Printed in the Daily Texan
March 5, 1996

Dean Michael Sharlot's article "UT Faculty Council behaved like kangaroo court," in your March 1 issue, distressed me for two reasons: his misunderstanding of the motivations for the way Faculty Council members voted on the Moffett resolution; and the counterproductivity of the column at a time when many of us are trying to seek a peaceful way out of this controversy.

Dean Sharlot's claim that "a majority of the council came to ratify the allegations that the company has engaged in human rights abuses and environmental degradation in Irian Jaya (West Papua) so that the Moffetts, as major owners, are deemed unfit to be honored by the University" goes way beyond what I witnessed during the debate.

The resolution itself said nothing of the kind and I believe different supporters of the resolution had different reasons for their support.

Yes, some may have acted on their beliefs about activities in Irian Jawa, but others were concerned with the legal threats to faculty members, the attitude of Moffett to the City of Austin, the way in which the naming agreement was made, or perhaps with the waiving of the regents' rules regarding such namings. There may have been other reasons: I don't know -- no one had to announce his or her reason for casting a vote.

I am aware, however, that there were opponents to the resolution who actually hoped the name would be changed.

When the dust had cleared many faculty, both supporters and opponents of the resolution, stepped back to see what would happen next.

Would the Moffetts see that this was a gracious way for a resolution of the controversy? Could the campus, in the words of President Berdahl, "move on"?

The Sharlot column cannot help in that effort. It invites us once again to divide, to reignite the controversy before the Council's attempt at solution has even had a chance of working.

Alan Kaylor Cline, Professor of computer sciences