0h nmmppmnmrv Afl
MONDAY. OCTOBER 26, 1970 LINCOLN. NEBRASKA VOL 94, NO. 24
Varner informs Regents
of Davis' background
by GARY SEACREST
Nebraska Staff Writer
The Board of Regents did not
know of the controversial
background of Michael Davis
until informed by Chancellor D.
6. Varner in July, a month
before the Regents blocked
Davis appointment as a
philosophy instructor in n
Aug. IS meeting.
Varner said Sunday night
that after he pointed out Davis
name the Regents began their
investigation of Davis
background.
However, the NU Chancellor
said, "I did not recommend
any course of action to the
Regents concerning Davis,
though I concurred in the
decision."
"The Regents did not ask my
judgment concerning Daves,"
Varner remarked
Varner said it pointed out
Davis refutes Regents reasons
for denying him NU position
by JOHN DVORAK
Nebraskan Staff Writer
Michael Davis charged Sun
day night that the Board of
Regents confused his actions,
made false accusations and
presented inaccuracies of fact
in their letter outlining the
reasons for their refusal to ap
point him to a teaching position
at NU.
In an 1300 word statement
released to The Nebraskan,
Davis asserted that the real
issue in the Regents rejection
was "one of politics- .
The Board's letter mentioned
four specific reasons for the
Aug. 15 rejection. Davis dealt
with each individually and
presented what he said was the
truth.
The statement was worded in
a moderate, polite language. In
bis conclusion, he left it up "to
the University community' to
make the final Judgment.
The first of the Regents
reasons was that Davis had
made brief, uncomplimentary
remarks at a reception follow
ing the inauguration, of Robert
Fleming as president ! the
University of Michigan.
Davis said, however, that the
report "is false. He said he
did not attend the reception,
but only spoke as an official
representative of the students
at the inauguration. He said the
text of that speech was printed
in the student newspaper, the
Michigan Daily, and it did cot
contain the sentence cited by
the Regents.
Secondly, the Regents men
tioned the one-maa fast Davis
Davis to the Regents because
"I thought they ought to know
the nature of Davis
background. "Michael
Davis name was not un
familiar to me, Varner
remarked. V a r a e r was
Chancellor of Oakland
University in Michigan at the
same time that Davis was at
tending the University of
Michigan as a graduate stn
denL Varner became NU
Chancellor in Felt-, 1970.
He said he learned in early
July from former colleagues at
Oakland that Davis was being
considered for a teaching posi
tion at Nebraska.
The Regents letter to Davis,
outlining the reasons why he
was rejected, stated that "in
formation came to the attention
of the Chancellor which raised
some questions in his mind
concerning the wisdom of
Davis appointment.
staged in the Michigan ad
ministration building in favor
of more student voice in
University government.
Davis said he had a
"reasoned defense for the
fast, which was published in
its entirety in the student
newspaper there. The NU
Board of Regents, however,
took their information and
statements out of context of
.that published statement, Davis
said.
Third, the Regents mentioned
Davis arrest, subsequent con
viction and IMay jail sentence
for trespassing. But Davis
said the Regents make no
Davis statement to the
University community. See
page 5.
mention of the reason for that
arrest, nor the fact that 20Q
other people were arrested at
the same time.
"The trespass occurred in
September, 1963. not
November, as indicated in the
Regents' letter, he said. "It
occurred as part of a sit-in of
about 400 people in the County
Building in protest of inade
quate payments to mothers on
welfare.
The group was protesting the
County Boards' refusal to
release part of a $100,000 tax
surplus to aid welfare reci
pients. Later, the Board did
release the money.
"I had not before and I hav
not since been convicted of any
The letter also noted that one
of the reasons why the Regents
questioned Davis background
was a statement allegedly
made by Davis at the reception
following the inauguration of
University of Michigan Presi
dent Robert Fleming in March,
1968.
Varner said he attended
Flemings inauguration where
Davis, spvke as a student
representative. However, the
NU Chancellor said he did not
attend the reception and did not
know where the Regents
received their information
concerning Davis alleged
speech.
All the facts about Davis
were known to the Regent's
when they made their decision
to. block his appointment.
noted Varner. "The Regents
checked further to. be
absolutely certain of their in
formation. offense in any court of law,,
Davis said.
The NU Regents final reason
for not hiring the Michigan
teaching fellow was his:
testimony before the ap
propriations committee of the
Michigan Legislature in which
Davis allegedly made remarks
which showed poor judgment
and a "lack of objectivity.
"The report is inaccurate,."
Davis said flatly. He said he
did not use the words mention
ed in the Regents letter. He
also, said the letter "fails to
give enough detail for a fair
evaluation of what I did say.
Davis said he had
represented student govern
ment before the committee,
and that he had spoken out
against a proposed taw against
student demonstrations.. He
said he pointed out Fleming
had permitted a homosexual
dance, but not a statewide
conference on homosexuality.
That, Davis said, was a "good
example of the arbitrariness
of the University of Michigan
administration.
