Nathan Morris, Columnist
Daily Texan
January 19, 1996

One would have wished the controversy over the Moffett building to have waned over the winter interim. A return to Austin instead finds that Freeport-McMoRan has threatened journalists and UT professors with legal action, and UT Chancellor William Cunningham has wisely resigned from his seat on FM's board of directors. No end to the controversy seems near.

The opposition thus far has stemmed from the accusations of FM's wrongdoings and what some see as an inherent conflict of interest involving Cunningham's ties to Freeport. Here are four reasons why this opposition should ebb, and the construction and consequent christening should continue unabated.

First, Moffett is only a name. Who is this guy Painter, or Parlin or Welch? For whom is your hometown named? What did he do? Who knows what Amerigo Vespucci did? Where was his home? Anyone? I guarantee almost no one can answer these questions.

The Moffetts will not go down gloriously in the annals of history because they have a building in their name. Perhaps 25 years from now, few UT students will know a fuss existed over the Moffett building, any more than they remember the huge protests over the trees destroyed by the Memorial Stadium additions.

Second, the money. The Texas Legislature has reduced the University's funding, federal dollars are scarce, and oil revenues aren't as great as they once were. Without private donations, where is the University going to get the money? The most likely alternative is to raise tuition and fees.

Now, if we start turning down donors, good luck finding $3 million lying around, and like hell if anyone wants their tuition raised further.

So in these economically tight times, take the money. It is not prostitution; it's business.

Third, oil. The University receives a great deal of money from oil revenues. Yet the petroleum industry is far more environmentally damaging than anything Freeport has done. This environmental damage is not excusable. But if the problem with Freeport's money is the environmental question, the University's entire revenue system deserves scrutiny.

Finally, what is a better alternative for Jim Bob Moffett's money? Would it be better if he invested the money in a new mine or enterprise, donated it to someone else, or simply tucked it away for his heirs?

The University can really use this money and put it to a very good use -- education. Andrew Carnegie, J.D. Rockefeller and many other philanthropists were polluters and tyrants, yet they gave something back with Carnegie Hall and Rockefeller Center. Moffett deserves the same opportunity.

Morally, the opposition to the building's impending name is understandable. But the opposition's arguments are weak and inapplicable. Some advice to those opposed: Raise the money yourselves. Jim Bob puts in 80-hour weeks. Do you?

Moffett is just a name. Build the building.

Morris is a senior in philosophy, geography and math.