final decisions. Hugoboom successfully regained his position and returned to teaching. Caldwell appealed his suspension and returned to teaching briefly. 

The local press reported Caldwell’s case more than any other. Perhaps as a result of this, USF administrators also discussed his case in inter-office memos more than any other. The major charge against Caldwell dealt with a student named Charles Hadley, whom many students believed was a homosexual. Caldwell told Hadley to “stay away” from the theater because the professor “did not want any ‘fairies’” around it.[29] Not long after this exchange, during a school theater trip to Tallahassee, the two spent the night together in a motel room. During the course of the night, Caldwell allegedly told Hadley that, “If a homosexual friend of mine came to me for homosexual action, I couldn’t turn him down.”[30]  Caldwell denied this charge. 

The internal committee reviewing Caldwell’s suspension focused on two major dimensions of the allegations. First, Hadley maintained that he was straight. He and USF student Judy Graves had gone to Dr. Margaret Fisher and complained about “gossip that labeled them both as homosexuals.” Hadley and Graves married before the trip to Tallahassee.[31] Hadley claimed he did not “engage in homosexual practices, was not a homosexual, and was offended by the accusation.” Hadley’s declaration specifically divided partaking in homosexual activities from actually being a homosexual, insinuating that boundaries between the two categories were not fixed.[32]  Secondly, Hadley had been encouraged by other theater students to make the trip to Tallahassee and Caldwell could have feasibly shared the room with Hadley in order to keep the student “under surveillance and away from other students.”[33] It is difficult to ascertain who, if anyone, was gay. Regardless of whether or not Hadley or Caldwell, or both, were homosexuals, administrators focused on the issue closely, hoping to reach some conclusion and move on from the episode. 

The Committee was especially interested in the “moral tone” of Professor Caldwell’s theater. He claimed to have been “constantly vigilant to keep his drama work free from homosexuals” and believed “his theatre to be the cleanest theatre in the United States in this regard.”[34] This point, and the possibility that Caldwell roomed with Hadley in Tallahassee to keep him away from other students, indicated that Caldwell might have been protecting impressionable students from a potentially dangerous homosexual.  Charles Hadley was considerably older than the average college student, and the committee would have viewed the presence of an accused homosexual student (and older peer) as a grave threat to the student body. In keeping his theater “clean,” and keeping a watchful eye over Hadley, Caldwell appears to have been fulfilling his duty of protecting students from a corruptive influence, which may have supported his pursuit of an appeal.[35]

Caldwell also had character witnesses supporting him. Student Paul Morton told the president that he had some “harrowing experiences with homosexuals” and “abhor[ed] them.” Morton believed Hadley was gay and claimed the man approached him sexually. Morton did not believe the charges against Professor Caldwell. Morton told the president that, during the Tallahassee trip, Hadley and Caldwell shared a room because everyone else had previously chosen their roommates and these two “were left over.” Morton “would not be prepared to believe that Caldwell had had homosexual relations with Hadley.”[36] Along with Morton, Father Fred Dickman and USF Faculty member C. Wesley Houk spoke on Caldwell’s behalf.[37]

Speaking against Caldwell were Michael Winn and Charles Hadley. The committee took into account that Dr. Fisher had described Hadley as “unsavory,” “irresponsible,” and “inconsistent.”[38] She also reported that Winn had difficulties with his grades (“all F’s”), had stolen school property, and was a liar.[39] Fisher stated that Winn was “an unreliable witness,” with “no appreciation for the truth,” and in serious need of psychiatric counseling.[40] It disturbed the administrators reviewing the case that the Johns Committee accepted “at face value the statements of two unsuccessful students,” who were both “probably disgruntled.”[41]

Dr. Fisher interviewed Charles Hadley for the committee. Hadley claimed he was not aware of “any homosexual activities either in the community or on campus.” When questioned about several professors and administrators (including Professor Caldwell and President Allen), Hadley claimed that he had no knowledge of any past homosexual behavior on their part.[42] Fisher gives no indication as to why Hadley changed his story about Caldwell, although Hadley might have lied to Johns Committee about the Caldwell case because he felt pressured and told the truth to USF investigators. Hadley, while being questioned by USF employees, would have certainly been influenced by their desire to protect the reputation of the young university.

