Advertisement Clipping, "An open letter to the faculty," The Minnesota Daily, November 8, 1979
Dublin Core
Title
Advertisement Clipping, "An open letter to the faculty," The Minnesota Daily, November 8, 1979
Description
Image of an advertisement clipping edited from a digitized version of the November 8, 1979 issue of The Minnesota Daily. The article text is as follows:
Dear Faculty Colleagues:
On November 14, at 4:00 p.m., the Higher Education Division of the Minnesota House of Representatives Education Committee will hold a hearing on financial support of the Minnesota Daily. Representative Zubay, IR-Rochester, chairman of the subcommittee, has been quoted publicly as hoping to form a plan of action affecting the Daily (Mpls. Star, Oct. 31, 1979).
Academic freedom and, more broadly, the freedom of expression are central values for us in the University community. Fortunately, we seldom have to defend these ideas. But when a challenge arises, it is essential that we respond quickly and resolutely.
For most of us, academic freedom takes on the form of being free to teach what we choose, and to research topics of our choice. But, this, cherished freedom of inquiry -- the right to delve into controversial areas and freely proclaim our ideas -- emanates from our society’s more general right of freedom of expression. Since we in the University are often in the vanguard, it is well to recognize that a threat to the freedom of expression is a threat to our right to explore and teach without constraint.
While we would certainly acknowledge the necessity for accountability, as faculty members of a tax-supported institution, we oppose categorically, actions of people in government, in business, in labor, in agriculture, in religion - in other words, people outside of the academy - seeking to define our role, and to monitor our performance of it. As Justice Robert Jackson once wrote, in a famous Supreme Court decision, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official high or petty can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
The current mounting demands from certain apparently well-organized pressure groups for the Daily’s censorship, or even abolition, raise troubling questions about academic freedom. While many of us, from time to time, deplore the immaturity of the Daily’s columns, and the strident postures which certain of its writers seem compelled to strike, time has taught us that the way to deal with such issues is not through a policy of prior censorship, or through the none too subtle intimidation of threatening to withhold funds but through encouraging the Daily staff to become more clearly journalistic professionals and to accept the responsibilities which their position as information and opinion instruments places upon them.
We also have an obligation if we, indeed, do adhere to academic freedom, to stand up and be counted in the Daily’s behalf. Time has shown that the worst wounds to freedom come when thoughtful people do nothing. Free exchange of ideas on a campus, good ones, bad ones, considered ones, intemperate ones, foolish ones and offensive ones, is still at the heart of the intellectual venture. No one has ever suggested that free speech always leads to positive results, of that free press can not be abused. But the alternative of a censored news source is disturbing to contemplate. More disturbing is the precedent, whose implication we all deplore, of permitting a foot in the door on this issue, and thereby virtually inviting special interests to involve [themselves] in a variety of university matters on which they are neither qualified nor justified to impose their views.
We call upon you -- our colleagues -- to be heard. We need to let critics and the legislature know that interference in academic freedom can not be tolerated and that the inquiry into the Daily’s finances is viewed as an infringement of our rights.
Signed
Kent Bales, Assoc. Prof. of English
Robert Beck, Regents’ Prof. of Education
David Cooperman, Prof. of Sociology
Reuben Hill, Regents’ Prof. of Sociology
Robert Holt, Prof. of Political Science
Leonid Hurwicz, Regents’ Prof. of Economics
Walter Johnson Jr., Prof. of Physics and Astronomy
Gerald Kline, Prof. of Journalism & Mass Communication
H.E. Mason, Prof. of Philosophy
Paul Murphy, Prof. of History
Douglas Pratt, Prof. of Botany
Vernon Ruttan, Prof. of Agricultural and Applied Economics
Constance Sullivan, Assoc. Prof. of Spanish & Portuguese
John Turner, Regents’ Prof. of Political Science
Dennis Watson, Prof. of Microbiology
Charles Wolfram, Prof. of Law
Dear Faculty Colleagues:
On November 14, at 4:00 p.m., the Higher Education Division of the Minnesota House of Representatives Education Committee will hold a hearing on financial support of the Minnesota Daily. Representative Zubay, IR-Rochester, chairman of the subcommittee, has been quoted publicly as hoping to form a plan of action affecting the Daily (Mpls. Star, Oct. 31, 1979).
