l x I N T R O D U C T I O N T O V O L U M E 1 5 views on women. He described the physics student Esther Polianowsky-Salaman, for whom he had written a recommendation, as “a hussy, i.e., [someone who] replaces strength with cunning, relies on her attractive appearance” (Doc. 100). And while he praised Tatiana Ehrenfest’s extraordinary intellect, he then added: “If she were a man, something significant would come of it. However, I believe she will not muster the energy for that” (Doc. 376). He also made critical remarks on American women, similar to those that had caused him trouble in 1921.[26] In a statement defending Charlie Chaplin’s right to privacy in his divorce case, Einstein commented that “in Europe the petticoat rule is not so strong” (Doc. 481). And in a rather callous letter to Hedwig Born, he belittled her, and other women’s, lack of creativity (Doc. 444). V. A Bet on Relativity: Miller’s Ether Drift Experiments Einstein first heard of Dayton C. Miller’s experiments on ether drift while visiting Princeton University in May 1921 and shortly thereafter met him at the Case School of Applied Science in Cleveland, where Miller was a professor (see Illus- tration 30).[27] It was at Case that Albert Michelson and Edward Morley had earlier conducted the famous experiments on ether drift. Beginning in 1900, Miller and Morley had published papers confirming the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment (Morley and Miller 1905). Like many physicists at the turn of the cen- tury, Michelson, Miller, and Morley were firm believers in the ether theory of light. But unlike others, they retained a preference for the ether theory for many years afterward. Miller certainly continued to direct his experimental program within this framework, and had become convinced that the null result of the ether drift obser- vations was due to ether drag and the “heavy stone walls of the building within which the apparatus was mounted.” He accordingly had set up the apparatus “on high ground near Cleveland, covered in such a manner that there is nothing but glass in the direction of the expected drift” (Morley and Miller 1907). Einstein could not examine the apparatus in 1921, since by then it had been moved to Mount Wilson in California, at the invitation of the observatory’s direc- tor, George Ellery Hale (Swenson 1972, p. 192). Nevertheless, Einstein believed that Miller’s subsequent results were due to a failure to control adequately the tem- perature in the vicinity of the instruments. Miller’s desire that his apparatus should be, as far as possible, open to the ether wind, tended to render it also unusually open to the elements, especially sunlight.[28] During their encounter in 1921, Einstein and Miller had discussed a feature of the ether drag theory that would play a central role in the 1925 debate between their respective supporters that is documented in the present volume.[29] If the solid mat-