Forrest O. Wiggins's speech: The Ideology of Interest

An announcement of Wiggins's speech
Wiggins, Forrest Oran. Correspondence. (Box 1, Folder 3). 1946 - 1951-11. University of Minnesota Libraries, University Archives.

On January 22, 1951, Forrest O. Wiggins delivered his speech "The Ideology of Interest" at the Coffman Memorial Union at the University of Minnesota. Wiggins spoke as part of an event held as part of the university's Centennial Lecture Series. The event was titled "Conflict in the Social Order," and it was sponsored by student and professional organizations like Future Teachers of American and the Sociology Club. 

The purpose of the event was to provide students with an opportunity to study ideological problems related to social conflict. In addition to Wiggins, the political science professor Mulford Q. Sibley and the sociologist Benjamin N. Nelson also spoke, and a panel discussion between the three professors was moderated by the sociologist George B. Vold. About 150 to 200 people attended Wiggins's talk, mostly students and a handful of faculty. 

The text of Wiggins's speech is as follows:

In an extremely pessimistic mood at the time preceding the Civil War, when men seemed to be unable to become aroused over the contradiction between the expressed tenets of democracy and human slavery, Thoreau wrote: "What is the price current of an honest man and patriot today? They will wait, well disposed for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer regret. At most, they give only a cheap vote and a feeble countenance and Goodspeed to the right, as it goes them by."

The new world situation which has come into being as a result of the defeat of fascism requires a reorientation in our ways of thinking. There seems to be no doubt that if we are to be entirety pragmatic, we should examine the fundamental ideologies which have led us into two world-embracing wars within a single generation and a situation where we did not get out of the last business depression except by means of war.

This means to say, and I shall repeat it ad nauseum that capitalism did not emerge from the last depression by any natural causes indigenous to capitalism itself.

If we are to examine some of the basic economic political creeds, we would find, I think, that we have accepted capitalism as the best economic system, democracy with its principles of majority-minority divisions, plus as a political and social philosophy bolstering and lending support to these political and economic systems. Furthermore, I think we should assume the hegemony of the white race over the backward and colonial peoples of the world. 

In the space of some thirty or forty years, and with a pace unparalleled in its rapidity since the close of the last war, these four basic assumptions are no longer valid, nor are they held by a majority of mankind throughout the world. At the very outset, let us enunciate in the clearest possible tones:

1. The present conflict in the world today is not a conflict between democracy and communism; the present conflict in the world today is between capitalism and socialism.
2. The proponents of capitalism are in a distinct minority.
3. The domination of the white race over the rest of the world is no longer possible.
4. The most powerful leader of capitalism is the United States; the most powerful leader of socialism is the Soviet Union.

Conflict of interest is telescoped and brought into sharp focus by means of war. We ought to ask ourselves, "Who are the people who want war at the present time?" The Koreans? Their towns and villages and cities and hospitals and schools and huts are reduced to rubble. More than three-fourths of Korea is destroyed. The population has suffered a loss of more than one hundred thousand casualties. The Koreans do not want war. The Chinese in a period of some twenty years, in which they have been struggling for independence, have lost more than ten million lives. They are only one year out of an internal civil war. The great job of the Chinese is that of reconstruction and industrialization. The Chinese do not want war. The German elections show that the German people will not shoulder arms in defense of Western democracies. The Russians don't want war. Who is it, then, who wants war.

The answer is that it is the capitalists and the militarists in the United States who want war.

I shall let the truth come out of the horses's mouth; I shall give you a series of quotations which will prove this thesis. We may lay down the general principle that American business standard for the proposition that the United States economy requires military spending inevitably leads to military action. And here I call upon the spokesmen of capitalism to speak for themselves.

In Barron's Financial Weekly, of August 7, we find this statement: "The United States has inherited an imperial mantle as order-keeper for the world.... In the past this was left to others, notably the British... In this century the task devolves upon United States leadership; there is no other. Wall Street has a part of play in the immediate re-arming of America... It will do so not just by supplying the Treasury with dollars, but supplying as in the part, intelligent and courageous leadership."

Dr. Palyi, former banker and professor of finance at the University of Chicago, writing in the Commercial and Financial Chronicle of August 12, 1950, states, "We have underwritten Europe's colonial empires as well as the highly artificial semi-totalitarian structures which grew out of them."

Dr. Virgil Jordan, president of the National Industrial Conference Board, says, "America has embarked upon a career of imperialism, both in world affairs and in every aspect of her life... At best, England will become a junior partner of the new Anglo-Saxon imperialism, in which the economic resources and military and naval strength of the United States will be the center of gravity. Southward in our Hemisphere and Westward in the Pacific the path of empire takes its way, and in modern terms of economic power as well as political prestige, the sceptre  [rec scepter] passes to the United States...

"We have no alternative, in truth than to move along the road we have been traveling in the past quarter century, in the direction we took with the conquest of Cube and the Philippines, and our participation in World War I."

Austin Kiplinger, in the Chicago Journal of Commerce, March 2, 1949, writes, "In ABC's, the facts are these: The United States can produce more than its present capacity to consume. Increased consumption at home will sop up some of this excess, but still more excess will remain.

"We sell this excess abroad. And since the rest of the world is not up to our standard of production, we must decide what to take in payment. We can let the deficit stand as a debt which will probably never be paid. Or... and this is where imperialism comes in... we can't take ownership of properties throughout the world, and help to run them. 

"And if we do this, we shall have to cooperate with our own government and foreign governments to arrange the political weather under which American ownership abroad will be carried out...

"Since we are going to be stuck with the role of the imperialists, let us dramatize the new imperialism as an extension of the American way of life, and the American productive system..."

But we could use our productive resources at home. United States News and World Report of April 22, 1949, says "Official planners estimate that a shelf of needed public works at this time could total as much as 127 billion dollars." A few of the things talked about in Washington include such items as road building, 60 billion; floor control, 13 billion; schools, 10,5 billion; waterworks, 9.5 billion; hospitals, 8.5 billion. In the same issue, it states, "Armaments is the new great program for pump priming."

But let us continue. Justice Douglas made this statement: "War is the only divide the government can design to give maximum production and full employment."

David Lawrence, editor of the United States News and World Report, wrote on January 1, 1949, "Present prosperity is underwritten by billions being spent for armaments. Ending the cold war could bring economic upheaval in the United States."

