Remarks by UT President Robert M. Berdahl before the UT Faculty Council on January 29, 1996.

In recent months, a number of us have been drawn into a debate over the naming of the new molecular biology building on our campus. I added my voice to this discussion when I thought it was appropriate in remarks before this body and in the press. I have done so because I have felt it is my responsibility as President of The University to offer my perspective on matters of importance to members of this community, to discuss with members of this faculty the business of our University, to listen when faculty concerns are brought to my attention, and, above all, to try to define the best interest of The University in the matter. I have stressed that we should stand by the principles of institutional neutrality, academic freedom, and respect for due process.

I have also worked to assure that the conflicting points of view do not divide us in a manner that fractures the deeper unity of The University community, even in its broadest dimensions. It would be unreasonable to think that a large community, with as many different viewpoints as ours, could ever agree entirely on all things. But there is also, as a wise man once said, "honor in ceasing from strife." Unity and diversity are competing but co-existing values, both of enormous worth to an institution such as this. With them, however, must come a mature realization that the life of a university goes on--must be allowed to continue--even though people in it may disagree. I believe we must move forward to address the challenges and opportunities we have before us.

In the past two months, I have read, at least once and in many instances multiple times, the magazine articles and newspaper reports concerning Freeport-McMoRan in Indonesia. In my view, the reports have been repetitive and generally have added little to our understanding of the circumstances there. I believe the discussion has clearly reached, if it has not well passed, the point of diminishing returns. And while I respect everyone's right to draw his/her own conclusions about the matter, and everyone must have the right to express his/her views freely, a right I will defend vigorously, it is our scholarly obligation to distinguish between disputed and unsubstantiated charges and established facts. The allegations of Freeport's commission of human rights abuses in Indonesia are unsubstantiated. For my part, therefore, I do not intend to engage in further discourse on the issue. We have many exciting and important challenges ahead of us and I wish to move forward and not dwell unproductively on decisions of the past. I therefore come before you today to invite everyone in our community to focus with me on building the future of this institution.

As President, I have spoken repeatedly of the vital importance of free speech and academic freedom to the life of The University. Several faculty have asked that I do so again. So there is no lack of clarity in the matter, let me repeat my view. The freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution is an essential, indeed I would say, the essential right of every American, and no institution in this society should be more assiduous in the protection of that right than a university. Free speech, though not identical with academic freedom, is also vital to academic freedom, which I interpret as the right to pursue truth in one's learning, teaching, and research wherever that may lead, and despite how it may contravene accepted truth within one's field. Academic freedom, like free speech, carries with it an ethical responsibility and a commitment to truth and an honest assessment of the facts. Academic freedom is the right of University scholars to push back all of the frontiers of knowledge without fear of censure and to remove any limitations on what is considered thinkable or unthinkable on any issue of academic discussion. We shall defend that right. Academic freedom is protected by the institution of tenure, so that no faculty member's employment may be threatened by the exercise of free inquiry and free speech.

There is one matter related to academic freedom that I have not spoken about earlier, but about which I should like to comment now. In the heat of the debate, it was suggested that The University's geological research sponsored by Freeport was somehow not legitimate, that Freeport was sponsoring the geological research of University scientists for its own purposes, that our faculty and graduate students were essentially prospecting for Freeport. To understand the nature of the research being done by UT scientists, I, along with the Vice President for Research and the Vice President and Dean of Graduate Studies, met with Professor Mark Cloos, all of the graduate students, and one undergraduate, who have been engaged in research in Irian Jaya or have worked with rock samples gathered in Irian Jaya. Because of the charges leveled at them and their research, they felt that their academic freedom was threatened as the legitimacy of their research was challenged. I believe I can speak for both Vice President Sullivan and Vice President Fox as well as myself when I say that we are convinced that our faculty, research scientists, and students working in Irian Jaya (West Papua), with support from Freeport, are doing basic research, consistent with all of the standards of The University for sponsored research. That research is of no more direct benefit to Freeport than is the research of scores of other academic scientists who conduct research with the support of other corporations. These geologists do no deserve to have the legitimacy of their work called into question.

At the last meeting of the Faculty Council, I mentioned the likelihood of the creation of a Faculty Development Policy Advisory Committee. After conferring at some length with the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council, I have decided to appoint such a committee, initially as an ad hoc committee, intended to serve through the 1996-97 academic year. Thereafter, I will ask this council to consider whether this should become a standing committee, appointed in the normal course of the work of the Committee on Committees. This committee will be asked to advise the President on future development policies, the role of faculty in fundraising, and the priorities for a capital campaign. As we approach the planning for a major capital campaign, it is important that the faculty be fully informed about and fully supportive of the objectives of the campaign. With the advice of the Faculty Council Executive Committee, I have therefore asked the following people, who have agreed, to serve on this committee:

John Durbin, Natural Sciences, Chair; Betty Sue Flowers, Liberal Arts; Stan Johanson, Law; Reuben McDaniel, Business; Robert Prentice, Business; Waneen Spirduso, Education; Ben Streetman, Engineering; Jon Whitmore, Fine Arts; Larry Temple, immediate past chair of Development Board, ex officio; Larry Lollar, Vice President for Development, ex officio.

A successful campaign will require support and enthusiasm of the faculty; and, in many instances, it will be the ideas and enthusiasm of the faculty that will excite major donors to support The University and provide the foundation for excellence in the next century.

The past several months have been difficult for everyone. At this point, what I believe is best for The University is to get on with the business of teaching students and doing research and continuing to build a university of which we can all be proud. We have a faculty of enormous talent and great good will. We have students who need our undivided effort and attention.

The unity of our commitment is far greater than the division of our different opinions. Let us move forward with the commitment.