Consider Your Stand; G. Dietze

MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Your refusal to teach on November 5 in order to "protest an election without choice." Let me urge you to do your regular teaching on November 5, unless such teaching is canceled by the university. You should not interfere with the process of learning, but should fulfill obligations you assumed when you accepted admission as a student, fellowship' aid, and a teach ing assignment for the current academic year. The relationship between student and university is a contractual one. Implicit to that contract is the promotion of learning. This precludes interference with learning as it is offered by the school in conformity with its program which is available, to everyone who applies for admis sion. A student who interferes with the process of learning commits a breach of contract. This applies a fortiori to students, who by action of the university, receive financial aid and are given a teaching assign ment in the expectation that they will excel in the promotion of learning.

The university extended a special trust to you. It was under no obligation to admit you for the current year, to assure you financial aid, or to provide you with a teaching opportunity. The fact that you did enroll indicates that you preferred its program over that of other schools and that you considered this university's offer more attractive and more generous than offers from other schools. Please reciprocate. Although you are free to resign, as long as you enjoy the privilege of being enrolled, the university has every right to expect that you fulfill your obligations. This by no means excludes legitimate protest. Universities are places of protest by definition. Research and teaching - learning - are unthinkable without the possibility of protest. Protest is the lifeblood of academic freedom, a prerequisite for progress. However, univer sities can be havens for protest only if the process of learning is not curtailed. For learning promotes rational protest which is to be pre ferred to irrational demonstrations. Although the scope of university 99 100 THE FREEMAN February programs will always be limited (which is obvious in catalogues), it is conceivable that university officials will arbitrarily impede the process of learning. In that case, protests through the proper univer sity channels are in order. But never must such protests interfere with learning.

You refuse to teach because "the democratic process has failed." It so happens that the Johns Hopkins Press just published my new book, A merica's Political Dilemma, * a study turning around the de cline of rational democracy as a result of the pseudo-liberalism that has determined governmental policy since the New Deal. However, this regrettable. fact could never induce me not to teach. I believe with Jefferson that through education we can improve the democratic process and achieve a rational, working democracy which protects life, liberty, and property. Your complaint that the coming election is one without choice is in no way connected with the policies of this university. You do not blame the university for the failure of the parties to nominate candidates that are more to your liking. Yet, you intend to let the university suffer for something it has not done. You intend to deprive under graduates who pay tuition of the instruction they are entitled to, although they were not involved in the nomination of candidates for the presidency. You do not protest to the university authorities because you have no cause for protest. Yet, in refusing to teach, you interfere with learning - an action you would not be entitled to even if the uni versity had given you such cause.

If A hits you, you may want to strike hack, although it often may be wise to complain before striking the second blow. But would you hit the innocent B in retaliation for A's act? Won't you reconsider your present stand? *EDITOR'S NOTE: Reviewed in THE FREEMAN, June, 1968, by Edmund A. Opitz. Admiral Ben Moreell, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Americans for Constitutional Action, commented on this book: "Vitally important ... easily readable, yet scholarly and well-documented a closely argued, systematic and provocative study of the American scene It is a timely book which can do tremendous good. I strongly recommend that everyone interested in con stitutional government and the preservation of freedom read it."