John W. Egerton Papers, 1961-1965, Box 2 Folder 2

Citation
John W. Egerton Papers, 1961-1965, Box 2 Folder 2

Material Information

Title:
John W. Egerton Papers, 1961-1965, Box 2 Folder 2
Added title page title:
Academic Freedom Part 2
Added title page title:
Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (Johns Committee)
Creator:
Egerton, John
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Florida
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Location:
Box 2 Folder 2

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Academic freedom -- Florida -- Tampa ( lcsh )
History -- Tampa (Fla.) -- 20th century ( lcsh )

Notes

General Note:
This collection consists of materials relating to the 1962-1964 Johns Committee investigation of the University of South Florida. The collection includes correspondence, press statements, statements to the Florida legislature, editorials, various newsletters and newspaper clippings, as well as the typescript of "The Controversy," John Egerton’s unpublished 300-page study of the Johns Committee.
Original Version:
Box 2 Folder 10

Record Information

Source Institution:
University Of South Florida
Holding Location:
University Of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
028802325 ( ALEPH )
50648262 ( OCLC )
E02-00010 ( USFLDC DOI )
e2.10 ( USFLDC Handle )

USFLDC Membership

Aggregations:
Added automatically
John W. Egerton Papers

Postcard Information

Format:
Mixed Material

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

' -t 1?.-f 2-/ 6 ,_ STATEMENT OF POLICY ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITIES Following is a statement of policy adopted by the Board of Control on December 7, 1962o This supersedes and replaces the statement adopted by the Board of Control on October 19, 1962 .. "Implementations of the Recommendations Approved by the Board of Control on September 14, 1962," and supplements "Report of the Special Committee of the Board of Control on the Investigation Committee Made to the Board of Control at Its Meeting on September 14, 1962 .. PREAMBLE The State of Florida can achteve its full potential for greatness only with an outstanding universtty systemo Achieving this greatness necessitates a strong and respected Board of Control, administration, and facultyo The Board of Controf reaffirms Its determination to develop the State University System of Florida as a group of universities of national distinction In their respective role&o The Board is dedicated to making these Institutions preeminent centers of learning and leadership and dynamic forcas in American The emphasizes that the dissemination of knowledge, the search for truth, and the development of educated, free minds constitute the professional resporwfblllttes of the facultleso These responsibilities must be maintained while each university er.Gcutes its function of providing a democratic climate for the si'Udy and exchange of Ideas o ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBIUTY lhe Boord of Control as the legally constituted agency for policy making and supervision of the state universities betfeves that academic freedom and respon sibility arB essential to the full development of knowledge, research endeavors and c:reattw activities, a university faculty arad student body must be &ee to cultivate a spirit of Inquiry and scholarly criticism and to examine Ideas In an atmospMre of freedom and confidence" A similar atmosphere Is required for untversit) teachingo Consistent with the eltercfse of academic a teacher must have freedom in the classroom In dlscwslng his subJect. The unlversltl' student must likewise have the opportunity to study a futl spectrum of Ideas, oplnlons0 and beliefs so that he may acquire maturity for analysis and iudgment Obpctlve and skillful exposition of such matters is the duty of awry teachero The establfshed policy of the Board of Control continues to be that the faculty member must fulfill hls responsibility to society and to his profe&i!on by manifest ing oc:a.demlc competence, scholarly dlscreilon9 and good cltizenshipo The university teacher Is ci citizen, o member of a learn2d profession, and an academic offlcell' of an educational institutiono He should be consiantly mindful that these roles may be inseparable in the public view, and he should therefore at oil times exercise appropriate restraint and good Judgment o ,.

PAGE 2

MORALS AND INFLUENCES It has !ong been the established policy of the Board of Control that institu tions under tts direction shall select faculty members of good moral character and of the highest educational background. The Board has also been con cerned with the careful selection of students In the various lnstltutlcns under Its management and wfth their continuing soclal6 economic, moral and spirit ual we I fare In order to assure a wholesome educational environment wtthln the State Unt ventttes of Florida, the Board of Control has adopted the following policies for the guidance of the universities: Clthenshtp and Conduct Each Institution a hall continue to examine carefully the qualifications and records of the!e Individuals who are to be employed by it, not only wtth regard to their professfol)CJI and academic competency but also with regard to their general character and their moral conducto Furthermore, the Board directs the Institutions under Its control to ccmtlnue to exercise due care In the selection of students, taking into account not only thetr academic ability to perform satisfactorily, but also their character and moral behavior .. The Board of Control also enjoins th$ administration fn each the Institutions to continue to guard against activlties subvenive to the American democratic process and against Immoral behovlor0 such as sex deviation" Religion Religion plays a vital role In our American way of life and Inevitably thla. subJect will artse In classroom dtscusslonso Religion may ba poperly dlseussed and anafyzsd there o The teacher bear& the responsibility of pursuing such discussions obfec,Jvely and Impartially without advocacy or indoctrination and with due respect for the reltglous beliefs of all concerned .. Boob and Teaching Materials The Board of Control continues its concem that students be exposed to the best In books and teaching materials. While recognizing the right and respon sibility of the Individual scholar to choose his teaching materials, the Board enJoins each member of the faculty to select materials that are among the best available, germane and In good taste wttMn the context of the educational or scientific IMPlEMENTATION OF POLICY The Board of Control hereby charges the the deans, and the faculties of the universities to adhere to these standards within an atmQSphere of ocademtc excellence, freedom, and responsibility. -2-

PAGE 3

In order to demonstrate its proper share of responsibility for the policy out"" lined above; each unfvenity is required to report to the Board for approval tts procedures for Implementing this pollcyo Such procedures as to mechanics may vary with each institution .. 1, re-emphaslxing its policy and the above requtreman1s for its executlon8 the 8f.lard of Control wishes to make completely clear lts confidence in the high quality of the admlnistrcition, faculties, and students In the universities under its control o The intent of this policy and the spirit In which It Is to be lmple nanted Is that of preserving thfs high quality on a continuing basiso CONCJ.USION The Board of Control desires that members of otl the faculties exercise the ut most of their ingenuity and creativity In order to bring to students the maximum benents of enlightened educationo The Board requires that such exercise be tempered with responsibility and due regard for sound educational prlnclpleso The Board of Control is responsible for the operation of the University System and It is dedicated to the advancement of higher education ln Florida o

PAGE 4

BY BAYA HARRISONq CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF CONTROL 15ecem&ir 7, 1'22 I think I speak for the Board of Control in saying we are gratified that by adoption of this policy on academic freedom and respanstbll1ties, the actual concepts of freedom and of responsibility have been brought Into proper focus and balance o As the au&horiud agency for supervision of the university system, the Board has recognized the importance of academic fntedom In the universities but believe that academic freedom, like all freedoms, carries with it definite responslbll ttieso Members of the faculties have been alert to speak out far academic freecfomo The Board has been eqW!IIIy Insistent that the faculties, while functioning in an atmosphere of academic freedom be constomly reminded of their related responsibilities .. Thts experience In shaping a policy on acodemtc freedom and respon sibilities with the assistance of the presidents and taculty repreeentatlws has been mutually The end product assures the public that the public trust vested In the universities will be unequlvocolly protected while members of the taculties and students operate with ossuranc:e thot they wtll haw free dom to teach and to leam to the best of their abllitleso A useful has t.an terwd. The faculties are more keenly aware of the Board's determination to maintain a wholesome atmcsphent In the universities and to Insure that qua llty and content of the teaching prowam ore the best o The Board It reminded of the faculty's interest that an atmcsphere of hedom and confldence prevail while they develop lcnowledge, retearch endeavors and creative activities for the benefit of the students. After all, the students should be the primary and lmfDitant beneficiaries of all of our effortlo

PAGE 5

.:. l IMPLEMENTATiONS OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF CONTROL ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1962 ID/;ltf:/61, The Board of Control has had long standing policies relating to the selection of onnel loyalty, and attitude toward communism, obscenity in teaching materials, religious concepts and moral conduct which were reaffirmed at the Boord meeting on September 14, 1962o The Administration of each institution is herewith ch1nged and directed to toke aiH necessary steps to effect these pol.icles and related procedures a We expect that this shall be a positive actio n, taken without delay, so that Board policies are not only known but are applied fairly t o insure for the young people of our State a wholesome e nvironment for effective learning in the institutions.

PAGE 6

I SEI.fCTION OF FACULTY AND STUDENTS Ao Faculty 1. The President of each Institution shall maintain a file of such inform ation regarding candidates for appointment as may be required on the forms prescribed by the Board of Control o Attached to this form shall be a recommendation from the dean, director, or other institutional offioar, who, If practicable, has personally intervfowed the candidate o This recommendation will contain tho names of at least two responsible persons who have vouched for the candidate and have a peraonal know le d ge of or concrete tnformatfon as to the qualifications of the candidate; Including academic background, loyaltlj' attitudes toward communism, moral coftCiuct, aftd general teaching a ality 2o Any guest lecturer, speaker, or other individual who Is to be brought by the Univenlty to the campus for conferences or appearances before the student body shall be first approved by the President. 3o Fingerprinting of all University penonnal will be canpleted no later than February 1, 1963o After thts date all personnel shall be fingerprinted and, whenever possible, this will be done prior to the effective date of em p l o yment Bo Students 1 o The institution shall Include as a section of the application for admission form a separate enclosure which shall be completed by a responsible o fficial (dean of men, principal, etc.) of the school or university last attended by the applicanto This form shall be mailed directly from said o fficial to a university official designated by the President of the Institu tion. 2 The Institution shall maintain a file of all applicants for admission which shall contain all required information. 3o The university official receiving this informatio n shall carefully screen the material to assure due care In the selection of students.. If the off Icial detects any indication of antisocial or immoral behavior, such as communistic activities or sex deviation, he shall immediately report this t o the Prestdent who sha II see that a thorough investigation ts made before the applicant i admittedo 4.. The president of the institution shall notify the presidents of the other In stitutions of the system, by confidential memorandum, a copy being filed with the Board office, of any applicant about which there has arisen que stion as to his desirability as a s t udent. An applicant who has applied f or admission to more than one institution shall not be admitted by any

PAGE 7

other Institution in the system which has received such a notification, untlf o tnvesti{Ption ts made o Too results of the lnvestlgatlom shall then be reviewed by the Council of Presidents. 5 Any student group or organiza tion U$ing the facilities of the Uftiversity in its activities must fir'$t be approved by the president lio OBSCENITY IN BOOKS AND TEACHING MATERIAlS A o The President of each institution shall develop pia ed procedures to insure that any matenal considered for teaching purposes hall be: 1 o Pertinent to the subject being taug,t 2.. The best material available and obtainable 3o Within the purvie of good taste and common decencyo 1 o These procedures shall be reduced to writing, a copy of which shall be filed with the Office of the Boar d of Control no later than December, 1962, and shall, upon the approval of the Board, eecome a part of the Polley a nd Procedure Manual of the Board of Control and the operattr g procedure of the Un iveBity. 2 o The violation of this policy by the parsonnel of on institution shall receive immediate attention of the President ho will take appropriate action, a written report of such action being filed with the Board Office o lll o PROCEDURES RElATING TO HOMOSEXUALITY Ao The President of each institution shall file wtth the ExecuHve Director a confidential quarterly report on action taken with regard to the elimination of sex deviates on the campuses in compliance with the "Morals and Influences Polley" as adopted by the Boord .. This report shall enumerate cases and the action taken o Bo Each academic year the Boord's policy in this shall be diaemtnated to each member of the faculty and staff of de institution .. C., Where serious variations from acceptable behavior occur, the Boord requires that a full report shall ba placed in the pennanent record of the individual concerned. IVo CHAlLENGE OF BASI C RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF STUDENTS BY PROFESSORS Ao At the beg1Ming of each academic year the President of each Institution shall i truct the faculty and staff to comply with the following general principles: 1 o The pei'IOI\Of religious beliefs of each student shall be re pected a t all times ..

PAGE 8

2o The sub{ect of religion may be discussed and analysed so long as It it carried on in an objective manner o 3o The faculty in discussing the subieet of religion in the classroom witt refrain from odvoc:ating their own religious beliefs or their own per sonal convictions concerning religtono Bo The violation of this poficy by any of the personnel of aA institution shall receive irrwediate attention of the President who will take appropriate action, a written report of such being nfed with the Boord Office o

PAGE 9

BMPLEME OF THE RECOMMENDA tONS APPRO D B Y THE BOARD OF CON1iROL. 0 SEPTEMBER 146 1962 The Boord of C trof ha hod tong sa g poltces relating to the selec t of pe OAMI, oya!ty o t 'Cifd communis 1 o b eenity in teach; ma e o 1 reilg ou t c:ep a moral co duct ich were reaffir d g t .he Board meeting Sep ember 14, 1962 Q he Admirii rrot o of each htu io i he e l h chu ged and direct t o ake aiU cessary steps to effc t th ese poUele c o relo ed pro c:ed re ., We e e-t that th' hal! be a 1 ve oction1 take ho t delay so That Boa d pot c"es a e only no IJl ut o re applied fairly to" ute for State a n le orne er wiro me t or e. ec iVi learn 9 0

PAGE 10

I SELECTION OF FACULTY AND STUDENTS Ao Faculty 1 o The President of each Institution shall maintain a file of such inform ation regarding candidates for appointment as may be require d on the forms prescribed by the Board of Control o Attached to this form shall be a recommendation from the dean, director, or other lnstttutiCWll offlcer, who, If practicable, has personally interviewed the candidate a This recommendation wtll contain the names of at least two responsible persons who have vouched For the candidate and have o personallcnowledge of or concrete information as to the qualiflcatiom of the candidate; Including academic background, attitudes toward communism, moral coftduct ana general teaChing a llty o 2 o Any guest lecturer, speaker, or other Individual who Is to be brought by the Univenlty to the campus for conferences or appearances before the student body shall be first approved by the President o 3o Fingerprinting of all University personnel wtlf be completed no later than February 1, 1963o After this date all personnel shall be fingerprinted and, whenever possible, this will be done prior to the effective date of employment B o Students 1 o The institution shall include as a section of the application for admission form a separate enclosure which shall be completed by a responsible official (dean of men, principal, etco) of the school or university last attended by the appltcanto This form shall be mailed directly from sold official to a university official designated by the President of the lnstitu tlono 2 The institution shall maintain a file of all applicants for admission which shall contain all required informationo 3o The university official receiving this information shall carefully screen the material to assure due care In the selection of students c If the offIctal detects any indication of antisocial or immoral behavior, such as communistic activities or sex deviation, he shall Immediately report this to the P rest dent who shalt see that a thorough investigation is made before the applicant is admittedo 4o The p-esident of the institution shall notify the presidents of the other in stitutions of the system, by confidential memorandum, a copy being filed wtth the Board office, of any applicant about which there has arisen question as to his desirabitlty as a studento An applicant who has applied for admission to more than one institution shall not be admitted by any

PAGE 11

other Institution in the system which has received such a notification, until o thorour#l Is made o The results of the lnwsttgatlons shall then be reviewed by the Council of Presidents. 5o Any student group or organization using the facilities of the University in its acttvfties must first be approved by the president o Uo OBSCENITY IN BOOKS AND TEACHING MATERIALS A o The of each institution shall develop planned procedures to insure that any material considered for teaching purposes shall be: 1 o Pertinent to the subJect being taught 2o The best material avallobfe and obtainable 3o Within the purview of good taste and convnon decencyo 1 o These procedures shall be reduced to writing, a copy of which shall be flied with the Office of the Boctr d of Control no later than December, 1962, and shall, upon the approval of the Board., a part of the Polley and Procedure Manual of the Board of Control and the operating procedure of the Universityo 2 o The violation of thts policy by the penonnel of an Institution shall re ceive Immediate attention of the President who will take appropriate action, a written report of such action being filed with the Board Offlceo lll o PROCEDURES RElATING TO HOMOSEXUALITY Ac The President of each institution shall file with the Executive Director a con fidential quarterly report on action taken with regard to the elimination of sex deviates on the campuses in compltance with the "Morals and Influences Policy" as adop ted by the Board .. This report shall enumerate cases and the action taken o Bo Each academic year the Board's policy In this regard shall be disseminated to each member of the faculty and staff of the institution. Co Where se tous variations from acceptable behavior occur, the Board requires that a full report shall be placed tn the permanent record of the individual concerned. IVo CHALLENGE OF BASIC RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF STUDENTS BY PROFESSORS A o At the beglming of each academic year the President of each institution shall t truct the faculty and staff to comply with the following general principles: 1 o The personal eligious betlefs of each student hall be respected at all tlmeso

PAGE 12

2o The sub feet ofreJJgion may be discussed and analysed so long as it it carried on I an obiective manner 3o The faculty in discussing the subiect of religion in the classroom will refrain from advocating their own religious beliefs or their own per sonal convictions concerning religion. 8o The violation of this policy by any of the personnel of an institution shalf receive lrm-.ediate attention of the President who wJU take approp-late action, a written report of such being flied with the Board Office o

