by Christopher Kuhl
In September of 1920, Professor Grove Samuel Dow, head of the Sociology department at Baylor University, wrote a book, Introduction to the Principles of Sociology (Tyson, Baylor Lariat, 1921, December 10) that began a multi-year controversy that engulfed the Baptist world of the South. Many Baptists feared that evolution had found its way into the Christian university. As President of Baylor University, Samuel Palmer Brooks, found himself in the cross fire of a controversy that would last the better part of a decade. Though this controversy is well documented, little attention has been given to the way in which Brooks corresponded with internal and external constituents and the pressures he faced. Therefore, a closer analysis is needed to understand how he attenuated a highly volatile controversy.
Moving Towards a Context: The Subtexts
In a Protestant Christian-dominated culture with a literalistic hermeneutic of the Bible, any variant of “the plain reading of scripture” can be tantamount to heresy. So it was when Professor Grove Samuel Dow wrote in his book that man came from prehistoric apes that Baptists in the South became anxious, and some, like J. Frank Norris, began verbally attacking Baylor University and its President.
As a Baptist university, Baylor had strong religious ties to the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT, a group of independently governed church congregations who aligned themselves with one another by common non-creedal statements of faith) and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Like most religious institutions, Baylor depended upon the tuition from students to keep the University solvent. For Baylor, its existence as a university relied heavily upon its good standing with the BGCT and the SBC in order to maintain its student population and its solvency. Furthermore, it was seen as a religious obligation to educate the next generation of Baptist students.
J. Frank Norris
It was not long after Grover Dow’s book was published that it garnished the attention of constituents outside of local Baylor community. Chief among them was J. Frank Norris, Pastor of First Baptist of Fort Worth, Texas. Norris, an alumnus of Baylor (Hankins, 1996), campaigned against Baylor’s teaching of evolution utilizing such media platforms as the Searchlight. He published often and drew large crowds to speak out against Baylor. In one such example, a so-called anonymous letter was sent to Norris who in turn published it in The Searchlight:
I am a student in Baylor University and for that reason will have to withhold my name… You may not know it, but there has been carried on here in Baylor a thorough going campaign on the part of the faculty and certain students to discredit you among Baylor people. Dr. Brooks himself has helped by private conference and chapel talks. The Lariat has been very bitter against you. Dr. Truett and Dr. Scarborough have been here recently and both have been very bitter against you….Dr. Brooks says that infidelity has never been taught in Baylor, but he has never said, and he won’t say it, that evolution has never been taught in Baylor. Dr. Dow is not the only professor who has taught that man is the product of evolution (Norris, “Letters of Interest”, 1923, April 31).
The truthfulness of the newspaper article and the letter found within is irrelevant since the very existence exemplifies the external pressures, whether real or purported, that Brooks faced. The incriminating evidence, whether valid or not, was a very real external pressure. Therefore, regardless of the letter’s truthfulness or authenticity, there are three points that can be made from the newspaper article: first, Norris takes responsibility for disseminating non-neutral information about teaching evolution at Baylor; second, the letter within the newspaper article purports some form of consensus campaign among the leadership and guest speakers to be “bitter” against Norris; and third, that even some students and the student newspaper showed “bitterness” towards Norris. This exemplifies the “battle lines” that Norris drew in his attack on evolution at Baylor and at Brooks.
Even after Dow agreed to resign, which according to Norris was “progress” (see Scarborough, L.R., Letter to Brooks, S.P, 1921, December 21), Norris wrote in a personal letter to Brooks expressing his desire for the immediate expulsion of Dow. He states, “If Prof. Dow should resign in June, why doesn’t he resign now?” (Norris, J.F., Letter to Brooks, S.P., 1921, December 19). He continues with unveiled language, “Believe me, when I tell you that every day that you are keeping Prof. Dow there you are increasing the protest on the part of the Baptists of this State against your administration (Norris, J.F., Letter to Brooks, S. P., 1921, December 19). In other words, Brooks is the key figure standing in the way of “progress,” or rather the expulsion of evolutionary teaching at Baylor University. Norris forced Brooks into the middle of a quarrel. This quarrel is one of the primary pressures that Brooks faced.
Give me Liberty or Give me Death: Pressures from a Government Official
Influencing public opinion, especially in a Baptist saturated South, Norris brought enough negative attention to garner the scrutiny of at least one public official. In a letter to Brooks, J. T. Stroder, House Representative of the 58th district writes,
I notice that Dr. Bradbury [Baylor Professor allegedly teaching Evolution]
has resigned as is in accord with the will of the “Convention.” Also the “Convention” denounced those evil theories and desired that Baylor clean out in toto.
So if it is possible we as Baptist [sic] all over Texas want Doctor Pace and Dr. Seindan [Baylor Professors allegedly teaching Evolution] to resign also, so our great school will no longer be reproached with that German Rationalism which infests so many of our great Schools.
Remember we are first and forever with Baylor and do most earnestly ask that she be completely renovated as the Convention declared in her late policy
(Stroder, T.J., Letter to Brooks, S. P., 1923, March 3).
Stroder adds another layer of pressure. The language and rhetoric of the letter implicitly, if not explicitly, points to the fact that Stroder used his position of authority as a House Representative to coerce Brooks. The reference of the first person personal pronoun, “we” indicates some form of political backing since it most likely refers to him and his supporters. Furthermore the physical letter was written on what appears to be an official governmental letter since the letterhead contains “House of Representatives [:] State of Texas” with the state seal on the top upper left corner.
The physical artifact of Stroder’s letter paints a robust picture. For Stroder, he places the responsibility of the curriculum on the shoulders of one man. His standard for judgment, according to Hankins (1996), is the Convention’s agreement that Baptist schools would temper all scientific teachings with the “Truth” of the Bible. He places the weight of his argument upon this fact in order to request for the resignation of Pace and Seindan. The self-acknowledged fear is that “German Rationalism” or teaching mechanistic science without the knowledge of God, had fully infiltrated the Baptist school. The pressure for Brooks to capitulate was mounting.
In His Own Words: Samuel Palmer Brooks and His Perspective
In order to avoid creating a caricature, it is necessary to understand Brooks as a dynamic individual developing his argument over time with many constituents in various sub-contexts. Said another way, his argument moved from simple to more complex over time with sensitivity towards both internal and external forces as well as his constituents.
From Simple to Complex
Samuel Brooks was not a static character in a vacuum, but rather a dynamic ever-evolving individual with core values that rooted him to standards of consistency. This image is reinforced by letters, publications, and speeches, which show a multifaceted picture of Brooks. This movement from simple argumentation to complex rhetoric is seen clearly in Brooks’ address of evolution. At one point, Brooks attempted to minimize the (perceived) Baptist infraction—teaching evolution in Baptist schools— by attenuating the clarity of the comments made in Dow’s book. In a letter to a concerned constituent he states, “The truth of the matter is [Professor Dow’s] book has been incorrectly quoted, and grevious [sic] injury has been done him…wherein unfriendly critics have been able to make complaint because of the context” (Brooks, S. P., Letter to Price, D., 1921, November 28). And again, a letter from R. K. Maiden, Editor of the Word and the Way, denotes an equivocal answer from Brooks: “I thank you for your prompt and courteous reply. But you made no answer to my question…What I want to know was whether or not the University president, faculty and Board of Trustees give their approval to [Dow’s] Book” (Maiden, R. K., Letter to Brooks, S. P., 1920, December 2). These letters indicate an attempt from Brooks to assuage with either simplistic answers and or equivocal language.
Nevertheless, Brooks’ argument is a work in progress: a few years later the Baylor Bulletin states that, “Prior to 1921 a book was written and published by one of the professors of Baylor University. In it were some errors of judgment, some half-baked statements” (Brooks, Concerning Evolution, 1923, p. 3). It is plausible that in Brooks initial letter to Price and Maiden, the evolution controversy was in its infancy stages and so in an attempt to assuage concerned constituents he minimized the criticism or used equivocal language. In the beginning, Brooks had not fully developed his argument nor was he fully aware of the breadth and depth of the controversy. Looking at a letter from Lee Rutland Scarborough to Brooks in December of 1921 reveals the possible lack of engagement that Brooks initially had: “[With regards to the evolution controversy] I think we will have to make up our minds that we have a personal fight on our hands and will probably have to go clear down the line” (Scarborough, L. R., Letter to Brooks, S. P., 1921, December 12). The letter indicates a degree of difference in the level of seriousness and energy that was initially absent—Scarborough’s words are a call to arms.
