My father wrote a response to PAW at the time (published in the March 9, 1951, issue) which reads:
Dear Sir:
In reply to a letter concerning Dr. Bohm, the editor of the ALUMNI WEEKLY informs me that the issue of Dr. Bohm’s political convictions was not involved and that his suspension is “not an attempt to pre-judge his case, but to relieve him from all his duties until his case comes to trial.” He further informs me that it is his understanding that a suspension for the duration of an indictment of any sort is regular procedure, “that the question of Communist beliefs has nothing to do with the case.” I’m sure this will relieve the anxiety of many alumni and friends of Princeton who may perhaps have considered Dr. Bohm’s suspension a result of current political hysteria and as an infringement of academic freedom at Princeton.
My father wrote a response to PAW at the time (published in the March 9, 1951, issue) which reads:
Dear Sir:
In reply to a letter concerning Dr. Bohm, the editor of the ALUMNI WEEKLY informs me that the issue of Dr. Bohm’s political convictions was not involved and that his suspension is “not an attempt to pre-judge his case, but to relieve him from all his duties until his case comes to trial.” He further informs me that it is his understanding that a suspension for the duration of an indictment of any sort is regular procedure, “that the question of Communist beliefs has nothing to do with the case.” I’m sure this will relieve the anxiety of many alumni and friends of Princeton who may perhaps have considered Dr. Bohm’s suspension a result of current political hysteria and as an infringement of academic freedom at Princeton.
Harry C. Maguire Jr. ’48