X. NEW BUSINESS.

A. Resolution 1 Concerning the Free Discussion of Ideas and the Naming of University Buildings

Gretchen Ritter (Government) MOVED that the Council approve the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Faculty Council affirms the right of its members to participate responsibly in the free discussion and exchange of ideas on matters of concern to the University community and that it objects to any efforts to limit or constrain such discussion.

Dr. Ritter said that this was the first of three resolutions she would present at this meeting. Before we can put the controversy over the naming of the molecular biology building behind us, as President Berdahl has recommended, the faculty must resolve the outstanding issues that have been raised by the controversy in an honorable and reasonable manner, she said.

She proposed this resolution in response to the letters that Freeport-McMoRan sent to its faculty critics for comments made, and documents distributed, at the December Faculty Council meeting. Those letters signaled that the Freeport company was trying to bully and intimidate its critics, and that by doing so they were threatening the Council, since free speech is central to the faculty's ability to do their jobs, she said. "The resolution I have offered is fairly softly stated, and I hope the sentiment behind it will be that we stand firmly behind our faculty when they are threatened in this way."

Dr. McDaniel reported that Council's Executive Committee recommended approval of the resolution. It is consistent with a similar resolution approved by the Executive Committee and distributed on January 13, 1996.

Dean M. Michael Sharlot (School of Law) asked if the resolution would require the University to defend faculty members who were being sued for libel or slander. Dr. Ritter said that if the faculty members were conducting faculty business in a University forum in a responsible manner, the University ought to defend them.

Michael Granof (Accounting) spoke against the motion, saying to the best of his knowledge there was no indication that free speech had been threatened in this instance. Approving the motion would trivialize the issue and dissipate the faculty's moral capital, he said. "To be sure, Freeport has threatened our faculty members. But it seems to me that the Freeport threat of a suit is so hollow, so ludicrous, that really it need not be taken seriously." He said, instead, the Council should focus its attention on the naming of the molecular biology building, and he MOVED that the resolution be tabled. The motion to table was defeated by a voice vote.

In order to close debate and to vote immediately on the motion to approve Recommendation 1, Paul B. Woodruff (Philosophy) MOVED the Previous Question, and his motion was APPROVED by a voice vote.

The motion to approve Recommendation 1 was then APPROVED by a voice vote.

B. Resolution 2 Concerning the Free Discussion of Ideas and the Naming of University Buildings

Gretchen Ritter (Government) MOVED that the Council approve the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Chair of the Faculty Council appoint a committee of Faculty Council members to consider the procedures by which University buildings are named and to recommend, pending approval by the Faculty Council, to the President and the Board of Regents any changes in those procedures deemed worthwhile.

Dr. Ritter said this resolution was intended to avoid a repeat of the current controversy. One legitimate issue concerns the procedures by which buildings are named. "We need to ask, for instance, whether there ought to be a minimal percentage of building costs covered before a building is named after a donor."

Dr. McDaniel reported that the Executive Committee recommended against approval of the resolution. The recognition to be given donors is one of the topics to be considered by the recently appointed Faculty Development Policy Committee. The members of that Committee are John R. Durbin, Chair (Natural Sciences), Betty Sue Flowers (Liberal Arts), Stanley Johanson (Law), Reuben R. McDaniel, Jr. (Faculty Council and Business Administration), Robert A. Prentice (Business Administration), Waneen W. Spirduso (Education), Ben G. Streetman (Engineering), Dean Jon S. Whitmore (Fine Arts), Larry Temple, immediate past chair of the Development Board, and Larry Lollar, Vice President for Development. The Executive Committee believes another committee is not needed. "I have been asked by the Executive Committee to indicate ... that the President consulted extensively with the Executive Committee on the people to appoint to this Committee. Three members of the Committee ... are on the Council.... I have also been asked whether or not the President specifically stated that policy regarding donor recognition, including building naming, is part of the Committee's function, and the President has assured me that it is."

Both Paul Woodruff (Philosophy) and Bruce Palka (Mathematics) spoke against the resolution, and Lisa Moore (English) read a statement from Kirsten Belgum (Germanic Languages), who was absent due to illness, in favor of the resolution.