In the Los Angeles Times, October, 1950, speaking of the Koreans and speaking rather prematurely, I think we will agree now, we find this statement: "The United States has won another war... Despite the fiction of carrying out a United Nations police action [and of course that's completely inaccurate], we have a clearer claim to write out our own ticket than in 1918, or even in 1945. For we have not only become the mightiest of military nations, we also stand as the fountainhead of the world's diplomatic leadership, of the world's wealth... Who else dominates the seven seas and the air above them?... We truthfully bestride the world like a colossus. Well, somebody's got to be boss. What are we waiting for?"

Now, of course, a United States Senator will not speak with such bluntness, but the worlds of Senator Sparkman of Alabama before the United Nations Economic Committee on October 25, 1950, echo the same sentiments. Quoting from Senator Sparkman:

"I wonder how many people appreciate the significance of the war in Korea on the international investment picture. It is possible that the long-range effect of the Korean War will be beneficial to the international flow of private capital."

This country has embarked upon a career of Marshall Plan aid, Atlantic Pacts, and the arming of the free nations. After five years of a spending spree, which again has been unparalleled in the history of the world, Scott Nearing says that these are the two results:

1. "In various countries grabbers and exploiters threatened by popular movements have turned to the Truman administration for help. Many of them have got the money and arms they asked for. Each Washington grant of support to a minority of grabbers and exploiters has alienated the exploited majority. Are the Marshall Plan countries ready to stand by the U.S.A. in an atomic war against the U.S.S.R.? Britain, improbably. France and Italy, emphatically not.

2. "Since 1945, the United States has taken part in half a dozen undeclared wars in which imperialist landlords and capitalists were financed, armed, organized and directed by U.S. interests and personnel. This happened in Indonesia, Greece and China. Four other such wars are still in progress – in the Philippines, South Korea and Formosa. In each of these four wars, United States money, arms, equipment, and military advisers are helping to suppress popular movements. Such a policy could not win the support of the people, but only their masters and exploiters. Most notable among the examples of the outcomes which ultimately follows such a policy was the 1949 debacle for the Nationalists in China.

3. "In 1950, United States influence, based on the assumption that this country is a progressive force, has been all but dissipated. Particularly among the colonial people, the United States today is looked upon as imperialist and reactionary.

4. "Even though present United States policy may not guarantee peace, its advocates insist that it will surely bring victory – (a) victory by imperialists in an age which has repudiated imperialism; (b) victory by exploiters in an age which has repudiated exploitation; (c) victory by proponents of competition in an age which can survive only the basis of cooperation; (d) victory by an isolated,  even though industrialized, nation based upon military operations across two oceans and directed against the Eurasian heartland of the planet....

"... The Truman administration is making war on the emerging social order. Any such program is foredoomed to defeat."

That's the international picture. What is the domestic picture? For you cannot understand the international picture unless you see it as the reverse side of the coin of the domestic picture. If we look for persons who profit from the present war scares and hysteria as well as those that pay for the way, the answer becomes rather obvious. 

Corporation profits in 1939 were 6 1/2 billion dollars. Corporation profits in 1950 were 50 billion dollars. The working capital of United States corporations has increased 185 per cent since World War II began. From 1945 to 1949, in a space of four years, the corporations had piled up 135 billions in profits before taxes, and 78 billions after taxes. The farm income is down 2 billion dollars from last year. By a strange coincidence, Truman's defense war budget for 1950 was 50 billion dollars, which is exactly the estimated profits of corporations for the same year.

Now, where do these profit increases come from? First, they come from increased worker productivity. Worker productivity is 32 per cent greater than in 1939 and 65 per cent greater than in 1929. Secondly, it comes from a rise in prices. Profit after taxes rose 27 per cent in the first half of 1950 over the similar period in 1949, which was the highest in the history of our country. Although profits rose 27 per cent, sales rose only 8 per cent. In steel, the profit increase was 19 per cent over the corresponding period last year, and the sale rose only 3 per cent. I hope this gives a lie to the statement that increased profits are due to increased sales.

Here is a nice juicy item, and I will be through with quoting statistics for awhile, I hope. Today's report of the Standard Oil Company was really something. The company broke all records and with gross revenue of $3,322,000,000.00, it turned in a new profit of 365 million dollars which was obviously commented on as meaning that the Standard Oil Company had a profit of a million dollars a day throughout the year. Possibly prices could be lowered without hiring profits very much, in view of the big gross revenue. Possibly the directors may be thinking some time of splitting the stock.. for there would be an advantage... if profits per share do not look so large.

I shall not bore you with what is going on too much; this is an economic age, and I shall give you just a few more figures: Over the third quarter, profits after taxes (I shall give you just a few here) from 1949 to 1950 in food and baking goods have gone up 31 per cent; in iron and steel, 68 percent; in chemicals, 83 percent; in paper and paper pulp, 116 per cent; in textiles, 205 per cent; in mining and minerals, 563 per cent over last year. [Footnote cites "Wall Street Journal, November 8, 1950.]

What happened? The 1939 dollar is now only worth 59 cents in terms of purchasing power. The retail prices of consumers goods is 70 per cent higher than 1939.

Who profits by this? General Foods is owned by Morgan-Rockefeller interests, Standard Brands by Morgan, Continental Can by Morgan-Goldman-Sachs, American Can by Morgan, National Dairy by Morgan, National Biscuit Company by Morgan, Swift and Company by Kuhn, Loeb, Morgan, ad infinitum.

Each of these large financial empires has its representatives in key policy-making positions in the United States government. At the same time that these financial giants are systematically looting the country in the name of patriotism, the government is clamoring for controls and wage freezes, for the passage of an income tax which places the highest increases on the lowest incomes, and refuses to hold down rents and prices. Dewey says we must become like Spartans, give up conveniences. And Truman tells us we must tighten our belts, and, to give us a good example, according to Drew Pearson, within the last month he went on a diet and lost eleven pounds.

I would like to name a few of the men who control the political and economic destiny of this country. Number one is Mr. Charles E. Wilson, to whom Truman has given all of his powers granted under the emergency act. Who is Mr. Wilson. He is president of General Electric, one of the greatest monopolistic anti-labor corporations in the country.

General Lucius Clay, chairman of the board of Continental Can Company and former military governor of United States Occupied Germany, a many who was most instrumental in scrapping the decartelization programs for Germany.

William H. Harrison, president of International Telephone and Telegraph, who is now administrator of the National Production Authority. 

John D. Small, president of Maxson Food Systems, Inc., vice-president of Emerson Radios, now heads the Munitions Board. 

Winthrop W. Aldrich, brother-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., board chairman of Rockefeller's Chase National Bank, chairman of the National Advisory Committee on International Finance, which counsels the Secretary of the Treasury. He is now at the head of the President's Committee on International Trade with dominant influence on Mr. Truman's Point Four Program.

