Setting Fire by Condoning Sex: Leo Koch and the
Beginning of the Sexual Revolution
Carolyn McMenamin
HIST 498, Smith
10 May 2013
McMenamin
1
In an article from 2010 in the Chicago Sun-Times, the late Roger Ebert reflected on
events from his youth in Champaign Urbana, Illinois: “Fifty years ago, a brief letter to the editor
of a student newspaper led to a national furor over academic freedom. When it broke in 1959
(sic), the Leo Koch Case dominated front pages and newscasts. It remained a story for three
years. Today it is so thoroughly forgotten that not even Wikipedia, which knows everything, has
heard of it.”1 Since 2010, Wikipedia has indeed created a page devoted to Leo Koch—but the
sentiment remains the same.2 Professor Leo Koch’s letter in favor of condoning appropriate premarital sex captured people’s attention across the United States and even the globe. Today, the
average person would not be aware of what the Leo Koch case was or its significance in opening
public discourse and attitudes on sex. Koch’s name barely appears in literature on the sexual
revolution or the 1960s in general. Perhaps this is because Leo Koch was dismissed from the
University of Illinois and his appeals against such action were twice dismissed.
Koch made headlines in almost every state, inspiring hundreds to write letters to the
University of Illinois’ President David Henry—Because of his letter, students and adults
circulated petitions—They formed committees—Held protests—Hung effigies. Despite losing
his battle in legal terms, Professor Koch inspired citizens to discuss sex in an open and
impassioned way for one of the first times in modern American history.
Many scholars have written about the sexual revolution, though few have so much as
mentioned Professor Leo Koch. Most works make arguments that incorporate the role of World
War II, the Korean War, Cold War, and the Vietnam War as major players in revolutionizing
Roger Ebert, “Making out is its own reward.” Chicago Sun-Times, January 12, 2010,
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/01/making_out_is_its_own_reward.html.
2
“Leo Koch,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Koch.
1
1
McMenamin
2
social and sexual norms.3 Most scholars also recognize the Food and Drug Administration’s
approval of the birth control pill in 1960 as a catalyst.4 5 Where these scholars differ is in who
they acknowledge as the key characters involved in such change and when their influence
affected society first and most strongly. In Make Love, Not War, David Allyn argues that the
sexual revolution was led by leaders of passionate and devoted character, if not also eclectic and
unexceptional intellectually.6 Of these characters, he cites the publication of Helen Gurley
Brown’s 1962 book Sex and the Single Girl as the pivotal moment that sparked the sexual
revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. Brown’s book spoke about pre-marital sex for females in an
unforgiving, casual, and candid manner, causing great controversy and debate. 7
In Sex in the Heartland Beth Bailey explores the origins and progress of the sexual
revolution in a different way, highlighting the everyday habits of common people as the real
catalyst for change: “If the challenges to America’s sexual codes had taken place only in the
streets of Greenwich Village and the Haight-Ashbury, there would have been no revolution” she
argues.8 This paper, however, places its argument in between these two viewpoints. I contend
that the sexual revolution was not led solely by significant names and trendy neighborhoods, but
that it did indeed thrive on the controversy of an outspoken individual—a man who would
inspire thousands of average citizens to join the conversation about sexuality. Though he
ultimately lost in the courts, Koch’s 1960 letter to the editor brought the topic of sex into the
3
Beth Bailey, Sex in the Heartland (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 1999), 6, 17-18, 83.
4
Beth Bailey, Sex in the Heartland (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 1999), 7.
5
Elaine Tyler May, America and the Pill: A history of promise, peril, and liberation,
(Ney York: Basic Books, 2010), 1-9.
6
David Allyn, Make Love, Not War (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2000), 7.
7
David Allyn, Make Love, Not War (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2000), 10.
8
Beth Bailey, Sex in the Heartland (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 1999), 9-10.
2
McMenamin
3
lives of everyday people across America and abroad through debate in newspapers, in written
letters, and on University campuses. In so doing, the fight over Koch's right to free speech broke
the long-standing taboo that stifled discussion of sex in public discourse and marked an early
battle of the emerging Sexual Revolution.
“Advice on Sex” Makes Headlines
Professor Leo Koch’s letter to the editor was actually a response to two University of
Illinois students who wrote an opinion article in the Daily Illini on 16 March, 1960; their article
spoke against petting and necking in dormitories and sorority houses. The co-authors, Dick
Hutchinson and Dan Bures, claimed that said intimate acts were a meaningless ritual, devoid of
personal interaction or individuality.9 This inspired Professor Koch to speak out against
repressive anti-pre-marital sex norms in a letter to the editor two days later on March 18, 1960.
His letter was given the title “Advice on Sex” by the newspaper for publication. In his letter,
Koch contended that such petting and necking were the result of “the depraved society that
reared them [the students]” rather than any fault of the individuals themselves. Koch argued that
ritualized petting and necking existed because society had “hypocritical and downright inhumane
moral standards engendered by a Christian code of ethics which was already decrepit in the days
of Queen Victoria.” His conclusion, which would later be quoted heavily in papers across the
United States, contended that “With modern contraceptives and medical advice readily available
at the nearest drugstore, or at least a family physician, there is no valid reason why sexual
intercourse should not be condoned among those sufficiently mature to engage in it without
Report, “Report to the University Senate, Appendix II, Item 1,” June 15, 1960, box 5,
folder “Leo Koch Personnel File, Dept of General Studies 1955-1960,” Series 2/15/10,
Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
9
3
McMenamin
4
social consequences and without violating their own codes of morality and ethics.”10 Two
important points should be noted before discussing the reception of the letter. First, Koch did not
title his letter “Advice on Sex;” that was done by those working at the Daily Illini. Second, it is
crucial to note that Koch merely stated that pre-marital sex, under the right conditions, should be
condoned; he did not recommend that it be celebrated or required.11
Professor Koch’s letter caused immediate commotion. According to a summary made by
the Urbana-Champaign Senate Committee on Academic Freedom, by March 28 the Executive
Committee of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences had discussed Professor Koch’s letter; the
committee debated it again on April 6. The committee voted unanimously at the first meeting to
have Koch “relieved of his duties” and voted five to one for the same action at the second
meeting.12 The committee, along with President David Henry, felt strongly that the professor
“constituted a breach of academic responsibility” because his letter failed to contain “a reasoned
statement, the writer denounced society as depraved, condemned as inhumane and obsolete the
widely accepted moral standards derived from the Christian code of ethics, and castigated those
who might disagree with his conclusions as outrageously ignorant.”13
Report, “Report to the University Senate, Appendix II, Item 2,” June 15, 1960, box 5,
folder “Leo Koch Personnel File, Dept of General Studies 1955-1960,” Series 2/15/10,
Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
11
Report, “Report to President David D. Henry, Detailed Statement to be included as
Appendix I,” June 15, 1960, box 5, folder “Leo Koch Personnel File, Dept of General Studies
1955-1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of
Illinois Archives.