Dr. Ritter then said that she initially had reservations about the Durbin committee for three reasons: "At the time, I thought there was no clarity in the charge to the Durbin committee regarding this particular issue. I also was concerned that the Durbin committee was not required to report to the Faculty Council, so it would then not give us an opportunity to discuss this. Further, for reasons of faculty autonomy, ... I felt that the appointment should come from the Council itself.

"Since then, the administration has moved to address both the first and the second of my concerns.... I am not seeking to be unduly divisive, and I believe that the administration has acted in good faith on this."

Dr. McDaniel made it clear that President Berdahl had not said in his charge that the Durbin committee should report to the Faculty Council. What Dr. McDaniel had said was that three Council members are on the Durbin committee and that he fully trusts that they will report back to the Council, because they realize the Council's interest in this issue.

Dr. Ritter then WITHDREW her motion to approve Resolution 2.

C. Resolution to Create a Special Committee to Inquire About the Circumstances of the Donations for and the Naming of the Molecular Biology

Alan K. Cline (Computer Sciences) MOVED that the Council approve the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Faculty Council appoint a special committee to inquire about the circumstances of the donations for and the naming of the molecular biology building.

Dr. Cline chose to wait until after the report from the Executive Committee before speaking in favor of his resolution.

Dr. McDaniel said that the Executive Committee had recommended against approval of this resolution. It believed that approval of the resolution would set an inappropriate precedent for Faculty Council action, the precedent being that the Council "would inquire into any or all forms of donations and donor recognition, and these are not appropriate functions of the Council under the bylaws of the Council."

Then, in his capacity as Chair of the Faculty Council, Dr. McDaniel said: "I want to make a statement about all that I know at this time about donations for, and naming of, the molecular biology building. The purpose of my statement is to inform the Faculty Council debate on the motion to appoint a committee to inquire about the circumstances of the donations for and the naming of the molecular biology building. I thought it would be useful for all members of the Council to know whatever it was that I knew.

"This information comes from a number of sources, including President Berdahl, Chancellor Cunningham, Vice Provost Ohlendorf, Vice President Sharpe, Vice Chancellor Perry, the [Austin] American-Statesman and The Daily Texan. All of this information is public, but members of the Council may not have it all. With the exception of one piece of information, the name of the original donor to the building, Albert Alkek, I had all of this information prior to the Faculty Council meeting on January 29, 1996. In other words, the material in this statement is not the result of any 'inquiry' that I have made or special investigation I have conducted, but came to me in the normal course of events as I have gone about my duties as Chair of the Faculty Council. I have checked official documents in order to verify dates of various events. I believe that I have a true account of the events.

"In June 1989, the Regents approved the construction of a molecular biology building on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin. Total cost for the facility was estimated at $25 million. Four million dollars of construction costs were to come from private donations, and a donor would have the privilege of naming the building. This is the first time that the Regents had asked that funds be raised from private sources for an academic building. The other sources of funds included $8 million from fee reserves and $13 million from revenue bonds.

"In September 1990, Albert Alkek pledged $4 million, and in November 1990, it was agreed that the building be named for his wife. In November 1992, Alkek withdrew the pledge, and a new $4 million had to be found. Alkek is now dead and, therefore, I have no way of knowing his motives for making the original pledge or for withdrawing the pledge. When Alkek withdrew his pledge, an urgent problem was created. How was the University going to raise the $4 million required to complete the funding for the molecular biology building?

"In April of 1990, Jim Bob Moffett had given $2 million to be used to support a project in the College of Natural Sciences. At that time, Cunningham indicated that he intended to ask the Regents to name an appropriate facility for the Moffetts. Cunningham intended at that time for the funds received from the Moffetts to be used for the renovation of the Experimental Science Building.

"Because of the pressing concern about funding for the molecular [biology] building, Cunningham, in the fall of 1993, asked Moffett if the $2 million he had donated could be allocated to the molecular biology building. He said 'Yes.' Cunningham then asked the Board of Directors of Freeport to contribute $1 million, and Freeport agreed to do so at its meeting in December 1993. Cunningham indicated to Moffett and the Board of Freeport that he would recommend to the Regents that the building be named for Jim and Louise Moffett and that one wing of the building be named for Freeport. The naming of the other wing was to be used as an incentive for a donor to contribute the additional $1 million needed to complete the $4 million requirement as set down by the Board of Regents.

