Not every case of threatened infringement of academic freedom ends on a sad note. Often lucid men acting with dispatch effectively challenge attempts to curb free expression. Such is the instance in the argument between the Hall County Farm Bureau and Professor C. Clyde Mitchell of the University of Nebraska, in which the professor's right to state his opinions was forcefully defended by his university.

Last fall Mitchell delivered a series of talks in which he openly criticized flexible farm price proposals. He also wrote an article for Capper's Farmer, a Kansas publication, in which he expressed his views in rather sharp terms.

The National Farm Bureau Federation, the largest farmers' organization in the country, happens to be four square in favor of flexible supports. Immediately following the Capper's article, the Hall Country Farm Bureau attacked Mitchell and appointed a committee of three to see the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, at which Mitchell is chairman of the Department of Agricultural Economics with instructions to try to muzzle the wayward professor and to "take any further action they deem advisable."

Attack Vague

Although certain confusion characterized the attack, perhaps two of the strongest charges were that Mitchell was "against free enterprise" and indoctrinated his students in this direction.

The Bureau's initial statement outlined its position as follows: "We feel that an instructor in Economics should instruct in economic principles rather than indoctrination. We take issue with the statement of Dr. Mitchell that 'you cannot separate economics from politics.'

Encourages Regimentation

"We feel he is encouraging regimentation when he states that the majority of farmers want to be regimented. We are of the opinion that since the University of Nebraska College of Agriculture received federal funds he is in a way a subordinate of Secretary Benson and his attack on Mr. Benson's policies as early as April 1953 before Benson had time to be judged right or wrong were out of place."

In a more or less successful attempt to show the fuzzy, slogannaire thinking of the Bureau legislative chairman Charles X. Miller, who took credit for initiating the charges, Raymond A. McConnell, Jr., editor of the Lincoln Evening Journal, reported on an interview he had with this Bureau representative.

Asked the reason for the attack Miller replied, "We don't believe in regimentation of farmers... Mitchell's thinking is opposite to most of us-that is the organization we represent." If a professor's opinions coincided with the Farm Bureau's opinions would he still object? "I'm not too sure. What (Mitchell) should do is just further the facts and let the people judge." Does that mean a professor should not further opinions in writing or speeches? "That's right, no opinions."

Nebraska's Principles

The foundation of America's strength is diversity...

Under the philosophy upon which this nation was founded, a great educational system has developed and flourished. At its apex is the realm of higher education where the responsibility for furthering the routes of truth and knowledge rests more heavily than in any other area, of the educational system. In the realm of higher education the American right to question, to explore, to express, to examine and re-examine, is of necessity exercised continually. Were it not so, our diverse intellectual resources would become stagnant.

The men and women selected by this university... are expected to understand both the rights and responsibilities of their positions, including these:

1. The full right to speak as a citizen.