12
Report, “Report to the University Senate,” June 15, 1960, box 5, folder “Leo Koch
Personnel File, Dept of General Studies 1955-1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and
Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
13
Report, “Report to the University Senate,” June 15, 1960, box 5, folder “Leo Koch
Personnel File, Dept of General Studies 1955-1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and
Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
10
4
McMenamin
5
However, when the Urbana-Champaign Committee on Academic Freedom reviewed his
case, they decided that “the administrative officers of the University, in taking action against
Professor Koch, acted in several respects contrary to the standards of proper procedure in
dismissal cases.” The Academic Freedom Committee ultimately concluded that Koch should be
reprimanded but not discharged.14
The Committee on Academic Freedom’s report also stated that “During the period
between its publication and April 16, Professor Koch’s letter had received some attention in the
press outside the local community.”15 The letter caught fire through high school students and
parents when the March 18 issue of the Daily Illini included the story as the “souvenir issue” at
the state high school basketball tournament, thus propelling Koch’s letter to the editor into the
hands of high school students, their families, and other spectators at large.16 The story would
eventually spread much further than basketball games, the University of Illinois campus, and its
administrators.
The University of Illinois dismissed Leo Koch on April 7. Koch filed a lawsuit against
the University of Illinois, appealed twice, and never won.17 But his efforts were not in vein. His
letter made headlines and rallied opinions from all view points, prompting thorough discussion
on college campuses, within homes, clubs, churches, and organizations about sex in America and
beyond. This new commotion occurred when sex was a taboo unless discussed in a morally
Report, “To the University Senate, University of Illinois From Urbana-Champaign
Senate Committee on Academic Freedom, p 5” June 15, 1960, box 5, folder “Leo Koch
Personnel File, Dept of General Studies 1955-1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and
Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
15
Report, “Report to the University Senate,” June 15, 1960, box 5, folder “Leo Koch
Personnel File, Dept of General Studies 1955-1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and
Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
16
“Students Protest Prof’s. Dismissal Say ‘Not Free Love But Free Speech,’” National
Student News, April, 1960.
17
David Allyn, Make Love, Not War (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2000), 43.
14
5
McMenamin
6
accepted, Christian tone. Koch and the large numbers of people who he inspired to speak up
indicate a pivotal point in American history where sex began to enter everyday conversations.
While much of the Koch debate centered on freedom of speech, freedom of speech was not the
crux of the issue. Freedom of speech is only relevant when the content of the speech is contested.
Thus, the Leo Koch case showed a moment when American society began to talk about sex in a
more open and daring way.
Life at the University of Illinois
In order to appreciate the significance of Professor Koch and the discussion he spurred,
the time period in which these events occurred must be understood. The roots of the sexual
revolution might be cited in the first half of the 20th century. The term itself came from the work
of Wilhelm Reich, an Austrian psychoanalyst whose work was published in the 1920s and first
appeared in America in 1945.18 His goals for a sexually liberated society did not come true
during those years, but things did begin to change, as seen in the “very structure of American
society.”19 World War II played a large role; the war moved citizens around the globe so that
they might experience new cultures: “during the war more Americans than in any previous era
found themselves in close contact with others not like themselves.”20 Further, in the post war
period, new levels of prosperity afforded more people to have a voice in society.
These changes in society created important fissures in society, but sexual repression still
had great strength in the 1940s and ‘50s. Writing or speaking in an unconventional way about
sex was matched with the threat of legal consequences. Even more repressive was the fear of
18
David Allyn, Make Love, Not War (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2000), 4.
Beth Bailey, Sex in the Heartland (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 1999), 6.
20
Beth Bailey, Sex in the Heartland (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 1999), 16.
19
6
McMenamin
7
social ostracism for having pre-marital sex, a biracial attraction, or homosexuality.21 However,
what people did do in private often contradicted social norms people spoke about publically. A
study in 1953 by Alfred Kinsey reported that about 50% of 5,940 white female American women
had participated in pre-marital sex.22 These women risked the double standard and, consequently,
the reputation of “fast or easy…both scorned and envied by other girls.”23
These social standards were held tight even once youth left home, as universities of this
time held the principle of “in loco parentis, believing that they acted ‘in the place of parents.’”24
As Ebert recalled:
Most universities took aggressive steps to prevent sex among undergraduates.
Students weren't allowed to live in their own apartments. In women's dormitories, a strict
curfew was enforced, and too many “late minutes” in a semester would get you hauled up
before a Disciplinary Committee. It was assumed that by locking down the women, you
would prevent sex; gay sex was off the radar.
Police patrolled lovers' lanes and shone spotlights into suspicious cars. If actual
sex was observed, arrests were made. University Police checked local motel parking lots
for license plates registered to students. If a couple returned to a woman's dorm early,
they could share a sofa in the lounge, a brightly-lighted room monitored by matrons who
enforced the Three Foot Rule. This wasn't as bad as it sounds. It didn't mean boy and girl
had to be separated by three feet, but it did mean that three of their four feet had to be on
the floor, if you follow me.
