The Faculty Consultative Committee, on behalf of the faculty, unequivocally affirms its commitment to guard and protect freedom of speech. This right is the essence of academic freedom, the bedrock of the educational enterprise. The Consultative Committee stands as one with the President on this matter.

One of the hard lessons of a generation past is that there is no freedom without responsibility. The 1963 statement by the Regents of the University of Minnesota recognizes the inseparability of this relationship with these words:

		A University must cherish freedom or be untrue to its own nature.  
		It must cherish equally responsibility, the natural corollary of 
		freedom.

The Regents' statement, although directed toward the classroom, has implications for all events which take place on the campus. The foremost of these is that the University sets the conditions under which speakers and groups are allowed the use of University facilities. The University, its administrators, faculty, and student leaders have the right and responsibility to set a level and tone of civil discourse which are consistent with University values. While there are appropriate occasions for both, a University lecture is neither a tent revival nor a political rally. One of the expectations of scholars should also guide guest speakers if educational goals are to be served. The Regents' 1963 statement speaks clearly to this point:

		Especially when dealing with controversial matters, he should 
		inform his audience of divergent opinions about the subject at hand.  
		Fostering strenuous and careful thinking rather than providing 
		ready-made conclusions is a duty of the scholar as educator.  
		Intelligent disagreement is a part of the educational process.  
		Avoidance of indoctrination is especially important since to develop
		and to maintain reflectiveness requires the constant re-evaluation 
		of one's views.

In accord with the First Amendment the University should not attempt to control the invitation of speakers by academic departments, student organizations, and other University groups. Permitting individuals to speak on the campus, however, does not imply that the University promotes their appearance or endorses their views. That crucial distinction is clearly made when the University community is timely in voicing its views about a speaker. Indeed, when the speaker's extremist or racist views are a matter of public record, members of the University community, in advance of the speaker's appearance, should be forthright in voicing their disapproval of such views. Criticism of a choice of speaker is also the exercise of free speech and no abridgment of academic freedom. It is warranted particularly when it is clear that the speaker's agenda is offensive and incompatible with the University's goals and values.

As the University seeks greater diversity in its various parts, administration, faculty, staff, and student body, it is reasonable to expect that it may well be tested in its ability to debate controversial views and reconcile differences. In the best of University traditions this process focusses our store of knowledge upon issues in an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect.

The Faculty Consultative Committee, at the request of the President, has undertaken a review of the "Academic Freedom and Responsibility Statement" and will report its findings and recommendations. These will probably involve an expansion of the Regents' statement and provide closer guidance in the future. While this is perhaps the necessary first step it is not the most important. That step occurs each time a member of the University community acts in a timely manner to preserve academic freedom by carrying out those responsibilities which honor and sustain it. We are confident that the faculty of the University of Minnesota is committed to this purpose.

March, 1990