PAGE 13

TRIE Ul'NlWERSXT:Y (I SO\!Jl'lli F!I.ORXDA l'ROCEOORES FOR OF BOARD OF CONTROL POLICY STATP.MENTS ON ACAD&tlC FR.ERDCM AlND R.F.SlPONSlBltLXTY DECEMBER 1 1962 llo s!_ Xn cecruitiaa the chairmen, the division director. the coure and the d .. an are rospoaaibla for ambling all and dato concerning academic of the for obtiaitDg lettera of recoiiD&nU!tion from appropriantc persona con.,. conaiq the cb&r:. .ctcr condua:t of tbe .ma well!. a;s hie profoaaf.onal -whenwere !P>OBsible, for 1Dtervieviag in prior to 2.3. 2,4. A complaint to be handled under procedures must be in written form 4nd must be signed by the complainant. The complaint as signed include the agreema4t to face the accused. If the President wishes to initiate these ,roceduras on the baaia of reports from unidentifiable sources, he may do so vith signed by bimeelf or by another ada1niatrative officer. Any administrative officer signing & complaint may not take part in .the ensuing inveatigativa p1rocedurea. Complaints from outside the University shall be placed in the banda of either or the Dean of AcadCIIDic Affaire. The lf'residant will either refer couplainta to the of Acadeutic Aff.airs or handle them dlrectly llccordia& to these procedures. The Dean of Academic Afflaint for which hft 1 given responsibility to tho dean of the college of the member concerned. When the faa:ulty b in mora than one colRege, both deans ahalA be Complaints from within th University shall be made directly to the deAn of the college of the faculty member concerned. TbQ dean shall inform the Dean of Academic Affairs of the the compla!"t r ,n .. /:j'.: r ', I',. 1

PAGE 14

the COIIlPlaint and &ive a writtC!Ill opinion. to the dunp with copy to the of Aead-E1c that either: the complaint lacks.aubstaoce aod no further action is neceaury, or bo the baa suhataoce but remedial action at the course or division us bea.an taken, or c. the hu substance and JIUSt be bAndied further at higher levels. ......... ... 2.6. The dean .ahall review the matter written o,inion to the Dean of Acmdemic Affairs that either: the complaint lacks aubat&nc ft aDd no further action ia aacesaary, or b. the complaiDt baa substance but remedial action baa baa taken either at the co\ll'ad'l or dlviaion or college level, or c. the COII!plaiot h!aa aubatauce and must becat:U a matter for cbargea. 2. 7. TMI Dull of Acadic AffAirs aha11 reviw the utter and take auch actl<$,48' !a aeceaaacy to c:caplette hmndlin,g the COIIlQ!llcint. He sb&ll be responsible for keeptaa the lreaident at the v&rioua atepa of theae procedureao

PAGE 15

in 'to. <:,, /1'"' -!""! ,-:: ""\ resei!I'Ch personnel as well as to University administrati e and professional people who are under the supervision of the Dean of Academic Affairso For all other personnel the same procedures shall .be follQwed, except when appropriate the function of' the Dean of Academic Affairs herein stipulated shall be assumed by the appropriate senior officer" 3n Complaints by Facultz Member: ........ .. 3ol faculty member may complain in writing of any alleged violation of his rights and responsibilities under the Board of Control Policy on Academic Rights and Responsibilitieso 3o2 Be shall forwcrrd such complaint to his immediate with a copy to the Dean of the College. l'he Dean of the College sh.lllll inform tlle Desn of Acc!lldt!:mic Affairs of the existence of !!:he complainto 3o3o If the immediate superior, or of the College, does not the matter to the of the faculty the complminant may appeal the matter through his to the Senate Committee on Educational 3o
PAGE 16

The courao those booka as moat Ukoly tto atiuwlat:8 iafom hb atudflnto, 'll:u AJuch Z'llltorU1U .IJ wiU ,o' I 3 ..

PAGE 17

RESOLUTION rampa Area AAUW Study of Aspects of Academic Freedom and of Legislative Investi8ation of Florida Universities I. REPOHT Attached is a summary of an inquiry into the status of academic free1om, in the area, made by a joint committee on legislation and higher education. It contains a chronological log of major edltorlals univel"tsidty and committee actions, from Iv!ay 18, 1962, to ne presen ate. Attached also are editorials and documents which form the basis of referemces in the following resolutions: II. RESOLUTIONS: Hhereas: The policy of The American Association of University Women seeks members from only thos e universities of high standing, in five specific categories, the first four o f which depend on the fj_fth, \-Jhich h'hereas: 'fhe Association expects that an institution will in no case sacrifice the moral function and indiv:i.dual integrity of its faculty s .nd staff to any economic, politic.al, or doctrinal end; Among the many statements of e.cademic freedom, the following i s a plausible working definition: Acader.1ic F reedom is the right of students, teachers, administrators, a11'd executive boards to responsible and inviolate self-direction and function \vi thin their social, academic, :m d governmental communi ties. It is tr.o !: .!fJlt_ o f to encounter, in competent to aching a.n.d dynamic int ellect ue..l climate, the arts and controversial i deas of' the pas t o.nd to compare them cri tica.lly with the arts and controversial ideas of the present. It is the of teachers to select and present materials best sui ted tostudent -mat1irlty. and the level of each course and to judge those rr.a torials by the disciplines, ethics, and integrl t i e s of their m,m profession .. It is the rin:ht of a.dministrat o:rs to maintain the. intel-_-r:..:...:... --___________ ... lectual to estabJ.ish and coord:t.nate programs of study; and t o use trained judgment of personnel in the assignment of d uties and the employment of teachers and staffo It is the Tight of p oards to policies; to act as fiduciaries for academ1c well-beJ.ng; to v.se professional cri tel"'i al o f competence in the selec tion of administ rators ; and t o hol-_4. in trust for phe_ lie commun itx right :to 2X. pol1."v1. 'cal !.?... insistence, Hhcrea s : The Legislative Investiga-ting Committee, appointed ----=B:i.ll No. 1116, approved 1>1ay 2 3 1961 known the Johns corrrrni ttee 11) appears to have ( 1) exceeded its questionable enablement; (2) performed its funct:10n \vJ.th extra-legal methods a !"!.d intention; and ( 3). coerced the rur;ct1onal and free autonomy of the total academic commu.n1 ty, students, f aculty, administrators, executive b oard members, ana of the State of Florida, j_n the follmdng specific vmys:

PAGE 18

3. evidence of "practicing'homosexuals, in its lnvestigation of the University of South .Florida. However, it so dwelt upon this aspect of its enablement as to make of ''homosexuality" a newspaper word; as to Eer force the attention of students to implications of the word; as to'use its own im munity to prosecution for libel to create in several instances a tenuous and unproved homosexual "smear." 4. House No. 1116 has no enaqlement for the investigation of the general et.n:l.cal standards of professors and other groups of the absence, or presence, of religious instruction in the schools; or of the textual materials and methods. The Committee spent the bulk of its time, in Tampa, looking into the morals of professors at the University of South Florida, judging morals and ethics by its own defini t5.on; studying and condemning the content of reputable texts generally in accredited universities; probing the presence or absence, of religious tone in classes and texts, again ing to its own definition of religious tone. 5 House Bill No. 1116, Section 2, authorizes an investigation of persons or groups whose 'principles or activities advocate, or constitute, violence. The Corrunittee assumed, from the somewhat confused original of this s .tatement, a right to search for presumed communists in the universities and a right to use arbitrary and coercive methods --apparently with much waste of money and no tangible results 6. House Bill No. 1116 specifically states that all Commit-bee inquiry shall have. "the o reporting to this legislature,'' so that the Legislature may correct "any abuses against the peace and dig nity of the state." The Committee reported directlyand initially to the public press, its report composed of testimony slanted toward statement. The in this and in its flamboyant conduct at the Hawaiian Ville.ge and on the campus o:f the University of South Florida, created a circus atmosphere inimical to the peace and dignity of the state and, at examination-time, highly inimical t.o the dignity of' the educational process and the morale of .faculty_. students, and administrators alike. The enabling act sets the func tion of the Committee as one of investigation and report. In state ments to the press, Committee spokesmen apparently assumed a punitive authority, calling for punishment. s based upon the Committee t s unproved and unanSl .;ered prosecutions n11.d judgments. This calling for specific action on its findings was fuither evidence of a prosecu tor's intention. c. Violations of the Free Autonomy of the Academic Community: 1. Freedom of Students. 'rho students' right to an int elle ctuul climate and to free inspection of arts and ideas was cavalierly treated by the Committee It coerce .$. fri[l)ltened and angered them, in its interruption of their studies. It threatened the competence of their teachers, with a similar lowering of morale. It set itself as a censoring board over their texts and classrooms, with a consequent reducing of their confidence in the quality of their instruction. It caused their parents a bewildered and serious question as to the value of their instruction. The Committee seemingly required that specific "packaged" and doctrinal ideas be presented, exclu sively; and it compared the Bible to current science texts, to t h e d -etriment of both. 2. Freedom of Faculty. The Committee, by its censorship, categorically denied the of the faculty to its textual materials and instructional methods. It accused those faculty members not conforming to specific doctrinal idea of an immoral influence dents and of other corl"'uptions of" faculty and student

PAGE 19

43. Freedom The Committee harried administrators during the difficult transition from a semester to a trimester a time wben all were working at full diligence, it 1nduced a -cremendous tension throughout the entire academic com munity. It preempted aspects of administration, including those of selecting courses and programs and of governing teachers and staff. It claimed, .bY vociferous implication, an authority over the university itself. It disseminated to the public such distorted images of teachers and administrators as to threaten the recruitment of superior students and faculty; and it did so at the normal recruitment time. 4 of. the Board of Control.. The Committee usurped the execut1ve iunct1on of evaluating faculty and curricula. Thus it dis tu:rbed the entire system of colleges and univel'sities throughout the State of Plorida; and its activities became such a cause celebre nationally as to threaten the advent of.' good professors to J.1.,lorida.. Furthermore, it brought subtle coercion on the Board of Control, by unfavorable statements to the press, with the subsequent reduction of Florida prestige among educators of national repute. 5. Freedom of Citizens of the State of Florida. The Committee abused the the citizens-or Florida to universities of highest quality. Its sensational nev.rspapcr com ... "Uents threatened to destroy some of the public confidence ln existing institutions. It raised implications that v1ere, in themselves, a so1rring of dissension wh:lch clouded the dignified ann intellectual environment that the citizens have a to expect in their universities. They could well ask if the attack on university prestige and authority had a possible political interest behind its apparent action.. 6. Freedom of the Total Academic Communitx_. The Committee, in total effect, so invaded a new university as to menace this school's ac.credi tation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. It caused investigations of' matters ultimately attributable to Com rrlittee instigation, on t he pax't of reputable and nat5.onal educational organizations. THEREJ?ORE: BE IT RESOLVED rrHAT: !'.: In the opinion of the Tampa Branch o f the American Association of University '!Jomen, the Legislative l nvestigatlng Committee)> enabled under House Bill 1116, approved Hay 23, 1961, academic freedom, to t h e considerable harm of the universitie s and colleges of Florida; and it wasted public monies in so doing. Its efforts at censorship were a l imiting of the citizens' r:i.ght to higher education, based on free in ... quiry within responsible and professional standards. In its "smear11 har>assment of academic personnel, i t relied: to all appearances, upon its legislative i'!'l11nunity to suits for libel. B In view of the evidence of such wasted expenditure, usurped and questionable motive, the Branch of the AAUW recommends that serious thousbt be given to discontinuin g the present legislative investi gating committee. It further recor r..mends that any oversight the legislature may \-Tish to exercise be conducted with (1) attention to the general economy now urged for school s and other agencies of the state; (2) provision .t'or audit o f funds dis bursed by a n appropriste state ag ency; (3) clear deli-mitatio n of t h e extent to which general morals, e thics, relie;ious beliefs a n d practices a r e to be reviewed.

PAGE 20

c D. E. F. G 5, The Tampa Branch of the AAUW advocates a careful reexamination by state legislators (1) of the methods used by the present and past legislative investigating comn1ittee s ; (2) of the positive results they have obtained as compared with their total potential harm to universities and other groups; {3) o f the public monies spent by such committees as weighed against their total accomplishment; and (4) of their possible political and doctrinal motivations for investi-gative action. 'l'he Tampa Branch of the AAUW emphat:!. c ally supports the right of an academic cornmlnity, subject to its B oard o f Control, to set its own standards; to make its own to be responsible for its own inner policies and disciplines and curricula; and to be free from coercion by groups with "rightest," 11leftist," or other extremist, inclination. The Tampa Branch of the AAU'tl Ul"ges that the BoRrd of Control is the duly constituted executive authority for the governing of Florida State Universities; the investigatin g of complaints; and the safe guarding of academic freedom. It d eplores the extent to which political and doctrinal aims have entere d into the investigation of schools; and it endorses the comf?let e severance of politics, real 2. concealed, in the administration of universitie s and their funds. The Tampa Branch of the AAUW believe s that such treined professional groups as the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools are best qualified to evaluate classroom mat erials and programs of instruction. The 'fe.mpa Branch of the l\AUW support s academic freedom and its atmosphere of pr?fessional dignity, and scholarly plines based on \>Joxth, as contrt:.>.Sted a climate of raucous ana carnival invasion.

PAGE 21

!:!"". -r..,",; '('; j. ",---:-:-.. --.----.J :._ ..... _,. .. ;.f.. REPORT ANO RESOLUTION >. Tampa Area AAUW Study o f A:Spects of Academic Freedom and of Legislative of Florida Universities .., I. REPORT. Attached is a summary .of an inquiry into the status of academic in the area, made by a joint committee on legislation and higher It contains a chr onolO!J;ical log of major editorials ,universit! and legislative committee actions, from }; are editorials and documents which form the basis of references .in t h e following resolutions: IIo RESOLUTIONS: l'l'hereas: The polic y of T h e A merican of University Women seeks members from only those universities of high standing, in five specific categories, the first four of which depend on the fifth, which reads: Whereas: The Association expects that an in$titution will in no case the moral f'u.nction and indi vj.dual integrity of, :i.fs faculty and staff to any economic, political, or end; Among the many of academic freedom, the following is a working definition: Academic Freedom is the right of .sttidents, teachers, administrators, ru1 d executive. qoards to responsible amd inviolate self-direction and .'f u nction within their social, .. academic, and It is the rasht of students toencounter, in competent toaching ,an dynamic intellectual climate, the arts and controversial ideas of the past and to compare them critically with the arts and controversial ideas of the present. .. It is the teaehe,r:a to select and pr_esent materials best suited to stude.nt rnaturity and the level of each course and to judg e those materials by the disciplines, ethics, a n d integrities o f their own professiono It is right of ad ministrators to maintain the. intellectual environment; to establish and coordinate progra.ms of study; and to use t rained j udgment of personnel in the of d uties a n d the e mployment of teachers and staffo It is the right of exe c utive boards to formulate general policies; to.actas fiduciarie s for academic well-being; to use professional criterial of competence in the selecf tion of ad ministrators; .an d t o .! trust E_ the lie community i t s untrammeled cal expediency, factional 2t doctrinal w'hereas: The InvG's t l gating appointe.d N o o 1116, a pproved May 23, 1961 {popularly known as the Johns committee") appears to have (1) exceeded its jurisdiction under a questionable enablemant; (2) performed its function with .arbitrary, extra-legal methods a n d intention; and {3) coerced the functional and free autonomy of the total academic community, composed of students, faculty administrators, executive board members, and citizens of the State of Florida, in the following specific ways:

PAGE 22

.. 2. A. Enablement 1. 2. House Bill No. 1116, approved May 23, 1961, is a blanket and loosely worded act of enablement. It is particularly faulty in Section 3(2}. This section is either a blunt, legislative direction to the Florida Circuit Courts to hear petitions and administer punishments with less than judicial impartiality, or it is a clever "name-calling" -a mention of the circuit court to suggest that its dignity and force will compel subservience to a quasi-judicial legislative committee. Either is an apparent legislative invasion of the judicial branch of the state government. House Bill No. 1116 allocates a blanket $75,000 of state monies, with no provision for the type of audit of their disbursement that would foster economy and cogent direction. B. Activities t Committee Beyond the Intent 2 2 its Act The Legislative Investigating Committee has exceeded, or abused, the. intent and scope of its enablement in these, among other, particulars: lo One of the purposes for re-establishing the Committee was 'the ment that prior committee reports "disclose a great abuse of the judicial processes in the Courts of Evidence gathered by AAUW study strongly indicates that judicial processes were abused 2 .. by the Committee itself, in these respects: ao c. e g. Suborning of witnesses; there are indications of a series of inducements to witnesses, within the nature of bribery and/or purchased information. Editing of testimony; and relying on hearsay evidence. Asking leading questions and intimidating witnesses, many of t;hem students inexperienced in such show-of-authority and frightened by the quasi-judicial trappings. Taking of secret testimony, at committee headquarters, in a luxury motel. Acting in the dual capacity of prosecutor-and-judge; and accusing, without a clear statement of what the accusation comprised or by whom it had been made. Slanting and editing a final report, delivered to newspapers before university authorities or their board of control had seen it. Making this final report virtually a prosecutor's case (not an impartial statement of findings) and permitting university no opportunity to reply, before the report became public knowledge. Employing, at a cost of $7500 a year, a chief investigator whose untrained methods suggested coercion. House Bill No. 1116, Section 2 directs ftor the "well being" of the "majority of the citizens of state. In follow ing the. request of its most active supporters and of most desired an investigation, the Cornmittee acted upon the of a relatively small group of peopl e in the Tampa area. House Bill No. 1116, Section 2 directs the Committee to investigate the "extent of infiltration int o agencies supported by state funds by practicing homosexuals .. T h e Cornmittee reported inconclusive