            In August, 1962, the committee evaluating Caldwell’s suspension, taking into account the reputations of Charles Hadley, Michael Winn, and Professor Caldwell, recommended that the professor’s suspension be lifted.[43] The press reported Caldwell’s return and Senator Johns’ reaction. Johns told reporters that the university obviously “intended to resist the taking of any corrective action,” and that their stance was a “public nullification of the Board of Control’s announced policy on morals and influences.”[44]

            Despite his public vindication, Caldwell did not appreciate his treatment during the ordeal. After being returned to his teaching duties, he resigned from the faculty because of the committee’s “extended and continuing harassment.” While speaking to reporters about the situation, Caldwell commented, “I can’t take any more … I won’t subject myself to further indignities from that man [Johns] and what he’s doing to destroy teacher morale at the university.” According to Caldwell, Charlie Johns would “never give up, but keep on hurting people to save face politically.” In Caldwell’s estimation, the Johns investigations into homosexual activities were an attempt to ‘save face’ because of their inability to find communists.[45] 

Caldwell’s exit was well timed. Confidentially, President Allen made it clear in his assessment of the case that Caldwell would not be granted tenure and his reinstatement would only last until the end of the professor’s current contract (about six months later).[46] While not being technically fired, the University’s administration planned on releasing the professor at the earliest possible opportunity. Even members of the Johns Committee, before the internal investigation, admitted that Caldwell displayed “excellent qualities related to theatre arts;” his abilities as a teacher were not in doubt, Caldwell was an easily eliminated tie to the investigation.[47] Because the Caldwell case was the only one that made the newspapers, USF administrators may have believed that the questionable circumstances surrounding the whole affair tainted the reputation of the school; newspaper writers and editorialists shared this fear.[48]

The Johns Committee members felt that they had found four faculty and staff members with enough evidence against them to mount strong cases for dismissal. In the cases of Teske and MacKenzie, two men were accused of performing a homosexual act on students. Caldwell and Hugoboom kept their jobs, (however briefly in Caldwell’s case), after being indicted by rumor on the part of students. The two men accused of actual homosexual acts were summarily fired, the two accused of possible homosexual tendencies successfully petitioned to retain their jobs.

These cases indicate a permeability of the boundaries between homosexual acts and homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. The Johns Committee’s investigation uncovered a group of men vulnerable to accusation for various reasons. Existing social stigmas attached to perceived homosexuals allowed most of them to be removed from USF because of the damage their stories may do to the young school but there is a disparity between those accused of a homosexual act and those accused of homosexual ‘tendencies.’ Both committees, the Johns Committee and the internal USF one, fulfilled their stated goal of rooting out and firing those accused of partaking in homosexual activity at USF. Internal investigators, complicit in the Johns Committee's plans to remove homosexuals, moved to keep these types of investigations a private matter. They did not advocate for the rights of the homosexuals removed from their positions, they simply offered an option for those falsely accused and accepted that the ‘guilty’ had no place on a university campus. The system worked exactly as it was meant to.    

At the close of the investigation of USF, the Johns Committee had produced 2,500 pages of testimony. Homosexuality was the first topic in the response report of the Board of Control’s Special Committee. In the end, they found that the issue was a not a “problem” of “great magnitude” at the university.[49] According to the report, USF showed “the beginnings of a great university,” but administrators were encouraged to remain vigilant and take abrupt action in response to future moral charges.[50]

            Florida’s “Statement of Policy on Academic Freedom and Responsibilities,” adopted in December, 1962, insisted that university administrators should “guard against activities subversive to the American democratic process and against immoral behavior, such as sex deviation,” as one of the guidelines necessary “to assure a wholesome educational environment.”[51] In May, 1963, President Allen sent a memo reminding faculty members of the guidelines for tenure and termination at USF established in “Policy Statement Number 45,” reiterating that “conduct, professional or personal, involving moral turpitude,” was “justifiable cause for disciplinary action.”[52] Allen also sent an internal memo to the Deans of the university’s various colleges, reminding them that all personnel files were confidential and any “requests for these files by government agencies and other accredited investigators should be channeled through the President’s office.”[53] Allen hoped to avoid a similar situation in the future, making sure that all government investigations had to go through the president’s office. He institutionalized a protective measure to keep the university safe from outside committees, but the right to appeal often did not save jobs without tenure or save the accused from social condemnation.

            In Washington, DC, investigators maintained that worries over national security led to charges of homosexuality against Federal employees. Around the state of Florida, the Johns Committee spent a great deal of time investigating the educational system hoping to root out communists, atheists, and homosexuals who may have had a dangerous influence on their college age students. Fearful over what students might be learning, these men were not just worried about the security of the nation, they also were concerned with its future. Homosexuals made particularly attractive targets because the background of the accused counted for very little when confronting allegations of sexual ‘deviance.’ At a time when they needed positive press coverage, members of the Johns Committee attacked members of the USF community, hoping to rid the area of a gay influence and place their mark indelibly on the region. Their actions point to homophobia during the Cold War, and the lack of public support for those charged with homosexual acts is an indication of the precariousness of gay life during that time. 

