335

314

invitation to appear before your Department. I hope such a visit will prove possible at a future date.'

"The situation at North Carolina State was dramatized again when the freedom of the University to invite Madam Nhu for a lecture and interviews stood in sharp contract to the present proscription against certain other categories of persons.

"Continued embarrassment of this institution is inevitable. All of our dedicated efforts to build a faculty of first rank in the service of this State and Region will be frustrated if this campus is to be denied the indispensable right of a free university. It is depressing to contemplate the inevitable deterioration of the hopes of the dedicated scholars we already have as well as the denial to this campus of the service of others who may refuse to come because of this ban on the exchange and examination of knowledge and opinion."

RESOLUTION OF THE FACULTY COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY AT GREENSBORO ADOPTED OCTOBER 22, 1963

BE IT RESOLVED that the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro endorse the position taken by the President and the Chancellors of the University of North Carolina and the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees in protesting the passage of "An Act to Regulate Visiting Speakers at State Supported Colleges and Universities, " and in seeking the repeal of this measure at the earliest possible moment; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this faculty declare its conviction that this Act will result in the restriction of academic freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of information, and that it is not in keeping with the traditional educational goals for which the University of North Carolina has been so justly noted.

Statement of Chancellor Otis A. Singletary

"Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:

'While it is neither necessary nor desirable for me to take up much of your time here this morning, I do want to endorse the sentiments already expressed by my colleagues and to add a brief statement of my
own reasons for opposirg the recently enacted law 'to regulate visiting speakers' on the campuses of state-supported institutions of higher education.

"It is my basic contention that there are many and good reasons for opposing this bill. If for no other reason, one would be justified in opposing it because of the way it was passed. I refer specifically to the veil of secrecy which enshrouded it and the denial to interested parties of the right to be heard on the merits of the issue. One might also be justified in opposing it because of the way it was written. Vague, imprecise language makes the bill difficult to administer at best and impossible to administer with effectiveness. These objections, however, are essentially technical in nature and do not go to the heart of the matter. I believe that there are far more pertinent and more meaningful reasons for opposing it.

"I object to this bill because it is discriminatory in nature. It singles out one specific group - the academic element - in our society and unjustly points the finger of suspicion in their direction.

"I object to this bill because it is unnecessary. It is a matter of record that there are laws already on the statute books dealing with this matter. These laws are being complied with.

"I object to this bill because it is detrimental to the University's posture in the academic world. History shows time and again that universities can only be damaged when the state exercises direct influence upon them to the point of limiting freedom of inquiry and expression. "I obiect to this bill because it is destructive of faculty morale. Our