Ebert went to the University of Illinois, but these standards were common at any school. At
Vasser College premarital sex would result in expulsion. In the early 1960s at the University of
Michigan, “nine of the student handbook’s fifteen pages were devoted to the details of women’s
21
22
David Allyn, Make Love, Not War (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2000), 6.
David Allyn, Make Love, Not War (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2000), 16-
17.
23
David Allyn, Make Love, Not War (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2000), 17.
Roger Ebert, “Making out is its own reward.” Chicago Sun-Times, January 12, 2010,
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/01/making_out_is_its_own_reward.html.
24
7
McMenamin
8
hours and curfew regulations.”25 Again, many students deviated from these standards in private;
in the public eye, most claimed to prize chastity.
Coverage of Koch in Newspapers across the States
The Koch case instantly became a national story, covered by newspapers in nearly every
state. In an article written by Ebert, then a writer for the Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette, the
intensity of the case was made clear: “Donald E. Moore, Chicago, a director of the American
Civil Liberties Union and Koch’s attorney, predicted that the Koch case will become a
nationwide storm-center of controversy if accepted by the highest tribunal.”26 Time Magazine
covered the story without bias in their April 18 issue. The article simply explained a general
timeline of events and important names, actions and inactions regarding Koch’s case.27 Despite
its brevity, such immediate reporting in a national magazine indicates the importance and
national breadth of the case.
Local publications covered the story as well, including the Greenwich Village paper, The
Village Voice. Their story included an interview with Koch, provided thorough coverage and
insights into Koch’s personal reflections on the case, and the state of American social norms in
general. 28 Something might be said for The Village Voice—a local paper in a progressive
neighborhood—reporting on news from a state university in Illinois. First, the appearance of
such a story in a trendy district reveals Professor Koch’s relevance, even in the most hip and
alternative of locations like Greenwich Village. Second, the article was formed around a fairly
25
Beth Bailey, Sex in the Heartland (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 1999), 79.
26
Newspaper Clipping, Roger Ebert, “Koch Case to Rival That of Religion in Schools,”
folder box 5, folder “Leo Koch Personnel File, Dept of General Studies 1955-1960,” Series
2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
27
"The Limit," Time 75, no. 16, April 18, 1960, 50.
28
J.R. Goddard, “Dr. Koch Seeks Reinstatement: Sex On Campus? ‘You Can’t Shrug Off
Biological Needs’,” The Village Voice, November 17, 1960.
8
McMenamin
9
extensive interview with Koch—a task that implies effort, coordination, and the importance of
Koch. Aside from these notable publications, many of the letters addressed to the University (in
approval and disapproval of the Koch dismissal) mentioned that they leaned of the Koch case
through their local news source. These papers ranged from small towns to big cities in each
region of North America.
Not all newspapers were so generous with Professor Koch in their representation of the
case. Many misrepresented Koch’s arguments with hyperbole and fear tactics. Common
headlines used a variation for the expression “Free Love Professor…” The sensationalized
headlines can reveal at least two insights of this time period: first, any mention of sex had the
potential to lead one into lofty misunderstandings and interpretations. The term “condone” in
Koch’s letter translated to more extreme language than was intended by the professor; many
Americans interpreted “condone” as “free sex” or otherwise reckless behavior. This reflects a
society unversed in conversation about sexual habits that might deviate from Christian code.
Second, many articles and headlines used colorful language to attract readership. The sensation
and debate over Professor Koch that followed confirms a fiery interest to discuss the Koch case.
Reactions at the University of Illinois
College campuses, especially the University of Illinois, responded to Koch’s removal. As
reported in the National Student News, “Koch’s dismissal has caused much controversy both on
the campus and throughout the state. Protests of the administration’s action have come mainly
from students.”29 While Ebert’s 2010 reflection on the Koch case said, “I had been working on
The News-Gazette in Champaign-Urbana since 1958, and don't remember hearing anyone defend
Koch's letter—not even Joe Black, a melancholy, hard-drinking reporter who wrote Beatnik
“Students Protest Prof’s. Dismissal Say ‘Not Free Love But Free Speech,’” National
Student News, April, 1960.
29
9
McMenamin
10
poetry,”—but evidence suggests otherwise.30 Records indicate that students showed energetic
action on campus: an effigy of President Henry was hung twice, a demonstration of about 1,200
persons assembled with slogans like “Not Free Love, But Free Speech,” the Student Senate
prepared a protest bill, and a petition circulated campus.31 But Ebert’s claims must not be cast
aside completely; they reveal the reactions of those who Ebert interacted with at the NewsGazette and most likely a large proportion of the American population beyond Champaign
Urbana. The nation was conflicted, but the case would encourage many to speak up for the first
time.
In addition to students, professors at the University of Illinois also took action. On July
15, 1960, two hundred twenty nine University of Illinois faculty members who were “available
during the Summer session” wrote an “open letter to the Board of Trustees of the University of
Illinois.” These faculty members, composed of 118 professors, 53 associate professors, 48
assistant professors, 10 instructors and research associates signed their names, arguing that “the
Board of Trustees has set a precedent that infringes on free inquiry, teaching, and discussion.”32
This letter is impressive for numerous reasons. The timing of the letter was during a
period when solidarity could be hard to come by—it being the summer session, professors would
be less likely to be consolidated on campus, their priorities would be dispersed, and university
conflicts less relevant. The number of signatures overwhelms these facts, indicating that there
was strong sentiment behind the signatories. Thus, it can be assumed that there was great
Roger Ebert, “Making out is its own reward.” Chicago Sun-Times, January 12, 2010,
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/01/making_out_is_its_own_reward.html.
31
“Students Protest Prof’s. Dismissal Say ‘Not Free Love But Free Speech,’” National
Student News, April, 1960.
32
Letter, Members of the Faculty to the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois,
July 15, 1960, box 6, folder “Open Letter to the Board of Trustees from members of the faculty
July-Sept, 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71,
University of Illinois Archives.