 



[1]“Florida’s Own Inquisition,” The Oracle, 8 July, 1993, 4. The Oracle is the USF school newspaper.

[2]Quoted in James Anthony Schnurr, “Cold Warriors in the Hot Sunshine: The John’s Committee’s Assault on Civil Liberties in Florida, 1956-1965” (MA Thesis, University of South Florida, 1995), 320-321.

[3]Quoted in Bonnie Stark, “McCarthyism in Florida: Charley Johns and the Florida Legislative Investigative Committee, July 1956 to July 1965”  (MA Thesis, University of South Florida, 1985), 231.

[4]Allen, USF’s first President, began his tenure in 1956, before any of the buildings were built, and oversaw the construction. He left in 1970. His term is still the longest in school history.

[5]John S. Allen, “Address to the State Legislature,” 24 April, 1963. The Papers of Dr. John Allen (Henceforth referred to as PJA): Box 34, Folder 22, “John Allen: Speeches,” Special Collections Department, University of South Florida Library, Tampa, (henceforth referred to as SCUSF), 1. 

[6]Ibid., 4.

[7]Ibid.

[8]Charley Johns to Dr. John S. Allen, [9 November, 1961], PJA:  Box 4, Folder 13, “Johns Committee Investigation, 1962:  Comments from the Public Concerning,” SCUSF, 1.

[9]Ibid., 1.

[10]Ibid.

[11]Schnurr discusses these developments in greater detail in “Cold Warriors,” Chapter 2.

[12]Jeff Woods, Black Struggle, Red Scare:  Segregation and Anti-Communism in the South, 1948-1968, (Baton Rouge, LA:  Louisiana State University Press, 2004), 119.

[13]Schnurr, “Cold Warriors,” 4.

[14]St. Petersburg Times, 24 May, 1962, 11A.

[15]Stark, McCarthyism in Florida, 88.

[16]Ibid., 93-94.

[17]Ibid., 111-112.

[18]“Report of the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee to the Florida Legislature, 1961, Tallahassee, FL, PJA: Box 4, Folder 14, “Johns Legislative Investigation Committee, 1962,” SCUSF, 18.

[19]Ibid., 21.

[20]“Untitled.” PJA: Box 4, Folder 14, “Johns Legislative Committee Investigation, 1962.” SCUSF. This citation comes from an untitled and undated three-page list of nine grievances against the committee.  There are two such documents in this particular folder, one is a rough draft (with penciled changes). The citations are from the final draft. Grievance 6 and 7 are cited specifically. On 28 April, the committee questioned 45 students at the home of Professor Thomas B. Wenner, who had arranged the meeting and was a faculty member in the political science department at USF. This is listed in the above citation as grievance 6. There is also a memorandum, which lists Allen’s reasons for firing Wenner in May, 1962.  John Allen, “Memorandum to the College of Basic Studies,” [17 May, 1962], PJA, Box 4, Folder 14, “Johns Legislative Committee Investigation, 1962,” SCUSF.

[21]Quoted in Stark, “McCarthyism in Florida, “ 150.

[22]“’Prejudiced Minds’ Sparked Probe, School Head Says,” Miami Herald, 27 May, 1962, 2B. “So the Campus is not Evil…,” Tampa Tribune, 8 June, 1962, 10B. Although his department is never specifically stated an internal memo discussing the backgrounds of investigated professors lists his training in history and political science and his most recent positions at other institutions in political science departments, PJA:  Box 4, Folder 15, SCUSF.

[23]USF Fact Book, “Table 1: Total University Enrollment, Fall Term,” (Tampa, University of South Florida, 1970), 1-1-1. USF had 2,982 students enrolled in the fall term of 1961: similar numbers would have been at the school in  Spring ,1962. There were 3,664 enrolled in the fall of 1962. Taking the data from Fall, 1961 and Fall, 1962 enrollment means that somewhere between 28% and 34% of the enrolled student body signed the petition. 

[24]For all letters of support, see also PJA: Box 4, Folder 13, “Johns Committee Investigation, 1962, Comments from the Public Concerning,” SCUSF.

[25]Crawford Rice, Director of Programs, “An official Expression of Opinion by Television Station WTVT,” [17 September, 1962], PJA: Box 4, Folder 15, “Johns Committee Investigation, 1962: Newspaper Clippings Concerning, SCUSF.

[26]Crawford Rice, Director of Programs, “An official Expression of Opinion by Television Station WTVT,” [21 May, 1962], PJA:  Box 4, Folder 15, “Johns Committee Investigation, 1962:  Newspaper Clippings Concerning, SCUSF.

