From: "Tom Dyke" tomdyke@darkwing.uoregon.edu
To: pkeyes@darkwing.uoregon.edu
Cc: "Peter Gilkey" gilkey@uoregon.edu, "Jim Hutchison" hutch@uoregon.edu
Time: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:39:49 -0700
Subject: DoD motion debate and materials Time:

Peter and Peter,

I understand from Jim Hutchison that you are posting some arguments concerning the DoD motion on a Senate website. I would like to have the following posted along with the arguments in favor, if you think it is appropriate. I sent this to all of the CAS senators before last Wednesday's meeting, but not to everyone, and I think it does add some relevant arguments opposing the motion that were not presented at the Senate meeting.

Tom

Colleagues -

I am writing as an individual faculty member to urge you to ask UO Senators to vote against the proposed motion concerning DoD sponsored research, which will be discussed at the Wednesday Senate meeting.

This motion attempts to restrict the academic freedom of faculty to pursue research avenues that are otherwise allowed by law and by UO policy. It attempts to force the University of Oregon to take an official, collective stand to limit or stop activities in support of DoD funding of research. Among other actions, it seems to require faculty wanting to pursue a research project sponsored by the Department of Defense to get explicit clearance from the UO Senate before the UO could take actions on behalf of such research. Apart from likely being an unworkable procedure, this is a remarkable constraint on academic freedom. If enacted, it would certainly be only the first of a long line of restrictions on basic research that would require some type of ideological litmus test. Such tests would hardly be restricted to one segment of the political spectrum. Stem cell research, peace studies, genetic research, evolution theory, forest ecology, and virtually any basic research that one can think of is opposed on ideological grounds by certain groups in society.

As individual researchers, I believe we have an obligation to understand and defend the moral and ethical implications of the applications of our research. However, this is a far cry from requiring the University to make a collective and official response based on current objections of some groups to the actions of the US government. The thrust of this motion is to classify DoD sponsored research as objectionable because of the source of funds rather than any specific objections to particular research projects. Since NSF and NIH funds come from the same government that runs the Department of Defense, should research from these agencies be similarly limited?

I believe a far better response to objections to United States government policies is in the political realm in the wider community. The role of the University is to inform and educate concerning these issues. Asking the University to make policies in order to achieve these ends, worthy or not, is deeply misguided in my view.

Thomas R. Dyke Professor of Chemistry