November 16, 1995

(From the Daily Texan, November 17, 1995, p. 7.)

The University of Texas at Austin's acceptance of funds contributed by Mr. and Mrs. James R. Moffett and Freeport-McMoRan Inc. and the naming of the institution's new molecular biology building for the Moffetts are matters that continue to weigh on the minds of a number of people in our community. In recent days, people on both sides of the issue have restated their views. I have listened to these differing points of view. I believe that I understand the full range of opinions and certainly the passion with which many hold their views. I have tried in good faith to understand them all.

I believe that it is time for me to express my own position on the matter, not in an effort to silence discussion, nor on behalf of one side or the other, but because my obligation as president of The University is to clarify what I consider to be this institution's present and future best interest. I do not, I must not, I will not defend any interest in this issue except that of The University of Texas at Austin. I will endeavor here, therefore, to lay out, as best I can, my own thinking on this complex set of issues, for I believe there are concerns at the heart of this matter that are in danger of being overlooked.

My primary concern is that this community not lose sight of the vital principle which defines the moral boundaries of a university, determines its intellectual climate, and offers the strongest defense of The University as a present and future place for free discourse. In my opinion, the principle vital to the life and future of any university, especially a public university, to be protected at all costs, is the principle of institutional neutrality in any debate over what constitutes truth. It is this principle that establishes the moral framework and intellectual environment of The University. It means that The University as an institution does not seek to define truth, ex cathedra , but to provide a free and ordered space for individuals to seek and advocate truth as they see it, based upon rational argument. It is this principle that forms the basis for academic freedom within The University. It is our respect for the right of individuals to differ that allows faculty and students to pursue truth in their research, teaching and studies, even when it runs against the grain of their discipline or contravenes public opinion. It is this principle that protects the right of free debate and peaceful protest on our campus. It is this strong anchoring principle to which we must steadfastly hold at all times.

Clearly, The University cannot maintain a climate of freedom in the absence of a respect for due process. If The University seeks to judge and censor any members of its community, including financial contributors, for their beliefs, or for what is perceived by some to be a lack of social conscience or environmental sensitivity, or for what some consider immoral or illegal actions, we will have sacrificed our commitment to objectivity, rational discourse, and due process of law. As an institution whose existence is predicated on freedom of inquiry and thought, clearly we must condemn violations of the law because they undermine that essential freedom. But I hasten to add that I firmly believe the university is not the proper forum in which to seek judgments against anyone for allegations of illegal conduct, for the university is neither a court of law nor the arbiter of a higher law. Individuals within a university must be free to seek truth and advocate truth as they see it, but the university as an institution must ultimately rely on the courts of law or other proper tribunals to determine the legality of any particular action.

What does this mean with regard to the acceptance of the gift from Mr. and Mrs. Moffett and Freeport-McMoRan and the decision to name the molecular biology building in their honor? The gift was solicited by and given to The University in good faith; the building was named for the Moffetts by the Board of Regents in accordance with past practice and the Regents Rules. For The University to return the gifts and for the Regents to rescind the decision to name the building as a consequence of public criticism or allegations that have not been proven in any legal tribunal would seriously compromise The University's neutrality. To abrogate a commitment with one contributor would signal all contributors that The University cannot be relied upon to keep its word. I therefore cannot support any effort to reverse commitments already made by the University and Board of Regents with regard to the naming of the molecular biology building.

I recognize that some will agree and others will object to the consequences of keeping these commitments to principle. But I hope that everyone can recognize the importance of maintaining freedom, due process, and trust at The University of Texas, and that therein lies the greater good.

Robert M. Berdahl, President, The University of Texas at Austin