D O C U M E N T 2 0 2 M AY 1 9 2 8 1 9 7 ment of the university.[2] If that cannot be realized now, then in my opinion it is much better to close down the whole shop. Because if things go on in this way, in a few years the university itself will not only have become a laughingstock, but also dreadfully damage the worldwide prestige of Palestine and all those who are work- ing for it. In any case, for me it is a conditio sine qua non of my remaining on the board of trustees that an academic head now be named, and that his functions be precisely defined. I must frankly tell you that the way in which Dr. M., after accept- ing the proposal to name an academic head, has sought at every step and by every possible tactic to prevent the reform from being carried out or to make it more dif- ficult, has once again aroused in my mind serious doubt as to whether the situation can be salvaged at all so long as he remains at the head of the administration.[3] Above all, I consider the way he has sought, by inviting Professor Landau to assume the post of academic head, to create a fait accompli without consulting us— even though we took the initiative to create the position, whose whole point was to radically limit his (Dr. M.’s) powers—as disloyal and downright destructive on an unprecedented level.[4] He was well aware that a man like Landau would not be ca- pable of breaking off his scientific life’s work for years in order to devote his best abilities to the university’s academic development. Under such circumstances, the academic head’s sphere of activity could only be limited in nature, and the chan- cellor would continue to have a decisive influence on the academic administration. But we were confronted with a choice between accepting the fait accompli created by Dr. M. and giving the impression that we rejected the proposal out of a lack of respect for Professor Landau’s person and qualities. The way in which Dr. M. now seeks, in his last letter to you, to exploit this situation that he has created in order to force us to accept his wishes belongs to the same category.[5] And that category also includes the warning recently sent by telegram that, according to the news from America, money will be short in the coming years, and for that reason we should not proceed too hastily with the appointment of an academic head. And then that goes along with his attempt to make carrying out the proposal impossible by demanding an ideal figure for the position, a figure who, as he well knows, is not to be found, and from this emerges, of course, the necessity of provisionally main- taining the status quo. And directed at precisely the same goal is the demand that the academic head’s functions not be defined too precisely, but rather allow maneu- vering room for development, and finally that the appointment should be made for only a very limited period of time.[6] In all these objections I see nothing other than the components of a larger plan for sabotage to stop the execution of the thorough- going reform that we have demanded. I urge you to oppose these tactics with all possible energy at the upcoming meeting. We have already learned how to see through this maneuver. So far as I am concerned, I tell you once again with all de- termination that if this reform is not carried out now, I will resign from the board