NOTE: See below for Replies to Sharlot's diatribe

By M. Michael Sharlot, Guest Columnist
Daily Texan
March 1, 1996

I have observed the conduct of the Faculty Council with respect to the naming of the Molecular Biology Building for the Moffetts and Freeport-McMoRan and want to share with the UT community my view of its performance.

I am convinced that the council has behaved like a kangaroo court, doing a serious wrong to the Moffetts and bringing disgrace to the council, to the faculty and to the University.

By way of preface, I want to state some disclaimers. I am writing as a faculty member and not for the School of Law. I have never met the Moffetts, have no interest in or connection with Freeport-McMoRan, but having checked our records, I must note that the Moffetts have contributed to various endowments at the School of Law.

I also want to make clear that the following discussion seeks to address only how a majority of the council came to ratify the allegations that the company has engaged in human rights abuses and environmental degradation in Irian Jaya (West Papua) so that the Moffetts, as major owners, are deemed unfit to be honored by the University.

I express no views as to the merits of the dispute between the City of Austin and Freeport, although it is obvious that this dispute is what motivates some of those who supported the council's actions.

Also, I express no view as to whether there is a problem based on the ratio of an honoree's contribution to the total cost of a structure, beyond suggesting that such judgments would seem peculiarly within the competency of the regents. Many structures on campus have been named for individuals who have made no monetary contribution. Finally, I do not address the argument that the conduct of the honorees is always irrelevant. I am assuming for purposes of the following that it may be relevant to the University's decision.

My complaint concerns the manner in which the Faculty Council approached the charges against the Moffetts and Freeport.

Allegations of gross misbehavior were raised on the basis of second- and third-hand reports from groups whose political or other motivations were unknown to most, if not all, readers and auditors.

These allegations, as set out in documents distributed at one council meeting, seemed to be that the Indonesian military had acted brutally in its effort to suppress armed resistance to Indonesian rule by some indigenous persons in the area of the Freeport mine. In suppressing this resistance the military had, it was claimed, used Freeport property on a few occasions.

Further allegations concerned environmental degradation associated with what is supposed to be the largest copper and gold mining operation in the world.

These, in essence, were the charges supposedly to be weighed against some unarticulated standard known only to the members of the Faculty Council.

I know of no one who questions the high probability that the Indonesian government, having seized the western half of New Guinea with the acquiescence of the United Nations, is willing to use force to maintain its rule and the continued profitable operation of this mine, which it partly owns, with minimal concern for what we would consider the rule of law or civil rights. I also know no one who contends that this enormous operation is carried on without having some adverse affect on the environment.

There is reason to believe that not only is the mine of significant importance to the government and economy of Indonesia, but that it provides jobs, housing and substantial health and educational services to the indigenous people.

In addition, there are reports that the company has made efforts to minimize the environmental damage.

Whatever the actual facts regarding this enormous operation, the issue for me is whether those who condemn the Moffetts can produce any credible evidence that Freeport, as a corporate body (and a presumed instrument of the Moffetts), has participated intentionally in the human rights abuses attributed to the Indonesian military.

I have seen and heard none.

As to the environmental issues, what is the evidence as to the overall attitude of Freeport? Many extremely vague charges have been made, and it might be expected that an assembly of academics, presumably concerned with some basic notions of fairness, would be particularly sensitive to the danger that reputations might be wrongly injured if action is taken without adequate evidence and rational analysis.

The reason I charge the council with behaving as a kangaroo court is that, having decided to consider resolutions to condemn the Moffetts as unfit to be honored (although their donations apparently carry no such odor), there was no effort to insist on persuasive evidence from those making the charges or to seek out contrary views.

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. We have a number of faculty who have frequently been to that part of Irian Jaya (West Papua) for extended visits as part of their research activities.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the proponents of the resolutions adopted by the council have been there, nor are any of them in academic fields that given them special insights into the charges made.

It is shocking that the council has never, to my knowledge, requested that the faculty with personal knowledge of the area and some relevant academic expertise address the council so as to help inform its discussions and judgments.

I would add that the council has shown similar disregard for the reports of the New Orleans Times-Picayune reporter who wrote extensive pieces on the dispute after visiting the mine site. Unlike the Austin American-Statesman, the Times-Picayune seems to have tried to obtain firsthand knowledge of the situation.

Yet neither the Austin American-Statesman nor The Daily Texan decided on their own to reprint the articles of the Times-Picayune which, in the limited form in which I have seen them, cast serious doubt on the charges laid at the door of Freeport and the Moffetts.

In short, we have witnessed a monstrous public condemnation of two individuals and a company on the basis of a totally one-sided and inadequate investigation.

A student facing the prospect of having a confidential reprimand for alleged plagiarism placed in his or her file would have received far more concern for the accurate ascertainment of truth.

This has not been a proud day in the history of faculty governance at the University. Indeed, the failure of the council to engage in any serious search for truth before hanging the Moffetts in effigy brings the faculty into disrepute.

This shameful performance should be rejected as unworthy of representatives of the faculty and without regard to whether it adversely affects the ability of our regents and administrators to attract contributions needed for the support of our educational enterprise.

Sharlot is dean of the UT School of Law.

The following material was (obviously) not part of Sharlot's preceding Texan op-ed piece.

For some articles on the meeting and the On Campus report of the minutes of the meeting, see here.

Replies to Sharlot's diatribe

• Robert S. Boyer
• Alan Cline, Daily Texan, March 5, 1996
• Gretchen Ritter, Daily Texan, March 5, 1996