Paul Henry Nitze, vice-president of Dillon-Read, investment banks, head of the State Department Policy Planning Board since December, 1949.

General William Draper, vice-president of Dillon-Read, investment bankers. Dillion-Read [sic Dillon-Read] was closely associated with the German cartels. General Draper was chief economic officer in Germany from 1945 to 1947. He was the Under-Secretary of the Army from 1947 to 1949. [A footnote cites "James Stewart Martin, All Honorable Men, pp. 190ff."]

Dillon-Read is really something. Along with Brown Brothers and Harriman, they placed more than 86 per cent of the two billion dollars which the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis borrowed from the United States investors before the last war.

I shall not bore you any more with the listing of the connections between big business and the policy making positions in the government of the United States. But the Matthews, the Symingtons, the Perkins, the Johnsons, the Webbs – all of these are representatives of ig, monopolistic industries in the financial houses of American.

It was Woodrow Wilson who told us that if you wanted to understand modern wars, you would have to look at them in terms of their economic origin. In Taft's last speech before the Senate, he urges us to drop all pretense of idealism in our international affairs, and I would like to quote him. Mr. Taft says, "Its purpose [he means American foreign policy] is not to reform the entire world or to spread sweetness and light and economic prosperity to people who have lived and worked our their own salvation for centuries."

The war program is possibly only if American people are convinced that we are threatened from outside by an invasion by the Soviet Union and, more recently, we have added China. President Truman's message on the State of the Union said, "Our homes, our nation, all the things we believe in, are in grave danger." And although he explicitly names the Soviet Union as the aggressor in this conflict of interests, no Soviet armed forced have appeared anywhere on the scene.

The President and the Secretary of State have repeatedly given voice to the claim that the Soviet Union recognizes only force and, by implication, that the United States only recognizes only mercy, righteousness and justice. The President says that his policies will bring peace, security and prosperity to the world and freedom at the same time. He implements his peace policy by forcing a reluctant Europe to rearm, lay down plans for the re-militarization of Germany and Japan, calls for the draft of eighteen-year-old boys, and through the passage of the McCarran law, transforms the United States into a police state.

How real is the threat to our homes and to our way of life by the Soviet Union? Let me repeat the remark of a few minutes ago. The Soviet Union has not had a single soldier engaged in war since the cessation of hostilities. This is the only major power in the world of which this may be said.

Ehrenburg, speaking at the Warsaw Peace Conference[,] said, [sic omit comma] "Never has a single political leader, a single deputy, a single journalist or teacher in the Soviet Union called for war against the United States or any other power."

I would like to give you one more quotation from Senator Taft's recent speech, as reported in the Minneapolis Morning Tribute, January 6, of this year: "I do not myself see any conclusive evidence that (the Russians) expect to start a war with the United States. I see no reason for a general panic bn [sic "based"] the assumption that they will do so."

Mr. Dulles, along with Mr. Acheson, and perhaps even more than Mr. Acheson, is a director of a foreign policy of the United States. I would like to give you one or two quotations of Mr. Dulles. At the Federal Council of Churches Conferences on March 9, 1949, Mr. Dulles says, "I do not know any responsible official, military or civilian, in this or any other government, who believes that the Soviet Union now plans conquest by open military aggression."

In an off-the-record speech before the Overseas Writers' Association, January 10th of last year (this was at the time of the Berlin air lift, at the same time when the Senate of the United States was being asked to ratify the Atlantic Pact) , Mr. Dulles said, "There could be a settlement of the Berlin situation at any time on the basis of Soviet currency for Berlin and our right to bring in food, raw materials, and fuel to the Western sectors. The present situation is, however, to United States advantage for propaganda purposes. We are getting credit for keeping the people in Berlin from starving; the Russians are getting the blame for their privation. If we settle Berlin, then we have to deal with Germany as a whole. We will have to deal immediately with a Russian proposal for a withdrawal of all occupation troops and a return of Germany to Germans. Frankly, I do not know what we would say to that."

Let us go back to our fundamental thesis enunciated in the beginning. War is a telescoping and focusing of a conflict of interests. We have been told that interests must necessarily conflict, that man is by nature selfish in looking after his own interests. Suppose we grant this. Can we use the principle of interest as the basis for human organization? We have been following the principle of interest for over 200 years. The mess we are in seems to me to be an adequate answer to this question.

The task of the human race at the present time is to see that interest does not become a principle upon which we organize human society. Our task is to find another, more suitable, principle of human organization before all of us are blown to oblivion.

I can only give you the outline, very briefly, of a new principle of human organization. I call it a new principle, but it is as old as the human race. It has been the principle upon which we have organized our education, our religion, our science, and the family. That is, that goods, things and property[,] shall be used only as instruments in the service of humanity. The family has always been organized on socialistic lines; the same is true of science; the same is true of the president organization of industry as distinguished from business.

In the world today 700 million people have organized their lives according to socialist principles. Beginning at zero in 1917, socialist has brought a third of the human race under that form of social organization. I would like to recall to you that the population of the United States is only roughly 6 per cent fo the world's population.

Both capitalists and socialists agree that the conflict of interests is a thing to be deplored, for it leads to competition and competition is destructive. In the very period when we have been giving the most of our lip service to the doctrine of "free enterprise" and "competition", we have seen the growth of our largest corporations and monopolies. 

For the problem of the conflict of interests between the capitalists and socialist have different solutions. The capitalists say that the social means of production must remain in private hands, roughly, in the United States, in the hands of some 8 per cent of the population. The socialists say that the social means of production must be under social control and directed by the public authorities.

Let us note one thing: that in times of crises, such as depression and war, capitalism must repudiate its own principles. In the first place, it must go in for planning on a national scale and wage-fixing, all of which are contrary to the basic tenets of capitalism. Secondly, it says that its system is predicated on the premise tha 4th public good is enchanted when each unit is at warfare with the other; when each is in competition with the other. It says that the strength of the system depends on each getting as much as he can for himself. But in times of war, the individual is asked to surrender this privilege and innate right on which the strength of the system itself depends, to sacrifice himself for the national interest. I hope I am making ti clear as I go along with the fundamental issues that face mankind today are concerned with the problem of property and they are all reducible to the question of property. There are few indications at the present time in the Western World that we recognize this fact. All the organizations and the political parties which are strong enough to do anything about the problem of property seem oblivious to the fact that it is a problem. Labor in the United States accepts the fundamental tenets of the private property system, so that there is very little shop in that direction. The teaching profession itself stands indicted also. Teachers have become petty business men and accepted the principle of interest. There is perhaps no faculty in the United States that would go to bat on an issue involving the dignity and integrity of the profession. Everywhere a faculty member is a petty business man looking out after his own interest and security with a consequence that the educational function has largely disappeared, lost in the morass of writing articles, book reviews and textbooks and buying groceries. The faculty members do not seem to know enough to see that the integrity of the human race is involved as well as the institutions of culture.

