492

486

North Carolina has given you the responsibility of upholding the ideas
of a free University. We have faith in your guidance and in your ability to
keep our University one of the finest educational institutions in the country.

As students we have expressed our united opinion on this matter and
with confidence we leave this decision to you.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are no traitors among us. This student
body at Chapel Hill is America, it is Tar Heel, it is loyal and patriotic.
When we are called by our country, we shall answer, even in the cannon's
mouth.

We ask only the right to listen and to inquire, the opportunity to make
our own judgment of the rights and wrongs, the direction and the goals of
our generation. Thank you.

Paul Dickson, III
President, Student Body,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
February 7, 1966.

STATEMENT OF DR. NATHANIEL RODMAN FOR GROUP OF YOUNG
FACULTY MEMBERS

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I represent a
concerned group of younger faculty at the University of North Carlina at
Chapel Hill. To begin with, I want to make it clear that we support fully
the position of the administration - that is, the Chancellor and the President and the position of the general faculty, as they have been presented.

Our major concern regards the effects of the decision of this Committee
on the intellectual resources and growth of the University, particularly dur-
ing the next decade or so. These years will be the most productive ones of
our careers in teaching and research.

We need to anticipate an environment of free inquiry which will attract
and retain scholars - both teachers and students - of the highest calibre at
our University. It is only in this kind of environment that we can achieve
our own goals, namely the best teaching and research of which we are capable.
Only thus could we provide that service to the State of North Carolina for which
literally the University exists and for which we were hired. We have great
pride in the present stature of the University, and we earnestly desire that
this stature be maintained.

Maintenance of this high stature requires intellectual controversy,
which is essential to the educational process. The evolution of the present
visiting speaker issue raises the question in our minds and in the minds of
our students as to whether intellectual controversy will be allowed at our
University. It is our firm conviction that if such controversy is not allowed
the University will decline in the sense that it will no longer be a true
university.

The state of the current issue also raises the question as to whether the
Board of Trustees has confidence in its faculty and students. Such confidence
is imperative if we are to be effective in using controversy in the educational
process. That is, without the Board's confidence we cannot effectively
utilize opportunities for intellectual controversy.

Irrespective of why the invitation to Dr. Aptheker was issued, any state-
ment of a position together with the subsequent discussion could and should
be as educational experience. It is our responsibility to make it so, and
we will do that - but we must first have the opportunity to do it.

TWO MOTIONS PASSED BY THE FACULTY SENATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATE UNIVERSITY AT RALEIGH AT A SPECIAL MEETING ON
FEBRUARY 4, 1966

The Facuity Senate of North Carolina State University at Raleigh
supports in principle the resolution concerning visiting speakers passed by
the General F acuity of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on
February 3, 1966: