Remarks by Chancellor Hemenway at 2003 All-University Supper

LAWRENCE -- Four KU graduates -- Nobel Prize-winning economist Vernon L. Smith, former Colorado state Sen. George L. Brown, philanthropist Adele Hall and educator Liliana Mayo -- received the university's Distinguished Service Citation awards at the All-University Supper.

The remarks by Chancellor Hemenway:

KU has experienced a tumultuous spring, so much so that the recent tornadoes seem just part of the natural order of things.

One Monday we are playing for the national championship, the next Monday we are absent a basketball coach, and the next Monday we have begun the Bill Self era. If we had any doubts that interest in KU basketball could survive such change, they were quickly dissipated last week when 500 people showed up in Allen Field House for a pick-up game featuring a possible recruit.

Another topic of equal interest, but less optimism, has been the condition of the Kansas state budget. The legislature and Governor, in the last hours of the 2003 session, found a way to balance the state's books even though the methods of doing so will probably not win the accounting profession's Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Basically, the state delayed paying its bills while asking everyone else to pay their tax bills early. From the university's point of view, this was probably an unusual but necessary step to ensure funding for education and social services. KU's budget was cut by $19 million (about 8%) early in the school year, but the Governor and legislature's actions saved us from further cuts for the time being. The Governor did propose and secured a 1.5% salary increase for state employees, the first increase in two years. All in all, things could have been worse, and when we look around at surrounding states, we realize that they are worse.

In a kind of side-show to the budget crisis in Topeka, perhaps out of frustration with the difficulty of facing a budget solution, the Kansas State Senate sought relief from fiscal debate by turning their chamber into a curriculum seminar. They became fixated on how to teach a course in human sexuality. This caused at least one wag to remark, "Last year Kansas banned evolution, this year it hopes to outlaw sex."

Senator Susan Wagle of Wichita alleged that Professor Dennis Dailey of KU's School of Social Welfare, in an entirely elective class titled "Human Sexuality in Everyday Life," used inappropriate teaching videos, and expressed views that she found objectionable generally. Without any prior notice to the University, she proposed to eliminate the $3.1 million, which funds the School of Social Welfare, as a penalty for offering such a course and having it taught by Prof. Dailey. Fortunately, the Governor vetoed this idea.

Sen. Wagle then filed a formal complaint with the university, which has led to a thorough investigation of her charges. That investigation came to the conclusion that the charges were without merit, that the course materials were what you would expect in such a course, and that Dr. Dailey's teaching methods did not contribute to sexual harassment, as she had charged.

These eventsÜathletic, fiscal and curricularÜhave been distracting enough that it is probably worthwhile to stop, take a deep breath, and focus on the principles involved in this spring's tornado of activity.

First, basketball. We all know, deep in our Jayhawk hearts, that nothing is more important than the University's educational mission. Ultimately we are about educating students and making a better world. What KU basketball does, in my opinion, is illustrate the value of high standards for that educational mission.

Every year we expect our basketball team to compete for a national championship. We want to be the best. Why not have the same goal for every student and every department at KU?

We should expect every KU class to be excellent, every student to learn to the full extent of his or her ability, and every faculty member to teach at a level of inspiration that affects students for the rest of their lives.

For that kind of education to happen at a public university, it is necessary that the state fund that university. KU students have seen this economic relationship in very personal terms. They recognize that this is a difficult budget time, and that KU tuition, which has in the past been among the lowest in the nation, will probably have to increase. But they expect, and I agree, that if you pay more you should get more. Increases in tuition should be used to enhance education and support KU's announced goal to be one of the 25 best public universities in the country. Tuition dollars should not simply supplant state appropriations. For a great university, there must be a four-way partnership between the legislature, donors, faculty and students. The state appropriates funding, donors give gifts, faculty teach and secure research grants, and students and their parents pay tuition.

The principle that applies here is that excellence costs money, and you have to invest in excellence to cause further excellence to multiply. The young people of Kansas deserve the best, and if we fail to give them such, then we harm our future and ourselves. As we emerge from the economic depression of the past three years, we must be clear about where we invest and why we do so. The economic success of the state of Kansas depends upon KU's ability to develop intellectual capacity.

Finally, the Wagle-Dailey controversy also has a context in principle, and we should not let heated political rhetoric or the awkward titillation of a human sexuality class distract us from the principles involved.

The principle is academic freedom, one of the central foundations of a modern, public university like KU. To develop intellectual capacity, there must be free inquiry.

Because universities are places where we seek the truth, or at least what is known to be true at any given time, universities are given certain rights and responsibilities. One of the rights is academic freedom. One of the responsibilities is respect for learning.

Professors, for example, have a responsibility to treat students with respect as they acquire new knowledge and new perspectives. But professors must also be free to pursue truth in their research and in their classroom without fear of political reprisal from the state.

Richard DeGeorge has written, in his book, Academic Freedom and Tenure, "If those who set up and fund a university believe that not all truth is known, then they would do well, if they also believed that it is worthwhile to pursue the truth and to learn more, to provide a place and to pay competent people to seek that truth." This is a subtle point. If you are convinced that you know the truth, and don't need to learn any more, you don't need a university or the educational process. In fact, the encounter with a university will be harmful to your certitude.

This search for truth in an American university is protected by certain fundamental civil rights built into the constitution and the Bill of Rights. The first amendment grants a right of free speech, and prohibits the establishment of a state religion. The sixth amendment grants the right of an impartial jury and the right to confront one's accusers, a principle lost in the Dailey case because many of the accusations were anonymous, and Senator Wagle gave him no chance to defend himself or confront his accusers.

KU has become a great university because it has recognized that academic freedom brings both rights and responsibilities. But we have also learned over the years that academic freedom must be rigorously defended from both the left and the right.

Nothing threatens academic freedom more than a faculty having to look over its shoulders to see if Big Brother is watching. In Stalin's Russia, KGB spies in civilian clothes were sent to university classrooms to inform on professors. Senator Joseph McCarthy, in the anti-communism of the 1950's, provided a chilling example of how public power could be abused to intimidate artists and intellectuals.

McCarthy's excesses led to his censure by Senate colleagues. They also created a new word, "McCarthyism." As the New York Times recently editorialized, "A half-century later, the word continues to out live the senator in the pubic mind, as well it should, for it is defined as persecution of innocent people by sensational but unproven accusations."

I have focused on principle here because our honorees tonight are all people who have lived lives of integrity and principle, lives of great achievement, and lives that have made the world a better place to live. It is appropriate to find them honored by a great university, one that has gone through a lot of tumult in its history and emerged a stronger institution, because it remained true to the principle of free inquiry.

Our honorees demonstrate the extraordinary power of a caring intellect, free to imagine a better world. They live by principles that ennoble all those with whom they come into contact. We thank our honorees for the privilege of recognizing them, and in that recognition, honor both their person, and the principles that have led to their achievements.