"Berdahl, in November 1993, wrote to Virgil Waggoner and requested the additional $1 million needed. Waggoner pledged the gift in January 1994.

"The official request for the building naming was presented by Berdahl to Cunningham and by Cunningham to the Regents at their meeting in December 1994. The Regents approved the naming of the building at that meeting."

Dr. Cline then said: "I am very pleased that the facts have now been made public. I had heard this information last year in private conversations with two of the biology faculty, but there were uncertainties. I have no intention of minimizing the generosity of Mr. and Mrs. Moffett, but it is now clear that at the time the decision was made to honor the Moffetts with the naming of the building, there was no additional gift from them at all. There was a gift from Freeport Corporation, and there was a transfer of money previously donated, but that transfer put the funding for the renovation of the Experimental Science Building back $2 million. There was no net gain for the University from a donation by the Moffetts at the time the agreement was made to honor them with the naming of the molecular biology building. To get this information out apparently required me to introduce a resolution. It is now out. Given the release of this information, I am happy to WITHDRAW my resolution."

D. Resolution 3 Concerning the Free Discussion of Ideas and the Naming of University Buildings

Gretchen Ritter (Government) MOVED that the Council approve the following resolution:

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 to a name in honor of Barbara Jordan or some comparable figure.

Dr. Ritter said: "This resolution is, in my view, the most important piece of business before us today.

"I want to stress that in this resolution, which calls for a reconsideration of the name of the molecular biology building, we are seeking a voluntary agreement only.

"Surely, it is right that it is the Regents who are responsible for the naming of buildings; that is why this resolution is addressed to them. Yet it is also the responsibility of this body to address matters of great concern to the faculty, as we are doing today.

"The resolution that we offer is one that asks the Regents to invite the Moffetts to make a gracious gesture in the best interests of the University by agreeing to take their name off the building. No previous commitments will be violated by the actions called for in this resolution.

"I believe that Barbara Jordan would be an appropriate person to honor in place of the Moffetts. There are many good reasons why I feel that Jordan would be a good choice, including her lifelong commitment to ethics and the importance of education in a democracy. But I realize that other Council members are less comfortable with the choice of Jordan for the naming of the molecular biology building for various reasons. In response to these concerns, I have modified this resolution to read 'in honor of Barbara Jordan or some comparable figure.' The important issue here is that the name of the building be reconsidered.

"Finally, let me ask you to think about what message our votes today will send. If you believe that it was a mistake to offer to name this building after the Moffetts, then this is your chance to say so. Further, by supporting this resolution you will send the message that the faculty are committed to free speech and open procedures. In contrast, if you vote against these resolutions you send the message that human rights and environmental concerns are secondary, that ill-founded and questionable decisions must be accepted, and that our response to the bullying and intimidation of our faculty is to silence ourselves."

Dr. McDaniel reported that the Executive Committee believed that the Council should act on this resolution, but the Committee chose not to recommend what action the Council should take. There was no divisiveness on the Executive Committee in terms of that recommendation.

John Gilbert (Chemistry and Biochemistry) said that he would like for the name of the molecular biology building to be reconsidered in accordance with the procedures that the Durbin committee will recommend. Therefore he MOVED that the resolution be amended to read as follows:

Resolved, That the Faculty Council ask Chancellor Cunningham and the Board of Regents to discuss with James Robert and Louise Moffett their allowing the molecular biology building to be named according to the protocol to be developed for naming buildings at UT Austin.

Dr. Ritter spoke against the motion to amend for two reasons: By the time policies are put in place the building will already be named. Also, the amendment offers no guarantee that the building will not by other procedures be named for the Moffetts.

The motion to amend was DEFEATED by a voice vote.

Paul B. Woodruff (Philosophy) MOVED to table the motion to approve the resolution "as we have no jurisdiction over the naming of buildings," but his motion to table was defeated by a voice vote.