PAGE 23

). evidence of "practicing'homosexuals, in its investigation of the University of South Florida. However, it so dwelt upon this aspect of its enablement as to make of "homosexuality" a common newspaper word; as to direct, Eer force, the attention of students to implications of the word; as to use its own immunity to prosecution for libel to create in several instances a tenuous and unproved homosexual "smear." 4House Bill No. 1116 has no enablement for the investigation of the general ethical standards of professors and other groups; of the absence, or presence, of religious instruction in the schools; or of the textual materials and methods. The Committee spent the bulk of its time, in Tampa, looking into the morals of professors at the University of South Florida, judging morals and ethics by its own definition; studying and condemning the content of reputable texts generally in accredited universities; probing the presence, or absence, of religious tone in classes and texts, again according to its own definition of religious tone. 5. House Bill No. 1116, Section 2, authorizes an investigation of persons or groups whose principles or activities advocs .te, or constitute, violence. The Committee assumed, from the somewhat confused original of this statement, a right to search for presumed comnmnists in the universities and a right to use arbitrary and coercive methods apparently with much wasta of money and no tangible results. 6 o House Bill Noo 1116 specifically states that all Committee inquiry shall have :tthe purpose of reporting to this legislature," so that the Legislature may correct "any abuses against the peace and dig nity of the stateo" The Committee reported directly and initially to the public press, its renort composed of testimony slanted toward sensational statement. The Committee, in this and in its flamboyant conduct at the Hawaiian Village and on the campus of the University of South Florida, created a circus atmosphere inimical to the peace and dignity of the state and, at examination-time, highly inimical to the dignity of the educational process and the morale of faculty, students, and administrators alike. The enabling act sets the function of the Committee as one of investigation and reporto In statements to the press, Committee spokesmen apparently assumed a punitive authority, calling for punishments bused upon the Committee's un proved and unanswered prosecutions nnd judgments. This calling for specific action on its findings was further evidence of a prosecutor's intentione c. Violations of of Academic Community: 1 o Freedom of Students.. rhe students' right to an intellectual climate and to free inspection of arts and ideas was cavalierly treated by the Committee. It coerced fri{!,htened and angered them, in its interruption of their studiese It threatened the competence of their teachers, with a similar lowering of morale. It set itself as a censoring board over their texts and classrooms, with a consequent reducing of their confidence in the quality of their instruction. It caused their parents a bewildered and serious question as to the value of their instruction. The Committee seemingly required that specific 11packaged" and doctrinal ideas be presented, exclu sively ; and it compared the Bible to current .science texts, to the detriment of both. 2. Freedom of Facultz. The Commit tee, by its censorship, categorically denied the right of the faculty to select its textual materials and instructional methods. It accused those faculty members not conforming to specific doctrinal idea of an immoral influence on students and of other corruptions of faculty and student integritieso

PAGE 24

. .. 4. 3. Freedom of Administratorsa The Committee harried administrators during the difficult transition from a semester to a trimester system. At a time when all were working at full diligence it a tremendous tension throughout the entire com It preempted aspects of administration, including those of selectinR courses and programs and of governing teachers and staff. It claimedi by vociferous implication, an authority over the university itself. It disseminated to public such distorted images of teachers and administrators as to threaten the recruitment of superior students and faculty; and it did so at the normal recruitment timeo 4.. .Freedom of the Board of Control.. The Committ .ee usurped the executive function of evaluating faculty and curricula. Thus it disturbed the entire system of colleges and universities throughout the State of Florida; and its activities became such a cause celebre nationally as to threaten the advent of good professors to Florida. Furthermore, it brought subtle coercion on the Board of Control, by unfavorable statements to the press, with the subsequent reduction of Florida prestige among educators of national repute. 5.. Freedom of Citizens of the State of Florida.. The Committee abused the the citiZens-or Florida to universities of highest quality. Its sensational newspaper comments threatened to destroy some of the public confidence in existinp, institutions. It'raised implications that were, in themselves, a sowing of dissension Which clouded the dignified and intellectual environment that the citizens have a riRht to expect their universities9 They could well ask if t he attack on university prestige and authority had a possible political interest behind its apparent action. 6o Freedom of the !2tal Academic Communityo The Committee, in total effect, so invaded a new university as to menace this school's accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Scboolso It caused investigations of matters ultimately attributable to Com mittee instigation, on the part of reputable and national educational organizationsc 'I PEREFORl!:, BE IT RESOLVED T!iAT: A. In the opinion of the Tampa Branch of the American Association of University the Legislative Investigating Committee, enabled under House Bill 1116, approved !'1ay 23, 1961, violated academic freedom, to the considerable harm or the universities and colleges of Florida; and it wasted public monies in so doing. Its efforts at censorship were a limiting of the citizens right to higher education, based on free inquiry within responsible and professional standards. In its ''smearn harassment of academic personnel, it relied, to all appearances, upon its legislative to suits for libel. B. In view of the evidence of such wasted expenditure, power, and questionable motive, tr.e T ampa Branch of the AAUW recommends that serious thought be to discontinuing the present legislative investi gating committee. It further r ecommends that any oversight the legislature may wish to exercise be conducted with (1) attention to the economy now urged for schools and other agencies of the state; (2) provision for audit of funds disbursed by an appropriate state agency; (3) clear delimitation of the extent to which general morals, ethics, religious beliefs and practices are to be reviewedo

PAGE 25

Co D. E. F., G. .. 5" The Tampa Branch of the AAUW advocates a careful reexamination by state legislators (1) of the methods used by the present and past legislative investigating committees; (2) of the positive results they have obtained as compared with their total potential harm to universities and other groups; (3) of the public monies spent by such committees as weighed against their total accomplishment; and (4) of their possible political and doctrinal motivations for investigative action. The Tampa Branch of the AAUvl emphatically supports the right of an academic community, subject to its Board o f Control, to set its own standards; to make its own checks-and-balances; to be responsible for its own inner policies and disciplines and curricula; and to be free from coercion by g:roups with rightest," "leftist," or other extremist, inclination. The Tampa Branch of the AAUW urges that the Board of Control is the duly constituted executive authority for the governing of Florida State Universities; the investigating of complaints; and the safeguarding of academic freedorn. It d eplores the extent to which political and doctrinal aims have entered into the investigation of schools; and it endorses the complete severance of politics, real or concealed, in the administration of universities and their funds:-------The Tampa Branch of the AAUW believe s that such trRined professional groups as the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.are qualified to evaluate classroom materials _and programs of 1nstruct1on. The 'l'ampa Branch of the l\.AU\v supports academic freedom and its collateral atmosphere of professional dignity, responsibility, and scholarly disciplines based on inner worth, as contrested with a climate of raucous and carnival invasion ..

PAGE 27

'!s' 't .. ,. --' ... I ,. I '. .,, ..... ::.' '-' .. R :.. ,, ,I J. ,, .,,it,;.'; 't .. ;.

PAGE 30

November 16, 1962 Statement of Baya M$ Harrison, chairman of the State Board of Control, issued early A group consisting of some members of the Board of Control, presidents and faculty representatives of the state universities and personnel of the Board staff, met for four hours in a constructive discussion of academic freedom and its related responsibilities. An atmosphere of complete cooperativeness prevailed. It was determined that a smaller group would continue the discussions at the earliest possible time. The vice chairman and another member of the Board were designated to meet with one representative from each institution for this purpose.

PAGE 31

r CJ1rz .. /63 August 13, 1 BOARD OF CONTROL PROPOSED POLICY ON TENURE AND DISMISSAL FOR THE STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS ON MAY 31, 1963, AMENDED BY THE BOARD OF CONTROL ON JUNE 21, 1963, AMENDED AND APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS ON JULY 1, 1963, AND AMENDED BY .THE BOARD OF CONTROL ON JULY 19, 1963 5.0 Organization of University System 5.3 Personnel 5.32 Tenure I. Definition of Tenure of the Faculty A. A faculty member who has been granted tenure by the Board of Control shall have the status of permanent member of the faculty and be in the continuing employment of the institution until: 1. He voluntarily leaves the employment of the institution; 2. He voluntarily retires or reaches mandatory retirement age; 3. He is dismissed by the Board of Control for cause under the provisions of this Manual which govern the termination of faculty employment; 4. He dies. II. Granting of Tenure A. Tenure may be granted only by the Board of Control upon nomination of the President. B. Each nomination for tenure shall be acted upon with careful con-sideration being given to the qualifications of the faculty member. 1. Nomination of a faculty member for tenure shall signify the President is satisfied that a high degree of competence has been demonstrated and continuing employment of the faculty member will serve the best interests of the institution and -1-

PAGE 32

-2-the University System. III. Eligibility for Tenure A. Only those employees of the University System who are classified as Academic Faculty under the provisions of the Manual are eligible for tenure. Academic faculty will include those administrators who hold tenure in a faculty position. Such individuals shall retain tenure in the faculty classification, but not in the adminis-trative position. B. Employment during any two semesters or trimesters or during three quarters of any calendar year shall be considered a year of con-tinuous employment. Time spent away from the institution in which a faculty member is employed, except where the individual is under joint appointment or exchange within the State University System or on a special assignment for the benefit of his institution and paid by his institution, shall not be counted toward the fulfill-ment of eligibility for tenure. c. Eligibility for tenure foi Professors begins after two years of In exceptional cases the Board of Control may approve tenure for full Professors upon appointment or any time thereafter if it is recommended by the President with sufficient justification. D. Eligibility for Associate Professors and Assistant Professors may not begin until the completion of three years of employment. Tenure eligibility statements for these two ranks may be given in the Constitution of each institution as approved by the Board of *The final sentence added to this paragraph by the Board of Control on June 21, 1963, has been deleted because its purpose is achieved in the present text. The sentence read: "Obligated or involuntary military service will not be construed to break continuous employment for purposes of establishing eligibility for tenure."

PAGE 33

-3-E. Instructors shall be considered temporary members of the faculty and shall not be eligible for tenure. F. Eligibility for teachers in sub-collegiate laboratory schools operated under the Board of Control begins after four years of employment. G. The Board of Control may approve tenure at an earlier time if it is recommended with sufficient justification by the President. IV. Procedure for Granting of Tenure A. The procedure to be followed when a faculty member becomes eligible for the status of permanent member shall be: 1. At the time a faculty member becomes eligible for tenure, the appropriate department or division officer shall nominate him for that status or postpone such nomination and in either case shall inform him in writing. 2. Nomination for tenure should originate with the appropriate department or division officer and to become effective must receive the approval of the head of the appropriate college, school, or division; of the President; and of the Board of Control. 3. The faculty member shall be notified immediately in writing by the President of the final action taken on his nomination for the status of permanent member. 5.33 Termination of Faculty Appointment A. Termination of Non-Tenured Faculty Appointments 1. The President may, at his discretion, terminate the employment of a non-tenured faculty member. In all such cases the institution shall give the faculty member three months notice if he is

PAGE 34

-4-in his first year of employment, six months notice if he is in his second year of employment and a full year notice if he is in his third year of employment and thereafter. Interim appointees may not be guaranteed employment beyond the date of expiration of the contract. a. The President may for the best interests of the institu-tion at any time with the approval of the Executive Director assign such a faculty member to other institu-tional responsibility. (1) This action does not release the institution from the contract commitment to compensation for the faculty member until date of final termination. (2) Should a faculty member so assigned to other institutional responsi.bility enter upon employment outside the institution prior to the expiration of his contract without written approval of the Board of he shall no longer receive compensation. 2. The President shall terminate the employment of any eligible faculty member who has not been granted tenure at .the close of the fifth year of continuous employment by giving notice of the additional terminal employment provided for above, except that the Board of Control or the Executive Director (6.2-A.6) may upon recommendation of the President extend the period of employment of faculty members not eligible for tenure as a result of the Nepotism policy of the Board

PAGE 35

-s-of Control. B. Suspension Pending Formal Inquiry for Cause 1. After receiving charges and/or evidence; the President may sus-pend any faculty member, regardless of tenure status, if in his judgment formal inquiry is likely to provide the basis for dis-ciplinary action. a. Such suspension should follow the President's careful preliminary inquiry and deliberation and failure of his informal efforts to bring about a satisfactory adjust-ment of the matter, which efforts shall include inform-ing the faculty member in writing of specific charges. 2. Justifiable cause for disciplinary action shall comprise the following: a. Continuing neglect of duty and responsibilities which impairs teaching, research, or other normal and ex-pected services to the institution; b. Failure without justifiable cause to perform the terms of employment, which include the e tablished policies of the Board of Control and the institution;* c. Professional incompetence; d. Conduct, professional or personal, involving moral turpitude. *Paragraph B.2.3., added by the Board of Control on June 21, 1963, has been deleted because its purpose is achieved in the expanded paragraph B.2.b. of the present text. Paragraph B.2.e. read: "Willful failure to abide by a stated policy or decision of the University or of the Board of Control where such policy or decision applies to the individual faculty member."

PAGE 36

-6-3. Permanently incapacitating mental or physical disability consti1:t;ttes grounds for suspension. 4. of Suspension and Charges a. The .President.shall suspend the member by written notice which shall enumerate the charges brought against him. (1) The effective date and hour of suspension shall be recprded in the notice. b. This .notice shall be delivered or forwarded to the faculty member by registered mail with receipt requested. c. The attempt to notify the faculty member prescribed above satisfies the requirement of notification and failure of the member to receive notification does not invalidate tne suspension nor its effective date. (1) It is incumbent upon the President to see that a continuing effort is made to effect notification. d. A copy of the original notice shall be immediately filed with the Executive Director, C. Procedures of Inquiry 1. The President shall see that a thorough investigation is made of all charges brought against a faculty member. a. At any stage of inquiry the President may avail himself of the assistance of the staff of the Board of Control or may with the approval of the Executive Director employ such assistance from other sources. b. The President shall, immediately upon the suspension of a faculty member, refer the charges to the advisory

PAGE 37

-7-committee of the institution responsible for holding hearings on such matters with instructions to investigate all charges and submit to him a transcript of all proceedings and a written report of their findings and recom mendations for appropriate action. This in no way .precludes the President from taking any investigative action he deems necessary. (1) The President shall see that this committee effects a thorough investigation and that their deliberations are prompt with recommendations in writing being presented to him at the earliest possible date. (2) The President shall provide the committee with the time and resources needed to render an effective investigation. (3) Neither the President nor the Board of Control shall be bound by the recommendations of the committee. c. The President shall, after reviewing the findings of the committee; take appropriate action as provided herein. (1) The President, within ten (10) days of receiving the findings of the committee, shall notify the faculty member in writing of his action. A copy shall be filed with the .Executive Director. (2) If the President's action should be other than reinstatement, the President shall at the same time inform the faculty member of his right to

PAGE 38

-a-appeal to the Board of Control. p. Final Action by President 1. The President may elect one of the following actions: a. Reinstatement of the faculty member; p, Reinstatement of the faculty member with appropriate counseling; c Recommend to the Board of Control the immediate dismissal of the faculty member; d. If the Board of Control is not satisfied with the action of the President, it may initiate any action it deems necessary. E, Right of Appeal by the Faculty Member The faculty member shall have the right to appeal to the Board of Control within ten (10) days of the date of the action of the President. He may exercise the right of appeal by filing a request in writing with the President for transmission to the Executive Director of the Board of Control. 2.. The Executive Director of the Board of Control shall, upon receipt of written appeal, appoint an interinstitut'ional faculty committee from a panel of tenured faculty members, nominated annually, in September, by the University Presidents for the purpose of reviewing the record of the hearing, calling addi ti.onal witnesses if necessary and making a final recommendation to the Board of Control as to disposition of the charges The committee shall set a date for the hearing and notice shall be given to all concerned not less than ten (10) days prior to that date.

PAGE 39

-9-b. The committee shall have access to all records and infer-mation pertaining to or having bearing upon the charges. c. The committee shall take testimony under oath from such witnesses as may appear before it. d. The faculty member shall be entitled to attend the hearbe represented by Counsel of his own choice at his own expense, present evidence and testimony, and cross examine witnesses. The committee may at any time go into executive session to exclude persons not directly in-valved. The committee shall be afforded legal counsel, if requested. Publicity on the committee's recommendations shall be deferred until the Board of Control has considered such recommendations. 3. The committee shall make a transcript of the proceedings for review by the membership of the Board. 4. The committee shall at the completion of the hearing and after careful deliberations transmit to the Executive Director their recommendations along with the complete records of all pro-ceedings in the case. F. Action by the Board 1. Action 4pon the appeal a. The Board of Control shall, upon receipt and considera-tion of the report and recommendations of the inter-institutional faculty hearing committee, take whatever. final action it may determine just and proper and shall notify the faculty member of the decision with a certi-fied copy to the President.

PAGE 40

-10(1) The of the Board of Control shall see that a final decision is rendered at the earliest possible date but in no event should action be deferred for more than sixty (60) days from the time of receipt of the hearing committee report. (2) If the Board, in reviewing the report, calls before it witnesses or other persons as may have information of bearing, the accused faculty member, if he desires, shall be present. a. The faculty member may be called before the Board of Control to testify provided that this does not lead to a violation of his constitutional rights. b. The faculty member, in such instance, is entitled to be represented by Counsel, present additional evidence and testimony, and cross examine witnesses called by the Board of Control. b. Action of the Board of Control shall be final and becomes effective immediately. In the event of dismissal, pay shall cease immediately. c. Except when there is reinstatement, the proceedings and findings of the institutional faculty committee, President's action, interinstitutional committee recommendations, and the action of the Board of Control will be included as part of the permanent employment record of the faculty

PAGE 41

-11-member and no President will supply for the faculty member letters of reference or any form of recom mendation without specific notice being taken in such communication of this record. d. When reinstated, the entire record of the matter shall be placed in the President's confidential file.

