. . ., , , eft .
13
i,
I 1 J
We're not ogres who live in castles'
-Robert Rami
by KELLEY BAKER
Former Editor
It is not difficult to
understand the Board of
Regents' decision not to rehire
Dr. Stephen Rozman but it is
difficult to comprehend their
treatment of the Special
Faculty F a c t - F i n d i n g
Committee. That Rozman was
being used as a scapegoat has
been generally accepted but
few people believed that the
Board would abuse the
Committee as it did.
Spelts credibility gone
Rozman's troubles began
when the Spelts Commission
Report cited him for
"inappropriate conduct."
Russell Mattson, a member of
the Spelts Commission,
admitted to Rozman and the
Committee's attorney that
Rozman had been singled out
because a witness had told him
that Rozman called one of
President Soshnik's speeches a
bunch of "crap." This same
witness refused to testify
before the Committee and it
was conclusively established
that the witness was in error.
The mistake and many
others that haye come to light
over the past few months have
destroyed the credibility of the
Spelts Commission Report.
Testimony was never recorded.
Many important figures,
including people mentioned in
the report, were never
questioned. No files were kept
and no one can tell who
testified or when or where
anyone testified. All that
remains are the attorney's
handwritten notes.
Decision in December
The Regents were prepared
to fire Rozman at their
December meeting but an
eleventh hour compromise was
forged by several highly
respected faculty members. As
a result, the Special
Fact-Finding Committee was
established to separate the
truth from all the myths that
surrounded Rozman's actions.
The Committee's report is
an impressive and cogent
document which expressed the
unanimous conclusion that
"Dr. Rozman was not guilty of
inappropriate actions during
the week of May 4."
The Regents' treatment of
the Committee and Rozman
severely damages their own
credibility. It is worth noting
that they never accepted the
report as they have many
others--they merely
''acknowledged their
appreciation." Had they
trusted the Committee they
would have quoted from its
findings but the findings didn't
fit the fate the Board had in
mind for Rozman.
The Board alluded to (but
never stated) the findings of
the Committee as the eleventh
of twelve points in their
resolution. It is doubtful that
the Regents ever had any
intention of coming to any
verdict other than guilty and
the Committee's findings were
an embarrassment that had to
be avoided. In one sense, the
Fact-Finding Committee's time
and effort were wasted because
the Regents ignored them, but
in a more important sense,
they were invaluable in
showing up the Board's
insensitivity to anything but its
own desires.
Continual distress
The Regents must find it a
source of continuing
embarrassment that the
justifications for their decisions
not to hire and not to rehire
prove falicious. Earlier this
year, after months of secrecy,
they released four reasons for
refusing to hire Michael Davis
as an instructor in philosophy.
Of the four, two were later
disproved and the president of
the Board admitted that they
were not sure of a third when
they made their decision. That
left only the reason that Mr.
David had conducted a
one-man sit-in in the Michigan
Administration Building.
Ultimately, the only reason
left to the Regents for not
rehiring Dr. Rozman is the fact
that he too was involved in a
sit-in.
Applies to everyone?
Point 1 1 of the resolution
that the Board approved
unanimously cited Rozman's
refusal to leave the ROTC
Building "when directed to do
so by the administration" and
his failure to "cooperate with
the administration efforts to
secure the evacuation of the
building after it had been
determined on the morning of
May 5, 1970, that the action of
the students had become
disruptive to normal University
operations..." They concluded
that such actions "are not
approved by this Board and
will not be condoned in Dr.
Rozman's case or in any other
Case,"
Point 4 of the same
resolution stated that the
Board "will not tolerate action
which disrupts or which
threatens to disrupt the
educational activities of the
University...without regard to
whether those acts are
committed by students,
faculty, administrators or
outsiders." Presumably, then,
the wrath of the Regents will
be directed against all of those
who occupied the ROTC
Building after the injunction
was filed a list which
includes tenured faculty and an
associate dean as well as
untenured faculty and a large
number of students.
Var lOUS factors
influenced Regents
by PAUL CRIST
Member, Innocents Society
The decision of the Board
of Regents to fire Professor
Rozman is controversial. Their
decision was difficult, and
surrounded by a variety of
influences.
Some, including the Board
of Regents, have concluded
that Professor Rozman's
actions were "highly
inappropriate for a teacher."