Lisa Moore (English) spoke in favor of the resolution; she said: "As a great admirer of President Berdahl's, I have been thinking really seriously about what he asked us to do at the last meeting in terms of moving on, and I have come to the conclusion that voting in favor of this resolution is the best way that I can see to move on from this issue.... I think that if we do vote in favor of this resolution then the Faculty Council as a body will have acted on this matter, which will clear our agenda for other issues....

"The other thing I like about this resolution is that it allows us to address the Moffetts in their really, I think, merited role as friends of the University. They have a considerable history of donations and other acts of generosity to the University, and I think that this resolution allows us to address them as partners trying to think about what could best resolve what even they must see as a divisive issue among the faculty and students of the University. I think that the resolution offers an appropriate tone of mutual respect that will establish a good precedent for any future dealings that the faculty might have with the Moffetts. I think that it is best for us to appeal to them as friends of the University and ask them in that spirit to help us out of a difficult situation."

Dean M. Michael Sharlot (School of Law) asked if the resolution included the notion that the gift from the Moffetts personally and from Freeport will also be returned, and if not, why not.

Dr. Ritter replied: "I would hope that when people make donations to [the] University they are doing it because of their belief in the University and not because of their desire to get their name on a building. However, if the Moffetts and the Freeport Corporation feel, as a result of this resolution, that they need to withdraw their money then I would say that that is certainly their prerogative."

John R. Cogdell (Electrical and Computer Engineering) said: "I voted for the first resolution because I think we need to state our right to speak. But the issue now is not what we have a right to speak about but what is wise to speak about and what is profitable to do. [It seems] to me this resolution is not going to serve the University or the faculty, if we approve it.... It seems to me it is a ... private grievance of a few faculty members, who I think have not been treated very courteously or well; it is really not a matter of the educational mission of the University. It does not touch faculty privilege or our work. I think ... we should leave it alone and vote against this resolution.

"I would like to [add] that I was grieved and shocked and embarrassed at the way in which our President was aggressively challenged on this [issue] last time. I thought that was very unseemly, and the very existence of this body speaks of an administration that wants to cooperate and wants to develop a faculty role in governance. I ... want to see that nurtured, and I think this issue should be put behind us...."

William G. Spelman ( LBJ School) said: "I am acting here as a representative of the LBJ School. On last Monday we had a faculty meeting; one of the primary topics of conversation was this resolution and the general set of resolutions. There was a considerable debate as to what we should be doing about all these resolutions. There was a lot of concern about free speech; we have addressed that. There was a concern about the procedure for naming buildings; we have addressed that already. The third issue [about which] my faculty was particularly concerned was the naming of the molecular biology building specifically, should it be named for Barbara Jordan. There was not a consensus, we did not need to reach a consensus because there was unanimity among the faculty of the LBJ School that naming a molecular biology building in this particular way for Barbara Jordan was not a fitting honor for Barbara. She was a lawyer; she was a stateswoman; she was an ethicist; she was a strong advocate for the public's business. So far as any of us know she did not spend a lot of time thinking about molecular biology. If we are going to name something for Barbara Jordan I think we probably ought to be naming something that is much more in keeping with Barbara's career and what it is she brought to us as a University community and to the citizens of the state of Texas; this is not it."

Dr. Spelman then MOVED that the resolution be amended to read as follows:

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.

The motion to amend was APPROVED by a voice vote.

At Dr. Clines's request, Chair McDaniel extended privileges of the floor to four faculty members: David M. Hillis, Mark A. Kirkpatrick, Robert S. Boyer, and John H. Kroll.

David M. Hillis (Zoology and Institute for Cell and Molecular Biology) said that the February 14 letter to the Board of Regents set forth below had been signed at last count by 50 UT Austin faculty members, an overwhelming majority of the faculty of the Departments of Botany, Zoology, and Microbiology:

To: The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System February 14, 1996

Dear Sirs:

We are faculty members in the life sciences at the University of Texas at Austin. We approach you to voice our concern over the naming of the new molecular biology building in honor of Mr. Moffett and his company, Freeport-McMoRan. Our professional activities will be associated with the new building, and its name will have a direct impact on us and our research.

