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.

2. The responsibilities of citizenship.

3. The right, as a professional person, to freedom in research and to publication of the results thereof, limited only by the precepts of scholarship and faithful performance of other academic responsibilities.

4. The right, as a professional person, to free and thorough expression in the classroom.

The rights to uphold, to discuss and dissent are the moral fiber of America's greatness. They are likewise the strength of a great university.

One confused exchange is worth quoting verbatim:

"The trouble is there's been so much comment about his department. Its teachings are clear over to the right," he added.

"I (McConnell) asked if he really meant right, or left?"

"Which do I mean?' he said. 'Right or left? Well, you know, the way we don't want it to be. We think the regents should do a lot of investigating of that department. It's so radically different from what it used to be under (Mitchell's predecessor)."

On the heels of the Farm Bureau charges, a member of the Board of Regents, J. Leroy Wolsh, waded into the frey. "Several times I have complained about the writings and speeches of this individual made over the state and have brought this to the attention of the University." Speaking only for himself he said, "I am glad to have a group like these farmers pay attention to this sort of activity and call attention to it. I have no brief for anyone in a tax-supported institution who favors the destruction of the free enterprise system."

Favored Rigid Supports

Mitchell's controversial magazine article was basically an argument in favor of the existing rigid price support program. He criticized the flexible support plan on the grounds that "no one has yet proved that farmers will make the economic response to price flexing... There is good evidence that most farmers will not. Much of a farmer's coats is fixed and much of his properly is in sunk investments, in specialized equipment and skills, which force him to keep right on producing even though the price is falling."

Mitchell stated that rigid supports provide a solid base for planning and raise farmers to almost even terms with industry. "I'm not too concerned over charges that the inefficient are rewarded' or the farmer is regimented," he wrote. "Farmers have concluded that one of the freedoms they enjoy under production controls-a good price-is more valuable than the supposed freedoms they might have under an unsupported program."

Press Backed Mitchell

Local newspapers spoke out in defense of Mitchell's right to express his views-no matter how controversial. Campus groups praised the professor and denied allegations that he had tried to indoctrinate his students.

Without delay the Board of Regents asked Mitchell's superior, W.V. Lambert, dean of the College of Agriculture, to investigate and report to them as soon as possible. Lambert subsequently opened his remarks to the regents with a powerful statement of principles (see box) which they liked so well that they adopted it and incorporated it in the University's records as a declaration of university policy.

During the meeting Lambert told the regents. "If teachers and research men in our public institutions are to make contributions to social problems, they must have the solid backing of the governing bodies of these institutions. I urge you as strongly as I can to give such backing in this case."

Mitchell was exonerated from all charges and was in fact praised as a "good teacher, honest and courageous."