PAGE 42

RtcHARD W. ERVIN ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF FLORIDA OF"F"ICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TALLAHASSEE November 13, 1962 Memorandum to Hon. Baya M. Harrison, Jr. Chairman, Board of Control From: Ralph E. Odum, Assistant Attorney General Re: Academic freedom RALPH E. OOUM ASSISTANT ATTORNV GENERAL In anticipation of the discussion contemplated later this week on the general subject of academic freedom, I have attempted to advise you as to Florida statutes on the subject of obscenity, recognized definitions of academic freedom and judicial interpretations pertaining to this subject This memorandum is admittedly incomplete and by no means authoritative since my. research into the subject has been limited to only a few hours. It may, however, be of some assistance to you in discussing the subject with the presidents and representatives of their facul-ties. A copy of the definition of academic freedom currently recognized by the American Association of University Professors, Association of American Colleges, American Library Association, Association of American Law Schools, American Political Science Association, American Association for Colleges for Teacher Edu-cation, American Association for Higher Education, National Education Association, American Philosophical Association and the Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology, is attached. A copy of the definition of academic freedom adopted by the American Civil Liberties Union is also attached. Chapter 847, Florida Statutes, dealing with the subject of obscene literature Section 847.011 (10) defines obscene literature, as follows: "For the purposes of this section, the test of whether or not material is obscene is: Whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest."

PAGE 43

Page 2 Chapter 847 provides a criminal penalty for persons who distribute publications or materials falling within this category. Academic freedom is discussed in an article entitled "Academic Freedom and the Law" in 46 Yale Law Journal, page 670. Among other things, this article states: "Academic freedom is not a 'property' right, or a constitutional privilege, or even a legal term defined by a history of judicial usage and separately listed in the digests and Words and Phrases. Moreover, where a case is brought presenting the consequences of an interference with academic freedom in justiciable form, and petitioning for an accepted mode of legal relief, the plaintiff faces the added barrier of a profession of judicial reluctance to intervene in the internal affairs of an educational institution, an attitude. which said to limit the court to an examination of the authority, not the propriety, of administrative action." According to Mr. Ralph F. Lesemann, attorney for the University of Illinois who is currently engaged in litigation between a discharged faculty.member and the University of Illinois involving academic freedom, the above quoted statement ustill substantially reflects the case law today as it did when it was made. Howeve.r, there are some statements appearing in fairly recent opinions of our highest court which while not referring to 'academic freedom' by name, certainly contain cogent and excellent statements of the reasons which support and the necessity for it.11 Lesemann further states, "In a number of the decisions it has rendered in recent years, the Supreme Court of the Uni ted States has demonstrated marked solicitude for the rights and welfare of the nation's schoor.teachers and especiall:Y, of those who are members of college or university faculties.' I believe the leading case law on this subject at present i s set forth in following cases: Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 u.s. 183 Slo\'lCher v. Board of Education of New York, 350 u.s. 551 Shelton v. Tucker, 364 u.s. 234 Ward v. Board of Regents, 138 Fed. 372 Posin v. State Board of Higher Education, 86 N.W. 2d 31 .Richardson v. Board of Regents, 269 Pac. 2d 265 (Nev.) State ex rel. Ball v. fl1cPhee, 94 N. w. 2d 711 (vlis.) Uphaus v. Wyman, 360 u.s. 72 Adler v. Board of Education, 342 u.s. 485 Bellan v. Board of Public Education, 357 u.s. 399 Pierce v. Society o f Sisters, 268 U.S. 5 10 (N.Dak.)

PAGE 44

. Page 3 Columbia Trust Company v Lincoln Institute of Kentucky, 129 s.w. 113 Cochranh v. Louisiana Board of Education 281 u.s. 370 McSherry v. City of St. Paul1 277 N. w. 541 (Minn.) In this case the Supreme Court of Minnesota said: "Many states have adopted teachers' tenure acts. We shall not stop to enumerate them. The general purposes and advantages of these acts and the reasons therefor are interestingly set forth in 'Bulletin of National Education Association on Teachers' Tenure for 19371 "Plainly, the legislative purposes sought were stability, certainty and permanency of employment on the part of those who had shown by educational attainment and by probationary trial their f .itness for the teaching profession. statutory direction and limitation there is provided means of prevention of arbitrary demotions or discharges by school authorities. The history behind the act justifies the view that the vicissitudes to which teachers had in the past be been subjected were to be done away with or at least minimized. It was enacted for the benefit and advantage of the school system by providing such machinery as would tend to minimize the part that malice, political or partisan trends, or caprice might play. It established merit as the essential basis for the right of permanent employment. On the other hand, it is equally clear that the act does not impair discretionary power of .school authorities to make the best selections consonant with the public good; but their conduct in thi.s behalf is strictly circumscribed and must be kept within the boundaries of the act. The provision for a probationary period is intended for that very purpose. The right to demote or discharge provides remedies for safeguarding the future against incompetence, insubordination, and other grounds stated .in the act. The act itself bespeaks the intent. Provisions for notice and hearing, the requirements of specified causes for discharge or demotion, are indicative of the.general purpose. With these considerations in it is our duty so to construe such parts of the act which on their face do not clearly delineate the legislative intent as will bring about a result in harmony with the expressed legislative policy." Phelps v. Board of Education, 300 u.s. 319. In this case the court held that. the New Jersey tenure act was intended merely to regulate the conduct of boards of education

PAGE 45

4 and did not create a contractual right Hence, the legislature could without violating the contract clause of the constitution reduce the salaries of public school teachers protected by the act fr from dismissal or reduction in salary except for inefficiency, incapacity, conduct unbecoming a teacher or other just cause. Dodge v. Board or Education, 302 u.s. 74 Indiana ex rel. Anderson v Brand, 303 u.s. 95, In thiS case the court held that an Indiana statute_ arilending the teachers' tenure act of 1927 so as to exclude townshj,p schools a nd teachers from the provisions C _onstituted an unconstitutional abrogation of a ve .sted -contractual right. Malone v. 329 Pa. 213 (Pa.) .. Gassen v. Charles Parish School Board, 199 La. 954/_ 7 So. 2d 217 State ex rel. Karnes, v. BOard of Regents, 269 N.W. (Wis.) Smith v. School -District of Darby, 130 A. 2d 661 (Pa.) .. McNely Board of' Education, l25 N.E. 2d. 145 (Ill.) Gorski v. School District of Dickson City, 113 A. 2d 334 (Pa.) Hankensort v. Board of Education of Waukegan, 134 N. E. 2d 356 (1956) Pickens Count Board of Education v. Keasler, 82 So. 2d 197 (1955) as v. scension Parish School Board 1 So. 2d 817' (La.) Williams v. Board or Education of Lamar County, 82 So. 2d 549 (Ala.) On due process, see Laba v. Board of Education of Newark, 129 Atl. 273 ( N. J ) ; Donahoo v. Board of' Education, 109 N. 2d 787 (Ill.) Rehberg v. Board ofEducation -of Melvindale, 77 N. w. 2d 131 (Mich).. McCormick v. Board of Education of Hobbs School District, 274 Pac. 2d (N. M.) State ex rel. Richardson v. Board of Regents of University of Nevada, 261 Pac. 2d 515 (Nev. ) State v. Yoakum, 297 .. s. w. 2d 635 (Tenn.) Lea v. Orleans Parish School Board 84 So. 2d 610 (La. ) Board of Education of City of LOs Angeles v. Swan, 261 P. 2d 261 (Cal.) Chesley v. Jones,. 299 Pac. 2d 179 (Ariz.) Million v.Board of Education of Wichitaj 310 Pac. 2d 917 (Kans.) v. Board _of. Higher Education of New York City, 130 N.E. 2d Guthrie v. Board of Education of J -efferson County, 298 S. W. 2d. 691 {Ky. ) .. -; on -the rights ofteachers as citizens, see: School City of East,v. Sigler, 36 N. E. 2d. 760 (Ind.) Watkins v. Special School District of 194 s.w. 32 (Ark.) Adams v. State ex rel. Sutton, 69 So. 2d 309 \Fla.) M cDowell v. Board of Education, 172 N. Y. Supp. 590 This \'las a 'famous case during World War I. The petitioner a member of the Quaker church, was dismissed for conduct un becoming a teacher under a statute which provided that a

PAGE 46

.Page 5 teacher should hold her position during good behavior and e ff:icient and competent service, shall not be remov e d e xcept for cause after a hearing. She was interrogated by the Board o f Superintendents and stated her unwillingness to uphold the countri in resisting invasion or i n carry i ng out the war; to urge her pupils to .support the war or to perform Red Cross services o r to buy thrift stamps; and she further believed a teacher was under no obligation to support the war policies of the government. The court .held that her dismissal was for an offense within the meaning of the statutei The grounds of removal c ontemplated by the statute may in a given instance be wholly unrelated to the discharge of the scholastic duties, and a teacher may be both incompetent and inefficient, even though her class shows most gratifying results in the ordinary subjects of the curriculum. It is of the utmost importance to the state that the association of teacher and pupil should tend to inculcate in the latter principles of justice and patriotism and a respect for our laws. This end cannot be accomplished, if the pupil finds his teacher unwilling to submit to constituted. authority." Matter of Pratt, 25 N. t. State Dept. Repts. 65, Where a statute permitted discharge of a teacher for lack of good behavior or lack of efficient and competent service, a teacher who became a member of the Communist Party, engaged actively in its work; and resigned only out of fear or losing her position, was properly discharged for 11misbehavior.11 (This was a .1936 case) State ex rel. Schweitzer v. Turner, 19 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1944) Tn this case mandamus proceedings were brought to compel the reinstatement of a teacher discharged for incompetency. The statute required the teaching of morals, truth, honesty, patriot. ism and every Christian virtue. The tiacher was a conscientious objector and announced his refusal to participate in the war, either in a combatant or noncombatant capacity. This refusal the court held. was sufficient to justify his' dismissal on grounds of incompetency, although it was admitted that, professionally, the teacher was well qualified, conscientious and experienced and highly esteemed in Dade county. 11Nonetheless, his conduct and attitude were inimical to the responsibilities of good citizenship, and his manifested ideals were detrimental to the minds of the students and welfare of the public school system" ___ v. North .Lit.tle Rock Special School District, 257 s. W. 73 Harr;isQli ::v. )State Boa:t>d of Education, 48 Atl. 2d 579 (N. J In this case a school principal with tenure was dismissed on charges of "conduct unbecoming a principal,11 11insubordination,11

PAGE 47

Page 6 "conduct in excess of authority," and "for lllaking unwarranted attacks upon her superiors and their professional qualifications and adniinistrative efficiency." The court upheld the dismissal, saying: It is not a question merely of bona fide criticism of and disagreement with the policies and acts of her superiors, but rather of disobedience and refusal to observe the orders and directio11s of duly constituted authority." Hopkins v. Ihhabitants of Buckspo 'rt,. 111 .Atl. 734 Reed v. Orleans Parish School Board, 21 So. 2d 895 -(La.) Horosko v. School District of Mt. Pleasant Township, 6 Atl. 2d 866 (Pa.) In this instance, a teacher who after school hours and during summer vacation acted as waitress and bartender, drank beer, shook dice, played pinball machines with customers in presence of pupils, was held to. have been justifiably dismissed on grounds of incompetency. Foreman v. School Distvict No. 25 of Columbia County, 159 Pac. 1155 (Ore.) In this case a high school teacher under contract was discharged for teaching her pupils principles of anarchy and disloyalty to their government, among other things, that the government which she and they live is Totten to the core' amd there is no God and that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God.' She sought damages for breach of contract. A rule of the State Board of Education required that teachers inculcate in their pupils both correct principles of morality and a proper regard for the laws of society, for the government under which '!;;hey live. The court held that her conduct violating this rule constituted a breach of her teaching contract, for which she could be discharged without necessity for hearing under statute permitting dismissal only for good cause shown. Matter of Mufson, 18 N. Y. State Dept. Reports 393. Board of Education of Eureka v. Jewett, Q8 Pac. 2d 404 (Cal) In this case a permanent teacher of .social studies in a junior high school was dismissed on grounds of unprofessional conduct. He had made statements to his pupils that. it was silly and foolish tosalute the American flag, that Russia had the best government in the world and that we had one 'of the worst; that Russia ah'lays paid its debts, it is this country that doesn't pay its debts, the. United States was the aggressor in every war \'le have been in He bad also made other statements of the same nature and when accused by one of his pupils of being a Communist he had not denied it. In order to obtain his teaching credentials, the teacher had subscribed to an oath to

PAGE 48

Page 7 11support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of California, and by precept and example to promote respect for the flag, and undivided allegiance to the government of the United States. The court held that his classroom behavior violated this oath and justified revocation of his credentials and his dismissal. Joyce v. Board of Education of Chicago, 60 N. E. 2e 431 (Ill.) Goldsmith v. Board of Education of Sacramento, 225 Pac. 783 (Cal.) Bump v. Union High School District, 24 Pac. 2d 330 (Ore.) On tenure questions, see: Cobb v. Howard 106 2d 960 Hofstadter and Metzger, e Development ofAcademic Freedom in the United States, pp. 463-6 The National Education Association committee on tenure and academic freedom publishes an annual report called Court Deci-. sions on Teacher Tenure which digests all cases of dismissal or disciplinary action of teachers under tenure. State ex rel. Ayers, 108 Mont 547, 92 Pac. 306 Backie v. Cromwellonsol. School Dist., 242 N. w. 369 (Minn.) This case held that where letters of appointment specifically refer to the tenure rules they become part of the contract. The same has been held where the teacher has knowledge of the rules. The Universit of Mississi i v. Deister, 76 So. 526 (Miss.) Board of Education v. Cook, 5 119 s. ) Board of Regents v. Mudge, 21 Kans. 223 (1878) Ironside v. Tead1 28 N. E. 2d. 899 This 1940 case held that when appointment was made and there were no formal rules, that the teacher was entitled to reinstatement when eight years later he was discharged without notice and hearing just prior to adoption of tenure Perhaps a landmark case on constitutional protection of academic freedom is the case of v. State, a Tennessee case of 1927 cited 289 s. W. 363. In.this case a Tennessee statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in the universities and public schools of Tennessee. Among other things, the Court said our school authorities are therefore quite free to determine how they shall act in this state of thelaw. Those in charge of the educational affairs of the state are

PAGE 49

. Page 8 men and women of discernment and culture. If they believe that the teaching of the science of biology has been so hampered by Chapter 27 of the Acts of 1925 as to render s uch an effort no longer desirable, course of study may be entirely ommitted from the curriculum of our schools. If this be regarded as a misfortune; it must be charged to the Legislature and should b e repeated that the Act of 1925 deals with but the evolution of man from a lower order of animals. The court said further that "Much has been said in argument about the motives of the Legislaturein passing this Act. But the validity of a Statute must be det. ermire d by its natural legal effect, rather than proclaimed motives." See Lochner v. New York, 198 45. v. Board of Higher Education, 18 N. Y. Supp : 2d 1016 In this 1940 case was involved the appointment of Bertram Russell as a professor of philosophy in the City. College of New. York. The appointment was challenged by a taxpayers suit. The court after finding that Bertram Russell was neither a citizen or competent under the standards or fitness. required by state law and hence on both grounds disqualified to teach, turned to the question of whether 9r not the appointment was against public policy. "In this consideration, I am completely dismissing any question of Mr. Russell's attacks upon religion but there are certain basic principles upon which this government is founded. If a teacher who is a person not of good moral cha .racter is. appointed by any authority, the appointment violates these essential prerequisites. One of .. the prerequisites of a teacher is good moral character. In fact, this is a prerequisite of appointment in civil servicein the city and state, or political subdivisions, or in the United States. It needs no argument here to defend the statement. It need not b e found in the Education Law. It is found in the nature of the teaching profession. Teachers are supposed not only to impart instruction in the classroom but by their example to tea ch the students. The taxpayers of the City of New York s p end millions to maintain the colleges of the City.of New York. They are not spending that. money nor was the money appropriated for the purpose of employing teachers who are not of good moral charact.er. However, there is ample authority in the Education Law to support this contention." The court then considered various views of Bertrar Russell-particularly on sex and marriage as expressed in his writings It concluded, "Considering Dr. Russell's principles, with reference to the Penal La\'1 of the State of New York, it appears that not only v .;ould the morals of the students be undermined, but his doctrines \'lould tend to bring them, and in some cases their parents and gu ardians, in conflict with the Penal Law, and accordingly this Court intervenes.

