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 County 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 the 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.'

Encourage 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."

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 Welsh, waded into the fray. "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."