30
10
McMenamin
11
conviction backing this letter. Further, the composite symbolizes discussion and conversation. In
a world without internet, these signatures had to be collected in a way that required great
amounts of time and energy. The letter symbolizes vast and meaningful dialogue amongst
University of Illinois faculty members about sex and its freedom to be discussed.
Action taken against the University by those associated but not necessarily living on
campus or in the immediately surrounding also existed. A handful of alumni wrote to President
Henry asking for their contact information to be removed from the alumni list. One such
graduate, Albert Levitt, composed a brief letter to Henry that read “Until then [restifution (sic)], I
cannot forget your dismissal of Professor Koch. Until then there is no University.”
Accompanying this letter he included pleas from the University of Illinois for donations. On each
one he wrote in large print and in red pencil: “Remember Koch” (Figure 1).33
Fig. 1: Marked papers included in the letter from Albert Levitt to President Henry
Letter, Albert Levitt to David Henry, June 6, 1960, box 9, folder “Disapproval of
University Action June-Oct 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File,
1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
33
11
McMenamin
12
Students also wrote letters that expressed distaste for the University’s decision. A male from
Rockford, IL asked to have his admission to the university withdrawn as he no longer had
interested in attending.34
On the contrary, President Henry also received dozens of letters from professors who
agreed with the administration’s decision. Many of these letters upheld the value of freedom of
speech but argued that Professor Koch did not display responsibility in his letter and should not
be graced with such freedom. Regardless of their opinion on the issue, Professor Koch provoked
the masses to take a stance.
Campus Reactions beyond the University of Illinois
Professors and university students also took action outside of the University of Illinois
campus. Most impressive might be the forty plus signatures from the Institute for Social
Research in Oslo, Norway. Their letter argued that the University of Illinois made a “serious
attack…not only on the free discussion of the sexual problems of youth, but on the very freedom
of expression in general.” Again, the collective effort of these professors showed the presence of
a great amount of discussion. The letter contained hand-written signatures in addition to a typed
list of signatures.35 Such cooperation and timely action reflects sincere and impassioned
reactions; the country of origin (Norway) speaks for itself in regards to the international
reception of the Koch case.
34
Letter, Criag Olson to David Henry, received June 18, 1960, box 9, folder
“Disapproval of University Action June-Oct 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and
Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
35
Letter, Institute for Social Research to David Henry, May 18, 1960, box 9, folder
“Koch Dismissal—Group Communication File May-June 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative
and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
12
McMenamin
13
The debate also worked its way into many student bodies outside of Champaign Urbana.
President Henry David received letters from the Student Government Council of the University
of Michigan, students and teachers from the State University of Iowa and the Associated
Students of the University of California.36 In addition to these student bodies, the University of
California experienced what the Daily Illini called “a major student protest” when the
administration would not allow the student government to take a position against President
Henry via protest letter.37
Groups, Clubs, and Organizations React
The Koch case not only promoted discussion within family units or college campuses, it
also prompted groups of all kinds to debate the topic of sex. Most groups who agreed with
university action to dismiss Koch had some sort of religious affiliation. Some of these groups
included the Knights of Columbus, ministers representing their congregations, and numerous
bible studies.38 Their arguments centered on the “Christian Code” which found ideas like Koch’s
immoral. The letters rarely mentioned freedom of speech unless they felt that Koch abused it and
was thus rightfully let go by the University of Illinois. Secular groups also wrote to the president
36
Letters, Student Government Council of University of Michigan, State University of
Iowa, Associated Students of the University of California to David Henry, box 9, folder “Koch
Dismissal—Group Communication File May-June 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and
Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
37
“Koch Case Caused Controversy.” Daily Illini, October 16, 1962. http://www.library.
illinois.edu/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Search&Key=DIL/1962/10/16/11/Ar01100.
xml&CollName=DIL_APA3&DOCID=888017&PageLabelPrint=11&Skin=UIUC&AW=13624
25301788&sPublication=DIL&sPublication=TUC&sPublication=TTE&sPublication=STR&sPu
blication=SJO&sQuery=leo%20koch&sSorting=%2553%2563%256f%2572%2565%2c%2564
%2565%2573%2563&sDateFrom=%2530%2531%2f%2530%2531%2f%2531%2538%2533%2
534&sDateTo=%2530%2537%2f%2531%2532%2f%2531%2539%2537%2537&RefineQueryV
iew=&StartFrom=10
38
Letters, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—Approvals, A-Z folder 4,” Series 2/15/10,
Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
13
McMenamin
14
with praise including the University Dad’s Association39 and even the Eldorado Flower Club.40
The flower club is worth note because it shows that professors, students, and religious groups
who had obvious stakes in the university’s action were not the only ones who discussed Koch;
small groups who assembled for the love of a hobby, like flowers, discussed the issue as well.
The flower club represents the millions of average American’s who were aware of the news
story, talked about it, and took action by writing a letter of approval or disapproval regardless of
a political or social action agenda.
Groups that opposed university action were largely secular. Some of them included the
Illinois American Civil Liberties Division, the American Humanist Association, The Committee
for Leo Koch, and The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Chicago chapter of the American
Humanist Association took great interest in Koch case (Figure 2).
Fig. 2: Ticket stub for the Seminar hosted by the American Humanist Association, Chicago Chapter
Letter, University Dad’s Association to David Henry, box 9, folder “Koch Dismissal—
Group Communication File May-June 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel
Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
40
Letter, Eldorado Flower Club to David Henry, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—
Approvals, A-Z folder 4,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71,
University of Illinois Archives.
39
14
McMenamin
15
Between January 6 and 7, 1961, they held a seminar on the topic “Changing Attitudes and
Conduct in a Changing World” at Roosevelt University in Chicago. Their featured speaker: Leo
Koch. The event included a pamphlet with a synopsis of Professor’s Koch’s dismissal and a
statement from the chapter to fight for a reversal on the university’s decision.41
The Committee for Leo Koch was formed exclusively for Koch: to spread publicity, to
help his legal case, and to raise money for him and his family. Their opinion in the debate was
that:
The outcome of this case vitally affects the status of all college teachers in the
United States. Dr. Koch was dismissed chiefly because his ideas were found to be
“repugnant” and “contrary to commonly accepted standards of morality.” We have
reached a very sad state of affairs if a university administration can void a contract with
impunity on the ground that it deems the opinions of the teacher “repugnant.”
