COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.<<hoover[f83,jmc]		What is legitimate in Hoover controversy>>
C00015 ENDMK
C⊗;
.<<hoover[f83,jmc]		What is legitimate in Hoover controversy>>
.require "memo.pub[let,jmc]" source;
.double space
.cb Academic Freedom and the Hoover Controversy

	It seems to me that some Stanford faculty members are
acting unfairly in the controversies surrounding the Hoover
Institution.  I want to express an opinion
about what is fair and what is unfair and, moreover, what constitutes
an attempt to violate the academic freedom rights of the Hoover scholars.

	Traditionally, threats to academic freedom have come
come from the right and from outside the university and the
people whose academic freedom was threatened have been on the
left.  Many people's image of academic freedom is therefore
limited to this view.  People don't realize that when they
write a criticism of Reagan's policies in Central America
and propose administrative action against the Hoover Institution
on the grounds that Hoover scholars proposed or supported such
policies or even merely helped Reagan develop other policies,
that they are attempting a violation of academic freedom.

	Anyone is entitled to his opinion about the quality of
Hoover work and the people leading or working in Hoover.  He is
also entitled to express it within the bounds of the libel law
and good taste.

	The Hoover Institution is part of Stanford.  Like SLAC
and like some other institutions attached to other universities,
it isn't governed in the same way as a university department or
school.  Such special relations develop historically and are not
objectionable per se.  There has been no argument that Hoover is
not being run in accordance with the agreements when it was
founded and as modified since then.  Its fellows and other scholars
are entitled to the same academic freedom as any other Stanford
scholar.

	While it might be desirable to change these administrative
arrangements, it cannot reasonably be done by a process initiated
by people motivated by political disagreement.

	Liberal faculty members have a right to be distressed
that Hoover has been associated with a president (Reagan) they
deplore and that Hoover scholars have contributed to his
electoral success and to the subsequent policies of his
administration.  What they are morally entitled to do about this distress
is another matter.  Certainly, criticism of the policies and
even of the people is within their rights.  However, their
moral right to use the administrative mechanisms of the University
to hamper Hoover is sharply restricted.
Here are some considerations.

1. There is no requirement that every part of every university be
balanced politically.  Neither political
orthodoxy nor political balance may be enforced administratively.
It is probably best that most turn out balanced and that there be
a few of a variety of pronounced tendencies - conservative, liberal,
libertarian, leftist.

2. It is improper to cite a list of publications as a basis for
administrative action.  This has the effect of prior censorship,
since it tends to intimidate authors, editors and publishers.
Professor Manley's April memo to Political Science faculty and
the recent SCARE U leaflet do that.

3. The rights of an academic body in a university include the
right to raise money to expand its activities.  This right is
limited by competition for resources - money, land and
administrative work and by monitoring quality.  It is not
legitimate for one part of the university to say that because
I disagree with you, I will prevent your raising money to
support your work.

4. The public affairs center associated with the proposed Reagan
Library is a case in point.  Here are two extreme viewpoints one
could take.

The first is that the money is offered to Stanford, and Stanford
has to decide how to use it.  In that case, making the center
part of Hoover is only one option and faculty in general and the
Academic Senate as a body are entitled to propose alternatives.
Competing proposals to operate the institution are appropriate.

The other extreme is that Hoover or some other part of Stanford
wants such a center and undertakes to raise the money.
It is entirely unfair and a violation of academic freedom to
for a group to decide to oppose Hoover's right to raise the
money because they disagree with the conclusions of the Hoover
scholars.  If they disagree they should compete and not use
administrative measures.  I repeat that considerations of resource
availability and quality are relevant.

The way the matter has been put to Stanford, there is some element
of both cases, but I think the second case dominates.  I believe
the Hoover people proposed the public affairs center to
Reagan and his people, and I believe the Hoover people intend to
raise the money.  Certainly no-one else at Stanford plans to raise
the money.

Professor Lincoln Moses pointed out in the Academic Senate that his
proposals are subject to review by his department chairman and by the
Sponsored Projects Office and suggested that the present objection to
Hoover administering a Reagan public affairs center was analogous to this
review.  However, he would have a quite different attitude if one of these
authorities blocked his proposal on the grounds that his politics was too
left.

5. It is also illegitimate to search for other excuses other
than opposition to someone's views to justify an action motivated
by such opposition.  Unfortunately, Stanford has been guilty
of this in the past.

Because of the circumstance that the Reagan Library proposal has
arisen during an attack on the Hoover Institution supported by
criticism of its publications and associations, the burden of
proof is on the opponents to show that their objections are founded
in scarcity of Stanford resources or that the academic quality of
the proposal is substandard.  In fact neither of these matters has
been discussed, since a concrete proposal hasn't been made.

6. I believe that the cause of the unfair proposals before this Senate
is excessive political partisanship.  Such excessive partisanship is
common in American history and that of other countries.  It is typical
that historians have great difficulty explaining what it was
that was exciting their ancestors.  In the present case, the partisanship
is aggravated by the fact that the majority of academic community
believes that the majority of the population made the wrong choice
in 1980.

7. Therefore, I believe the Academic Senate should take a somewhat different
view of the matter than has been expressed by most speakers
on the subject and in the resolution proposed by the Steering
Committee and approved by the Senate.  They should instead have
passed the following resolution.

"The Academic Senate congratulates the Hoover Institution on
its selection to operate the Reagan Library and associated
institutions.  We wish them success in raising the necessary
funds.  We trust that a site can be found and arrangements
made that will make the complex an asset to Stanford as a
whole and will complement and not interfere with other activities of
the University.  We also trust that arrangements will be made
that will ensure that the proposed Public Affairs Center will
welcome and support scholars of all points of view."

8. Unfortunately, such a resolution had no chance in
the present politicized and excited state of the Academic
Senate.

9. Moreover, while many outside commentators including national
newspapers have raised the academic freedom issue in connection
with the Stanford fracas, this issue has not been faced within
the Academic Senate.  Instead there has been a total refusal to
face the possibility any action by Stanford professors themselves
could conceivably constitute a violation of someone's academic
freedom rights.


.begin verbatim
John McCarthy
Computer Science Department
Stanford University
.end

The computer file is hoover[f83,jmc] at SU-AI and was pubbed on {date}.