The British and the American people will hold on to the private property system until they are forced to let go. But if it is necessary to fight another war over the system of private property, not only will the capitalist system go but civilization and culture will go down too. But since civilization and culture will go if capitalism survives, the alternatives aren't too happy in any case.

In Britain and in the United States, the business system is winning; socialism is triumphing everywhere else. Any move which threatens the right of legitimate business to profit will be opposed by the gun and the bomb.

I should like to state one elementary political axiom: Property always has and always will rule the state. From this axiom certain propositions may be deduced:

1. To the degree that interest can be made objective, it will assume the form of property.

2. Political freedom without economic freedom is a myth, since the only way in which the will can assert itself is through property objects. Political democracy which does not embrace economic democracy is empty.

3. The will of the people as expressed in political bodies can find expression only when property is publicly owned.

The people want peace and security, a life of abundance and decency. The monopoly capitalists who run and control the American government want scarcity and profits, a "Cold War" if possibly and a "hot war" if necessary. From a world-wide point of view, the system of capitalism has tottered so much that it would fall completely if it were not supported by the United States. There is no logical, organize or necessary connection between capitalism and democracy. In fact, capitalism reached its highest stage of development in fascist Germany. 

Where there is a sharp, clear-cut conflict between civil rights guaranteed by democracy and the demands of profit made by capitalism, the civil rights will be suppressed. I would like to repeat Judge Douglas' statement: "War is the only device that the government can design to given maximal production and full employment." [A footnote reads "Quoted in Fred Stover's 'Atomic Blessing or Atomic Blasting'."] It is clear that for the continuation for capitalism as an economic system we are paying for it not only in terms of the destruction of our way of life, but also the destruction of our material goods and our conveniences. For we cannot build hospitals and homes, we cannot provide medical care and pay adequate salaries to our teachers, we cannot eat adequately. We have to pay for the continuation of capitalism in terms of our very lives.

Now, the ruling classes in every epoch of the world's history have identified the fate of the family, religion, government and civilization itself with the continuation of their rulership. We must, therefore, look with very hypercritical eyes at the present rulers of American when they announce their pious platitudes. I challenge their claims that their way is the American way. Rather do I identify the American was with abundance, peace, and prosperity. I do not identify it with witch-hunt and oppression, the denial of opportunity, monopoly capitalism, and the continuation of colonialism and war. 

Verify, verify, I say unto you, that this is the hour of decision. A resurgence, a reawakening is taking place all over the world. A new day is aborning. For those o you with the desire to participate, I say unto you: "Be ye not afraid, for you are many."

When this speech was given, Wiggins had been teaching at the University of Minnesota for five years, and university officials had been receiving complaints about his political activities for the past two years. Administrators initially defended Wiggins on free speech grounds, but they had begun to reverse their stance by the time of the speech. 

An administrator's report on Wiggins's speech lends some insight into the administration's views at this time. A staffer in the department of university relations (William T. Harris) attended the talk and then wrote a report for the vice president of academic administration (Malcolm M. Willey). The staffer focused on Wiggins's political beliefs: "Dr. Wiggins may or may not be a member of the communist party, but he certainly is an apologist for Soviet Russian and a devoted apostle of 'socialism'. He made this very clear in his talk and in his answers to questions that were put to him."

On the content of Wiggin's speech, the staffer wrote that Wiggins was "no orator" but his presentation was "fairly effective." The talk, he wrote, was organized by first introducing a "plausible point," documenting the point in detail using reputable citations, and then "[sliding] in a wedge of communist dogma which he implies is related the point just made but for which he offers no substantiation whatsoever." The staffer criticized Wiggins for his "blind devotion to the soviet system." According to the staffer, the talk was received "politely" but with little sympathy or enthusiasm. 

By then end of the year, Wiggins was informed that his contact at the University of Minnesota would not be renewed. Initially no justification was offered, but when pressed on the issue, the administration claimed that Wiggins had not be re-appointed because his scholarship was lacking. Wiggins' speech was used to support this assessment. The negative evaluation of Wiggins' scholarship was made by the dean, and the dean claimed to have analyzed the text of the speech in detail and concluded that it demonstrated a serious lack of the qualities of good scholarship.

Wiggins tried to challenge his dismissal from the university, and he received significant support from students and faculty. They were successful in bringing the matter to the public's attention, but they were unsuccessful in having Wiggins reinstated. He left the university during the summer of 1952 and moved to South Carolina to teach at Allen University. 

What's in an FBI record?

Page from Wiggins' FBI file

This blogpost is preceded by

• "Timmerman attacks, Spring 1957"
•  "Timmerman attacks, Spring 1958"
• "Timmerman attacks: Allen University and Benedict College"
• "Timmerman attacks: the Benedict professors"
• "Timmerman attacks: the Allen University professors"
• Timmerman Attacks: Hoffman Update"
• "What was Forrest O. Wiggins up to?"

Let's take a look at what an FBI record actually looks like. The image above is part of Forrest O. Wiggins' FBI file. What is in the document?

The upper-left corner tells us that this page is a FD-263 form. A FD-263 is a cover page for a full report. The top of the form tells us that this is a report produced by the Savannah office on information it generated. The information concerns Forrest O. Wiggins and is about a "Security Matter - C." In other words, it is about a security matter concerning communists.

The report was made on August 14, 1957, and it covers the following dates: March 14; April 10, 16, 17, 19, 24, 26; May 8, 15, 23; June 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 27; July 2, 3, 10, 26; August 5.

We can match these dates with dates from other sources to get some idea of what was attracting the FBI's interest. For example, the first date is March 14. Looking at earlier FBI records, we see that this was the day that the FBI received copies of an Allen University Bulletin containing an essay by Wiggins in which he promoted "Communist information." 

The June dates, especially the 16th and 17th, can also be explained. On the 15th, the President of Allen University asked Wiggins to resign his position. The June dates presumably reflect reports to the FBI on the back-and-forth between Wiggins and the president on resigning.

