Many of the newly arrived scholars are already playing an important role in the development of Slavic studies and in the reorganization of some of the older departments. It would take too long to list all who have found important posts. Professor Oskar Halecki is developing the study of Polish history at Fordham University. Professor Roman Smal-Stocki at Marquette University has taken a prominent part in the formation of a Slavic Institute there. By such publications as _The Nationality Problem of the Soviet Union_, he is helping acquaint the American public with the dangers of open, as well as secret, Communism in the United States, besides exposing the inaccuracy of the American concept that all citizens of the former Russian empire are Russians by blood, feeling and culture. There is, in addition, the work of Professor George Shevelov in comparative philology at Columbia University, and that of Professor Dmytro Chyzhevsky at Harvard, which emphasizes the older Ukrainian literature. The rise of recently arrived Slavic scholars and the influence of transplanted organizations of Slavic scholarship was earnestly needed by American Slavic scholarship and, in fact was forced by the surprising number of deaths during the war period. Development in the different institutions has been conditioned, of course, by the general traditions and spirit of each school. While growth has been rapid, it cannot be said that all results have been unqualifiedly happy or successful, partly because of the sporadic interest by both faculty and students in the field as a whole. Slavic subjects (not to speak of the closely associated non-Slavic languages like the Ural-Altaic groups, modern Greek and Romanian, all of which have strong Slavic overtones) are extremely broad and diverse. Yet for the average American student, Slavic and Russian are too exclusively identified. Even interest in Russian has been chiefly limited to either pure philology or, more frequently, Russian literature of the nineteenth or twentieth centuries.