[27]“Preserving Our Academic Freedom,” St. Petersburg Times, 20 May, 1962, 2D.

[28]H.P. Stallworth to John Allen, 4 June, 1962 and Charley Johns, “Report from Florida Legislative Investigation Committee to the State Board of Control and the State Board of Education,” sent via J.B. Culpepper to Baya M. Harrison, et al, 24 August, 1962, both in PJA:  Box 4, Folder 14, SCUSF. It is difficult to ascertain in which department MacKenzie was employed, but it was almost certainly English/Humanities. A description of Mackenzie’s case in a 4 June, 1962 memo to the Board of Control matched almost exactly another letter sent on 24 August of the same year. The only difference being that the professor’s name was blotted out and his department “English/Humanities” was specified. 

[29]The Committee for Evaluating Mr. John Caldwell’s Suspension, “Report to President John S. Allen, [9 August, 1962].  PJA:  Box 4, Folder 12, “Report of the President of the University of South Florida to the Board of Control on the Johns Committee Investigation,” SCUSF, 1. 

[30]Ibid., 1-2.

[31]James A. Parrish, “Confidential Report to President Allen From James A. Parrish on the John W. Caldwell Hearing,” [28 August, 1962], PJA: Box 4, Folder 14, “The Johns Committee Investigation, 1962,” SCUSF, 2. Fisher was the Director of Student Personnel for the University at this time. 

[32]Margaret B. Fisher, “Interview With Charles Hadley, [14 September, 1962], PJA:  Box 4, Folder 14, “Johns Legislative Committee Investigation, 1962,” SCUSF, 2.

[33]Committee for Evaluating Caldwell’s Suspension, Report to President, [9 August, 1962], 2.

[34]Committee for Evaluating Caldwell’s Suspension, “Report to President,” [9 August, 1962], 3.

[35]Fisher, “Interview with Charles Hadley,” 1. Although Hadley’s age does not appear in the records, during his interview with Dr. Fisher he mentions that he had been withdrawn from a management-training program because “he was too old” and they preferred to hire people under the age of 25. It is reasonable to assume that Hadley was over the age of 25, and could have been significantly older than that. 

[36]John Allen, “Report on Investigation Conducted by President Allen Personally on the John W. Caldwell Case,” [11 September, 1962], PJA:  Box 4, Folder 12, “Report of the President of the University of South Florida to the Board of Control on the Johns Committee Investigation,” SCUSF, 2.

[37]Parrish, “Confidential Report,” 2. Allen, “Report on Investigation, 1.

[38]Committee, “Report to President,”  2.

[39]Parrish, “Confidential Report, “ 1.

[40]Allen, “Report on Investigation,” 3.

[41]Parrish, “Confidential Report,”  2.

[42]Ibid., 2.

[43]They reported to Dean French because President Allen was away on vacation. Committee, “Report to the President,” 1, 5. “Confidential Matters Handled by Sidney J. French during Dr. Allen’s absence from campus,” [24 August, 1962], PJA:  Box 34, Folder 17, “Memos, 1962,” SCUSF.

[44]Tampa Tribune, 10 September, 1962 and St. Petersburg Times 20 September, 1962; St. Petersburg Independent, 17 September, 1962; Tampa Times, 17 September, 1962; Tampa Tribune, 18 September, 1962.  Newspaper accounts can be found gathered in a set of three scrapbooks in Special Collections at the University of South Florida Library. These articles come from Scrapbook 1, “Johns Committee USF, 1962.”

[45]Tampa Times, 21 September, 1962, Scrapbook 1, “Johns Committee USF, 1962,” SCUSF.

[46]Allen, “Report on Investigation. “

[47]Stallworth to Allen, [4 June, 1962], 2.

[48]Scrapbook 1, “Johns Committee USF, 1962,” SCUSF.

[49]Frank M. Buchanan, Gert H.W. Schmidt, and Wayne C. McCall, DDS, “Report of the Special Committee of the Board of Control,” [14 September, 1962], PJA: Box 4, Folder 14, “Johns Legislative Committee Investigation, 1962,” SCUSF, 1.

[50]Ibid., 2, 6.

[51]State of Florida Board of Control, “Statement of Policy on Academic Freedom and Responsibilities,” [7 December, 1962], PJA:  Box 34, Folder 21, “Policy Statements,” SCUSF, 2.

[52]Memo from the Office of the President of the University of South Florida [20 May, 1963], PJA:  Box 34, Folder 16, “Memos, 1963,” SCUSF.

[53]Memo from the Office of the President of the University of South Florida, [26 July, 1963], PJA:  Box 34, Folder 16, “Memos, 1963,” SCUSF.