Another significant date is August 5. The next day was an Executive Board Meeting where the Allen trustees discussed dismissing Wiggins. Presumably, the FBI solicited information about what would happen at the meeting.

The dates that don't appear in other records are also interesting. For example, why are there so many April dates? I don't know, but this is something to look out for when reading other parts of the record.

The upper-right corner contains a crossed out stamp that reads "confidential." This means that the document was originally classified as confidential, but the document as currently released contains no confidential information.

The PDF that I have does not contain all the original text. Three parts of the text are redacted. The federal government is allowed to redact text under some specific exceptions. The exceptions being used are cited next to the text. Sometimes the nature of the exception shreds light as to what the missing information is.

First redacted text

The first redacted text is in a box labeled "Report made by." Presumably this is the name of the FBI agent who wrote the report. His name is being withheld under exception b7c. This exceptions allows withholding of an investigatory record that was compiled for law enforcement purposes when disclosing it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of someone's personal privacy. The standard for what  constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy is low since courts have ruled that just having your name in a legal report could damaging. Presumably, standard practice is to redact FBI agents names under this exception. The next exception is more interesting.

Second redacted text

This second text is also withheld under b7c. However, the nature of this text is less clear than the first. It appears that this is a sentence describing what Wiggins ("Subject") was doing.  Furthermore, the reasons for withholding this aren't pro forma: the whole paragraph is describing Wiggins' activities but nothing else is redacted. I have no idea what is discussed here, but it certainly is intriguing.

Third redacted text

The third redacted text appears to be the name, or another identifier, of a confidential informant for the FBI. This text is withheld under exceptions b2 and b7d. These are presumably the standard exceptions that are cited when withholding an informant's identity. Exception b2 allows withholding of records "related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency," while Exception b7d allows withholding of "information compiled for law enforcement purposes [which] could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source." 

Lower-left corner

From the lower-left corner of the document, we learn who got copies of the form. The form was produced by the Savannah office, and they made 3 copies which went into file 100-4211. The main office in DC received 4 copies by registered mail ("RM") that were stored in file 64-25362.

The history of this record is documented by stamps at the bottom.

Stamps on the bottom of the page

Two stamps are "Confidential" and "Subv. Control." Both have been crossed out. We've already discussed the "Confidential" stamp. I'm guessing the second stamp indicated that this file had to do with the surveillance of "subversives" (in this case, somebody who promotes "communist" ideas).

Slightly more significant is the stamp that reads "Copies Destroyed Nov 16 1961." I'm guessing that copies were destroyed as a matter of routine housecleaning. By 1961, there wasn't much interest in the records (Wiggins had left South Carolina) and keeping 7 copies of these records would have taken up a lot of space (this was pre-computers!).

Another stamp seems to read "63 Aug 26 1957 classified by." I don't know what the "63" stands for, but the August date falls a little over a week after the form was filled out. I'm guessing this indicates when the report was filled away.

There are a few notations on the document that I don't know how to interpret. For example, there is a handwritten remark directly above the (redacted) name an informant. The remark was written on August 27, 1957 which is the day after the form was classified. However, I can't make out what the rest of the text says. Let me know if you have any idea!

Handwritten remark.
Let me know if you can read it.

What was Forrest O. Wiggins up to?

Forrest O. Wiggins
University of Minnesota Yearbook, 1949

This blogpost is preceded by

• "Timmerman attacks, Spring 1957"
•  "Timmerman attacks, Spring 1958"
• "Timmerman attacks: Allen University and Benedict College"
• "Timmerman attacks: the Benedict professors"
• "Timmerman attacks: the Allen University professors"
• Timmerman Attacks: Hoffman Update"

Forrest O. Wiggins was one of the Allen University faculty members who was dismissed in the 1950s at the insistence of South Carolina Governor Timmerman. In his public statements, Governor Timmerman made vague claims that Professor Wiggins and the other faculty members were pursuing "typical [Communist Party]" projects.  The projects, he claimed, involved teaching "hate white, hate Southern, and hate State." As evidence, he gestured to records held by the federal government.

I received Wiggins' FBI files under the Freedom of Information Act.  (Thanks, New Left!) Large parts of the file are redacted, but they give an insight into what was happening.

The early life of Wiggins

Wiggins was born in 1907 in Vincennes, Indiana to Charles and Cora Wiggins. The early 1900s saw large numbers of Blacks in the South move to Indiana, especially to its urban centers. The Wiggins family was unusual. Unlike most Blacks in the state, they had deep roots: both of Wiggins' parents and most of his grandparents were born in Indiana.

By the time Wiggins was born, his parents had established a solid middle-class household for themselves. The father worked as a barber, and he had achieved enough professional success that he owned his own barber shop. However, the marriage was evidently an unhappy one, and the parents separated while Wiggins was a child. After the divorce, Wiggins had essentially no relationship with his father. By 1920, he was living with his mother and her second husband, Andrew Haynes, in Indianapolis.

The move from Vincennes to Indianapolis was a major one. Vincennes was a small city of 17,160. Its Black population was minuscule: only 136 Blacks lived there (about 1.6% of the population). In contrast, Indianapolis was the state capitol and by far the most-populous city with 314,194 residents. Largely because of the availability of manufacturing jobs, the city's Black population was growing rapidly. By 1920, Blacks represented 11% of the city population (about 43,679 residents), making the city a regional center for Black life. 

In Indianapolis, Wiggins' stepfather Andrew worked for a railroad company. His mother also entered the workforce, first as a saleslady and later as a beauty operator. Wiggins attended Arsenal Technical High School. At the time, the student body was overwhelmingly White. Wiggins was one of only three Blacks in his graduating class of 380. 

Neither Wiggins' parents nor his stepfather had completed high school, but Wiggins appears to have done well as a student. For example, the school yearbook notes his abilities as a public speaker. Wiggins graduated from Arsenal Tech in 1924.

Portion of Wiggins' high school yearbook (Wiggins is center-top).
The Arsenal Cannon yearbook, Vol XXIII, No. 17. 
Via Ancestory.com

After graduating from high school, Wiggins attended Butler University, a small private school in Indianapolis. Politically, the university was relatively progressive. Blacks had attended the school since the 1880s, albeit in small numbers. The year Wiggins matriculated; Blacks made up about 4% of the 1,290-person student body. However, during this time, racial tensions were increasing city-wide. In the summer of 1927, the university's Board of Directors adopted a policy of limiting the number of Black students admitted to ten per year. The next year – Wiggins' senior year – the number of Black students admitted dropped by three-quarters. 

