Remarks by Robert S. Boyer in response to kangaroo court allegations by Dean Sharlot

UT Law School Dean Michael Sharlot calls the Faculty Council a "kangaroo court" (the Daily Texan, March 1, 1996). Let's analyze some of his claims.

1. Dean Sharlot asserts that "a majority of the council came to ratify the allegations that the company (Freeport-McMoRan) has engaged in human rights abuses and environmental degradation". What Faculty Council motion could Dean Sharlot possibly have in mind when he makes this "kangaroo court" charge? Well, the Faculty Council has passed only one resolution mentioning Freeport or Moffett. That resolution, which was passed by a vote of 28-15 on February 19, 1996, was proposed by Professor Gretchen Ritter. Here is the resolution, as amended and passed, in its entirety:

Resolved, That the Faculty Council ask Chancellor Cunningham and the Board of Regents to discuss with James Robert and Louise Moffett the possibility of their voluntarily assenting to a change in the proposed name of the molecular biology building from the James Robert and Louise Moffett Building.

Can one frame a petition more gently or politely? That resolution does not find Freeport guilty of any charge. Many reasons were offered to vote for that resolution beyond problems in New Guinea, e.g., because of Freeport's problems with the City of Austin, because of conflict of interest issues, and because UT's student government, thousands of UT students, and the majority of UT's biology faculty have asked for a new name. (For the full debate see the "On Campus" newspaper, February 28, 1996, pp. 7-11.)

2. Dean Sharlot asserts "Perhaps the most dramatic example of this breach of the most basic notions of rational discourse and fair dealing is the failure to seek guidance from those in the UT community with first-hand knowledge of the mine and its environs." The approximately fifty pages of documents distributed to the Faculty Council in December about problems at Freeport's New Guinea mine were answered in January with the distribution to the Faculty Council by Freeport, via former Dean Robert E. Boyer, of approximately fifty pages of documents and a half hour video. Dean Boyer's distribution contained some statements by him and by geology Professor Mark Cloos about their experiences at Freeport's mine. So a claim that those faculty who have been to the mine were never heard from would be false. Should the fact that Dean Boyer and Professor Cloos did not speak at the debate be blamed upon those who supported the resolution? Dean Sharlot was at the meeting; so why did Dean Sharlot not himself ask Professor Mark Cloos to rise and speak? More than two weeks before the debate, as soon as I knew Professor Gretchen Ritter's motion to ask for another name would be made, I suggested to Mr. Moffett, through Mr. Thomas Egan's secretary, that Mr. Moffett or his representative might wish to speak at the meeting. Though Dean Sharlot decries a "lack of relevant expertise" about New Guinea at the debate, he fails to mention that the trouble at the Freeport mine has been extensively analyzed and criticized by recently-resigned former UT professor Steven Feld, who has engaged in two decades of notable anthropological research in New Guinea. Almost everything distributed at the December meeting was obtained via Professor Feld.

3. Dean Sharlot complains that "the council has shown similar disregard for the report of the New Orleans Times-Picayune reporter who wrote extensive pieces on the dispute". How could anyone on the Faculty Council have disregarded the Times-Picayune coverage of the Freeport mine, which was reprinted in eight full pages of the Austin American-Statesman, pp. B4-B11, February 11, 1996, two Sundays before the debate? I am still stunned by those eight pages because they are the first instance I can recall of a corporation paying to print reams of negative information about itself, though not the first instance of Freeport's shooting itself in the foot.

4. Dean Sharlot decries "the failure of the council to engage in any serious search for truth before hanging the Moffetts in effigy". Admittedly, verbal opposition at the meeting from the fifteen Faculty Council members who voted to oppose Professor Ritter's resolution was extremely scant. Why so? It was publicly known (see the Daily Texan, February 7, 1996) that the issue of asking for a new name would be debated at least twelve days in advance. Faculty Council members received formal notice of the resolution days in advance, along with the meeting's agenda. Public proposals for such a Faculty Council debate extend back at least as far as my remarks at the December Faculty Council meeting. Yet the opposing remarks consisted of but a few sentences, such as Professor Paul Woodruff's remark "we have no jurisdiction" and Professor John Cogdell's claim that the issue was "a private grievance of a few faculty members." (Quotations from the debate as reported in UT's "On Campus" newspaper, February 28, 1996). Dean Sharlot was present at the debate; "On Campus" reports that he raised a question about libel. Was Dean Sharlot struck dumb? Why did Dean Sharlot not raise his cry of "kangaroo court" at the Faculty Council meeting? Perhaps the lack of any substantial verbal opposition, even from Dean Sharlot, reflected a long-shot gamble that silence was the best hope for victory against Professor Ritter's resolution. Yet now, that gamble of silence having been lost, Dean Sharlot cries "kangaroo court". No doubt Dean Sharlot knows about the civilized, parliamentary motion "to reconsider", which could reopen the debate. Sharlot's cry "kangaroo court" is but a gamble to win through invective what was lost in silence.