Academic freedom and, more broadly, the freedom of expression are central values for us in the University community. Fortunately, we seldom have to defend these ideas. But when a challenge arises, it is essential that we respond quickly and resolutely.
For most of us, academic freedom takes on the form of being free to teach what we choose, and to research topics of our choice. But, this, cherished freedom of inquiry -- the right to delve into controversial areas and freely proclaim our ideas -- emanates from our society’s more general right of freedom of expression. Since we in the University are often in the vanguard, it is well to recognize that a threat to the freedom of expression is a threat to our right to explore and teach without constraint.
While we would certainly acknowledge the necessity for accountability, as faculty members of a tax-supported institution, we oppose categorically, actions of people in government, in business, in labor, in agriculture, in religion - in other words, people outside of the academy - seeking to define our role, and to monitor our performance of it. As Justice Robert Jackson once wrote, in a famous Supreme Court decision, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official high or petty can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
The current mounting demands from certain apparently well-organized pressure groups for the Daily’s censorship, or even abolition, raise troubling questions about academic freedom. While many of us, from time to time, deplore the immaturity of the Daily’s columns, and the strident postures which certain of its writers seem compelled to strike, time has taught us that the way to deal with such issues is not through a policy of prior censorship, or through the none too subtle intimidation of threatening to withhold funds but through encouraging the Daily staff to become more clearly journalistic professionals and to accept the responsibilities which their position as information and opinion instruments places upon them.
We also have an obligation if we, indeed, do adhere to academic freedom, to stand up and be counted in the Daily’s behalf. Time has shown that the worst wounds to freedom come when thoughtful people do nothing. Free exchange of ideas on a campus, good ones, bad ones, considered ones, intemperate ones, foolish ones and offensive ones, is still at the heart of the intellectual venture. No one has ever suggested that free speech always leads to positive results, of that free press can not be abused. But the alternative of a censored news source is disturbing to contemplate. More disturbing is the precedent, whose implication we all deplore, of permitting a foot in the door on this issue, and thereby virtually inviting special interests to involve [themselves] in a variety of university matters on which they are neither qualified nor justified to impose their views.
We call upon you -- our colleagues -- to be heard. We need to let critics and the legislature know that interference in academic freedom can not be tolerated and that the inquiry into the Daily’s finances is viewed as an infringement of our rights.
Signed
Kent Bales, Assoc. Prof. of English
Robert Beck, Regents’ Prof. of Education
David Cooperman, Prof. of Sociology
Reuben Hill, Regents’ Prof. of Sociology
Robert Holt, Prof. of Political Science
Leonid Hurwicz, Regents’ Prof. of Economics
Walter Johnson Jr., Prof. of Physics and Astronomy
Gerald Kline, Prof. of Journalism & Mass Communication
H.E. Mason, Prof. of Philosophy
Paul Murphy, Prof. of History
Douglas Pratt, Prof. of Botany
Vernon Ruttan, Prof. of Agricultural and Applied Economics
Constance Sullivan, Assoc. Prof. of Spanish & Portuguese
John Turner, Regents’ Prof. of Political Science
Dennis Watson, Prof. of Microbiology
Charles Wolfram, Prof. of Law
Creator
The Minnesota Daily Board of Editors
Source
Digital: The Minnesota Daily: November 8, 1979 (University Digital Conservancy)
Publisher
University of Minnesota Archives; The Minnesota Daily (MN Daily Media)
Date
November 8, 1979
Rights
Use of this resource is governed by U.S. and international copyright laws. Resource is property of the University of Minnesota. Please contact the University of Minnesota Archives for permission to publish. http://special.lib.umn.edu/uarchives
Format
Image
Language
English
Identifier
BTP_MNDaily_1979-11-08_OpenLetterToFaculty-Advertisement.jpeg
Still Image Item Type Metadata
Original Format
Newspaper
Collection
Citation
The Minnesota Daily Board of Editors, “Advertisement Clipping, "An open letter to the faculty," The Minnesota Daily, November 8, 1979,” Gallery, accessed November 8, 2026, https://gallerytemp.reclaim.hosting/items/show/6846.