The Committee is most notable for its long list of members, many of which were professors.
Schools represented included Harvard, University of Michigan, University of Chicago, Cornell
University, University of California at Berkeley, Oberlin College, University of Rome, British
Ethical University, Columbia University, University College London, and Princeton University,
to name a few.42 The wide spread solidarity for Koch demonstrated in this committee, spanning
largely into Western Europe, signifies how outraged many academics were. They were willing to
spend great amounts of time organizing, publicizing and collecting donations because the Koch
dismissal was a defining moment in their lives.
Seminar program, January 6 and 7, 1961, box 5, file “Leo F Koch—President’s Office
Reference File March 5, 1958-June 20, 1960, 1970,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and
Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
42
Letter, The Committee for Leo Koch, box 10, folder “Comments, Criticisms Relating
to Koch Case 1960-61,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71,
University of Illinois Archives.
41
15
McMenamin
16
Citizens against the University
The University of Illinois and President Henry in particular received hundreds of letters
in congratulations and in protest of dismissing Professor Koch. The letters in protest of
university action carried more varied arguments that those who were in favor. The most common
argument was for freedom of speech. As stated earlier, this might appear to be the real debate of
the Koch case. While freedom of speech might indeed be the official jargon, freedom of speech
would not have been debated if its content had not been of sexual nature.
Those who argued for freedom of speech wrote with great concern for the future of
democratic America. One such letter was written by Gene Bridges on Unitarian Universalist
letterhead: “…for some time our freedom has been on shaky ground. Since the days of
McCarthy, it has often proved unwise to speak up. I am sorry to see that the University of Illinois
is so afraid of freedom.” While Bridges included in the letter that he disagreed with Koch’s
opinions on sex, he felt that the discussion of it was important.43 Lawrence Linke also feared
such threats to freedom of speech and his capitol letter words indicate his passion:
I deem it a national disgrace that this man was treated in such an undemocratic
unreasonable manner. To think that such a thing can happen, this decimation of a man
merely expressing his views on a subject, in THIS country, well it surely makes one stop
and think. How could this atrocity occur AT A UNIVERSITY? Isn’t this the place where
freedom of speech and thought is most highly honored?
Linke continued by writing that “times are changing. Sex is no longer a forbidden subject, at
least it shouldn’t be.”44
Letter, Gene Bridges to David Henry, April 27, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch
Dismissal—letters in Disapproval of University Action,1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative
and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
44
Letter, Lawrence Linke to David Henry, November 14, 1960, box 9, folder
“Disapproval of University Action June-Oct. 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and
Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
43
16
McMenamin
17
Linke was not alone in his social commentary; many letters against the university spoke
in ill favor of repressive sexual culture. H.V. Crawford’s letter echoed and expanded upon
Koch’s argument. Crawford argued that students “get drunk,” “act like teenagers,” hang out
rather than study, “marry and drop from school” because they were denied their “basic
psychological needs.”45 Evelyn Lewert from Chicago described herself as a “forty year old
housewife with a college degree, two children” and “not a radical or a rabble rouser, but a
liberal.” Her letter again spoke about changing sexual norms: “Dr. Koch’s views are not
universally offensive and repugnant. You can’t be unaware of the gulf between sexual morals as
preached and practiced. It is time for a more realistic approach. Morals are, after all, man made,
differing between cultures and from age to age.”46
Not only did many Americans recognize that times were or would change, many wrote to
President Henry with recommendations for the future of sexual discourse. Earl E. Conklin
explained:
Since World War I and the popularity of the automobile has made every quiet
parking area a potential petting field leading to many sexual mistakes frequently though
to be rectified by hasty marriage…Why not then educate the young men and women
today in a more sensible manner so when they finally choose a lifetime mate the choice
will be made on a better basis than sex infatuation disguised as love.47
Lionel Burt shared similar thoughts about a new sexual education for youth. He predicted that
“Our young people would get a better start in life if given a chance to choose between the
Letter, H.V. Crawford to David Henry, June 15, 1960, box 9, folder “Disapproval of
University Action June-Oct. 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File,
1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
46
Letter, Evelyn Lewert to David Henry, April 8, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch
Dismissal—letters in Disapproval of University Action, 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative
and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
47
Letter, Earl E. Conklin to David Henry, April 11, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch
Dismissal—letters in Disapproval of University Action, 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative
and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
45
17
McMenamin
18
positive theories of Professor Leo F. Koch and the negative theories of our ‘commonly accepted
standards’ as you are quoted.” Having had Professor Koch lead the way, scores of people felt
inclined think and share their opinion about the role of sex in public discourse.48
The subject of communism made its way into dozens of letters and was used a couple of
times as an argument against the university’s dismissal. A letter from Fern Seemann of Wheaton,
IL is one example. She wrote, “His [Koch’s] comment on our antiqued Christian ethics should be
broadcast over loud speakers. Basically this Christian conditioning is the cause of the western
world’s inability to combat the spread of communism.”49 Seemann’s connection between
sexuality and communism was rare for those who supported Koch. As will be shown, many more
used the threat of communism in their letters to support the university’s decision.
Citizens against Koch
Hundreds of letters were sent to President Henry in support of his decision to get rid of
Koch. One of the most common themes outside that of promoting Christian morals was the threat
of communism. Many referred to Koch’s opinions as the “indoctrination by Reds” and claimed
that the sexual content of Koch’s letter to the editor was “primarily dictated from Moscow.”50 A
letter from Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Bottom reflected the sentiments of many letters when they
wrote “This man [Koch] might not be a communist but he has their doctrine.” More extreme
Letter, Lionel Burt to David Henry, April 18, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—
letters in Disapproval of University Action, 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel
Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
49
Letter, Fern T. Seemann to David Henry, April 8, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch
Dismissal—Disapproval folder 2,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File,
1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
50
Letters to David Henry, box 10, folder “Koch Approvals A-Z folder 2,” Series 2/15/10,
Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
48
18
McMenamin
19
versions of this idea were also common: “This is more communism and if you dig into the
German Jew’s past you will probably find he’s a card-carrying communist” (Figure 3).51
Fig. 3: Letter from Jean Scruggs congratulating President Henry for dismissing Koch
Letter, Jean Scruggs to David Henry, July 19, 1960, box 9, folder “Correspondence not
answered by Form Letter,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71,
University of Illinois Archives.