In addition, the Regents said
Davis is "intellectually ar
rogant and lacking la tact,, ob
jectivity and judgment.
Davis, at some legnth. said
the Regents lacked sufficient
information to make such a
statement and made little ef
fort to obtain it.
"I am willing to. admit that I
am not perfect, he said. "But
does it follow that I would not
be a good teacher? Does it
Turn to page 3 !
Regents' letter to Davis
Dear Mr. Davis,
As you requested in con
versation with me on Monday
the Board of Regents is pro
viding for you the statement
prepared for release. If you
choose to release any portion of
the statement the Board of
Regents has directed that the
full text of this letter be
released.
The Board of Regents of the
University of Nebraska makes
the following statements: When
the suggested appointment of
Michael Davis was being pro
e e s s e d subsequent to Dr.
Dewey's telegram offering him
a position, "subject to approval
by the Board of Regents' in
formation came to the attention
of the Chancellor which raised
some questions in his mind
concerning the wisdom of this
appointment.
The matter was then brought
to the attention of the Board of
Regents. The Board considered
the application of Mr.. Davis
and the related material whicli
had been submitted to the
Department of Philosophy and
determined that some further
inquiry should be made before
the matter was acted upon.
Further inquiry was then made
at Ann Arbor, Mich..
From the information thus
developed the Regents con
eluded that there was ap
parent evidence that Mr.. Dav's
was intellectually arrogant and
lacking in tact, objectivity and
judgment.. The board c o n
sidered these apparent
qualities of Mr.. Davis to bo
something less than wa.
desired for an. instructor in the
Department of Philosophy.
Specific examples of material
made available to the Regents
include:
1. It was resoa.sibily reported
to the Regents that at a recep
tion held at the University of
Michigan, after the inaugur
ation of President Fleming, Mr.
Davis spoke for five or six
minutes to the group at t h e
reception stating words to the
effect that the word from
"Wisconsin people was that
Fleming could not always be
trusted and that if President
Fleming would act as the
students guided or demo
era tic ally directed him
his presidency would be ac
ceptable and Indicating
otherwise that it would not be.
2. In the spring of 1970 Mr.
Davis held a one-man, four-day
fast and sit-in in the University
of Michigan Administration
Building at Ann Arbor to
publicize what he culled
"regental inaction on a stu
dent proposed revision of
Regents' bylaws. Prior to t h
sit-in Michael Duvis issued a
statement declaring that he
would conduct a sit-in protest
in the Administration Building
at Ann Arbor for the expressed
purpose of pur sua din the
Michigan Regents to adopt the
revised bylaws that he favored
Is announcing his sit-in Mr.
Davis stated "I wont be guilty
of trespass unless some ad
ministrator orders me to leave
If I am asked or ordered to
leave the building at any lime
I'll respectfully refuse. If I m
carried from the building
won't resist and won't go farth
er than I'm carried. As soon as
I can, I'll return to my place
inside the building.
"If I'm arrested, I won't
resist, won't cooperate, and
will continue the fast hi jail. I
ask that, if I'm arrested, no one
student or faculty, bail me
out. If I'm sent to jail by order
of an administrator, then I'll
stay in jail either till the jailers
get tired of me or till the ad
ministrator w h o ordered my
arrest regrets it.
This statement by Mr. Davis
indicates his willingness to
violate the law in support of
student - proposed bylaw
changes. The judgment shown
by Mr. Davis in this incident
does not meet the standard ex
pected by the Board of
Regents.
3. Mr. Davis was found guilty
of violating trespass law
following an arrest in
November, 18 at Ann Arbor,
Mich.
4. It was reliably reported
that on another occasion Mr..
Davis testified before
legislative committee that the
University administration had
a repressive., non-com
municative attitude toward
students. When challenged by
the committee to provide a
specific example. Davis said
that one example that cume
immediately to his mind was
that Pres. Fleming had refused
to permit a midwest Con
ference on homosexuality by
the Gay Liberation Front. The
Board of Regents. University of
Nebraska, considered that
there may well have been
legitimate reasons supporting
President Fleming's judgment
. aa rr . w it '
in tnis maiLer. ror Mr. iavi
to accuse President Fleming of
a repressive and noucom-
municutive attitude because of
his judgment in this matter in
dicated to the Regents a lack of
objectivity.
The Board recognizes that
Mr. Davis has very strong opi
nions in the area of University
administration and respects his
rights to express such opinions.
The Board welcomes
divergence of opinion but ex
pects those on the University
staff to respect the contrary
opinions of others, to be objec
tive in their discussions and
promotion of their ideas, to be
fair to others, to obey the law,
and to exercise sound judg
ment. The Board of Regents of
the University of Nebraska was
not satisfied that Mr.. Davis
would meet these standards
and m response to the obliga
tion placed on the Board by the
people of Nebraska and the
Legislature determined that the
contract should not be entered
into with. Mr.. Davis at this
time.
Sincerely,
C. Robert Ross
Corporation Secretary