Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1970 [PAGE 935]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

1970]

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

935

by 4,000 students requesting the Committee to consider the election recess. 1 The Committee had also received requests from several other student organizations. Professor Robert Eubanks spoke against the substitute motion. H e said that he believed the issue should be met now and that he did not believe it was feasible to poll students at this time. The question was called and upon vote the substitute motion was defeated. A hand vote was then taken on the main motion which passed by a vote of 102 to 90. STATEMENT FROM T H E " F A C U L T Y FOR RESISTANCE POLITICAL S C I E N C E " (2) The President of the University presented the following memorandum to the Trustees on this subject which he asked be read aloud at the meeting. June 17, 1970

To THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES :

Members of the Board of Trustees have requested information concerning a mimeographed circular, entitled Faculty for Resistance, Political Science Section, and signed by fifteen members of the Department of Political Science at the Urbana-Champaign campus. A copy of the circular is attached. (Editor's note: The memorandum is printed below.) The memorandum, undated, came to my attention in early May and has been the subject of a number of news reports and editorials since that time. The following points are drawn from letters and reports supplied by the office of Chancellor J. W . Peltason: 1. Professor Phillip Monypenny, Head of the Department, promptly on the appearance of the circular "rebuked the pretenses and inferences of this document" to the members of the group and expressed "doubts about its tone and content." He also made clear that "all new courses must be approved by the Department, the L.A.S. College, and the Campus Senate. Changes in established courses should come after reflection, consultation, and approval." He further indicated that in relating the context of courses to current problems and crises indoctrination should not be substituted "for efforts to encourge thought." 2. On May 21, Dean Robert W. Rogers asked Professor Monypenny for a report on the matter indicating he did so because what was suggested in the document "is so inconsistent with the proper responsibilities and obligations of faculty members." 3. The response by Professor Monypenny indicated that the discussions sponsored by the signers of the circular were related to the issues raised in the period of campus protest in early May and that regular classes and topics were resumed in the last two weeks of the semester. H e added, "The permanent members of the department whose names appear on the list are among the most conscientious teachers and scholars we have, and they will not lend themselves to any adulteration of the content of their courses or to any abuse of the classroom as a forum for influencing student opinion rather than for providing an opportunity to learn and think." 4. Dean Rogers wrote to Chancellor Peltason on June 11, 1970, as follows: "After consultation with the Executive Committee of the College, I write concerning the memorandum of the 'Political Science Section' of the group that styles itself 'Faculty for Resistance.' W e considered the memorandum along with subsequent statements by Professor Monypenny; and we believe that several points should be made: 1. The original memorandum which was undated was issued on either Tuesday or Wednesday, May 5 or May 6, at the time efforts were being mounted to establish the protest action that was labelled a 'strike.' On May 7, as soon as the original document was called to his attention, Professor Monypenny sent to the Faculty of his Department a statement regarding the document itself and reminding the Faculty of the limits of their responsibilities. This ' A letter from the sponsors of the petition was presented to the Trustees at the meeting on June 17, 1970.