PAGE 50

Page 9 "The appointment of Dr. Russell is an insult to the people of the City of New York and to the thousands of teachers who were obligated upon their appointment to establish good moral character and to maintain it in order to keep their positions. Considering the instances in which immorality alone has been held to be sufficient basis for removal of a teacher and mindful of the aphorism 'As a man thinketh in his heart, so he is, 1 the court holds that the acts of the Board of Higher Education of the City of New York in appointing Dr. Rus sell to the Department of Philosophy of the City College of the City of New York, to b.e paid by public funds, is eff ect establishing a chair of indecency and in doing so has acted arbitrarily, capriciously and direct violation Of the public health, safety and morals o f tlie people and of the petitioner's rights herein, and the petitioner is entitled to an order revoking the appointment of said Russell and discharging him from his said position, and )denying to him the rights and and the powers appertaining to his appointment." A similar effort. to prevent Bertrand Rusf:lell from teaching at the University of California court hodling that plaintiff had not exhaustedadministrative remedies. This was in the case of Wall v. Board of Regents, 102 Pac. 2d 533. In the case of Meyer v-. Nebraska, 262 u s. 390, the u. s. Supreme Court said that the doctrine is thatthis liberty may not be &nterfered of protecting the publiC interest by legislative .action Which 'iS arbi trary or without reasonable reation purpose within the compet 'ency of the state to effect. fbi a had to a law prohibiting. the teaching or the German language and the 14th Amendment which states that no any person of life, liberty or proper,ty witho.ut._du,e process of law. The court said further that_ -"Determination :by tfi e :legislature of what constitutes. proper .of po;tice .. power is .not final or conclusive but.is subject supervision by courts." See Lal'lton v. St.eel ; 152 u. s. 133 : !'The Ameri c an >people have always regarded .education anda'Cquisi1aqn_-:of. knowledge as matters of supreme importance which shou-ld be diligently promoted The Ordinance. of. 1787 declares, morality, and knowledge be:l,ng necessary to good and th.e hapPiness of. mankind, schools and t}fe means -or. eeni'cat'iort shall forever be encouraged. II "Corr. espondirig to the. right. of con-trol, it is the natural. du-ty of the parent to give.his chil-dren education suitable to their station in life; and nearly all the States, incl'uding Nebraska, enforcethis obligation by compulsory la\'IS. "Practically, education of the young is 'only possible in schools by especially qualified persons who devote' themselves thereto. The calling always has been regarded as-

PAGE 51

Page 10 "' useful and honorable, essential, indeed, to the public welfare. Here knowledge of the German language cannot reasonably be :::cg;arded as harmful. Heretofore it has been commonly looked upon as helpful and desirable. Plaintiff in error taught this language in school as part of his occupation. His right thus to teach and the right of parents to engage him so to instruct their chj_ldren, \'le think, are "dthin the liberty of the Amendment. 11The challenged statute forbids the .teaching in schoc;>l of any subject in school except in English; also the teaching of any other language until the pupil has attained and successfully passed the eighth grade, which is not usually accomplished before the age of twelve. The Supreme Court of the State has held that 'the so=called ancient or dead languages' are not 'within the spirit or the purpose of the act. Evidently the legislature has.attempted materially to interfere with the calling of modern language teachers, with the opportunities of pupils to acquire knO\'Tledge, and with the power of parents to control the education of their owQ. 1 1 As the statute undertakes to interfere only with teaching which involves a modern language, leaving complete freedom as to other matters, there seems no adequate foundation for the suggestion that the purpose was to protect the child's health by limiting his mental activities. It is well known that proficiency in a foreign language seldom comes to one not instructed at an early and experience shows that this isnot injurious to the health, morals or understanding of the ordinary child fl1r. Justice Holmes dissented in this case, saying, among other things, that youth is the time when familiarity with a language is established and if there are sections in the State where a child would hear only Polish or French or German spoken at home I am not prepared to say that it is .unreasonable to provide.that in his early years he shall hear and speak only English at school. But if it is reasonable is not an undue restriction of the liberty either of teacher or scholar. No one would doubt that a teacher might be forbidden to teach many things, and the only criterion of his liberty under the Constitution that I can think of is "whether, considering the end in view, the statute passes the bounds of reason and assumes the character of a merely arbitrary fiat." v. New Hampshire, 354 U. s. 284 I With regard to subversive activities and academic free dom, see American Association of Professors Academic Freedom and Tenure -in tnf : Nat : :i,onal. Security, 42 AAUP Bulletin 49 (56),; also Brmm, Loyalty and Security, published by Yale University Press, copyright 1958, pp 120-131. See also Adler v. Board of Education, 1952 case, 2 4 2 u. s. 1185.

PAGE 52

_ Page 11 Also, Adler v. Board of Education, '1952 case, 342 u. s. 485 Communications Association v. Douds, 539 u. s. 382 United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 u.s. 75. In this case ,the court said, 11They may work for the school system upon the reasonable terms laid dmm by the proper authorities of New York. If they do not choose to work on such terms they are at liberty to retain their beliefs and associations and go elsewhere. Has the State thus deprived them .of any right to free speech or assembly? We think not. Such persons are or may be denied, under the statutes in question, the privilege of working for the school system of the State of New. York because, first, of their advocacy of the overthrow of the government by force or violence, or, sedondly, by unexplained membershipin an organization found by the school authorities, after notice and hearing, to teach and advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence, and known by such persons to have such purposes. Gitlow v. New York, 268 u.s. 652. Garner v. Los Angeles Board, 341 u.s. 716. In this case the court said: "We think that a municipal employer is not disabled because it is an agency of the State from inquuring of its employees as to matters that may prove relevant to their fitness and suitability for the public service. Past condict may well relate to present fitness; past loyalty may have a reasonable relationship to present and future trust.: Both are commonly inquired into in determining fitness for both hgh and low positions in f,rivate industry and are not less relevant in public employment. The court also said, "A teacher works in a sensitive area in a schoolroom. There he shapes the attitude of young minds to-v1ards the society in which they live. In this the state has a vital concern. It must preserve the integrity of the schools. That the school authorities have the right and the duty to screen the officials, teachers, and employees as to their. fitness to maintain the integrity of the schools as a part of ordered society, cannot be doubted. One's associates, past and present, as wellas one s conduct, may properly be con. sidered in determining fitness and loyalty. From time. im memorial, one's reputation has been.determined in_ part by the company he keeps. In the employment or of.ficials anO. teachers of the school system, the state may properly inquire into the company they and we know of no rule, constitutional or otherl'lise, that prevents the state, when determin-ing the fitness and loyalty of such persons, from considering the organizations and persons with whom they associate."

PAGE 53

Fage 12 See Pickus v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 138 N. E. 2d 532 (Ill.) The loyalty oath required by the Board of Regents of the University of California was held invalid in Tolman v. hill, 229 Pac. 2d 447, on the the oath prescribed by the California Constitution for all state officers was exclusive. Meanwhile, shortly after the imposition of the Regents' oath, the California legislature passed the Levering Act, declaring that all public employees were "civil defense workers subject to such civilian defense activities as may be assigned to them by their superiors or by the law" and requiring civil defense worker to take an oath that "I do not advocate, nor am I ar'member of any party or organization that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means," that within the past five years he has not been a member of such party or organization,. and that during his period of employment he would not so advocate or become a member of a party or organization so advocating. On appeal of the Tolman case the Supreme Court of California affirmed on the ground that the Levering act occupied the field to the exclusion of the Regents' oath.The Levering Act itself was held valid at the same time, and also held applicable to the University of California faculty. Pockman v. Leonard, 249 Pac. 2d 267 Fraser v. Regents, 249 Pac. 2d 283 In 1953 new California laws required state employees to anst.'ler questions by state agencies or legislative committees concerning past and present subversive connections and activities. These laws were held constitutional in Steinmetz v. California State Board of Education, 271 Pac. 2d 614. However, see San Francisco Board of Education v. Mass, 304 Pac. 2d 1015, a 1956 case holding that dismissal under the education code for refusal to answer questions before a legislative committee was invalid under the Slochov1er case 't'lhen done without a full hearing of the circumstances surrounding the use of the Fifth Amendment. cc: Dr. Culpepper fv1embers Board of Control

PAGE 54

PRINCIPLES AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS AND ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN COLLEGES-1940 STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE The purpose of this statement is to promote publ ,ic understanding and support of academic freedom and tenure and agreement upon procedures to assure them in colleges and universities. In stitutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to furtherthe interest of either the individual teacher1 or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition. Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the riglits of the teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It car ries with it duties correlative with rights. Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) Freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities, and (2) A suf ficient degree of economic security to make the profession attrac tive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic secu rity, hence tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institu tion in its opligations to its students and to society. Academic Freedom (a) The teacher is entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of his other acadE:mic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understan ding with the authorities of the institution. (b) The teacher is entitled to freedom in the clas$rooin in dis cussing his subject, but he should be careful not to introduce into his teaching controversial matter which has no relation to his sub ject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment. (c) The college or university teacher is a cit izen, a member of a Published annually in the Spring i ssue of the Bulletin of the American Associa tion of Professors. 1. Th e word t eal'her"' as used in this docum ent is understood to in c lud e the investig-a toi' who is attac h e d to an academic institution ithout teaching duti es. 1001

PAGE 55

ACADEMIC FREEDOM learned profession, and an officer of an educational institution. When he s peaks or writes as a citizen, he should be free from in stitutional censorship or discipline, but his special position in the community imposes special obligations. As a m a n of lea rning and an educational officer, he should remember that the public may judge his profession and his institution by his utterances. Hence he should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate re straint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that he is not an institutional spokes man. A c ademic Tenure (a) After the expiration of a probationary period teachers or in vestigators should have permanent or continuous tenure, and their services should be terminated only for adequate cause, except in the case of retirement for age, or under extraordinary circum stances because of financial exigencies. In the interpretation of this principle it is understood that the following represents acceptable academic practice: (1) The precise terms and conditions of every appointment should be stated in writing and be in the possession of both insti tution and teacher before the appointment is consummated. (2) Beginning with appointment to the rank of full-time instructor or a higher rank, the probationary period should not exceed seven years, including within this period full-time service in all in stitutions of higher education; but subject to the proviso that when, after a term of probationary service of more than three years in one or more institutions, a teacher is called to another in stitution it may be agreed in writing that his new appointment is for a probationary period of not more than four years, even though thereby the person's total probationary Pfriod in the aca demic profession is extended beyond the normal of sev en years. Notice should be given at least one year prior to the ex piration of the probationary period if the teacher is not to be con tinued in service after the expiration of that period. (3) During the probationary period a teacher should have the academic freedom that all other members of the faculty have. (4) Termination for cause of a continuous appointment, or the dismissal for cause of a teacher to the expiration of a term appointment, should, if possible, be considered by both a fac ulty committee and the governing board of the institution. In all cases where the facts are in dispute, the accused teacher should be informed before the hearing in of the charges against him and should have the opportunity to be heard in his own de fense by all bodies that pass judgment upon his case. He should be permitted to have with him an adviser of his own choosing who 1002

PAGE 56

PRINCIPLES may act as counsel. There should be a full stenographic record of the hearing available to the parties concerned. In the hearing of charges of incompetence the testimony should include that of teachers and other scholars, either from his own or from other in stitutions. Teachers on continuous appointment who are dis missed for reasons not involving moral turpitude should receive their salaries for at least a year from the date of notification of dismissal whether or not they are continued in their duties at the institution. (5) Termination of a continuous appointment because of finan cial exigency should be demonstrably bona fide. Note The first A. A. U. P. statement of the principles or" academic freedom was formulated in 1915, shortly after formation of the Association. This state ment, known as the 1915 Declaration of Principles, is reprinted in 34 A. A. U. P. Bull. 141 (1948). In 1925 a conference called by the American Council on Education prepared a restatement of the principles in shorter form. Known as the 1925 Conference Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure, these principles were endorsed by the Association of American Col leges in 1925 and by the A. A. U. P in 1926. The text is reprinted each year, for its historical value, in the Spring issue of the A. A. U. P. Bulletin. See, e.g., 42 A. A. U. P. Bull. 44 (1956). The 1940 statement, reprinted above, was formulated in a series of joint conferences of the A A. U. P. and the Association of American Colleges. It has been officially endorsed also by the American Library Association (1946); Association of American Law Schools (1946); American Political Science Association (1947); American As sociation of Colleges for Teacher Education (1950); Association for Higher Education, National Education Association (1950); American Philosophical Association, Western Division (1952) and Eastern Division (1953); and Southern for Philosophy and PsychQlogy (1953). AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION -ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND ACADEMIC RESPONSIBILITY Published by A. C. L. U., 170 Fifth Ave., N. Y C., April1952, revised February 1956, pp, 5..:16 ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND ACADEMIC RE. SPONSIBILITY Academic freedom and responsibility are here defined as the liberty and obligation to study, to investigate, to present and interpret, and to discuss facts and ideas concerning man, human I society, and the physical and biological world in all branches and \ fields of learning. They imply no limitations other than those i l_!!J208_!_d art; sc4oiarship, and science. TneyTncludethe 'nghtwithin and institutions oflearning tobeTreetrcrm any speciaTI1 mlta tions of in vestiga----------------------..... -.. 1003

PAGE 57

ACADE.l\IIC FREEDOM As citizens, students and teachers nave the rights accorded to all citizens Outside the academic scene the teacher has no less freedom than other citize .ns. He is not required because of his profession to maintain a timorous silence as a price of professional status. On the contrary his greater knowledge imposes upon him the two fold duty of advancing new and useful ideas and of helping to bury ideas which are outworn. However, since the public may judge his profession and his institution by his utterances, he should make every effort to maintain high professional excellence and at the same time to indicate that he does not speak for the institu tion which employs him When he speaks or writes as an individual he should be free from both institutional and public censorship or discipline. A time of crisis puts pressure on the schools to accept and incul cate current official interpretations of human behavior. Yet it is precisely in time of crisis that it is valuable democratic strategy to encourage the presentation of contrasting viewpoints and to cause students to realize that they are free to draw such conclu sions as they think wise. As a member of an academic community and particularly as a teacher, the faculty member is free to present in the field of his professional competence his own opin ions or convictions and with them the premises from which they are derived. It is his duty, on the other hand, not to advocate any opinions or convictions derived from a source other than his own free and unbiased pursuit of truth and understanding. Com mitments of any kind which interfere with such pursuit are incompatible with the objectives of academic freedom. To the extent that activities of Communists or others represent violations of law the violators should be vigorously prosecuted. When we attempt to prevent divergent thought, however, we neither strengthen democracy nor weaken its enemies. Anti-democratic groups can readily obtain a strong hold upon a society stricken with a fear of ideas Unless we as a people give new enthusiasm and support to traditional American democratic principles and practices, we are in grave danger of being victim ized by such groups. The concept of academic freedom, like the concepts of most of our other freedoms, never remains static. It is continually rein terpreted in the light of changing events and conditions. Of recent years it has been extended in two notable and important directions. 1 It was held until about twenty-five years ago that academic freedom related chiefly to colleges and universities. Now, with increased awareness of the vital significance of each stage in the 1004

PAGE 58

PRINCIPLES whole educational process, we realize that all educational institu tions must be assured of reasonable freedom. 2. It was earlier held that academic freedom concerned only the interests of teachers and that it only incidentally touched upon interests of students. Now we recognize that the indispensable basis of this liberty is freedom of inquiry and discussion within the whole institution and we realize that the distinction between teacher-freedom and student-freedom is artificial and should be discarded. It is to the interest of the public as a whole that this freedom be maintained for both students and teachers. Our further discussion of academic freedom and responsibility falls into three sections. These restate ACLU interpretations of what academic freedom and responsibility mean (1) for stu dents, (2) for teachers, and (3) for ad ministrators and the commu nity. THE MEANING OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND ACADEMIC RESPONSI BILITY FOR STUDENTS Educational institutions afford the nation's youth opportunities to develop into enlightened democratic citizens. Courses give students theoretical acquaintance with democratic processes. But learning becomes successful education only when theory finds reinforcement in practice. Both in their classes and through extracurricular functions (including extramural activities) facul ties should encourage such activities as will provide democratic experiences. The democratic way of life depends for its very existence upon the free contest of ideas. This is as true on the campus as in the community at large. If our students are to grow to political and social maturity, no step should be neglected which will habituate them to the free interchange of ideas-unpopular and strange ideas as well as those which are favored and familiar. These primary considerations demonstrate the need for main taining in extracurricular activities a system analogous, so far as practicable, to the rights of free speech and assembly enjoyed by the community at large. This system should begin to operate in the early grades in matters consonant with the intellectual and general maturity level of the students and gradually broad e n as high school years are reached. Failure of an educational institu tion to maintain this principle not only thwarts student development but causes positive loss to the community in other w ays. With anti-democratic forces rampant in the world, the dang e r of repressive policies regarding student activities becomes appar e nt Some students of educational institutions which rigidly supervise expression may come to regard suppression of free spe ech a s normal and possibly even desirable Others may come to feel that 1005

PAGE 59

established institutions are inimical to the public interest rather than designed to serve it. The principles set forth in detail below are offered as guides to democratic organization and functioning in the extracurricular and extramural activities of a student body and in the relations between admini$trative authorities and the student body as a whole. They also apply to the relations between a general student organization (where one exists) and the rest of the student body. Specific recommendations are arranged, as nearly as possible, under the principles to which they correspond. 1. A democracy encourages to the highest degree possible the participation of the governed in the governing process a. Right of Petition: Students should have the right to petition school administrators for changes in curriculum, faculty, and school regulations. b. Due Process : No student should be disciplined either by suspension, by notation in his permanent record, or by expulsion, without a prompt hearing at which he is presented with the evi dence against him and given the opportunity to answer accusa tions. c. Student-Faculty Committee: The regulation of extracurricular activities should be the function of a joint faculty-student com mittee, to which student members should be elected by the student body itself. If a provision of the charter or other basic code of the institution vests such regulation in a dean or other administrative officer, or in the faculty or other body to which students may not be admitted, then the faculty-student commit tee should act in an advisory capacity, with the presumption that its advice will be followed. Such a faculty-student committee, whether acting in an independent or in an advisory capacity,., should be concerned with the formulation and interpretation of all rules and regulations governing extracurricular activities. It should also sit as a judicial committee in all cases involving offenses in the field of extracurricular activities of such gravity as to entail a student's possible suspension or dismissal. In cases involving disciplinary action other than suspension or dismissal in connec tion with extracurricular activities, an appeal to this committee should be permitted. d. General Student Elections: In the election of the officers of, and representatives to, the general student organization, the electorate should include the entire student body, or entire classes of other major divisions of that body, and sho uld not defined in terms of membership in clubs or organizations. The election 1006