After considerable thought and discussion, it is our considered opinion that it would be inappropriate for the new molecular biology building to bear the name of Mr. Moffett. We respectfully ask that you rescind the decision to name the building after Mr. Moffett.

We understand that you have already spent many hours considering matters related to this issue. We are deeply appreciative of your support of this faculty and the University of Texas at Austin. We look forward to discussing this topic and working with you on its resolution.

With greatest respect, we are sincerely,

[Signatures] [Secretary's note: See ATTACHMENT D.]

Dr. Hillis said: "Many of us in the life sciences at UT have worked very hard to develop a successful program in cell and molecular biology, and many of us view the Regents' proposal for a name of the molecular biology building as an obstacle to the program's success, recognition, and prestige. Individual faculty members have many different reasons to oppose the proposed naming. In addition to ethical opposition to naming a building for Mr. Moffett or his company, which others will discuss, I want to mention some additional concerns that have been raised by life science faculty:

"First is the issue of building prestige for the molecular biology program. The proposed building name is viewed by most people as a handicap; it makes it harder to command respect for the program. Most faculty would prefer a name that identifies the program with academic excellence. The Moffett name obviously does not accomplish this goal.

"A second, related issue concerns faculty recruitment. The building name and the controversy that surrounds it makes it harder to recruit top-notch faculty, right at the time when we are intensifying our efforts at recruitment. Names do matter. Even without knowing anything about the programs, any good faculty member would prefer to be associated with the Albert Einstein School of Medicine than with the Oral Roberts School of Medicine. I think it is clear where the Moffetts' name falls along this scale.

"A third issue is safety for the building and its occupants. Many faculty view the building name as an invitation to vandalism. Years of molecular biology research can be destroyed in a matter of minutes, and many faculty fear that the building will be a focal point for continuous demonstrations and vandalism if it bears the Moffetts' name. We think it is unfair of the Regents to lay those kinds of problems at our doorstep.

"Finally, there is the issue of the money. I certainly do not want to belittle the magnitude of a $2 million donation. However, I think it is important to put that donation in perspective. This year's report of UT's Institute for Cell and Molecular Biology lists $18 million in grants to faculty associated with the Institute, and this number will certainly grow as the program expands. That means that the faculty who will be associated with the building are expected to bring in over $6 million every year to the University in overhead. I think that that puts a one-time donation of $2 million to a $25 million building in perspective, and I think it underscores the reasons why UT life science faculty believe that we should have some input into the naming of the building that we will work in on a daily basis. I see passage of this resolution as one of the few ways we have to provide that input."

Mark A. Kirkpatrick (Zoology) said: "Much of the recent controversy that is focused on Freeport-McMoRan's ... and Mr. Moffett's involvement with the molecular biology building concerns events and topics that are very far away from here. For several years Freeport was identified by the US Environmental Protection Agency as one of the leading polluters in the United States. Last fall reports came from the Catholic Church of possible human rights violations associated with Freeport's mine in Indonesia. And also last fall the US government withdrew a $100 million insurance policy connected with this same mine because of reports of major environmental damage being done by the mine.

"Now, these concerns may seem very remote from those of us who work on a day-to-day basis at the University. Some may feel it is not our place to judge corporate behavior around the world. But there are much more immediate reasons for us to speak out against the ties between this university, Mr. Moffett, and Freeport-McMoRan. Freeport has the same disregard for the environment and for the local community here in Austin, and indeed here on campus at the University, as we have heard about from those people having an association with their activities abroad. Over the last three years Freeport has engineered a devastating assault on the citizens of Austin. Freeport-McMoRan is aggressively developing their holdings of over 5,000 acres at Barton Creek Properties and Circle C Ranch. These developments lie at the very heart of the Barton Springs watershed. Barton Springs has deteriorated visibly over the last three years, and there is no scientific doubt that development is the major cause. Many scientists and citizens, including me, view Freeport's vast developments as a direct threat to the survival of Barton Springs. Freeport publicly promised more than once to stop their development if it was found that these activities were causing pollution. The City of Austin documented pollution being caused by these developments, and since this finding was made the development of Barton Creek Properties, where this event occurred, [has] only accelerated.

