Below is the next-to-last excerpt from my new work “Gödel’s Interbellum”; footnotes are below the fold:

Following the Anschluss–Nazi Germany’s annexation of the Republic of Austria in March 1938–German law displaced Austrian law and the position of Privatdozent–Gödel’s official position at the University of Vienna since March 1933–was officially abolished.[1] Former “private lecturers” like Gödel were now required to apply for the position of “Lecturer of the New Order” (Dozent neuer Ordnung) if they wished to maintain their academic careers under the new regime.[2] This new requirement was not directed at Gödel personally; instead, it was part of a general reorganization of educational institutions in the wake of Hitler’s rise to power. (As an aside, the main reason why the Nazis abolished the position of Privatdozent was that, although the state had exercised administrative control of the universities in Germany and Austria prior to Hitler’s rise to power, it did not have any direct control over private lecturers.)

Did the ex post revocation of Gödel’s lectureship inform his subsequent discovery of a loophole in the U.S. Constitution? In the case of the Anschluss, one country’s laws and constitution swallowed up or displaced the laws and constitution of another country. For the mathematical logician, this meant the rules that applied to his lectureship were replaced wholesale with a new set of rules, and by all accounts, Gödel himself was “outraged” and “incensed” when his position was revoked by university officials in the spring of 1938.[3] Karl Menger, who knew Gödel personally from their days at the University of Vienna and who was co-teaching a course with Gödel at the University of Notre Dame during the spring of 1939 (one year after Gödel’s position was abolished),[4] describes Gödel’s reaction to the revocation of his lectureship thus:

In the second half of the semester, Gödel also, who until then had been his usual dispassionate self, appeared to be restless. Remarks of his indicated longing for his family. For this and other reasons he wanted to return to Vienna at the end of the semester. Even earlier he had complained about the revocation of dozentship in the university by the Nazi regime and had spoken about violated rights.[5]

Menger had tried to reason with Gödel, asking him: “‘How can one speak of rights in the present situation? … And what practical value can even rights at the University of Vienna have for you under such circumstances’,”[6] but to no avail. Although Gödel had requested a leave of absence for the 1938-1939 academic year (he visited the IAS in the fall of 1938 and then co-taught a course with Menger at the University of Notre Dame in the spring of 1939), he had every intention of returning to the University of Vienna and resuming his academic career there.[7]

The handling of Gödel’s leave of absence request, however, represents an almost comic case of bureaucratic bungling and ineptitude. To begin with, Gödel had submitted his request for a leave of absence to the University of Vienna in a letter dated October 31, 1938.[8] In response, the dean of the School of Philosophy forwarded Gödel’s request to the Ministry of Instruction, which in turn forwarded the matter to the Ministry of Internal and Cultural Affairs.[9] According to John Dawson, “no further action was taken [on Gödel’s request for a leave of absence] until 4 July [1939].”[10] On that date, an official at Ministry of Internal and Cultural Affairs wrote back to the rector of the University of Vienna to inquire about Gödel’s reasons for requesting a leave of absence. The rector, in turn, forwarded this matter back to the dean (!), who “proposed that Gödel’s Lehrbefugnis (his official authorization to teach) be rescinded since Gödel had not requested a leave of absence for the summer semester.”[11] The dean’s harsh recommendation was sent back to the Ministry of Internal and Cultural Affairs, where yet another official then advised the rector that the dean’s recommendation was moot because “Gödel’s Lehrbefugnis … was already in abeyance [since April 1938], and it would officially expire on 1 October unless Gödel submitted an application in the meantime to be named Dozent neuer Ordnung.”[12]

Although it is unclear whether Gödel himself was aware of this bureaucratic back-and-forth,[13] the evidence suggests that at a minimum he must have known that his lectureship had now lapsed and that he would lose the right to lecture permanently unless he applied for the new position of Dozent neuer Ordnung before the October 1st deadline, for as it happens, Gödel not only returned to Austria in June 1939;[14] he apparently he had every intention of remaining in his home country and continuing his scholarly endeavors at the University of Vienna. In fact, according to his biographer John Dawson, Gödel still did not seriously expect to emigrate as late as November 1939.[15] Among other things, Gödel closed out his bank account in Princeton, New Jersey,[16] moved into a new apartment in the center of Vienna,[17] and signed a new lease on his old apartment in the suburb of Grinzing.[18] In addition, Gödel finally applied on September 25, 1939 for the new position of Dozent neuer Ordnung,[19] less than one week before the October 1st deadline.

Political reality, however, would derail Gödel’s aspirations. Germany had invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, and Gödel himself was declared fit for military service in the German Army shortly thereafter.[20] All the while, Gödel’s academic status at the University of Vienna was still in limbo, since his previous position of private lecturer had been suspended and his application to become a Dozent neuer Ordnung was still under review by the relevant university and ministry officials by the time Gödel and his wife Adele decided to flee their beloved Vienna in January 1940, resettling in Princeton, New Jersey, where they would live the rest of their lives.[21]

Ironically, Gödel was finally awarded the title of Dozent neuer Ordnung in June 1940,[22] and the University continued to keep his name in its records until 1945, accompanied by a terse announcement that “Dozent Gödel shall not lecture.”[23]

---

[1] According to Gödel’s biographer John Dawson, “[Gödel’s] papers … contain several documents from Nazi functionaries at the University of Vienna, which reveal that on 23 April [1938] his Lehrbefugnis (authorization to teach) officially lapsed.” See Dawson (1997), pp. 127-128. See also Sigmund (2011), p. 86; Wang (1987), p. 94.

[2] Wang (1987), p. 102. Existing professors were required to take an oath of personal loyalty to Adolf Hitler. In the Philosophical Faculty where Gödel taught, 38 out of 99 professors (or 13 out of 32 emeritus professors, 14 out of 45 full professors, and 11 out of 22 associate professors) and 56 out of 159 paid lecturers voluntarily “retired” from academia rather than take the required loyalty oath. See Sigmund, 2011, p. 85. Gödel himself, however, as a mere private lecturer, was not required to take the oath (ibid.)

[3] See Sigmund (2011), p. 86; Goldstein, 2005, p. 226; Wang, 1987, p. 94.

[4] See Dawson (1997), pp. 134-136.

[5] Menger (1994), p. 224 (emphasis added).

[6] Ibid. (emphasis in original).

[7] Recall that private lecturers were required to teach a course at least one semester every two years … Gödel had not taught a course at the University of Vienna since the summer semester of 1937. Sigmund (2011), pp. 86-87.

[8] Dawson (1997), p. 141.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid., p. 139. See also Wang (1987), p. 101.

[15] Dawson (1997), p. 147.

[16] Ibid., p. 140.

[17] Ibid., p. 146.

[18] Goldstein (2005), p. 228.

[19] Dawson (1997), p. 142. See also Wang (1987), p. 102.

[20] Ibid., pp. 101-102. See also Wang (1996), p. 29; Goldstein (2005), p. 229; Sigmund (2011), p. 88.

[21] For reasons that are unclear, the rector of the University, who had initially opposed Gödel’s application, later had a change of heart and decided to support Gödel’s appointment. See Sigmund (2011), pp. 89-90.

[22] Sigmund (2011), p. 90. See also Dawson (1997), p. 155.

[23] Sigmund (2011), p. 91; Dawson (1997), p. 155.