51
19
McMenamin
20
Angry letters such as these truly represent the fear of the era and the closed mines of many.
However, they also mark an inspiration to at least talk about sex, something that was not so
common before.
The moral argument was also often played by those against Koch. One such letter tied the
communist and religious argument together quite succinctly when he or she wrote “I surely
would not want a child of mine to attend a school where they would be influenced by immoral
teachers. Immorality is a sin against the ‘Commandments’. The cry raised against you must be
from communist (anti-God) students and I hope you pay no attention to them.”52 While Newman
finds those protesting Henry to be irrelevant, his knowledge that such arguments even existed is
important. It shows that news about the case at least mentioned that there was a debate going on,
rather than reporting in a one sided manner.
Humor and Insult in the Disapproval Camp
Those who disagreed with Professor Koch’s removal occasionally employed humor to
make their arguments, as seen in numerous letters to President Henry whereas those who
approved of his removal did not. In some cases, the humor used in the disapproval letters can be
an indicator of attitude. In the approval camp, many writers wrote with earnest enthusiasm,
noting their fear for a society that seemed to be spiraling into moral catastrophe or the
communist threat. The writers of such letters were worried and cautious, taking any liberal
conversation about sex seriously—there was no humor to be had. In contrast, some of those who
wrote letters in opposition to the firing engaged with the sexual taboo in a sarcastic tone, making
light of what they saw to be a natural and necessary conversation.
Letter, R.L. Newman to David Henry, April 12, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch
Dismissal—Approvals A-Z folder 4,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File,
1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
52
20
McMenamin
21
A common use of humor (if it might be called humor) was of the divisive type: letters
using strong language and insults. These writers were up-front and confident in their attack on
the administration. Such was the case of twenty-three-year-old Dennis K. McDaniel who began
his letter, “Dear Mr. Henry, This is a poison pen letter written in defense of Leo F. Koch.”
McDaniel goes on to call President Henry a “so-called educator” and assumes that Henry’s
actions must only be the result of selfishness.53 This kind of name-calling is evident in many
letters. Writing his letter from New York, Gerald F. Conklin, brainstormed what might account
for the President’s decision saying: “To be specific, I think that you are either a pedagogical,
incompetent person of doubtful mental capacity or a coward, insincere bootlicker or, most likely,
some combination of the two with additions.”54 While Conklin’s word choice contains slight
tones of humor, in other instances the affronts carried more anger. So is the case for Dan Cohen,
also from New York, followed his name calling with theoretical threats: “men like you, Dr.
Henry, you miserable platitude spouting, toady, who give Illinois whatever small claim it has to
the title of University. The only regret that I have about leaving Champaign-Urbana was that I
was not there to hang you in effigy.”55 Whether these letters might display jokes or anger, their
cause was the same: the Koch case was an instigator for public discussion of a previously taboo
subject.
Letter, Dennis K. McDaniel to David Henry, June 15, 1960, box 9, folder “Disapproval
of University Action June-Oct. 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions
File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
54
Letter, Gerald F. Conklin to David Henry, April 9, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch
Dismissal—letters in Disapproval of University Action, 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative
and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
55
Letter, Dan Cohen to David Henry, April 26, 1960, box 10, folder “Letters not
answered April-June 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71,
University of Illinois Archives.
53
21
McMenamin
22
Some letter writers poked fun at the situation in a lighthearted manner. Specifically, there
was a common theme of comparing the University’s action to infantilize the student body. In his
brief note to President Henry, J.T. Amoder began, “What are you running there, a nursery
school?”56 Earl E. Conklin, a grandfather from New York, seconds this idea when he wrote in his
letter, “I assume the student body is out of its’ collective ‘bottle and diaper stage.”57 Leaving the
nursery theme, Richard Crosby of California created a metaphor in his letter to Henry:
Our generation has been plagued by McCarthyism, Communism, Atheism,
Beatnikism, and now Spinelessism (sic). Each of these movements have and are
contributing to the destruction of our democratic system. The latter movement has been
attacking college presidents and school boards. It is a chronic ailment which seems to
become a part of the body. . . In view of our recent ruling I fear that you may been
attacked by the nauseous affliction. I you will, after meditation, recover fully from this
viperous sickness.58
While able to make light of the University’s decision, Crosby’s letter portrays a man, several
states away from the conflict, so affected by the controversy that he took the time to develop a
page-long letter criticizing it with clever and original prose.
Additionally, simple sarcasm frequently found its home in the letters of disapproval. In
the same letter by Conklin, he begins by saying:
I should like to express my sincerest of congratulations to you on your recent
brave and enlightened stand with respect to the dismissal of Dr. Koch. Yes,
congratulations. You have added your name to that long and infamous list of mental
Letter, J.T. Amoder to David Henry, April 13, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—
letters in Disapproval of University Action, 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel
Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
57
Letter, Earl E. Conklin to David Henry, April 11, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch
Dismissal—letters in Disapproval of University Action, 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative
and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
58
Letter, Richard Crosby to David Henry, April 11, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch
Dismissal—letters in Disapproval of University Action, 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative
and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
56
22
McMenamin
23
casualties who, from time immemorial, have specialized in guarding the youth or the
aged or some other ‘innocent’ group against corruption.59
Seconding this style, University of Michigan student Art Zuaife concludes his letter with this
sentiment: “Again, congratulations on a job well done. You make me wish that I attended your
fine university, where all the problems of the world have already been solved.”60 Here, I believe
that sarcasm can be used as an indicator of passion. The Koch Case resonated with these everyday people to the degree that they joked around with the situation mentally and then physically
translated those thoughts on to paper.