PAGE 60

PRINCIPLES of all student officers, committees, and boards should rest solely upon the students themselves, and it should not be subject to administrative or faculty approval. There should, of course, be the provision that academic authorities may properly set up a uniform system of academic eligibility requirements for the hold ing of major student offices. 2. A democratic government functions according to clearly defined and well-publicized laws act.ivi bes snotillHre -cteaily and7ulfy formulated to cover the mstttu and student activities. Realistic and practical definitions be used in place of such general criteria as 'conduct unbecoming a student" or "against the best interests of an institution." Regulations should be formulated jolnHy 6iadministr. ators, faculty; and student representatives, and snould be made public to the whole academic community. Any changes in code should be promptly publicized. When sim or interpretation is needed, the matter should, as indicated above, be referred to the faculty-student committee. ------w3. The democratic way of life neither fears nor avoids competition in the marketplace of ideas. Its health depends upon the encouragement of such competition a. Freedom of Student Association: Students should be free to organize associations for political, social, athletic, and other proper and lawful purposes. The fact of affiliation with any extramural association should not in itself bar a group from recognition on the campus. Any group which plans political action or discussion, of whatever purpose or complexion and whether or not affiliated with a particular legal party, should be allowed to organize and be recognized in any educational institution. The administration should not discriminate against a student because of membership in any such organization. b. Statement of A.tfiliation: All student organizations should in their charters define as clearly as possible their nature and pur pose. Any studEin. t organization having an extramural affiliation should make clear the nature of this affiliation. If after due study and consideration the faculty-student committee concludes that the organization concealed, misrepresented or otherwise failed to make clear its purpose or affiliation, such finding may properly be continuously published to the educational institution at large. Experience has shown that this is the most appropriate form of 1007 I i I

PAGE 61

AC.illElUC FREEDOM discipline for such cases, and that it is far more effective from the educational standpoint than withdrawal of recogniti o n sus pen s ion, or other disciplinary action. The emphasizing of the "publication" procedure in no sense implies a condoning or justifi cation of concealment or misrepresentation. c. Guest Speakers: Student organizations should be as free a s any other responsible group of citizens to invite speakers to address them on any subject. We Americans should never be afraid of ideas. Citizens and especially students should have the right to hear persons who are in the forefront of controversy even though they are under suspension or indictment, at liberty pend ing appeal, or free after serving sentence. 4. A democracy combats possible abuses not by a system of p recensorship but by definite fixing of respon sibility for such abuses and the application of disciplinary measures when necessary a. Chartering of Student Organizations: In order that the scope of activities of a student organization may be clearly defined, each organization applying for campus recognition (where recognition is required) should be obliged to submit a constitution or other statement setting forth its proposed purposes and modes of activ. ity. A student organization should be granted recognition unless the provisions of its constitution contravene the standards sug gested in Section 3 above. For administrative purposes each organization should be required to file and keep current a list of its officers, but it should not be required to file a list of its members. b. Organization Use of School Facilities: The use of rooms and other facilities should be made available, as far as their primary use for instructional purposes permits, to recognized student organizations acting within the provisions of their constitutions. Bulletin boards should be provided for the use of student organ izations, and school-wide circulation of all notices and leaflets which come within the constitutional purposes of the organization concerned should be permitted. Objections to the content of a poster or piece of literature should not be misrepresented as efforts to safeguard school property against defacement or litter ing. c. Organization Use of School Name: A student organization should be permitted to use the name of the school as part of its own name (e.g., "The Northfield College Sociology Club" or "The Student Government Association of Smithfield High School"), and to use this name in all activities consistent with its constitution. Restrictions may fairly be placed on the use of the school name 1008

PAGE 62

ACADE .mC FREEDOM THE 'MEANI N G OF FREEDOl\1 AND ACADEMIC RES PO NSIBILITY FOR TEACHERS Academic freedom and responsibility of teachers embraces two dis tin c t a r e as : (1) the conduct of a teacher apart from specifically profess ional r es ponsibilities and (2) his conduct in teaching and oth e r a ctiv ities directly related to professional responsibilities An examination of the following principles reveals that the ACLU aligns itself with those adopted by the American Association of University Professors in 19'47 and reaffirmed in 1950. 1. Wh e n not engag e d in spec i fi c ally profess i onal act i v i ties, th e teacher should be able to functi on with the freedom of any othe r citi z en a Fre e dom of Assoc i ation: In his private capacity the teac her should be as free as any other citizen to participate in political, religious, and social movements and organizations and in any other lawful activity, and to hold and to express publicly his polit ical, religious, economic, and other views. The fact of his being a teacher should not debar him from any activities open to other citizens b. Freedom of E x pression: The teacher should be as free as any other citizen to write on any subject which interests him. In the field of his professional competence he should speak and write mindful of the special responsibilities that professional standards impose. When acting as a private citizen, he should make it clear that he speaks, writes, and acts for himself and not for his institu tion. He should, however, be free to use his academic title for purposes of identification. c. Freedom to Organize: Like any other professional or non professional worker, the teacher should be free to organize with others to protect group interests, or to join existing unions or other organizations for such purposes. Any attempt on the part of an administration or other agency to prevent the establishment of such an organization, or to hamper its activities, or to discriminate against its members, is a serious infringement on the free dom of teachers. d Oaths : Teachers should not be required to take any special oath of loyalty to the government. We object to the irrelevance and futility of such special oaths and to their use as thought control devices. No one should be subjected, as a condition of holding a teaching position, to any test of religious belief or of political belief other than his pledge to support the Constitution of his state and of the United States. A test oath is the first step toward tyranny 1010 [ Emerso n]

PAGE 63

PRINCIPLES in extramural activities (such as participation in public demonstra tions or parades), but any such restrictions should be applied with out discrimination to all student organizations. They should also form part of the written rules and regulations referred to in Section 2 above. ; d. Advisers for Organizations: Student organizations should select their own faculty advisers. No student group should be forbidden to function because of the lack of a faculty adviser. If no other faculty member is available, an administrative officer should serve as adviser. In no case should the advisers dominate the activities of a student group. e. Publication: Students should be permitted to publish such newspapers or magazines as they wish, subject to the provisions for the recognition of student organizations suggested in subdivi sion (a) of this section. No censorship in advance should be exercised over the contents of any publication. If a student editor should abuse the prerogatives of his position in the publication of material, or if he should fail to live up to his editorial responsibili ties, disciplinary action should be taken, with due regard for the proper safeguards stated in l(b) above. Where there is a news paper monopoly, adequate representation of minority viewpoints should be assured. Students should be permitted to sell publica tions that they produce. Humorous periodicals produced by stu dents are ordinarily sold on school premises, and similar privileges should be accorded political publications. No distinction should be made between local publications and intercollegiate publica tions with local campus sponsorship. f. Student Controls Over Student Organizations: Any control exercised by the general student organization over other student organizations should be subjected to scrutiny to the end that the rights of all student groups may be protected, even those espous ing unpopular opinions. 5. Students should have the full rights and resp_onsibilities of all citizens of a similar age a. Qtf-Campus Activities: No college or university administra tor should attempt to control the off-campus behavior of individual students in regard to their political, social, and economic activities. (See also 4(c) above). b. Penalties: No student should be penalized for exercising his rights as a citizen, even when this involves criticism of the school administration. 1009

PAGE 64

PRINCIPLES 2. The criteria of performance for a teacher sl>auld be those associated with personal and professional integrity in a democratic society a. Professional Independence: The basic question in this regard is whether the schools and colleges of a democracy should be independent institutions guided by professional standards of learning and teaching and scholarship, or whether they should be instruments of current national policy or of other special interests. The ACLU takes the position that the educational system in a democracy should be independent of government policy or that of any other special interest and free to carry out its own high est standards. b. Criteria of Appointment and Tenure: A teacher should be appointed on the basis of his teaching ability and his competence in his professional field, not on the basis of his race, nationality, creed, religious or political belief or affiliation; a proper exception exists in the right of a private institution of publicly declared faith, denomination or special function to select teachers on a basis harmonious with its public declaration. Continuation of appointment and the granting of continuing tenure should depend upon a teacher's performance as a teacher. None of the factors excluded from entering into appointment should influence con tinuation of appointment. As a classroom teacher, the teacher should seek to promote an atmosphere of free and earnest inquiry. This should include dis cussion of controversial issues without the assumption that they are settled in advance or that there is only one 11right" answer in matters of dispute. Studying a philosophy or a social theory for the purpose of approving or denouncing it is not studying it with an open mind. Such discussion should include presentation of divergent opinions and doctrines, past and present, on a given subject. The teacher's own judgment forms a part of this mate rial. If his judgment is clearly stated, his students are better able to appraise it and differ from it on the basis of other materials and views placed at their disposal than they would be if he were to attempt to conceal his bias by a claim to 110bjective" scholar ship. No set procedures for conduct of a class or for use of materials can guarantee the teacher's own integrity or take its place. c. Rela tionship of a Teacher's Views and Associations to his Teaching Position The central issue, in considering a teacher's fitness, is his own performance in his subject and his relationship with his students. The ACL U opposes as contrary to demo cratic liberties any ban or regulation which would prohibit the employment as a teacher of any person solely because of his views or associations, such as Communist or Fascist. 10ll

PAGE 65

ACADEMIC FREEDOM The ACL U does not oppose the ouster of any teacher found lacking in professional integrity. It will not defend a teacher duly discharged after proof that he has misused his position to pervert the academic process. On the other hand, in the absence of substantial evidence of per version of the academic process, the ACL U opposes the prohibi tion in educational employment of any person based even in part on his views or associations, such as Communist or Fascist. Even though a teacher may be linked with religious dogmatists or polit ical authoritarians, the ACL U believes that he must nevertheless be appraised as an individual. In advocating the principle of not imposing any tests on the beliefs or associations of teachers in public institutions the ACL U has been challenged by those who contend that a demo cratic society can not tolerate in its public schools teachers with anti-democratic beliefs or associations. The contention would be defensible if we could secure common agreement on w,hat we mean by democratic and anti-democratic If we accept the views of dominant forces current at any one time or place there will be no end to the tests imposed on the fit ness of teachers If Communists are the main target today, as anarchists, socialists and the I. W. W. were a generation ago there will be some other main target tomorrow. What we do today to outlaw from teaching members of presently detested organizations creates the precedents by which all freedom of teaching can be destroyed. The ACL U stands on the principle that it is far better for our democracy to run the calculated risks of establishir,tg freedom than to suffer the already proved dangers of repres sion. Believing that an individualized judgment (as against gener ized condemnation) is a basic democratic value, the ACLU urges the necessity for appraising the work of the individual teacher. The recent drives to discover Communist teachers illus trate the dangers of proceeding without specific charges that relate to a person's own conduct In point of fact few Commu nists have been found in the nation's schools and colleges. But campaigns to expel Communists from educational posts have rarely stopped at their first objective; they have instead resulted in attacks upon persons who merely hold unpopular opinions. As a consequence, teachers everywhere have been made less coura geous and less independent in the pursuit of truth, more cautious and more subservient. The harm done by a few teachers who might be undetected in misusing their teaching positions for political or religious ends, is far less than the harm thatis done by making all teachers less re sponsible and less courageous. The political or religious screening 1012

PAGE 66

PRINCIPLES of all teachers is far more dangerous to education than the pres ence of the occasional teacher who is misusing his profession. In telligent, qualified persons are discouraged from going into the teaching profession by the knowledge that they may be dismissed for nonconformity. The ACLU will intervene in appropriate cases involving the discharge of a teacher when action is taken by administrative of ficials without a prior unfavorable judgment by the teacher's colleagues based on professional incompetence, immoral conduct, or perversion of academic process. d. Questioning of Teachers: Where there is substantial evidence of perversion of the academic process, but only then, a committee of colleagues may in an academic hearing inquire into the beliefs and associations of a teacher, to the extent that they may be rele vant to the asserted unprofessional conduct. The refusal of a teacher to answer questions put by a legislative committee does not in itself constitute substantial evidence of per version of the academic process. The ACLU does not question the right-many would say the obligation-of teachers to investigate charges of incompetence or perversion of the academic process made against one of their colleagues, whenever and however these may come into issue. But the Union does not believe that any such issue may be said to arise by reason of the refusal of a teach er to answer questions put by a legislative committee, however ad visable or inadvisable such refusal may be for legal or other rea sons. A teacher asked about another teacher's views and associations should distinguish among the decisions to be made. He may be re quired to decide in terms of his legal position as a witness, and on this point he should seek legal advice. He may wish to decide by reference to his personal moral code and conscience. He must de cide in terms of academic freedom because he is a teacher. The ACLU position is this: questions about another teacher's views or associations are always to be considered improper because they im mediately subvert that sense of freedom which is the life center of the academic process. e. Campus Relations With Students Outside the Classroom : The same standards of professional conduct which govern the teach e r in the classroom should be observed by him elsewhere on the campus. f. Freedom of Research: As a scholar and research worker, the teacher should be free to pursue truth in whatever form best ex presses his convictions. 1013

PAGE 67

AC.illE.'4IC FREEDOM THE OF FREEDOM .-L.'m ACADEMIC l tESPOl\S IBILITY FOR ADMINISTRATORS FOR THE COIDIUNITY Student s and teachers are the c.entei of any educational institu tion. Academic freedom and responsibility therefore serve and benefit the community to the extent that they are regarded as the right and obligation of students and teachers. It is the duty of administrators to provide the atmosphere in which academic freedom will flourish. Let us look at what academic freedom and academic responsibil ity should mean to administrators and to the community in terms of the relationships (1) between the community and the educational institution, (2) between the administrator and the community, and (3) between the administrator and students and teachers. 1. The Community has the right to demand that the educa tional institution shall be competently staffed and capably administered a. Control of Curriculum: Matters of curriculum properly are the responsibility of the professional staff who are under obliga tion to be guided by high professional standards of scholarship and of teaching methods and by full awareness of the community's educational needs. The community has the right to expect that its youth will be made aware of the common principles underlying our general culture and civilization. It has neither the right to, nor indeed any social justification for, insistence that a discussion of deviations from accepted principles be excluded from the cur riculum. It may properly insist that teachers do not present deviant ideas in such a manner as to imply that they are generally ac cepted. b. Personal Conduct of Teachers: The community may properly expect of its teachers a standard of personal conduct comparable to that required of ather responsible professional members of the c ommunity and a standard of public conduct harmonious with the teacher's position. The teacher must not be deemed to have sacri, ficed any of his rights as a private citizen. He should be as free as any other person to participate in his private capacity in politi cal and social movements and in any other lawful activity and to hold and to express publicly his political, economic, religious and other views. c. Sepa ration of Church and State: Parents and citizens gener ally have a right to expect that in the public schools and colleges there will be no effort by the staff to offer instruction or to institute ritualistic or dramatic presentations of a sectarian nature. The United States Supreme Court has reaffirmed that in the pub1014

PAGE 68

PRINCIPLES lie schools as elsewhere in our governmental life then. must be a Hwall of separation" between the churches and governmental agencies. Parents also have a right to anticipate that, when it is contrary to their religious convictions, their children will not be obliged to receive military education or to render flag salutes. It is of course equally valid that such parents should have no right to interfere with the requirement of such practices upon the part of other children. d. Curriculum Content by Legislation: The ACL U looks with apprehension upon the practice of determining curriculum content by means of legislative statute. The ACLU feels that this opens up an avenue for powerful groups to impose their educational ideas upon an unsuspecting community. 2. The administrator should serve and not dominate a school system or college a. Creation of an Atmosphere of Freedom: Administrators are often tempted to regard themselves as something .more than facil itators of the study and teaching functions of their schools. Op portunism and considerations of expediency exert pressures upon them to restrict the areas of free investigation, discussion, and creation permissible to students and teachers. Our schools develop as mediums of growth and opportunity to the extent that ad ministrators are able to resist the temptation to seek safety or prestige by emphasis upon their function as leaders. b. Liaison Functions: Administrators, whether public or pri vate, see themselves properly in: two principal perspectives. On the one hand, the community entrusts them with the task of representing reasonable and legitimate community objectives in the administration of the schools. When special pressures bear heav ily upon them, they can perform their proper role only by with standing such pressures in the interests of broad and continuing community obligations. On the other hand, the community en trusts administrators with the task of serving as a liaison between itself and the desirable ferment to be found in a healthy body of students and teachers. In other words, the administrator should understand quite sympathetically and broadly the reasonable and legitimate objectives of both community and student-teacher body, and he should attempt as well as he can to facilitate the long-term aims of both. When there is a necessary choice, the freedom and responsibility of students and teachers should always hme priority. c. R e sistanc e to Pressure : The administrator should r es ist the e !forts of pressure groups which seek to eliminate experimental 1015

PAGE 69

FREEDOM curriculums, or which seek to influence the curriculums in a par ticular direction against the advice of the professional staff.