Despite an increasingly unfriendly campus climate, Wiggins graduated from Butler with his A.B. degree in 1928. He then studied in France for a year and a half. After returning to the US, he taught Moorehouse College.  While teaching, he continued his education at the University of Wisconsin. In 1931, he was awarded an A.M. degree in philosophy from the university. For his degree, he submitted the thesis "The utilitarian theory of property from Plato to J. S. Mill."

After receiving he received his Master's, Wiggins was hired as an associate professor by Johnson C. Smith University in Charlotte, NC.  Wiggins continued his studies at Wisconsin during this time. In 1938, he received his PhD in philosophy from the university. His dissertation was titled "The moral consequences of individualism."

It is unclear what Wiggins did the year after he got his PhD. FBI records state that he taught at Howard University from 1939 to 1941, but Howard University records only document that he taught there during the 1940-41 academic year. That year he was employed as an Instructor in the Humanities and Romance Languages. While in D.C., he married Ethel Doris Johnson. 

Ethel had been born in North Carolina, but she grew up in Columbia, South Carolina. Her parents were middle-class. Her father worked as a public-school principal, her mother as a teacher. Ethel herself was college educated, having been a standout student at Johnson C. Smith University in Charlotte. Likely she met Wiggins while while he was teaching at Johnson C. Smith and she was a student. After graduating, she returned to living with her parents and worked as a teacher. However, in late 1940 or early 1941, she had married Wiggins and moved to D.C.

Later that year Wiggins and his wife moved to Durham, NC to teach at North Carolina College for Negroes (now North Carolina Central University). In 1943, while teaching in Durham, he was hired by the Department of Education to teach English in Haiti. It was in Haiti that Wiggins first drew the attention of the FBI.

Wiggins enters the FBI files

Wiggins traveled to Haiti to teach English around February 1943. He taught at a combined high school and junior college in Cap-Haïtien. Originally, he had planned to stay there until the summer. However, on August 14, 1943, he applied to extend his stay by six months.  The application appears to have triggered the FBI's interest. Five days later, on the 19th, the FBI Main Office wrote a memo about him.  The memo stated that a "reliable, confidential source" reported that Wiggins was acting as "an active anti-White and anti-British propagandist" in Haiti. On the basis of this information, the office recommended that an investigation be conducted. 

Ultimately, Wiggins did not extend his stay in Haiti. He flew back later that August. When he disembarked at the airport, he was met by an FBI Special Agent who was waiting to interview him. The interview didn't produce much. In addition to collecting basic biographical information, the agent asked about the allegations that he was engaged in propaganda activities. Wiggins acknowledged that he had written a number of newspaper articles, but he denied that any of them were anti-English or anti-White. He said that the only article that he was criticized for was a 1942 Durham Herald article. In the article, he expressed his belief that Blacks should be allowed to work in the defense industry and receive the same salary as Whites. The FBI agent does not appear to have regarded the matter worth pursuing. The report he submitted concluded: "No further inquiry in this matter is contemplated."

After his return to the U.S., Wiggins continued teaching at HBCUs. He first continued teaching at North Carolina College for Negroes. However, at some point between 1943 and 1946, he moved to Louisville, KY to teach at Louisville Municipal College.

The year 1946 marked a major professional change for Wiggins. That year he moved to Minneapolis, MN to teach at the University of Minnesota. 

Wiggins in Minnesota

In September 1946, Wiggins was appointed as a full-time instructor in the University of Minnesota's Philosophy Department.  This employment was an honor.  Wiggins was one of the first African Americans to be employed at a flagship state university. Ethel found work as a social worker.

In Minnesota, Wiggins was active in left-wing politics on campus and in Minneapolis more generally. He openly spoke out against American capitalism and militarism and promoted civil rights for African Americans. 

Starting around April 1948, political and business leaders began writing to the university administration to complain about Wiggins.  For example, a bank vice president wrote the university president to complain about a newspaper article he read about Wiggins' teaching.  According to the article, Wiggins had organized a classroom activity where students drafted blueprints for an ideal America. The vice president felt this exercise involved promoting inappropriate ideas that were critical of the U.S. government. The complaints increased over the next few years. For example, in 1950, state congressman Howard Ottinger wrote to the university president to complain about a public speech he heard Wiggins deliver.

The FBI began receiving new information about Wiggins in 1949, as complaints to the university administration were increasing.  That year the regional FBI office received a report from an informant that there was reason to believe that Wiggins was a member of the Communist Party (presumably the Communist Party of United States American or CPUSA). Later, informants said that Wiggins was a member of the Socialist Workers Party. The FBI investigated the claims, but the only supporting evidence they could collect was circumstantial. (For example, Wiggins had made public statements consistent with the "Communist Party Line," and his name was on a list found in a Minneapolis Communist Party bookstore.) A 1952 summary report on Wiggins' activities in Minneapolis reported that he had contacts with leaders in the Community Party USA and the Socialist Workers Party and gave speeches "which followed the CP line," but notably did not assert that he was a member of any revolutionary organization. 

The University of Minnesota president initially defended the university's employment of Wiggins. He responded to Wiggins' critics by distancing himself from Wiggins' political views but standing by the university's decision to employ him.

In late 1951, the president reversed his position. That December he sent Wiggins a letter informing him that his contract would not be renewed. Although his department chair had recommended him for a promotion to an assistant professorship, Wiggins was still an instructor at the time and thus he was on a contract that required yearly renewal.

The letter informing Wiggins that his contract would not be renewed gave no justification for the decision. However, when the decision was made public, it caused an uproar among students and faculty. Under public pressure, the president claimed that his decision had been made on the basis of the dean's negative evaluation of Wiggins' scholarly record. However, the chair of the philosophy department challenged this statement by issuing a signed letter stating that the department unanimously disagreed with the president and recommended Wiggins' reappointment. 

The letter issued by the Wiggins' chair was part of an outpouring of public support. Student support was particularly strong. Student groups submitted petitions protesting the president's decision. By February 1952, over 500 students had joined protests against the administration. They were supported by other organizations including the state branch of the NAACP, the Negro Labor Council, and the Progressive Party of Minnesota.

One organization was notable in its failure to support Wiggins. The local chapter of the AAUP announced that the evidence it reviewed did not establish a violation of academic freedom and thus they did not recommend further action. The chapter explained its decision in a 22-page report written by a 3-person committee. The report reads as a whitewash. Although state politicians had written letters to the president complaining about Wiggins, the report does not mention them and instead states that the committee found no evidence that the decision been made for political reasons. The committee members acknowledged that the university president might have acted, in part, out of a concern over negative publicity. However, they downplayed the significance if this, writing that "It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a conscientious administrator to isolate" Wiggins' research from his political statements when assessing someone's scholarship.

