2 6 0 D O C S . 3 1 2 , 3 1 3 F E B R U A R Y 1 9 2 0 312. From Eduard Meyer Berlin, 13 February 1920 Esteemed Colleague, To my dismay I learned that during your lecture yesterday unpleasant alterca- tions did arise again.[1] The Student Council told me that it was farthest from their minds to impose upon you in any way, just as they were convinced that your remark about the “refuse of humankind” was merely based on a misunderstanding.[2] They suggest that you transform your existing private lecture into a cycle of public talks and thus divest this lecture, reserved to members of the university, of its exclusive character whereupon nothing would stand in the way of the participation of the nonstudent public.[3] I would make the auditorium available to you for this purpose, of course, so that you could, in actual fact, continue the lecture in just the same way without any kind of restrictions on the audience. This suggestion, which I fully approve of, essentially concurs with what you suggested to me yesterday.[4] So I hope that you are willing and that the affair is thus settled. I immediately communicated it to the young lady (a student),[5] who was relaying another somewhat different but now obviated suggestion, so I hope that you are already instructed prior to receipt of this letter. With great respect, yours very truly, Eduard Meyer. 313. From Richard Wettstein[1] Vienna III, 14 Renne Way, 13 February 1920 Highly esteemed Colleague, Forgive me if I bother you with a question regarding faculty business, a reply to which would oblige me very much. I leave it entirely to your judgment whether you give me this answer confidentially or would permit me to make use of it at the con- sultations of the committee. In the coming months we will have the professorial chair of our colleague Franz Exner to fill.[2] As you probably know, we have 3 full professorships in physics, the other two of which are taken by Lecher and Jaeger.[3] In the consultations thus far regarding the reappointment of Exner’s chair, strongly conflicting views have become apparent. One party among my colleagues is sup- porting our titulary professor Ehrenhaft, while the other party, led primarily by Lecher, is definitely against Ehrenhaft.[4] In these circumstances someone standing more on the sidelines has no other option, if he wishes to act strictly to the point,