Demographics
Interesting trends in the letters can be found regarding the sex and origin of the writer. If
the letter was signed by a legible name, and the gender could be assumed, it was recorded. These
tallies were turned into percent male, percent female, percent couple, and percent group. Of those
who wrote letters against the university’s decision, about 64.3% were from men. Only 19.6%
were written by females, 7.1% came from couples, and 8.9% came from groups. These numbers
are strikingly different when compared to those letters sent in approval of the university’s
decision, which were as follows: 43% male, 36.9% female, 13.9% couple, and 6.1% group.
This data shows that females were much more active in taking a stance in approval of the
university, even more so than males. The reverse is true for letters in disapproval of university
action. Another trend can be seen in the amount of couples, even though it is far less significant:
more couples wrote against the university action than for it.
Letter, Gerald F. Conklin to David Henry, April 9, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch
Dismissal—letters in Disapproval of University Action, 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative
and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
60
Letter, Art Zuaife to David Henry, April 10, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—
Disapproval folder 2,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71,
University of Illinois Archives.
59
23
McMenamin
24
There are some possible explanations for these figures. Perhaps due to the social stigmas
of the time, females were more likely to take the “safe route” when talking about sex. Professor
Koch might have scared some women as they feared what kind of reputations might exist for
females if the social norms on sex began to change.
In addition, more couples might have written against Koch because they were already
beyond the dilemma of premarital sex. They were safe in their marriage and to have or not have
sex was not a debate or concern for them. Because they were married, the chance of them having
children is higher than those who were singe. This might result in them wanting stricter sex
codes as an attempt to “protect” their children from unwanted pregnancies and reputations.
The letters also show that the Koch story was one covered world-wide, yet those letters
received from abroad were 100% against the university’s actions. Writing to the university alone
came protest from Uppsala, Sweden. In his letter, Gregory Pålsson jabbed the administration by
saying, “You have dealt your country’s academic image as decisive blow as the southern whites
have socially.”61 Equally disgusted was James C. Walford who wrote from Paris: “When you
become the President of a university with a faculty of timid mediocrities, you will have only
yourself to blame.”62 From Toronto, J. Roger Bray concluded his letter by saying “It [the firing
of Koch] brings the University of Illinois into ill repute.”63 These letters are significant because
they indicate how far the news story traveled. Further, the fact that all who wrote from abroad
Letter, Gregory Pålsson to David Henry, April 19, 1960, box 9, folder “Letters
Answered with other than form letter—disapproval April-May 1960,” Series 2/15/10,
Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
62
Letter, James C. Wolford to David Henry, May 4, 1960, box 9, folder “Letters
Answered with other than form letter—disapproval April-May 1960,” Series 2/15/10,
Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
63
Letter, J. Roger Bray to David Henry, May 6, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—
Letters in Disapproval of University Action, 1960” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel
Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
61
24
McMenamin
25
were in protest of the university’s decision might suggest that America was lagging behind other
western sexual norms. This can be supported by a few American’s suggesting that the United
States was indeed behind. One writer said, “In most other Western countries such a statement
would have gone unnoticed, for Mr. Koch’s only ‘offense’ would have been in the dissemination
of the commonplace.”64 Another who supported Koch explained that his time living in various
locations abroad helped him see that “no country that is so hypocritical as the United States.”65
Conclusion
These newspapers, committees, and letters—though varying in argument, style, gender,
location, and experience—might seem to show a deeply divided America. While that is true,
their more important significance lies in the fact that they exist at all. Such candid and thorough
discussion of sex was not common in America before Koch’s Case. Koch lit fire to the topic of
sex in the presence of a previously quiet public. Koch awakened a subject that would fill
conversations from 1960 onward. His letter to the editor represents a new era—the beginning of
the Sexual Revolution.
Though he ultimately lost in the courts, Koch’s 1960 letter to the editor brought the topic
of sex into the lives of everyday people across America and abroad through debate in
newspapers, in written letters, and on University campuses. In so doing, the fight over Koch's
right to free speech broke the long-standing taboo that stifled discussion of sex in public
discourse and marked an early battle of the emerging Sexual Revolution.
Letter, Robert M Patton, Jr. to David Henry, June 15, 1960, box 9, folder “Disapproval
of University Action June-Oct 1960” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File,
1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
65
Letter, Robert A. Stough & Company to David Henry, box 10, folder “Koch
Dismissal—Disapproval,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71,
University of Illinois Archives.
64
25
McMenamin
26
Archival and Primary Sources
Amoder, J.T. to David Henry, Letter, April 13, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—letters in
Disapproval of University Action, 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel
Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Bray, J. Roger to David Henry, Letter, May 6, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—Letters in
Disapproval of University Action, 1960” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel
Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Bridges, Gene to David Henry, Letter, April 27, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—letters
in Disapproval of University Action,1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel
Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Burt, Lionel to David Henry, Letter, April 18, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—letters in
Disapproval of University Action, 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel
Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Cohen, Dan to David Henry, Letter, April 26, 1960, box 10, folder “Letters not answered AprilJune 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71,
University of Illinois Archives.
Conklin, Earl E. to David Henry, Letter, April 11, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—letters
in Disapproval of University Action, 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and
Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Conklin, Gerald F. to David Henry, Letter, April 9, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—
letters in Disapproval of University Action, 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and
Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Crawford, H.V. to David Henry, Letter, June 15, 1960, box 9, folder “Disapproval of University
Action June-Oct. 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File,
1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Crosby, Richard to David Henry, Letter, April 11, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—letters
in Disapproval of University Action, 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and
Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Ebert, Roger. “Koch Case to Rival That of Religion in Schools.” Newspaper Clipping. folder box
5, folder “Leo Koch Personnel File, Dept of General Studies 1955-1960,” Series 2/15/10,
Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Eldorado Flower Club to David Henry, Letter, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—Approvals, A-Z
folder 4,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University
of Illinois Archives.
