The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current, October 26, 1970, Image 1
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