“UNC Should Foster Intellectual Debate” is the headline to UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor James Moeser’s statement in The Daily Tar Heel, who write, “as the first public university in America, Carolina has a long history of fostering free speech and intellectually challenging ideas.” Here’s more, with some emphasis added:
The University was born in the shadow of a new federal government that championed individual rights, particularly free speech. Thus it is no great surprise that this institution has continued to cherish and encourage this important freedom, often going to great lengths to protect it.
Consider the Speaker Ban Law of the early 1960s. School of Law Dean Gene Nichol wrote a recent column for The News & Observer of Raleigh detailing the strong leadership of our chancellor during that trying era, William B. Aycock, who vehemently challenged the law. The law forbade state campuses from hosting speakers who were “known Communists” or “advocated the overthrow of the Constitution.”
Chancellor Aycock worked tirelessly to repeal the ban and assure that Carolina and the other public universities in North Carolina could once more become arenas of free expression.
“It would be far better to close the University than to let a cancer eat away at the spirit of inquiry and learning,” Chancellor Aycock said of the Speaker Ban Law.
How right he was!
Today, free speech is again part of the basic underpinning of our great University.
We should be aware, however, that threats remain and that there are those who would take advantage of our liberal stance.
Indeed, Ms. Bandes’ column is the kind of issues that can test our commitment to free expression. We should not allow ourselves to be divided and conquered.
As a premier institution of higher learning that places a premium on freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry, we should demonstrate the courage of our convictions and continue to show that Carolina is a haven for the free and robust exchange of ideas — regardless of their popularity or support.
Now for the Paul Harvey moment: the Daily Tar Heel controversy was their publication of David Horowitz’s ad and column opposing reparations for slavery. I replaced Moeser’s original text of “Mr. Horowitz’s ad and column are the kinds” with “Ms. Bandes’ column is the kind” in order to delay the dropping of that shoe.
The chancellor’s statement dates from April 2, 2001. Tune in next time to read a DTH board editorial stating: “The best way to fight speech is with more speech, not to censor ideas you don’t like.”