"These events are important to me personally because I am very concerned about preservation of Barton Springs, but I realize that many people in this room may feel that environmental concerns are not the main day-to-day business of the University community....

"Mr. Moffett personally threatened to bankrupt the City of Austin ... if his developments were hindered by Austin's developmental ordinances. To make good on that promise, Freeport and its business partners have brought multiple lawsuits against the City of Austin. Among other things, these lawsuits

have succeeded in gutting Austin's Save Our Springs Ordinance. (For those of you who are new to our community, this was an ordinance passed by citizens' initiative in a landslide 2-to-1 vote in 1992.)

"Adding insult to injury, last year Freeport successfully sponsored state legislation that may, in fact, spell the end for Barton Springs. Freeport pushed through a series of laws at the state level that apply to Austin and to Austin alone, just to the people who live in this community. These laws grant Freeport and its business partners immunity from Austin's laws regarding environmental protection, and the legislation was brought forward with Freeport sponsorship by state legislators whose districts lie outside the Barton Springs watershed. This was the first time in anyone's memory that the tradition of senatorial privilege in the Texas government was violated; this is a courtesy that allows legislators whose districts are the sole target of state laws to have essentially the right of first refusal.

"When debate about these kinds of corporate activities heated up here on campus last fall, I do not think I need to remind anyone in this room that Freeport responded by threatening several Austin citizens, including three members of our faculty, with libel suits for merely discussing these issues....

"I see four powerful reasons for us to join together to ask that the building name be changed. First of all, we should respect the will of our students; the UT Students' Association passed overwhelmingly a very strongly worded resolution asking that this building name be changed. Over 3,000 students have signed a petition asking the same thing. These students have, in fact, contributed through their fees much more towards the construction of this building than the Moffetts have, and I think we should respect their wishes.

"Second, we should support the wishes the faculty of life sciences. Dr. Hillis has just read the letter asking the Regents to reconsider [the building's name], and I think they have been very articulate about why the actual faculty members who will be involved on a day-to-day basis with this building are so concerned. Speaking ... as a member of the life sciences [faculty], we do not want to be shackled with a name that will handicap our profession.

"Third, we should show unity with our UT faculty colleagues who have been threatened by Freeport with lawsuits for simply discussing these points.

"Fourth, we should voice our disapproval of the appearance of conflict of interest generated by the business ties between some members of the UT administration and Freeport that have so damaged our University's integrity and reputation. Mr. Moffett and Freeport-McMoRan are trying to buy prestige and honor at the University of Texas, and I hope we can tell them that it is not for sale."

Robert S. Boyer (Computer Sciences, Philosophy, and Mathematics), who noted that he is also an alumnus, class of '67, said: "Here are the top six reasons why the new molecular biology building needs another name:

"Reason 6: The building should be renamed because that will surely premit us to 'move forward', as President Berdahl has requested. Until the building is renamed, or so I expect, this controversy will continue.

"Reason 5: Because the proposed naming does not pass the smell test for appearance of conflict of interest. Classics professor Karl Galinsky has nailed this point down perfectly; a Moffett building, Galinsky remarked, will be a memorial to cronyism.

"Reason 4: Because the proposed naming for Moffett may besmirch the good name of the University of Texas. Even that grandmother of publications, the National Geographic, is now casting a suspicious eye towards Freeport. In the February 1996 issue we read, in an article on Irian Jaya (West Papua): 'Highland villagers have claimed that Freeport drove them off their traditional lands.' and 'The mining giant has met fierce opposition from tribal groups who claim tailings have caused the flooding of their lands.'

"Reason 3. Because Freeport has sent vague, ominous threats to UT professors. Freeport's refusal to be specific in its complaints to those threatened comes down to a message that I personally hear quite simply as 'Ya better shut up.' Should a university honor someone who makes vague, ominous threats to its faculty?

"As for Professor Alan Cline, Freeport's threatening letter to him can be tied to no act of his beyond sitting next to me at the December Faculty Council meeting. So watch where you sit today.