Shortly after Scarborough’s letter, with rhetorical frankness Brooks writes, “I do not think I ever saw the country so surcharged with criticism; with a desire to crucify somebody, particularly was this true last Fall with respect to Baylor” (Brooks, S. P., Letter to Poteat, W. L., 1922, April 17). Without a doubt, Brooks’ context, and arguably perspective, had changed. His tactic in dealing with the controversy shifted from minimization to nuanced acknowledgement as seen in the 1923 Baylor Bulletin (see below). The development in Brooks’ argument shows appropriate sensitivity to the context and timing of these different moments in the evolution controversy.
Collateral Damage: Measured Sacrifice
Brooks found the evolution controversy increasingly difficult to navigate, as he had to move between internal and external pressures. With J. Frank Norris fully capitalizing on his initial momentum of fame in defaming Baylor University; and his numerous writings in the Searchlight, Norris decided to come directly to Waco for a speaking engagement at the local auditorium—an act that was expected to draw a considerable crowd. His mere presence spoke volumes. Fearing riots and mobs, however, Brooks advised Baylor students and faculty to abstain from attending. In a confessional letter he writes:
The day before Frank Norris spoke in Waco, I did publicly, in chapel, advise the Faculty and students not to go to hear him. I believed then I was right. I believe now I was right. Of course I knew he would and could use it to my hurt…Rumors reached me fast as to what would be done for and to Norris. I was present in Waco when Brann was captured and afterward killed. The feeling toward Norris here on the campus and in Waco was not unlike that of the Brann days. I did not want any mob…if I had not given the advice I did, the auditorium would have been packed by students and friends of Baylor more zealous than wise…All I asked was that he himself not start something. He could easily have bribed some scoundrel to put out the lights and another scoundrel to throw an egg, and that if the house was full of students, the students would bear the blame, a trick of Frank’s (Brooks, S. P., Letter to Ray, J.D., 1923, August 1).
For Brooks, he recognized the pressure that Norris’ presence brought and so advised his local constituents at Baylor not to attend the meeting knowing full well that that would be used as a means for rhetorical attack by Norris. He decided however, that it was the correct action even at his own expense to his perceived character. In comparing Norris’ presence with the “Brann days,” Brooks indicates how he was interpreting the magnitude of the situation. Thus, the pressures from the local atmosphere—the hostile environment towards Norris—is weighed against the character of the antagonist in order to make a difficult decision, namely the safety of the students and the greater good of the image of Baylor University. Furthermore, Brooks highlighted the means and extent to which he believed Norris to go—chicanery and bribery were tactics that he used prior to this event.
Lastly, Brooks’ letter illuminates for the modern reader the gravity of the situation with its many mosaic pieces: first, Brooks feels responsible for the student body and faculty staff’s actions toward Norris, especially as it will depict Baylor to the larger public; second, he recognizes the context in which Norris’ presence plays as the antagonist, namely the potential for physical violence; third, Brooks is willing to make a self-sacrificial and potentially politically damaging move in order to create a cohesive unity among Baylor University—students and staff of Baylor would not participate in any potentially image-scaring event.
Guilty by Association: The Lariat, Faculty, and Samuel Palmer Brooks
Baylor University’s campus newspaper, The Lariat, proved to be a double edged sword for Brooks and the evolution controversy. It gave Baylor a voice to speak from and yet it caused contention between groups, namely faculty, staff, student, and outside constituents. Constituents who were sympathetic towards evolution castigated Brooks and thus created a precarious situation where Brooks was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. A personal letter from Brooks indicates the tenuous situation: “A paragrapher [sic] in the Baylor Lariat poked fun at Mr. Bryan for his evolution views, which brought harsh criticisms upon the editor of the Lariat and upon me by one of Texas’ prominent ex-editors” (Brooks S. P., Letter to Poteat, W. L., 1922, April 17). Amazingly, even in the denigration of evolution, the very object of derision by Brooks’ opponents became the catalyst for criticizing Brooks. Brooks’ constituents were not all creationists. So in order to keep peace with all parties involved, Brooks attempted to portray neither the perception of supporting evolution nor that of one who derided evolution. In other words, on some level, Brooks validates the critique in his attention to it.
Early in January of 1922 Brooks attempts to mediates the various parties by writing to the chief executive officer of the Lariat, George D. Tyson specifically requesting the paper cease writing articles about the Dow case. He stated the following:
I want to make a personal request that you do not discuss the Dow matter any more. If you will drop in I will tell you something about the corraspondence [sic] that comes to me from men [sic] out over the state who are strong friends of the University, and who Mr. Dow believes that it is altogether unwise. [sic] to have anything more to say about it for the present, and I am asking your co-operation
(Brooks, S. P., Letter to Tyson, G. D., 1922, January 2).
This key passage clearly depicts Brooks writing to alleviate the controversy by reducing the publicity circulating in the Lariat. Furthermore, it gives an inside look at the relationship between Dow and Brooks.
Later on that same year, Brooks gives explicit instructions to Professor Lula Pace and
Professor Ora Bradbury to “Draw up a sort of final statement that recognizes the integrity of the Scriptures without discriminating in the field of Faith and science and make it very brief…” (Brooks, S. P., Letter to Pace, L., and Bradbury, O. C., 1922, April 22, italics added). What is telling at this juncture is Brooks’ resolute position to uphold academic integrity along with his commitment to faith. At the very least, these two letters denote collaboration between the President and faculty staff to ameliorate Baylor’s negative publicity. This correspondence elucidates the lengths and methods that Brooks took to mitigate the controversy.
Can I Get a Witness? The Role of Publications
The Baptist Standard
One of the primary modes for communication in the 1920’s was through print. This is especially true within the local religious newspapers. With the onslaught of J. Frank Norris, Brooks needed to publish counter points to balance out the accusations. Media presence was paramount and played a vital role in evolution controversy.
Counter publications, however, proved to be more difficult than expected for Brooks. In his own words, “I cannot get any answer to Norris in the [Baptist] Standard. I do not want any in the Searchlight. In fact, one cannot discuss anything with Norris in parliamentary language. I am hedged except to answer letters like your own” (Brooks, S. P., Letter to Ray, J. D., 1923, August 1, italics added). Later on in the same letter, he laments how the denomination as a whole has suffered a great deal in their silence.
The primary character in the abstinence was the Baptist Standard’s editor, Eugene Coke Routh, who disagreed with Brooks’ desire for publication. Brooks writes, “I am sorry the editor of the [Baptist] Standard has not done this work [publication] for us. The editor does not believe that is the way it should be done. There is no other publication” (Brooks, S. P., Letter to Ray, J. D., 1923, August 1).
The inability to gain adequate publicity remained a perennial problem. Brooks makes his case in a rare plea to Routh in September of 1927:
Baylor University has for years been mercilessly and fraudulently attacked by Norris and we have no means of reaching the public save through the [Baptist] Standard or in speeches or in college publications…Can it be possible that we are to go on indefinitely here libeled in such a scurrilous manner with nobody to come promptly to the rescue? Now I trust that I will not be regarded as over-harsh, but I write under the compulsion of agreed need (Brooks, S. P., Letter to Routh, E. C., 1927, September 5).
The means by which Brooks had to publish, and therefore adequately defend himself and the university, was impeded. Again, in the absence of a strong media presence, Brooks was left nearly defenseless to Norris. The financial implication of the libel spread by Norris was a reality for the university. Baylor heavily depended upon Baptist students for the financial solvency of the school. With the defamation of the school, it was a financial reality that the evolution controversy could harm Baylor University.
Though it was not common, at times Samuel Brooks utilized in-house publication to disseminate important articles. This strategy proved to be a meager counter medium for disseminating information to key individuals within the larger Baptist community. It was more costly and it did not have the breadth of the Baptist Standard or the Searchlight, but it did effectively disburse information directly to key constituents.
One example can be found in October of 1924, in hearing of Lee Scarborough’s letter rejection from the Baptist Standard, Brooks published the article in the Lariat and ordered five thousand extra copies to be distributed; in addition, an extra thousand copies for a one Mitchell Nash who would distribute them (Brooks, S. P., Letter to Scarborough, L. R., 1924, October 24). In the same letter, Brooks writes, “We are sending out fifteen thousand copies of a bulletin containing my Standard article, Dr. Meroney’s letter on textbooks and the resolutions of the Fort Worth Pastors’ Conference” (Brooks, S. P., Letter to Scarborough, L. R., 1924, October 24). Print, even in the form of in-house publication, was a necessary means to disseminate their side of the argument. Even a meager media presence was important as it gave Brooks some option to mitigate the evolution controversy for his external constituents.
The Convention and Committees
In November of 1921 at the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT), President Samuel Brooks called for a motion to appoint a committee to investigate all charges made against Baylor with regards to teaching evolution in their school (Brooks, Concerning Evolution, 1923, p. 3). Brooks’ forthright request for public evaluation gave the appearance of legitimacy with regards to the character and conduct of Brooks and Baylor University. The committee was chosen by the BGCT, preventing bias; and it was agreed that the following year the report would conclude with their findings presented at the next annual BGCT meeting. The board found “no single instance” in which “Darwinian theory” was taught as factual (Brooks, Concerning Evolution, 1923, p. 4). In the Convention of 1922 another committee was appointed in which they were to gather and summarize in a report the findings of the previous committee’s work (Brooks, Concerning Evolution, 1923, p. 7). This was to act as double quality control to ensure the validity of the findings. The report stated that Baylor “was above reproach” and that “Baylor and its President had removed all possible criticism by ‘the clear statement’ made to the Convention” in the report given by the Trustees (Brooks, Concerning Evolution, 1923, p. 10).
The BGCT annual meeting gave Brooks an equal battle ground—a space to be heard. Brooks obtained media presence, the chance to be heard by all key constituents. It was a turning point and implicitly acknowledges the power of singular messaging. The chance to be heard with all of the key constituents present was a vital fulcrum point for Brooks and Baylor University. It gave them the means to mitigate the controversy of evolution being taught at Baylor. Yet, even in that moment, Brooks’ mere word that Baylor had not been teaching evolution would not be enough and so he put forward a motion for an unbiased evaluation of the school and their curriculum. This was the single most important act to ameliorate the controversy. It was a symbolic act that spoke louder than any one voice could—his motion for an evaluation was a symbolic representation of the confidence in which Brooks had with his internal and external constituents and required a great deal of faith and courage in them both.
Studying the evolution controversy through the lens of Brooks reveals that lead administrators require a balance between mitigating internal and external constituent needs and demands. In light of disparate constituents who vied for particular simplistic worldview—either for or against evolution—Brooks carefully assuaged both camps. Brooks demonstrated acumen in his ability to utilize a wide variety of resources to obtain media coverage. The complexity of religious institutions and their ties to denominational affiliations were seen as both the source of difficulty as well as the means of mitigation. In other words, Brooks’ utilized the BGCT to assuage the lack of confidence within the Baptist community and to obtain better media coverage among the Baptists. Furthermore, Brooks’ never moved into a simple dichotomous mode of operation, as he continued to demand religious freedom as well as academic freedom. Brooks moved from the simple argumentation to complex rhetoric indicating his acumen for diplomatic leadership in the face of apposing constituent wants. The challenges he faced are still pertinent today as external pressures (media, alumni associations, religion, etc.) demand dynamic forms of mitigation.
From the perspective of the academic and administrator, Brooks ardently supported his university and internal constituents. Unwavering in his support for academic freedom required tactful delegation between issues of faith (creationism) and science (evolution), which at times looked to his external constituents to be equivocation. Brooks attempted to protect his professors by giving them clear expectations understanding that he did not want to undermine their Christian faith on the one hand, and their academic beliefs on the other. As a lead administrator, Brooks had the power to dismiss professors who did not align with traditional Baptist tenants of faith. However, choosing the more difficult path, Brooks understood the necessity of academic integrity, even at the cost of perceived heterodoxy. Implicitly then, Brooks reveals (1) his unwillingness to bifurcate the wants of external constituents with internal constituents; (2) that as an academic leader one must hold differing worldviews and spheres of knowledge in tension while mitigating more than one party’s demands; (3) that Brooks’ unwillingness to dismiss accused professors implicitly denotes that Brooks refused to split faith and academics into binary spheres of knowledge thereby defending the right of professors to choose curriculum; (4) finally that Brooks believed that university policies and conduct cannot be dictated solely by external pressures, no matter how much easier it would be to capitulate.