The AAUP committee reported that it found the decision not to reappoint Wiggins had been made on the basis of his scholarly record and that the assessment of his record was done properly. This is a remarkable statement. Wiggins had the unanimous support of the philosophy faculty, and the negative evaluation was based on the dean's personal evaluation. The dean appears to have been unfit to analyze the work of philosophy professor as he had no training in the field. He worked exclusively in Library Science (his dissertation was "Conditions affecting use of the college library"). In their report, the committee addressed this issue by simply dismissing it: "even unanimous opinion of any so-called department does not necessarily represent the opinion of the best informed colleagues." 

The support for Wiggins was successful in getting the issue into the spotlight. His non-reappointment made national news and was reported by the New York Times, for example. However, it unsuccessful in reversing the administration's decision. Wiggins left Minnesota in June 1952.

Wiggins moved to Columbia, SC to work at Allen University as a Professor of Philosophy and Romance Languages. 

A student asks the UM Regents to reappoint Wiggins
The Gopher, Volume 65, 1952

Wiggins in South Carolina

Once Wiggins had moved to South Carolina, the responsibility for monitoring him passed from the Minnesota FBI office to the Savannah, GA office. In October 1953, the Minnesota office provided the Savannah office with a summary report on Wiggins.

The Savannah office of the FBI collected information on Wiggins, but they found little of interest. A confidential informant reported that he had no information about Wiggins engaging in subversive activities. The only information offered was that Wiggins made a comparison between democracy in the U.S. and in Russia in a class. 

In May 1953, after his first year at Allen, Wiggins took a yearlong leave of absence to study in Mexico. He traveled to Chahhuila, Guanajuato, Morelia, and Mexico City. During this period, Wiggins marriage was under severe strain. Ethel did not join him, and in February 1954, while Wiggins was still in Mexico, she divorced him for desertion.

Wiggins' international travel increased the FBI's interest in him. However, the FBI's efforts were largely limited to documenting where in Mexico Wiggins traveled to and reporting that they had no evidence that he was participating in subversive activities. 

Wiggins appears to have enjoyed the trip. After he returned to South Carolina, he published an article in the Indianapolis Recorder about his experience. He celebrated Mexico as a county where Blacks can travel without experiencing pervasive racial discrimination. He contrasted this with the United State, where a Black man traveling on vacation has to constantly worry about being refused service at restaurants and hotels. White Americans, Wiggins wrote, also benefit from the climate in Mexico as they soon shed their racial prejudices 

Wiggins returned to Allen University to teach in Fall 1954. In September, the Minneapolis office of the FBI issued an important memorandum. The memorandum announced that an informant who had been submitting information on Wiggins was deemed "unreliable." Attached to the memorandum were amended copies of a report that had been sent to the Savannah office. Furthermore, they advised that the information given by the informant should be regarded as questionable and not disseminated unless corroborated by other sources. It is unclear if the existing records reflect the information from the unreliable informant.

That Spring the Savannah office of the FBI made a major effort to collect information on Wiggins. In January, the office applied for a 30 day mail cover surveillance. (A mail cover surveillance involves the Post Office recording information on the outside (or cover) of letters and sending it to the FBI). However, the application was denied. Shortly after the mail cover request was denied, the Savannah office produced a report on the information offered by an informant in Columbia, but the informant simply reported that he was unaware of Wiggins being involved in any Communist Party activities.  The office also received a report from the Charlotte office reporting on Wiggins' activities in the 1940s.  The final action the office took was a request for permission to interview Wiggins, but this too was denied.  

Half a year of efforts in collecting information on Wiggins yielded nothing of substance. This seems to have convinced the FBI that Wiggins was not worth monitoring. In May, Wiggins was removed from the FBI's security index (used to track individuals deemed dangerous to national security) at the recommendation of the Savannah office. For next 2 years, there were no interactions between the FBI and Wiggins.

Wiggins' apartment near Allen University in 2020
Photo courtesy of author

The State Government Attacks

Wiggins next appears in FBI records in March 1957.  That month the Savannah office of the FBI received a letter regarding Wiggins. The letter is unavailable, but it was a request for information about Wiggins and Horace Davis (a professor at neighboring Benedict College). 

The request was taken seriously. The Savannah office was instructed to respond to the letter by telephone and communicate information with the caveat that it was to be made clear that the information was furnished in the strictest confidence and that it cannot be attributed to the FBI.

The request was almost certainly made by South Carolina Senator Olin D. Johnston or a representative of his office. Internal communications show that the FBI quickly connected the request to a nomination hearing that Johnston had participated in. Johnston served on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Davis had written to the committee to protest against a nomination to the Supreme Court. Davis had written the letter because the nominee had ruled unfavorably in a lawsuit he had filed. Davis had sued to challenge his dismissal from Kansas City University for refusing to answer questions about whether he'd been a communist. 

The committee not only disregarded Davis's protest, but Johnston grew concerned that universities in his state might be employing communists. The day of the hearing Johnston told news reporters that he thought this should not be allowed and that he was going to investigate the matter.

It is unclear why information about Wiggins was requested. He was completely uninvolved in the nomination hearing and had only tenuous ties to communism. Wiggins may have simply been the only other professor Johnston had heard about. Wiggins dismissal from the University of Minnesota had made national news.

Johnston himself appears to have had little interest in Wiggins. Johnston publicly spoke out against Horace Davis's employment at Benedict College. However, he seems to have largely lost interest in the matter after Horace resigned in late March. While the controversy about alleged communist infiltration of Benedict and Allen would continue to be debated for over a year, Johnston would play no role in that debate.

As the public spotlight focused on Wiggins again, the FBI renewed its surveillance of him. In addition to collecting information from confidential informants, the Savannah office reapplied for mail cover surveillance on Wiggins. This time the application was approved. Larges parts of the FBI's reports are redacted, so it is unclear exactly what information was collected. For example, an August 14, 1957 report contains information by a source at Allen University who apparently witnessed something involving Wiggins while working late at night. However, it is impossible to figure out what was reported since most of the text is redacted. The redactions were made under Exemptions 7(c) and 7(d). This indicates that the text was collected for law enforcement purposes and is withheld to protect people's privacy and the identities of confidential sources.