"Reason 2: Because a positive vote on this resolution will improve the University's chances of attracting faculty members of the highest calibre. Let me quote from the New York Times, December 24, 1995, in its year-end list of the most ridiculous things done by businesses in 1995. In an article entitled 'Duck! Here come the '95 awards; Again, no financial folly goes unappreciated', the Times gave what it facetiously entitled the Academic Freedom Award to Freeport-McMoRan. By way of explanation the Times added: 'After a group that included students from Loyola University in New Orleans staged a demonstration denouncing the company's environmental record, Freeport angrily demanded that the university return money that had been donated to endow a chair in environmental communication.' Naming a building for the chairman of Freeport, the butt of this national joke, will only add to our difficulties in attracting faculty members of distinction.

"Because of the Freeport problem, UT recently lost renowned Professor of Anthropology Steven Feld. For years Feld protested Freeport's connections to the University, including the naming of a building for Moffett. Feld's renown is based in part on two decades of research done with the indigenous people on the island of New Guinea, the island on which Freeport's controversial mine is located.

"As many of you know, Feld was a recipient of a MacArthur fellowship. He is also a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, membership in which is a recognition of intellectual distinction at the very highest level. Professors of Feld's renown raise the ranking of a department, and of a university, to a remarkable extent. Not counting five emeritus professors, there are only fifteen members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences at the University of Texas, people with names like Steven Weinberg and Charles Alan Wright.

"Now, the average age, again not counting the emeritus members, of an Academy member at our university is 63. Feld's age, remarkably, is 46. He was, if one may judge by date of receipt of bachelors degree, the youngest Academy member at UT. So, I conjecture, Feld was, before he resigned, the professor most likely to bring distinction to the University of Texas over the next two decades.

"Is it any wonder that the administration does not wish to discuss this Freeport issue publicly? As far as I know, the failure to retain Steven Feld was the greatest blunder by the administration of any American university in 1995. Of course, when I say 'administration' here, I refer not to a chair, dean, provost, or president.

"I believe that the American intellectual establishment is going to shake its head in amazement about our loss of Feld for a very long time. I have not yet seen any recognition that the Regents or the Chancellor understand the enormity of the loss that the University has endured through Feld's departure. Because Feld was one of the first to call for a new name for the new molecular biology building, passage of this resolution will tell the American intellectual establishment what our faculty thinks about the failure to retain Steven Feld.

"Reason 1: Because UT students have spoken very clearly against the Moffett name. Does anyone remember our students having petitioned the University in numbers larger than the more than 3,000 who have asked that the name of this building be changed? Yet, the request for a change comes not only from these thousands of petitioners. Last May, the student government passed a resolution about the Moffett naming; listen to our student government:

Resolved, That the Students' Association condemns the naming of the new molecular biology building the Louise and James Robert Moffett Building.

Resolved, That the Students' Association encourages the Board of Regents to rename the aforementioned building in a manner which reflects the ideals of the students, faculty, and staff of the University of Texas.

"These resolutions were passed by the student government by an overwhelming margin. The students obviously cannot abide the Moffett name. That is sufficient reason for the faculty to ask that the name be changed."

Joel F. Sherzer (Anthropology) said: "While I do not represent the views of the Anthropology Department, I am truly speaking from a perspective that I would like to be called anthropological. While reasonable people can disagree and have disagreed on the action of Freeport in Indonesia, in Austin, and on this campus, I have studied these data very carefully and I believe very strongly that it is totally improper to name this building after the Moffetts or in anyway after Freeport.

"I would like to add something else. While we are talking mainly about a resolution that affects this campus, the actions we take today will be heard around the world by traditional peoples and third-world peoples in some way or another, and that is the reason I am supporting this."

The amended motion was then APPROVED by a show of hands, 28 to 15.

XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMENTS.

Dr. McDaniel announced that he will send letters to Chancellor Cunningham and to the Chair of the Board of Regents informing them of the actions just taken by the Council; he said he will also make an effort to meet with both of them and share with them as much as possible of the transcript of the debate and discussion so they will have as much information as possible.

Dr. McDaniel also announced that he had been asked by students if they could present a petition at this meeting. He had asked if the petition was addressed to the Faculty Council, and the students had replied that it was not. He had then told the students the petition could not be presented during the Council's business meeting.