Some external constituents did not appreciate Brooks’ approach, however, believing that he was equivocating about the “Truth” of the Bible. Brooks worked ceaselessly to disabuse his constituents through speaking engagements, publications, and a university wide investigation. Brooks’ initial communication was simplistic but as the debate raged on his arguments developed into complex rhetoric. The lengths to which Brooks went to understand the nuances of the argument (ex nihilo vs. creationistic evolution etc.) implicitly speaks to Brooks’ character and beliefs. He was politically sophisticated, deeply committed to academic freedom and faith, and committed to dialogue regarding difficult matters of religion and science. Brooks was willing to engage his constituents where they were at emotionally and spiritually, all the while remaining faithful to his academic commitments to the university on the one hand and faith on the other. Brooks’ endurance with continued care for constituents more than anything characterizes the kind of leadership acumen portrayed implicitly and explicitly.
To characterize Brooks as anything but dynamic would be specious at best. His conduct reveals that he is neither a wavering politician moving on winds of his constituents nor a thoughtless dictator going about demanding his own way. Rather, Brooks exemplified a dynamic leader, complex in his approach and willing to hold disparate groups together in dialogue to find a way forward. He was a paragon of tactful leadership as he moved beyond dualistic thinking and operated in a manner that assuaged conflicting constituents. Brooks’ effort won the day and won academic freedom for Baylor University.
Nevertheless, the examples given here are not meant to be exhaustive. Further research is required to obtain a fuller picture of interplay between constituents and administrators as it pertains to curriculum, intercommunication, and media coverage within the 1920’s.
Brann, W. C. (1919). The complete works of Brann, the iconoclast. Brann publishers, Incorporated.
Brooks, S.P. (1921, November 28). [Letter to D. Price]. Samuel Palmer Brooks Papers (Box 2C73, Folder 244). The Texas Collection, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Brooks, S.P. (1922, January 2). [Letter to Gorge D. Tyson]. Samuel Palmer Brooks Papers (Box 2C73, Folder 245). The Texas Collection, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Brooks, S.P. (1922, April 17). [Letter to W. L. Poteat]. Samuel Palmer Brooks Papers (Box 2C73, Folder 244). The Texas Collection, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Brooks, S.P. (1922, April 22). [Letter to Lula Pace and Ora C. Bradbury]. Samuel Palmer Brooks Papers (Box 2C73, Folder 244). The Texas Collection, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Brooks, S.P. (1923). “Concerning Evolution in Baylor University.” The Baylor Bulletin. (Texas LD 346 B858x 1923 v. 26). The Texas Collection, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Brooks, S.P. (1923, August 1). [Letter to J. D. Ray]. Samuel Palmer Brooks Papers (Box 2C73, Folder 244). The Texas Collection, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Brooks, S.P. (1924, October 24). [Letter to Lee R. Scarborough ]. Samuel Palmer Brooks Papers (Box 2C73, Folder 244). The Texas Collection, Baylor University, Waco, TX
Brooks, S.P. (1927, September 5). [Letter to Eugene C. Routh]. Samuel Palmer Brooks Papers (Box 2C73, Folder 244). The Texas Collection, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Hankins, B. (1996). God’s rascal: J. Frank Norris and the beginnings of Southern fundamentalism. University Press of Kentucky.
Maiden, R. K. (1920, December 2). [Letter to Samuel Palmer Brooks]. Samuel Palmer Brooks Papers (Box 2C71, Folder 227). The Texas Collection, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Norris, J.F. (1921, December 19). [Letter to Samuel Palmer Brooks]. Samuel Palmer Brooks Papers (Box 2C71, Folder 288). The Texas Collection, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Norris, J. F. (1923, April 31). “Letters of interest.” The Search Light. (Samuel Palmer Brooks, Box 2C71, Folder 229). The Texas Collection, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Scarborough, L.R. (1921, December 12). [Letter to Samuel Palmer Brooks]. Samuel Palmer Brooks Papers (Box 2C72, Folder 232). The Texas Collection, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Scarborough, L.R. (1921, December 21). [Letter to Samuel Palmer Brooks]. Samuel Palmer Brooks Papers (Box 2C71, Folder 228). The Texas Collection, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Stroder, T. J., (1923, March 3). [Letter to Samuel Palmer Brooks]. Samuel Palmer Brooks Papers (Box 2C72, Folder 231). The Texas Collection, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Tyson, G.D. (Ed.). (1921, December 10). “Dow Resigns as Result of Attacks on Text: Resignation Accepted.” The Baylor Lariat. Retrieved from http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/lariat/id/7249/rec/45. The Texas Collection, Baylor University, Waco, TX.