PAGE 70

JACKSONVILLE UNIVBUI'l'Y Jaekaonville, 1962 8tat:c&nt: by the of Jacksonville Ulliftnity ftaDldyn A. Jnhnaon ... I fully ))oth pencaa11y 8D4 pzofeaaioDally, the atat.ent of t:be PacultyDd A
PAGE 71

RESOLUTION PROPOSED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA SENATE November 14, 1962 need for excellence in our universities is obvious. Since recent events, the startling suspension of Dr. Sheldop Grebstein, have brought into ques-tion the capacity of the Florida to meet this need, the Senate of the University of South Florida expresses its convictions as follows: We condemn the infringement of the rights of faculty members to think and act as responsible professional men and women. We condemn violation of the essential right of every man to .. those who accuse him of being professionally and morally incompetent or corrupt. It is remarkable that the rights so long cherished by this nation should be so irresponsibly ignored. We reject as and improper the imposition by the Roard of Control, without any prior consultation with the faculties concerned, ot a policy regulating the internal affairs of the uniyersities. The hazy and subjective phrasing of the document "Implementations of Recommendations .. September 14, 1962" appears on the one hand an invitatLon to those motivated by prejudice, local ambition, or the hope of private gain, to interfere with the progress of responsible higher education in the state, and on the other hand an indirect, grotesque comment that a university staff must be continually scrutinized for sinister behavior and treasonable desires. We can only assume that the intention of the Board's statement was neither to provoke obscurely motivated attacks, nor to deny the responsibility of faculties in matters of academic programs. We deplore the already serious and possibly irreparable decline both in effective teaching and in faculty morale caused by this infringement, violation, and imposition. The present atmosphere promotes indifference and ineptitude rather than enthusiasm and skill; it encourages the acceptance of the mediocre rather than the expectation of excellence; it directs imaginative energies toward letters of application elsewhere rather than toward inventiveness in teaching here. The difficulties of recruiting new staff members who meet our established high standards, as well as of retaining those presently here, are increasing. We believe that the high purposes and proven compet ence that created the University of South Florida can be sustained only by immediate, precise, and straightforward attention to these matters. We expect to receive from the Board of Control, in addition to its general direction of the university system, an authoritative and skillful defense against the hasty gestures of ignorance and malice, politics and caprice. In turn, the universities can continue to work in teaching and research toward our high aspirations for an intellectual environment in Florida. We applaud the proposal that members of the Board of Control caalt with representatives of the several universities to establish principles and procedures that will prevent further disorder. We hope that the Board of Control, together with the administrative officers and teaching faculties of the state universities, will formulate an honest, clear, and just policy statement that will preclude the retrogression of higher education in Florida.

PAGE 72

I ; I December 13, 1963 !0: Mr. John W. Egerton SUJ.JICT: AAJ1I Jleport on l.eatpations. At its last attn the University of South Florida Chapter of AAUr voted to accept tbe nclosed report and to send it to adllinhtrative officers in th hope that it may be of interest and use. Incl. BCC: lv

PAGE 73

,;.. A U.'PO'I.T PAOOLft Aim US I BILIUES DaMJDber 4, 1963 The central purpose of this project has been to determine the positive and neg tive factors which have affected the morale of USP faculty and staff during the last two yearso lesearcb into thesa factors has been conducted with the hope that rec ndatious can be ade for the improvement of interpersonal relations at VSI' with resulting benefits to administrative personnel. faculty and students. METQOP gr St&ff bars 1 aving the employ of usw were either interviewed personally or a ked to c:cmplet an questionnaire and return it by mailo A c opy of the int rview guid :f.s appe d d t o this r p o r t Tho interviewer a sked t e rs t o cxpla n his likes and disl i k s at VSFo twenty-five individuals provided the imformation which is suumarized in this report. of the da t was collected by personal interviews; hawevar, same of the individUals had to be reaeh d by mail o ..... After the d t& ere collect d each response was listed and th n the Com=ittee classified the responses i to thirt en different categories. ot was made as to whether the response indic ted a positive or n sativa faalina and t were cla'lstfied as "Likes" or "Dislikes." l'Utther data were collGcted on the factors in tha new location which caused the individual o daei to leave Table I shows e summary of th data s clasaifi d into cataories. Th data ar di ided into two main categories, academic and noo-academico Academic factors include stat ute rea rdins curriculum, committee work, classroom facilities. etco, while non factors involve fringe benefits, social fuuctiocs on campus, preeti e of faculty, etco The follawing trends are indicated in this data: lo With r to policies affecting facultyadminietrative relations0 there w re about a many i dividuals who liked the policies as disliked them when applied to academic factorso The jor complaints relating to policy are in the area of non-academic matterso Pift en individualo voiced nineteen complaints in the area of faculty-adm!nistrativ policto a affectina non cademic ttere in ths Univeraity. lxamples of this kind of camplaint are: re is a ear less us of the word 'academic.' People who are traditionally non-academic are included as part of the 1\cademic staff of the University." ''The faculty is treated es hir d help .. 'It-11th the All-Univ rsity approach wer\1 all on the cne team, but only one group ( faculty) which suffers from the 2o Sam. dissatisfaction was also expressed wi t h th personal relations with admin istration ori matt rs of a non-academic nature. Nine individuals dislikes in this areao

PAGE 74

,. USP AAUP Coamf.t t Report ra 2 Examples of these are: "Judgment by hearsay and rumor on the part of the "the administration is unwilling to clU'ify my status" "I feel that the cleans do not appreciate me" 3. Faculty and staff members leavtna USP are favorably reactive to the geographic location of the University and ere generally pleased with community factors. ''1 like th$ Plorida sunshine" "I like beiaa close to beaches" ''1 have t sCIIIIB fine people in Tampa Bay area" I 4. In the area of general pe.raonal relations with indivUJuala at the Univera:i.ty (nan-adalniatrative), these individuals are aeaerally pleaaed with persoaal relatiODB on tters ot an acadamic naturao a coaaiclerable number of individuals (10 of tha 25) disliked th relatiooships on matters of a noo-acadaaic nature. l.ulllp lea of theae are: "I have found DO sti11Ulaticm in association with colleapes here" ''There has 'been a creat deal of suspiciaa among faC\Ilty llle'lllbe:-s in oui' department" '"there b,aa been lack of te spirit" S. Another area of diasatisfactiQQ seems to be in ralati03ahipa with state and local While no positive remarks were 111lde in this cateaory. fourteen negative c ts were made in both &cademic and ncn-academlc areaa. Examples of these are: ''I have really only one major complaint and that is that the top admin1.8trators have surrendered themselves to outside pressures" ''USr is painfully wluerable to political presaures and to irrelevant group pressures" ''tt made me sick to see unmitigated, unwarr$lted attacks (on the University) from without"

PAGE 75

USF AAI1P Coamit t Repor t Page 3 6. ThrouJhout the responses, there were definite indications that theae faculty m&mbers feel that many of .our students are highly motivated and hold promise for educational growth. lxaaples of theee respcmaes are; like my student especially the upper division stuclenta who h89e shown uuusual talent"' of the students are very aoocl" "fo r tha most part. students here ar highly motivated to learn" 7. It appears that lack of resources scholarly developmeat is a factor which concened those vho left the University. Insufficient library boldin8s, inadequate research facilities and heavy teaching loads were noted as deterients to scholarly arowth. kamples of respons.es in this cateaor. y ue: "We have itm inadequate research ''OQr library faciU.ties ue poor" "I'm teachiq o 'many hours that I don't have tt. for reaeucb" '8. An analysis of the factors which individuals find attractive their oew positions Jevealed the followins kinds of responses: (1) the lan poaitiOil offers greater perscmal prestiae and respoiasibility. Bleven this. lxamplee in category are1 ''I fHl that 1 will have more prestige in my new positiCMl than 1 have here" '"Zbe responsibilities of my new position are more challellaing" (2) !be new offers greater resources for scholarly arowth. Examples in this are: "!bey have better library facilities" ''t'll have more tiM off for research" J. (3) Other factors mentioned less. frequently (mentioned by at least six individual&) were: A. Anticipation of better administrative policies. B. Bigher e=onoadc status. c. Improved cGaDUnity relations anci pograpbic

PAGE 76

US!? AAUP Cem:nittes eport p g 4 9. The individuals were aot.ed to rote their new salary in comparison with their USF saluy. The following ratings were made: Ccmsiderably above usr salary: 10 Above UW salary: 11 Same aa USF salary: 3 elow USF salary: 1 .......... !HI S fe 1 that it is their respcuaibility to in menner the r sults of these interviews o We h4ve done this and therefore submit tha report w ith confidence that the findings reflct the feelings of thole who left tbe University of South lorida. Beapectfully submitted, Paul Giveus11 Chairman David Battenfeld Gordon Brunhild William Garrett Donald Harkness Jtromas Stovall

PAGE 77

A SUlDDl8t'y of Likes and Dislikes Expressed by Staff hers Leaving USP from Sept ber, 1961 to July, 1963: N = 25* .. us:r DW LOCALB : LIDS. DISLUIS LUIS ... ---ACADIMlC FAC'lORS. l R ... I Responses Indiv. Indiv. ... Individuals 1. Academic freedom 0' 0 2 2 2 2 2. Bconcmic status 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Fringe benefits 1 1 0 0 2 2 4. acultj-Administration 1 tiona-ersonal 0 0 s 4 1 l s. acu ltyAdDdnistration lationsfolicy 12 6 14 8 1 1 6 State, local government 0 0 7 7 0 0 1 -Professional standards of dvancement 1 1 2 1 9 7 8 Personal and responsibilitY. 1 1 2 2 13 11 9.., CCIIIIlUllity factors, geography 0 0 0 0 0 0 10. rsooal relations 11 10 1 1 0 0 11 .. Scholarly resources 6 5 13 8 11 8 12. Relationships w/students 7 7 1 1 0 0 13. Miscellaneous 6 5 8 4 4 4 I ACADIIIIC PAC'lOIS Academic freedom o 0 2 1 2 2 2. lconcalc status 3 3 5 4 7 7 3. l'rinp bela 0 0 0 0 2 2 4o raculty-Administration 3 2 17 9 0 0 s. Faculty-Administration Rclatioaslolicy 3 2 19 15 6 s 6. State, local gcwernment 0 0 7 6 1 1 7. Professional standards of advancement 0 0 0 0 4 4 Personal prestige and responsibility 1 1 8 s 0 0 9. Community factors, geography 12 11 6 s 7 6 10. Personal relations s s 11 10 3 2 11!' Scholarly resources 0 0 0 0 3 2 12. Relationships w/students 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous s s 3 3 1 1 I '1'be data of this table have been aualy&ed in tenas of both frequency of reepoase and nuaaber of d&fferent individuals giving responses in each category; e.g., category 5 under academic factors, indicates that 6 different individuals gave 12 responses expressing a "like" for facualtyadmin istrative

PAGE 78

l -APPimDIX 1 Interview ide !lama. llank or Position-. ________ Academic Area < Division) Specific Discipline -----Date of appoina.Dt to VB staff-----------------------Title of new position----------------------------Location of ncaw position Title of position held before coming to USP ___________________ Location of a bove position --------------------------Bow lona employed in pravious positt. c ared to USF positiou, the talar, of your nw poattioa 1: cooaiderably above 1JSI' salary UD salary ..... aa usr salary usr salary 1 t are the. upecta of new position which have attractecl to itt 2. What are the tbtnaa you lib ana dislike about um 3. What ere the major factors w'hH:b caused you to maka your decisioa to leav UBI. We'd like yau to discuss these in order of their importance to you. 4. Wouid you return to USPf

PAGE 80

Soma six months ago, on May 17, it disclosed in the press around Tampa Bay that the State Legislative Investigating Committee headed by Senator Charley Johns was in the midst of a broad-scale investigation of the University of South Florida. In the tieeke that followed, these additional facts were made public: 1. !he investigation had been in progress for more than a month, without the of the Uaiversity administration. 2. It had been initiated by complaints of private citizens to the Johns Committee. 3. It concerned allegations that some members of the faculty ware (a) soft on communism, (b) homosexual, ( c) anti-religious and (d) obscene teaching materials. In the white heat of the public eye, the committee continued its investigat ion until June 7-. At that time, Senator Johns said in a public statement that all testimony, when compiled, would be turned over to the Board of Control and "it would not be proper, under the committee's agreement with the board, for the committee to comment specifically on its findings before the Board of Control had the opportunity to act." Two and a half months later, on August 24, the 53-page report of the Johns Committee appeared in the press, on same day copies of it were distri' buted to the Board of Control. Copies were received three days later by the University in an envelope marked strictly None of the allegations which led to the investigation was in the committee report. The committee found no communists or communist sympathiz$rs on the USF faculty. The committee alluded to three possible homosexdals on the University payroll. but gave no proof to support their suspicions. The committee objected to several books being used, but said none of them could be found

PAGE 81

Page 2 or pornographi c in any court of law. And finally, the committee objected to wbst it felt was a deliberate attempt on the part of same faculty members to challenge religious beliefs of students. Two months later, the University and the JohDs Committee were back in the news when a USF professor was suspended for distributing a book review in his advanced writiag class which found its way to Senator Johns and went from there, with his objections, to the Board of Control. The professor has since been reinstated, and the furor and following his suspension has prompted a full-scale study of academic freedom by the Board of Control, the presidents of the state universities and representatives of the faculties. And so the story goes. Eight months of heated struggle, a million words of committee testimony, reams of public print, countless statements aDd resolu tioas, charges and counter-charges from the subltme to the ridiculous. And through it all, the most frequently asked question has been Why? Why all the fuss? What's it all about? There is no eaey answer. In fact, I doubt if anyone can sufficiently aualyze and interpret the mass of complicated and puzzling information involved here, separate fact from speculation and fancy, and come up with a comprehensive explanation for this remarkable But there are some things---call them observations, if you may help to explain in part the storm that has raged, and I would like to look at some of these with you for a few momentso I am not concerned here with personalities. 'l'hat is another story. I am rather coacerned with the more basic issues of policy and principle and procedure. Everyone baa his own ideas about the principal characters in this drama, and it would serve no worthwhile purpose to discuss their respective roles. Let us instead look at the institutions involved. There is, first of all, the University of South Florida. Then, there is the State Legislature. ADd the Board of Control. Aud the general public, the taxpayers. And finally, but by no means least, there is the press.

PAGE 82

Page 3 The University, aow less than three years old, is struggling to reach maturity as an educational institUtion of the first order. It is making this effort without the support---political and otharwiseooof an alumni body, and without the popular appeal of a football team. It is attempting to make quality education its focal point, and in so doing it stands with dozens of institutions all over the country in the belief that good education involves dispassionate exploration of ideas. The Legislature, another of the institutioas, is by and large in conaensus that universities for which they appropriate funds should be operated and super-vised in the same manner as any other branch of govermnent. It has the invasti gating committee to accomplish part of this supervision. The Board of Control, our third institution, consists of seven citizens appointed by the governor to operate the university system. It is to be expected that the Board will from time to time clash with the legislature, which, as we have already noted, believes that j! operates the Utliversity system. Then there is the general public, people such as you and I who pay taxes and wish to see them properly spent. We are concerned, for a variety of reasons, about our universitieso Some of us feel they are in danger of being overrun by politicians and zealots; others believe they are already in the hands of liberals who are soft on communism, atheism,. homosexuality and pornography. And finally, there is that venerable the press. I hasten to add that I include radio and television in this group. The press has the difficult task of reportiug all it can learn about the respective sides of the University, the Legislature and the Board of Control, so that the public can sift the facts and reach a conclusion. We have skirted neatly around the phrase which lies at the heart of this big issue: academic freedom. It is a gross overstmplificatioa to say that an

PAGE 83

Page 4 answer to the academic freedom puzzle will solve the whole thingQ--this iguores -. .... the-personalities involved, the vested interesta, the maneuver and compromise : I ': bY, people on all sides of the fray whose interests are other than higher .. . But our purposes tonight, the question of academic freedom may .. : more anStiers than aJl}' other. I would like to speak to the question from the point of view of two of our institutions: the University and the puhlic. : There have b!len written on academic freedom, and universities have r : : and fallen across the centuries in its name. I would like to skirt around formal definitions and begin by mentioning a .few things about uaiversities .; themselves. Firat, a state university is not just another branch of It is als. o not COJD.l'arable to a big business, nor is it the same as a military ullit. Universities deal not or political patronage or weapons. are places laborer---the be smarter .than the president. Thay are places where people .learu hot1 to $ink, not what -to,tbink, therefore must be room for disagreemsnt and difference of aacl for calm inspection of all manner of ideas. ... .. Academic then, might be called the freedom to look an idea ia the to pick it up, feel it, smell it, and keep or discard it, as reason prompts. Universities have historically been where this has thrived. That reflects our faith in the search for truth, aud that is why we give areatest freedom those persons whose and experience best; qualify to explore ideas tu their chosen That is academic freedom. Rot ... lieease to delve recklessly into thought,. to propagandize or to but rather a charge to a qualified professicual person that he _blend sibility and curiosity and care into the and perpetuation ideas. 'l'bis same klnd of charge confronts the press ie its exercise of freeon aad