Goddard, J.R. “Dr. Koch Seeks Reinstatement: Sex On Campus? ‘You Can’t Shrug Off
Biological Needs.’” The Village Voice. November 17, 1960.
Institute for Social Research to David Henry. Letter. May 18, 1960, box 9, folder “Koch
Dismissal—Group Communication File May-June 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative
and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
“Koch Case Caused Controversy.” Daily Illini. October 16, 1962. http://www.library.
illinois.edu/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Search&Key=DIL/1962/10/16/11/A
r01100.xml&CollName=DIL_APA3&DOCID=888017&PageLabelPrint=11&Skin=UIU
C&AW=1362425301788&sPublication=DIL&sPublication=TUC&sPublication=TTE&s
Publication=STR&sPublication=SJO&sQuery=leo%20koch&sSorting=%2553%2563%2
56f%2572%2565%2c%2564%2565%2573%2563&sDateFrom=%2530%2531%2f%253
26
McMenamin
27
0%2531%2f%2531%2538%2533%2534&sDateTo=%2530%2537%2f%2531%2532%2f
%2531%2539%2537%2537&RefineQueryView=&StartFrom=10
Letters to David Henry, box 10, folder “Koch Approvals A-Z folder 2,” Series 2/15/10,
Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Letters, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—Approvals, A-Z folder 4,” Series 2/15/10,
Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Levitt, Albert to David Henry. Letter. June 6, 1960, box 9, folder “Disapproval of University
Action June-Oct 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 191471, University of Illinois Archives.
Lewert, Evelyn to David Henry, Letter, April 8, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—letters
in Disapproval of University Action, 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and
Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Linke, Lawrence to David Henry, Letter, November 14, 1960, box 9, folder “Disapproval of
University Action June-Oct. 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions
File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
McDaniel, Dennis K. to David Henry, Letter, June 15, 1960, box 9, folder “Disapproval of
University Action June-Oct. 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions
File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Members of the Faculty to the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. Letter. July 15,
1960, box 6, folder “Open Letter to the Board of Trustees from members of the faculty
July-Sept, 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71,
University of Illinois Archives.
Newman, R.L. to David Henry, Letter, April 12, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—
Approvals A-Z folder 4,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File,
1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Olson, Criag to David Henry. Letter. Received June 18, 1960, box 9, folder “Disapproval of
University Action June-Oct 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions
File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Pålsson, Gregory to David Henry, Letter, April 19, 1960, box 9, folder “Letters Answered with
other than form letter—disapproval April-May 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and
Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
“Report to President David D. Henry, Detailed Statement to be included as Appendix I.” Report.
June 15, 1960, box 5, folder “Leo Koch Personnel File, Dept of General Studies 19551960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of
Illinois Archives.
“Report to the University Senate, Appendix II, Item 1.” Report. June 15, 1960, box 5, folder
“Leo Koch Personnel File, Dept of General Studies 1955-1960,” Series 2/15/10,
Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
“Report to the University Senate, Appendix II, Item 2.” Report. June 15, 1960, box 5, folder
“Leo Koch Personnel File, Dept of General Studies 1955-1960,” Series 2/15/10,
Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
“Report to the University Senate.” Report. June 15, 1960, box 5, folder “Leo Koch Personnel
File, Dept of General Studies 1955-1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel
Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
27
McMenamin
28
Robert M Patton, Jr. to David Henry, Letter, June 15, 1960, box 9, folder “Disapproval of
University Action June-Oct 1960” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions
File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Scruggs, Jean to David Henry, Letter, July 19, 1960, box 9, folder “Correspondence not
answered by Form Letter,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File,
1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Seemann, Fern T. to David Henry, Letter, April 8, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—
Disapproval folder 2,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 191471, University of Illinois Archives.
Seminar program, January 6 and 7, 1961, box 5, file “Leo F Koch—President’s Office Reference
File March 5, 1958-June 20, 1960, 1970,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel
Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Stough & Company, Robert A. to David Henry, Letter, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—
Disapproval,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71,
University of Illinois Archives.
Student Government Council of University of Michigan and State University of Iowa,
Associated Students of the University of California. Letters, to David Henry, box 9,
folder “Koch Dismissal—Group Communication File May-June 1960,” Series 2/15/10,
Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
“Students Protest Prof’s. Dismissal Say ‘Not Free Love But Free Speech,’” National Student
News, April, 1960.
“Students Protest Prof’s. Dismissal Say ‘Not Free Love But Free Speech.’” National Student
News. April, 1960.
“The Limit.” Time 75, no. 16, April 18, 1960, 50.
“To the University Senate, University of Illinois From Urbana-Champaign Senate Committee on
Academic Freedom, p 5.” Report. June 15, 1960, box 5, folder “Leo Koch Personnel File,
Dept of General Studies 1955-1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel
Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
The Committee for Leo Koch, Letter, box 10, folder “Comments, Criticisms Relating to Koch
Case 1960-61,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 1914-71,
University of Illinois Archives.
University Dad’s Association to David Henry. Letter. box 9, folder “Koch Dismissal—Group
Communication File May-June 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel
Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Wolford, James C. to David Henry, Letter, May 4, 1960, box 9, folder “Letters Answered with
other than form letter—disapproval April-May 1960,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and
Personnel Actions File, 1914-71, University of Illinois Archives.
Zuaife, Art to David Henry, Letter, April 10, 1960, box 10, folder “Koch Dismissal—
Disapproval folder 2,” Series 2/15/10, Administrative and Personnel Actions File, 191471, University of Illinois Archives.
Secondary Literature
Allyn, David. Make Love, Not War. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2000.
Bailey, Beth. Sex in the Heartland. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Ebert, Roger. “Making out is its own reward.” Chicago Sun-Times, January 12, 2010,
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/01/making_out_is_its_own_reward.html.
28
McMenamin
29
Tyler Elaine May, America and the Pill: A history of promise, peril, and liberation. New York:
Basic Books, 2010.
Wikipedia. “Leo Koch.” Accessed May 10, 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Koch.
29