DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Students for a Democratic Society, Herrnstein lecture, February-June, 1972 | 1972-03-16 Daily Iowan Article: 'Stuit, WSA leader lock horns on Herrnstein affair'

Transcribe
Translate

Students for a Democratic Society, Herrnstein lecture, February-June, 1972

1972-03-16 Daily Iowan Article: 'Stuit, WSA leader lock horns on Herrnstein affair'

Stuit, WSA leader lock horns on Herrnstein affair

By CAROL LONGMAN
Daily Iowa Writer
A scheduled debate on academic freedom Wednesday became a discussion of the Herrnstein incident and the resultant band of the Worker-Student Alliance (WSA) at the University of Iowa.
About 100 students gathered in the Main Lounge of the Union to hear Dewey B. Stuit, dean of the College of Liberal Arts debate Bruce R. Johnson former head of WSA, on the subject of the academic freedom. 
Although Stuit said he was not there to discuss Herrnstein article on IQ, comments by Johnson and questions from the floor kept the discussion aimed at that topic. 
Speaking on the Herrnstein incident, Stuit said, "We had interference of academic freedom in that a recognized scholar was prevented from giving his speech."
Johnson said, however, that WSA did not prevent Herrnstein's speech. "We had petitions that called for him to answer questions but he refused and has refused consistently to answer any questions about his article on IQ."
Stuit said the disruption of Herrnstein's–a Harvard professor–speech was "not a question of academic freedom, but a display of bad manners and disrespect for a guest."
"It was of a disruptive character and not in keeping with he high ideals for which we are established." 
He defined academic freedom as the "freedom to teach one
s subject in accordance with the canons of scholarship, to do research, and to publish findings of research without interference from the university or any outside agency."
Stuit added that academic freedom is far less comprehensive than freedom of speech. 
Johnson said however, "the faculty implies that it believes in freedom of speech but they don't act in accordance with belief. The case in point here is the banning of WSA by the university."
The university serves interests of big business and the issue of academic freedom is a phony one," Johnson said. 
Stuid disagreed and said "The university's interest is in learning and scholarship."
As to why WSA was suspended, Stuit said, "An institution must have rules and regulations and WSA was  suspended because they didn't comply with the rules of the university."
suspended "because we act on what we believe. They've (the university) got all the cards and if we take action we are stopped because we are disrupting their system."
Stuit maintained that the function of the university is academic. He said, "The university should not become a political instrument, this would change its basic function."
He said, "Rules and regulations don't interfere with academics, but disruptions of that kind do interfere."

Saving...

Stuit, WSA leader lock horns on Herrnstein affair By CAROL LONGMAN Daily Iowa Writer A scheduled debate on academic freedom Wednesday became a discussion of the Herrnstein incident and the resultant band of the Worker-Student Alliance (WSA) at the University of Iowa. About 100 students gathered in the Main Lounge of the Union to hear Dewey B. Stuit, dean of the College of Liberal Arts debate Bruce R. Johnson former head of WSA, on the subject of the academic freedom. Although Stuit said he was not there to discuss Herrnstein article on IQ, comments by Johnson and questions from the floor kept the discussion aimed at that topic. Speaking on the Herrnstein incident, Stuit said, "We had interference of academic freedom in that a recognized scholar was prevented from giving his speech." Johnson said, however, that WSA did not prevent Herrnstein's speech. "We had petitions that called for him to answer questions but he refused and has refused consistently to answer any questions about his article on IQ." Stuit said the disruption of Herrnstein's–a Harvard professor–speech was "not a question of academic freedom, but a display of bad manners and disrespect for a guest." "It was of a disruptive character and not in keeping with he high ideals for which we are established." He defined academic freedom as the "freedom to teach one s subject in accordance with the canons of scholarship, to do research, and to publish findings of research without interference from the university or any outside agency." Stuit added that academic freedom is far less comprehensive than freedom of speech. Johnson said however, "the faculty implies that it believes in freedom of speech but they don't act in accordance with belief. The case in point here is the banning of WSA by the university." The university serves interests of big business and the issue of academic freedom is a phony one," Johnson said. Stuid disagreed and said "The university's interest is in learning and scholarship." As to why WSA was suspended, Stuit said, "An institution must have rules and regulations and WSA was suspended because they didn't comply with the rules of the university." suspended "because we act on what we believe. They've (the university) got all the cards and if we take action we are stopped because we are disrupting their system." Stuit maintained that the function of the university is academic. He said, "The university should not become a political instrument, this would change its basic function." He said, "Rules and regulations don't interfere with academics, but disruptions of that kind do interfere."