PAGE 84

Page 5 responsibility. 'lhe big question is, where do you draw the line and who draws it? this is how, on paper at least, the state of Florida operates its ties: The Board of Control hires a president. Re ia turn hires deans and directors, who must be approved in by the Board. They in turn, with the approval of the president, hire professors. The clear implication is that internal operation of the institutions, within the broad framswork of Board policy and state law, will be left to the president and his associates. But wait a minute! Didn't tve say awhile ago that the Legislature operates the Universities? Aad didn't the Board of Control say j did? Tben how can the universities operate themselves? This, then, is Where the rub comes in. In a sense, each of them is right. The Legislature creates, au.d appropriates, aad therefore controls to a large extent the size and scope of the UDiversity pro gram. The Board of Control maintains broad control of the direction, size ad orderly development of higher education. But the internal elasso I room level of direction--must coma from within, from the people best qualified, who have been hired to do this job. Fran the viewpoint of a private citizen# I can see no other way to hsYe anything approaching a great .. university. I have speat six years as a university student, and another four as a university employee, and if I had to select the most vital characteristic of this academic atmosphere, 1 would .choose without hesitation the frea and honest discussion ao4 exploration of ideas. 1 cas.uaot speak from the viewpoint of the Board of Control or of the Legis"' lature. Let me say a toiOrd, though, about the press. Academic freedam is wedded in principle to our constitutional guarantees of freedom of press and freedom of speech. I thiak the press in the Tampa Bay area has recognized this point, and because it has the University of South Florida is stiil alive in this fight for principle, still within. reach of its goal of

PAGE 85

Page 6 quality education. I could quote from some of Your own editorials to illustrate your fine support or I could show you the stack of news accounts which have served to keep issue in So the University of South Florida moves 011 toward its goalo It has made mistakes, and will make more. It has been attacked, and will be agaiD. But .like any good university .. it has built into its framework sufficie_nt _maebiary to c91'rect mistakes, and sufficient avenues of appeal to hear and coasider aay suagestion or complai.Dt about its methods of opet:ation. There are 15 separate offices, persons aad committees in the University haYing as part of their duties the responsibility for dealing with such appeals. '.fhrough its trials, the University has somehow been vie-.Jed by ita critics as different from other institutions of higher learmmg, more radical perhaps. Yet if it is different it is only in its determination to be better, to be more efficient and more effective, within the framework of the great traditions of laiaher learning on which our democratic society is baUt. I venture to say that if the University's leaders who have been so carefully selected by the Board of Coatrol retain their authority and responsibility to coaduct the iastitutioa's iatei!'Ul operations, the UDivarsity will stand in years to come as a citidel of etreagth to which all of us will look with pride. Ia 10 years, the UDiversity of South Florida will have students. It may have fine programs of eqineeriag, aediciae, 4entistry aad uurstng, in additioo to its already-established colleges of hip quality. It c0t1ld have a $50 million physical plant, and a faculty seccmd to aODe ia. the entire South. It will have all these thinge"" .. if we will let it. But if we insist ora tamperiug, if we ttegate the whole process of hiria,g qualified professioaal mea and women by taking away their latitude for making sound judptente and applylDg thEim, we will end up tilth acme of these thio.gs, aud all of u will be to blame for haVi'QS let an opportunity rife with promise die aborning. \

PAGE 86

Page 7 If we have cODfidence in our political system, our our personal and the potential of all these to grow, we will never fear a fair test of aay of them ill the marketplace of ideas. Holmes, in a famous Supreme Court: decision ccn:aceraing freedom of speech, said "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get. itself accepted ia the competition of the msrketo" If that teat of truth caDDot continue in our universities, then the larger freedoms of speech and press will also suffer. Because the Uaiversity of South Florida is a large public iastitutloo, it is opposed by soma who are suspicious of all thlDga large and publico Because it is young and liberal--ia the academic sease of the is rejected by those who distrust auythiag new and everythiug liberalo It has angered some because it has no football team, others because it is integrated. For the=e thilage the University makes no apologieso It is latent upoa providing far the people o f :rlorida an outstaDdiag aew center of teachlog. reaearch aad service, aad to that ea4 it will remaia dedicatedo It doors, froa the main entraa.ce to the President' office, haw beeR aDd will raaia opea---to students who seek an educaticm., to the pres 'Qibo seek inforaatioa aDd to couceraed and well-meao.iDg critics who seek explanat:I.O'IIS. With your presence. with the support of an iaformed public and with the soaatobesia stream of graduates wbo kRow from firsthaad experiwnca its worth aad value, the University looks to the with coafideuce. It has been said by of our sever: at critics that the Urdversity of Sou.th Florida ia a radical institution, representative of the wickedaass aa.d ialorality that is cornptiag our youth, that it codemns the past and iporee the foundations of faith aad morality upoa which ear country was fotmded. Let me aasuer that charge with a quote from a man once faced similar critletam. Be aaid of his critics: "'lhe eudeavora to enli&hten them on the fate which awaits their preaeat course of life, to induce th to exercise their reasoa, follow its

PAGE 87

Page 8 dictates, and change their pursuits with the change of circumstances, have powerful obstacles to encounter; they are combated by the habits of their bodies, prejudice of their minds, ignorance, pride, and the influence of iatarested and crafty individuals amO'l\g them, who feel themselves something in the present order of things, BDd fear to become nothing in any other.. These persons inculcate a sanctimonious revereuce for the customs of their ancestors; that wb.atSoeYer they did must be dana thr.ougb. all time; that reason is a false guide, and to ad'i'ance UDder ita counsel, 1a their physical, moral or political condition, its periious irmovation; that their duty is to remain as their Creator made them111 igrnaace lleiag safety, and knowledge full of danger; in shott, my friends, &llKiag them is seeD the action ad counteraction of good sense and bigotry; they, too, ha'i'e their anti-philosophers, who find an interest in keepiu.g thiugs in their present state, who ckead reformation. a.nd exert all their faculties to maintain the ascenclency of habit over the duty of improving our reason, aacl obeying its madates." !hose words were spoken by Thomas Jefferson 180 years ago. This weekend. tb.e Board of Control took $1 encouraging step toward stnngthenb1g the fouudatious of academic freedom when it adopted a new policy oD. tl:ie' stihject. The poliCy. was drawn up with the assj_stance of facultY representatives from the' four state uaiversitiee, and it is a substantial impravament over the mJAClidiscuased document it replae66. Hopefully, this action Will represent a tum:lDg poiat in the development of. Florida's system of higher edueatiOD. If in practice' it proves to 'be the of freedom and responsibility we' have worked and faught for, tbea all these moatlas of struggle will have laees wOrthwhile. And if the of South Florida does attain its great potential, its history will shbW the aU:merous 8Dd iavaluable aeelets it received from a free aad responsible press.

PAGE 88

. Some six months ago, on May 17, it was disclosed in the press around Tampa Bay that the State Legislative Investiating Committee headed by Senator Charley Johns was in the midst. of a broad-scale investigation of the University of South Florida. In the weeks that followed, these additional facts were made public: 1 The investigation had been in progress for more than a month, thout the knowledge of the Univer'sity administration. I 2 It had been initiated by complaints of private citizens to the Johns committee. 3 It concerned allegations that some members of the were (a) soft on communism (b) homosexual, (c) anti-religious. and (d) using materials of the public eye, the committee continued its investigation until June 7 At that time, Senator Johns said in a public statement that all testimony, when compiled, would be turned over to the Board of Control and "it would not be proper, under the committee's agreement with the ooard, for the .to comment specifically on its findings before the Board of Control had the opportunity to 'act. Two and a half months later, on August 24, the 53-page report of the Johns Committee appeared in .the press, on the same day copies of it were distributed to Board of Control. Copies were received three days later by the University in an envelope marked strictly confidential.

PAGE 89

None or' the allegations which led to the investigation proved inthe committee report. The committee round no communists or communist sympathizers on the USF raculty -tit -riEtii a eft.de 5 t ra a @:', e -s-tele c t!LLst aftd a f'!' &Ufl:LC:::%!J;i r e :co-.&:4.-y alluded to three possible homosexuals on the University payroll, / but gave no proor to support theirsuspicions. The committee objected to several books used, but said'none of them be foundrobscene or pornographic in any court of law. And I the committee to what i t felt was a deliberate attempt on the part of some faculty members to challenge religious beliefs of students. Two later, the University and ,the Johns Committee were back in the news when a USF proressor was suspended for a book review in his advanced writing class which found its way to Senator Johns and went from there, with his objections, to the Board of Control. The professor has since been reinstated, and the furor surrounding and following his suspension has prompted a full-scale study'of academic freedom by the of Control, the presidents of the state universities and representatives of the faculties. And so the story goes. Eight months of heated struggle, a million words of committee testimony, reams of 'public print, countless statements and resolutions, charges and counter-charges from the sublime to the ridiculous. And through it all, the most frequently asked question has been Why? Why all the fuss? What's it, a;ll about? \

PAGE 90

There is no easy answer. In.fact, I doubt if anyone / can sufficiently analyze and interpret the mass of complica'ted and puzzling information involved here, separate fact from speculati-on and "fancy, and come up with a comprehensive explanation for this controversy. But there are some things--_call them observations, if you will---that may help to explain I in part the storm that has raged, and I would like to look some of these with you for a few moments I I am not concerned here' with 'That another story. I am rather concerned with the more basic issues of policy and. principle and provedure. Everyone has his own ideas about the principal characters in this drama, ...... and it would serve no worthwhile purpose to discuss their respective roles. Let us instead look at the institutions involved. at is There is, first of all, the University of South Florida. Then, there is the State Legislature. And the Board of Control. And the general public, the taxpayers. And finally, by no means least, there is the press. The University, now less than three years old, is struggling to reach maturity as an educational institution of the first order. It making this effort withoutthe support--political and otherwise---of an alumni body, and without the popular appeal of a football team. It is attempting to make quality education its focal point, and in so doing it stands with dozens of institutions all over the countrl tn the belief that good educati0n involves dispassionate exploration of ideas.

PAGE 91

I The Legislature, another of the institutions, is by and large in consensus that universities for which they appropriate funds should be operated and supervised in the same manner as any other branch of government. It has the inves-tigating committee to accomplish part of this supervision. The Board of Control, our third institution, consists of seven private citizens appointed by the governor to operate the university system. It is to be expected that the Board will from time to time clash with the legislature, whch, as we have already noted, believes that it operates the university ststem. Then there is the general public, people such as you and I who pay taxes and wish to see them properly spent. We are concerned, for a variety of reasons, about our universities. Some of us feel they are in danger of being overrun 9Y politicians and zealots; others believe they are already in the hands of liberals who are soft qn communism, atheism, homosexuality and pornography. And finally, there is that venerable guardian, the r press. I hasten to add that I include radio and television in this group. The press has the difficult task of reporting all it can learn about the respective sides.of the University, the Legislatur. e and the Board of Control, so that the public can sift the facts and reach a conclusion. We have skirted neatly around the phrase which lies at the heart of this big issue: academic freedom. It is a gross over-simplification to say that an answer to the academic freedom puzzle will solve the whole thing---this ignores the personalities 'involved, the vested interests. the maneuver and compromise by

PAGE 92

people on all sides of the fray whose interests are other than quality higher education. But for our purposes tonight, the question academic freedom may hold more answers thanany other. I would like to speak to the question from the point of view of two of our institutions: the University and the public. Ther. e have been volumes written on academic freedom, and universities have risen and fallen across the centuries in its name. I would like to skirt around the formal definitions and begin by meptigning a few things about universities First, a state university is not just another.branch of government. It is also not comparable to a big business, nor is it the same as a military unit. Universities deal in ideas, not profits or ,political patronage or weapons. They are places where the laborer professor---may be smarter than the boss---the president. They are placefw?ere people learn hOW to think, not what to think, therefore there must be room or disagreement and diference of opinion, and for calm inspection of all manner of Aca?emic freedom, then, might be eall&d the freedom to look an idea in the face, to. pick it up, feel it, smell it, and finally keep or it, as reason prompts. Universities have historically been places where this provess has thrived. That reflects our faith in the search for.truth, and that is why we \ give the greatest freedom to those persons whose training and experience best qualify ideas in their chosen field. That is academic freedom. Not license to delve recklessly into thought, to propagandize or to indoctrinate, but rather a .solemn charge to a qualified professional person.that he blend responsibility and curiosity and care into the .preservation and perpetuation

PAGE 93

\ This is how, on at least, the state of Florida operates its universities! The Board of Control hires a .. president. He in turn hires deans and di.rectors, who must I t be approved in advance by the B oard. They 'in turn, with the approval of the president, hire professors. The clear implication is that internal operation of the institutions, within the broad framework of Board policy and state law, will I be left tq the and his associates. But wait a minuteJ Didn't' we say awhile ago that the Legislature operates the Universities? And didn't .the Board of.Control say. it did? Then how can the universities operate themselves? This, then, is where the rub comes in. In a sense,, each of them is right. The Legislature and and therefore controls to a _large extent the size and scope' of the university progrtn. The .Boara. of Control mainta'ins broad control of the direction, size and orderly of higher But the internal operation---the classroom level of direction--'-must come from within, from the people best qualified, who have bee n hired to do this job. From the viewpoint of a private citizen, I can see no other way to have anything approaching a university. I have spent six years as a university student, and another four \ as a university employee, and if I had to select themost vital characteristic of this academic atmosphere, I would choose.without hesitation the free. and honest discussion a nd exploration of ideas. I cannot speak from the viewpoint of the Board of Control or of the Legislature. I Let me say a word, though, about the press.

PAGE 94

Academic freedom is wedded in principle to our guarantees of freedom of press apd freedom of speech. I think the press in the Tampa Bay area has recognized this point, and because it has the University of South Florida is still alive in this fight for p "rinciple, still within reach of its goal of quality education. I could quote from some of ( your own editorials to illustrate your fine support, or I could show you the voluminous stack of news accounts to keep the issue in perspective. So the University of South Florida moves on toward its goal. It has made and will make .more. It has been attacked, and.will be again. But like any good university, it has built into its framework sufficient machinery to correct \ mistakes, and sufficient avenues of appeal to hear and con,sider anj; suggestion or about operO:tiono "-<1 the University ha viewed by its critics as different from other institutions higher learning, mor e radical perhaps. Yet if it is different it is only in its determina,tiron t;. o be better, to be more efficient and more effect;ive, within the framework of the great traditions of higher learning on which our democratic society is ( I venture to say that if the University's leaders who have been so carefully selected by the' Boa,rd of Control retain their authority at:ld responsibility t o conduct the .institution's internal operations, the University will stand in years to come a citidel of strength to Which all of us will look with pride. In 10 years, the University of South Florida will have 12,000 students. It have fine programs of engineering, medicine, dentistry and.nursing, in additiDn tq its already-established (

PAGE 95

I colleges of high quality. I have a $50 million physical plant, and a faculty second to noRe in the en tire South. It will have all these .things---if we will let it. But if we on tampering, if we negate the whole process of hiring qualified professional men and women by taking away their latitude for making sound judgments and applying them, we will end up with none of these things, and all of us will be to blame for having let an opportunity rife with promise die aborning. If confidenll!in our political system, our religion, our personal ability and the potential of all these to grow, we will never fear a fair test of any of them in the marketplace of ideas. Justice Holmes, ip a famous Supreme Court decision concerning freedom of speech, said "the .best test of 1 truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." If that test of truth cannot continue in our universities, then the larger freedoms of speech and press will also suffer. I Because the University of South Florida is a large public institution, is opposed by some who are suspicious of all I.A. things large and public. Because itAyoung and liberal---in the academic sense of the term---it is rejected by those who distrust anything new and .everything liberal. It has angered some because it has no football team, othprs because it is integrated. For these things the University makes no apologies. It is intent upon providing for the people of Florida an outstanding new center of teaching, research and service, and to that end it will remain dedicated.

PAGE 96

J;:ts doors, from the main entrance to the President 1 s office, have beeri and will remain open---to students who seek an education, to the press who seek information and to conce:cned:,and w ell-meaning critics who seek explanations. With your invaluable presence, with the support of an informed public and with the soon-to-begin stream of graduates who know from first-hand experience its worth and value, the University looks to the future with confidence. -'7. It has beeJ saidAtnat the University of South Florida I is a radical institution, of,the wickedness and immorality that is corrupting our youth, that it condemns the past and ignores the foundations of faith and morality upon which our was founded. Let me answer that charge with a quoter:: '"-uA. 'fl-J-O L "The endeavors to on the. fate which awaits their present course of life, to induce them to exercise their reason, follow its dictates, and change their pursuits with the I I change of circumstances, have powerful oqstacles to encounter; they are combated by the habits of their bodies, prejudice of their minds, -ignorance, pride, and the Influence of interested and crafty individuals among them, who feel something in the present order of things, and fear to become nothing in any other. These persons inculcate a sanctimonious reverence for the customs of their ancestors; that whatsoever they did must be done through all time; that reason is a false guide, and to advance under its counsel, in their physical, moral or political condition, is perilous innovation; that their duty is to remain as their Creator made them, ignorance being safety, and knowledge full of danger; in my friends, among the m is seen the action and

PAGE 97

10 1 counteraction of good sense and bigotry;.they, too, have their anti-philosophers, who find an interest in keeping things in their present.state, who dread reformation, and exert all their faculties to maintain the ascendancy of habit over the duty of improving our reason, arid obeying its mandates." were spoken by Thomas Jefferson 180 years ago. I


printinsert_linkshareget_appmore_horiz

Download Options

close
No images are available for this item.
Cite this item close

APA

Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.

MLA

Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.

CHICAGO

Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.

WIKIPEDIA

Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.