COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	hoover[f83,jmc]		What is legitimate in Hoover controversy
C00009 ENDMK
C⊗;
hoover[f83,jmc]		What is legitimate in Hoover controversy

	It seems to me that some Stanford faculty members are
acting unfairly in the controversies surrounding the Hoover
Institution.  The purpose of this note is 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.

	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.

	Liberal faculty members have a right to be distressed
that Hoover has been associated with a politician (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
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.

3. The rights of an academic body in a university include the
right to raise money to expand its activities.  This right is
limited only 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 institute associated with the proposed Reagan
Library is a case in point.  There are two extreme cases.

The first case is that the money is offered to Stanford, and Stanford
has to decide how to use it.  In that case, making the institute
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 second case is that Hoover or some other part of Stanford
wants such an institute 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.

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 institute to
Reagan and his people, and I believe the Hoover people intend to
raise the money.

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.