January 23, 1996

From: Professor Douglas Laycock, School of Law, University of Texas at Austin

To: Prof. Reuben R. McDaniel, Jr., Chair, Faculty Council, University of Texas at Austin

Dear Reuben,

The Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility met last week to discuss the academic freedom implications of the ongoing controversy between certain members of the faculty and the Freeport-McMoRan companies.

The Committee decided to issue no formal statement at this time, principally because the Executive Committee's statement adequately addresses the core issues.

In our informal discussion, several points were made to apparently broad acceptance, and some points aroused more controversy. There was broad recognition that the faculty have the right to criticize donors and that donors have the right to defend themselves against criticism. Criticism based in a professor's academic expertise is part of academic freedom; criticism not so based is part of the general right of free speech. Individual professors do not speak for the university, and donors must understand that the university has no power to silence or penalize professor for what they say.

There was a broad recognition that it is not always prudent or wise to do everything that one has a right to do. Freeport McMoRan has the legal right to sue professors and the legal right to threaten to do so, but such suits and threats are profoundly harmful to the university and counterproductive to the company's efforts to persuade the university community that the charges against it are unfounded. It is far more appropriate for the company to defend its record by affirmative argument, which it is also doing.

Some of us believe that professors should exercise similar restraint in exercising their undoubted right to criticize donors to the university, but the point aroused controversy, and I doubt that anything in this paragraph represent the view of the majority of the committee. Those of us who would encourage voluntary restraint believe that for professors to publicly attack donors is not in the interest of either the university or the faculty, and that when the attacks are not part of the critic's ongoing teaching or research, voluntary restrain does not affect the integrity of the university's mission. We fear that inflexible defense of the faculty's right to meddle in the affairs of donors will inevitably jeopardize defense of a principle that is far more important to academic freedom: that donors not meddle in the affairs of the university.

I emphasize that I am summarizing my impressions of a rather free-ranging discussion. We took no votes, and not everyone spoke to every issue. We do not plan to meet again on this issue unless further developments warrant it. We are available if you or the Council thinks we can be helpful.

Very truly yours,
Douglas Laycock