Others have clearly concluded
that the action of the regents
was "inappropriate" or
"disappointing," as did Henry
Holtzclaw, chairman of the
Special Fact Finding
Committee.
Among the factors which
could have been of influence
were 1 ) the emotional rhetoric
of those agreeing with
Rozman's position and of
those disagreeing with it, 2) the
force of the Spelt's
Commission report, 31 the
impact of the Holtzclaw
committee report, 4) the
inconsistencies of the two
reports, 5) conservative
political pressures from the
Unicameral and others, 6) an
overriding sense of
responsibility on the part of
the regents to the people of
Nebraska, and 7) questions of
individual conscience by the
individual Regents.
However, in the final
analysis, the Regents acted in
"good faith" to their
responsibility. As reasonable
men they were forced to make
sense out of the inconsistencies
between the Spelts
Commission report and the
Holtzclaw report. They
rejected the emotion and the
political pressure. In their
opinion "the interest of Dr.
Rozman and of the University
will be best served" by
terminating the relationship of
the two.
The Regents acted as
objectively as possible. Their
Editorial staff
Staff writers: Gary Seacrest, Bill Smithorman, Jim Pedersen, Steve
Strasser, Dave Brink, Marsha Bangert, Carol Goetschius, Charlie Harpster,
Mike Wilkins, Jim Carver, Marsha Kahm, Bart Becker, Dennis Snyder, Vicki
Pulos, Roxanne Rogers, Ann Pedersen. East campus editor: Marlene
Timmerman. Sports editor: Jim Johnston. Sports writers: Steve Kadel,
Warren Obr. Photographers: Mike Hayman, Gail Folda. Entertainment
editor: Larry Kubert. Literary editor: Alan Boye, Artists, Linda Lake, Greg
Scott. Design editor: Jim Gray. Copy
Willers, Don Russell. Night news editor: Leo Schleicher.
Business staff
Coordinator: Sandra Carter. Salesmen: Steve Yates, Jane Kidwell, Greg
Scott, Ray Pyle, Bill Cooley. Business
managers: Barry Pilger, John Waggoner, John Ingwerson.
Telephones: editor: 472-2588, news:
class postage rates paid at Lincoln, Neb.
Subscription rates are $5 per semester or $8.50 per year. Published
Monday through Friday during the school year except during vacation and
exam periods. Member of the Intel collegiate Press, National Educational
Advertising Service.
The Daily Nebraskan is a student
University of Nebraska s administration,
Address: The Daily Nebraskan, 34
Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508.
primary concern was to serve
the best interest of the
University.
This is not to :ay that
Rozman is either ouUty or
innocent of "inappropriate
activity." Presumably that will
be a matter for the court.
Although Rozman has
suggested that the Holtzclaw
report exonerated him, that
the Regents acted politically,
and that he is being used as a
scapegoat, here is considerable
room for reasonable men to
disagree. And reasonable men
have disagreed. Perhaps the
courts will exonerate him,
perhaps they will not. This is
to be seen.
Two commissions have
studied the May, 1970,
activities and reached some
differing conclusions. Even so,
many questions remain
unanswered about Rozman's
conduct. Did Rozman by his
conduct willfully disobey
reasonable directives by
remaining in the M & N
Building? Did Rozman act
reasonably to help effect a
compromise at the time of the
M & N occupation? Did
Rozman exercise perogatives
inconsistent with appropriate
conduct of faculty members?
Was his position-that the
University adopt a sympathetic
political statement
(sympathetic to his position
and those of the other students
occupying the M & N Building)
- unreasonable and intolerant?
Other questions can be
posed concerning the action of
the Board of Regents. Was the
decision wise? Is it in violation
of the percious concept of
academic freedom?
These questions are as of
yet not satisfactorily answered.
As a matter of conscience and
responsibility, the regents have
acted. Their decision is a good
faith decision, and should be
respected as such. However, it
remains clear that reasonable
men can and will disagree.
MICK MORIARTY
editor
CONNIE WINKLER
managing editor
JOHN DVORAK
news editor
PAT DINATALE
advertising manager
JAMES HORNER
chairman, publications committee
editors: Tom Lansworth, Laura
assistant: Pam Baker. Distribution
2589, advertising: 2590. Second
publication, independent of the
faculty and student government.
Nebraska Union, University of
v,-
I
i
V
?1
if
, -f
' r . :. fr
.V -,
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1971
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
PAGE 5
a.