Gretchen Ritter & Alan Cline, Guest Columnists
Daily Texan
February 15, 1996

Two events happen on campuses all over the country all the time: New buildings are named and major donors make significant gifts. Not infrequently these events are linked and the name of a donor is attached to a building. But rarely is it front page news.

After years of planning, this university is constructing a new molecular biology building and plans to name it in honor of James Robert and Louise Moffett. The controversy that this plan generates receives nearly daily press coverage. It is an issue threatening to divide our university community.

What should be done about it? We offer here the views of two members of the Faculty Council.

Objections to the name of the molecular biology building have focused on several things: the mechanism by which the original deal was struck, allegations of human rights violations and environmental degradation on the part of Moffett's Freeport-McMoRan company in Indonesia, Moffett's confrontations with the city of Austin, and Freeport-McMoRan's efforts to restrict the free speech rights of its faculty critics.

Yet while many faculty voice their concerns about these questions, others say that the naming is a "done deal" and the best thing for the University is to let the controversy die down and to get on with teaching and research.

Our view is that this issue will not fade unless the controversy is firmly addressed. What should those who want to see the matter resolved and have objections to the proposed name do?

Should they mutter disapproval to their colleagues in the hallways? Should they voice cynicisms about "done deals"and then forget about the issue hoping nothing similar will ever be repeated? Should they remain silent for fear that any comment will jeopardize their jobs? What message will the faculty send to the Board of Regents and the Moffetts with their silence?

After months of this turmoil, it is apparent that the UT community remains divided over naming the building in honor of Moffett. In one way or another, this controversy must be addressed in order to be resolved.

To this end, we have filed four resolutions for consideration at the next Faculty Council meeting on Feb. 19. They are:

1. 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.

When a multibillion-dollar corporation threatens suit against its faculty critics, it is likely to have a substantial chilling effect on the faculty's exercise of their free speech rights. And when the threat is made against faculty members conducting university business in a university forum, then it is a concern for us all. How can open debate occur if the threat of lawsuits, be they serious or frivolous, hangs over the head of every speaker?

As a community, we should stand firmly behind the faculty right to free speech -- a right which is central to the academic enterprise. To shut down discussion now might have the effect of legitimizing the use of these tactics.

2. 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.

Regent's Rules call for a role for faculty in the naming of buildings. They also require that buildings be named only after individuals dead more than five years. The policy has often been waived and some believe it is no longer usable. If so, the Faculty Council should study the issue and make recommendations.

3. 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.

If we can agree that the naming issue has brought unnecessary turmoil to our campus, it is wise to learn the facts behind the decision with the anticipation that the knowledge will preclude a repetition of the adversity.

Since the descriptions of the donation differ even among those close to the events, it is clear that a complete account is still to be heard. However, important decisions must be made on the basis of fact. A small committee should be given a very specific charge to determine the facts and report back to the Council.

4. 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.

This resolution avoids asking the University or the regents to rescind a commitment that has already been made. Rather, it invites the Moffetts to make a gracious gesture in the best interests of the university by voluntarily agreeing to a change in the name of the building.

Why name the building for Barbara Jordan?

First, because of the things for which Jordan stood, particularly her strong commitment to ethics and the role of education in a democracy. These are principles that the University stands for as well.

Second, because Jordan's own personal history, as the first African-American woman to be elected to Congress from the South, stands as testimony to the promise of the American democratic tradition.

Third, because Jordan was a central and much revered member of the UT community who touched the lives of many.

Finally, because Jordan is a consensus figure around whom we can all agree.

If these resolutions are passed next Monday, what message will be sent to Moffett and the Board of Regents?

The message will be that we are unhappy with the way the decision was made to name the molecular biology building for the Moffetts; that we are troubled when such a high honor is accorded to such a controversial figure; that efforts to bully and intimidate our faculty are not acceptable, and; that we want the university to stand for the things for which Barbara Jordan stood -- ethics, integrity, and democracy.

If we do not pass these resolutions, what message will be sent? The message will be that open procedures and free debate are no longer important to us; that respect for human rights and the environment are secondary concerns, and; that our response to efforts to intimidate our faculty is to silence ourselves.

Let us consider carefully how our actions will be viewed before the vote is taken.

Ritter is a professor of government. Cline is a professor of computer sciences and a former chair of the Faculty Senate. Both are members of the Faculty Council.