An August 14, 1957 FBI report on Wiggins. Much of the text is redacted
Photo courtesy of the author

The FBI closely followed the goings-on at Allen and Benedict, but they did not seem to find much relevant information. The most incriminating information collected about Wiggins was that he promoted communist ideas in an essay he published in the Spring 1985 Benedict College Bulletin, and he subscribed to American Socialist. The American Socialist was a publication of the Socialist Union of American (a group that splintered off from the Socialist Workers Party). In February 1958, an FBI agent recommended that the investigation of Wiggins be closed. 

While the FBI did not find Wiggins to be a subject of interest, both the press and the state government remained closely engaged with the issues surrounding his employment at Allen. Ultimately, the state government was successful in pressing the university to remove Wiggins. The 1957-58 academic year was his last in Columbia. In October 1958, the FBI reported that Wiggins had moved to Dallas, TX and was working at Bishop College.

Photo of Forrest O. Wiggins in FBI file

Life after Allen

Wiggins only stayed in Texas for a year. After the 1958-59 academic year, he left to teach at Edward Water College in Jacksonville, FL. He moved a second time in summer of 1961. In June 1961, he was appointed Professor of Languages and Literature at Savannah State College (in Georgia). He stayed at Savannah State for most of the 1960s. In January 1968, he moved to West Virginia State University. There he rejoined his friend and former Allen University colleague Edwin D. Hoffman. He remained at West Virginia State for the rest of his career. 

The FBI continued monitoring Wiggins for most of the 1960s. However, their actions were largely limited to transferring files between field offices and performing a routine review (e.g. checking Wiggins' credit rating and arrest record). The last extent FBI report on Wiggins was issued in February 1968, shortly after he moved to West Virginia.

Wiggins remained at West Virginia State until he retired. He then moved to Brevard County, Florida. He lived there until his death on October 26, 1981.

Forrest O. Wiggins, ca. 1968
The Arch Yearbook, 1968

Timmerman attacks: the Allen University professors

Photo of Edwin Hoffman
From West Virginia State University yearbook

This blogpost is preceded by 

1. "Timmerman attacks, Spring 1957"
2. "Timmerman attacks, Fall 1957"
3. "Timmerman attacks, Spring 1958"
4. "Timmerman attacks: Allen University and Benedict College"
5. "Timmerman attacks: the Benedict professors"
6. "Timmerman attacks: the Allen University professors"

In my last post, I described the Benedict faculty attacked by Governor Timmerman.  What about the faculty at Allen University?  Before describing them, I should say that it is a little artificial to separate  the faculty at the two schools.  Allen is across the street from Benedict, and at the time, the schools exchanged faculty and students.

Edwin D. Hoffman
Hoffman was a 40-year old Professor of History who'd been at Allen University since 1954.  He was born in Long Island, New York and studied at City College of New York and Columbia University, He had taught at Long Island University for seven years prior to coming to Allen.

It's unclear why he left Long Island for Columbia, SC.  A natural guess is that he'd been dismissed from LIU, but Timmerman didn't say this in his speech (and he highlighted the dismissals of the other professors).  He may have just left for personal or professional reasons.  (Update:  Hoffman wasn't dismissed from LIU.  He wanted to teach at a HBCU.  More here.)

Hoffman's highest degree was a Ed.D. (rather than a Ph.D.), but he seems to have studied African American history.  He published academic articles on the topic while at Allen.  He also seems to have been an excellent teacher.  Kay Patterson, a former state senator, speaks glowingly of being taught by him and Rideout in an interview.

After being dismissed from Allen University, Hoffman taught at Pembroke State College (a college which before the Brown decision had been for American Indians) for a few years before going to West Virginia State College (a public HBCU).

Hoffman worked in West Virginia until he retired in 1988.  He spent his retirement in California, teaching part time at Cal State Hayward.  He died in 2008.

Photo of John G. Rideout
From Thunder Bay University Yearbook

John G. Rideout
John. G Rideout was born in Vermont in 1915 and received a BA from Colby College, was a Rhodes Scholar at St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, and received a Ph.D. in English from Brown University in 1945.  His dissertation was on the poetry of Percy Bysshe Shelly.

He taught at several colleges before receiving his Ph.D. and then started teaching at the University of New Hampshire in 1946.   In New Hampshire, he became involved with left-wing politics, chairing the New Hampshire Progressive Party and running as their 1948 candidate for U.S. Senate.  These political activities attracted the attention of school and state officials, and he was forced to resign.  His resignation was reported in the New York Times in an article on challenges to academic freedom.

After leaving New Hampshire, he was able to find a position at Idaho State College in 1949, although his experience in New Hampshire was repeated, and he was forced to reign in 1953.  He ended up in Allen University after that, reportedly telling an associate that he was "going down there until things cool off".

After being dismissed from Allen, Rideout spent the next 6 years teaching at Huston-Tillotson University (a private HBCU in Austin, Texas) and then moved to Lakehead University (in Canada). He spent the rest of his career there, serving as Chair of the English Department for 16 years (1964 to 1980).  The university has honored him with a named award, the Rideout Memorial Bursary.  Rideout died in 1991.

While at Allen, Rideout was married to Miriam Rideout, and his children George and Margaret Bard were probably living at home.  As with many of the other professors, I can't find information about the other members of the Rideout family.

Forrest O. Wiggins
Photo from the University of Minnesota

Forrest Oran Wiggins
Forrest O. Wiggins was born in Indiana in 1907.  he received his B.A. from Butler University and then received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Wisconsin in 1931, writing a dissertation on "The moral consequences of individualism".

After graduating, Wiggins taught at a series of HBCUs: Morehouse College, Howard University, Johnson C. Smith University, North Carolina College for Negroes (now NC Central University), and Louisville Municipal College.

He was hired by the University of Minnesota in 1946.  This was a significant event as he was the first African American professor hired at UM and one of only a handful of African Americans working a flagship state university.  He seems to have become involved with left-wing politics while at Minnesota.  Governor Timmerman, for example, says that he became an active member in the Socialist Workers Party in 1946, and he served as Vice Chairman of the Minnesota Progressive Party.  Wiggins was dismissed from Minnesota in 1952.

His dismissal was a major controversy.  The official reason for his dismissal was his poor scholarly record, although he had the support of both students and members of the Philosophy Department.  Professors in the Philosophy Department issued a 5-page report challenging the allegation's against Wiggins.  Wiggins contended that he was being dismissed because of his politics.  His job at Allen University was his first position after leaving Minnesota.

After being dismissed from Allen, he taught at Savannah State College for a few years before joining Hoffman at West Virginia State University, where he taught until he retired.  He died in Florida in 1982.


This series continues with "Timmerman Attacks: Hoffman Update."