•••
After reading the counterpoint by University of Minnesota Regents Janie Mayeron, Doug Huebsch and Mike Kenyanya on March 4, I found myself confused about what the actual resolution said (“Counterpoint: U resolution does uphold academic freedom,” Strib Voices). Although I did finally locate the text of the resolution, I doubt the actual language would be helpful to most readers. Let me suggest the following alternative language that might help readers understand the issue:
Whereas: The Board of Regents is terrified that the current federal administration will vindictively cut funding for the university over the smallest of perceived political slights.
Be it resolved that: “Institutional statements addressing matters of public concern or public interest are not permitted at the University.” (Actual language.)
Be it further resolved that: The board is aware of the problems inherent in this resolution. For example, the board doesn’t really expect that medical departments will stop promoting vaccines. The board’s goal is to provide some political cover for the university, so don’t get too excited.
Be it further resolved that: The board fully respects the rights of free expression of individuals within the university community. But please, don’t make life difficult for the board. For example, noncontroversial tenure applications would be nice over the next four years.
As a retired administrator at public universities, I empathize with the difficult situation facing the board. Faculty often think that university boards and administrators have magic wands (or hidden bags of gold) that can insulate universities from public pressures. Regents must sometimes be the anti-villains who appease political interests to preserve funding. But I cannot chase John Stuart Mill from my mind: “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”