college and university government: the university of texas at el paso

College and University Government: The University of Texas at El PasoAuthor(s): C. Addison HickmanSource: AAUP Bulletin, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 126-138Published by: American Association of University ProfessorsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40224724 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 09:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Association of University Professors is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to AAUP Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.128 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:55:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40224724?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


College and University Government: The University of Texas at El Paso

Introduction

In the late summer of 1972, President Joseph R. Smiley of the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) infor-

mally expressed to the Chancellor of the University of Texas System his desire to resign. That decision was made for personal reasons, although it followed a year of student unrest at El Paso and some administrative changes on the campus initiated in the system offices in Austin rather than by the University President. President Smiley's decision was not made public until November 1 even

though he had reported it to the Board of Regents at its

meeting of September 11, 1972. At the time when President Smiley's resignation was

publicly announced at a luncheon in El Paso, Chancellor Charles A. LeMaistre, who had come for the occasion, made it clear that faculty and student consultation would be part of the process by which a new president for the University would be sought. A few weeks later, Dr. Ken- neth Ash worth, System Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, addressed the UTEP Faculty Council and carefully outlined regental rules and procedures under which an Institutional Advisory Committee of faculty and students would be expected to consult with a Regents' Se- lection Committee to nominate a new president. In late November that Institutional Advisory Committee was formed by actions of the Faculty Council and Student's Association Senate, respectively, and its membership was made known to the University President and the Chancel- lor.

While the Campus Institutional Advisory Committee was still seeking instructions from Austin, the Board of

Regents, following its meeting of December 8, appointed its Selection Committee; on December 20 the Selection Committee met and nominated Dr. Arleigh B. Temple- ton, then President of the University of Texas at San Antonio. At a special meeting of the Board of Regents on December 22, 1972, Dr. Templeton was named Pres- ident of the University of Texas at El Paso, and was instructed to take up his new assignment within the week. Members of the El Paso Institutional Advisory Commit- tee only learned of the existence of the Selection Com- mittee and its action from the press and, following the

appointment, from a letter dated December 22 addressed to each faculty member by the Chancellor. The Chancel- lor justified the precipitate actions by himself, the Selec- tion Committee, and the Board of Regents by claiming the existence of "conclusive evidence that there is a clear

emergency potentially jeopardizing the safety of personnel and students on the UT El Paso Campus

"

The Steering Committee of the local AAUP chapter convened in emergency session on December 23 and issued a statement protesting the actions in Austin as hav-

ing completely bypassed the Institutional Advisory Com-

mittee; it nonetheless expressed willingness to try to work with the new appointee. The time of the appointment, at the beginning of a vacation period, precluded any immediate formal faculty response, but in the first week of January, 1973, officers of the AAUP chapter and of the statewide Texas Conference of AAUP communicated with the Washington AAUP office. On January 16, an

open meeting was called by the chapter (with about 30

percent of the faculty in attendance) to consider an appropriate response to the situation. Formal action was

taken when the Faculty Council on February 13, 1973,

requested its Chairman to ask the Association to consider

authorizing an official inquiry into the Board of Regents' action. The undersigned ad hoc investigating committee was appointed in April, 1973, with the expectation that

a visit to the campus and to the office of the Chancellor

1The text of this report was written in the first instance by the members of the investigating committee. In accordance with Association practice, the text was sent to the Associa- tion's Committee T on College and University Government, to the Chancellor of the University of Texas System, to the administration of the University of Texas at El Paso, to the presidents - past and present - of the University of Texas at El Paso Faculty Council, to the chapter president, and to other persons directly concerned in the report. In the light of the suggestions received, and with the editorial assistance of the Association's Washington Office staff, the report has been revised for publication.

126 AAUP bulletin



in Austin could be undertaken in May. In fact, however, the Chancellor's schedule precluded a May or June visit, and a visit to the El Paso campus during the summer months did not seem feasible. Accordingly, on-site in-

quiries did not occur until October 29-30, 1973, in El

Paso, and October 31 in Austin. In El Paso the committee interviewed President Templeton, former Presi- dent Smiley, former Vice President for Student Affairs

Gary Brooks, officers of the AAUP chapter, officers of the Faculty Council, numerous other faculty members, and several present and former student leaders, including representatives of the student organization, Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), which had

organized student protests during the period in question. In Austin, Chancellor LeMaistre assembled a number of the members and former members of his staff to meet with the ad hoc committee; one member of the Board of Regents, Mr. Frank C. Erwin, Jr., attended a part of the meeting, and five of the nine persons on the Se- lection Committee which had nominated Dr. Templeton were present.

The Institution

The University of Texas at El Paso was founded sixty years ago as the Texas School of Mines and Metallurgy, a title which indicates its early emphasis and institutional direction. By 1949, however, its college program had been broadened and expanded to the extent that it was renamed Texas Western College, and in 1966 it became known

by its present title. It now has a student body of about 11,000, offers more than seventy degree programs and has well over 400 faculty members.

Certain aspects of the institution's location and student

population bear on its recent internal troubles and merit

description. The institution has always been conscious of its separation from the rest of the state. Geographically it is more than 600 miles from the central offices of the

university system at Austin, and it is unique in having the largest percentage of Mexican-American students of

any institution of comparable size. Across the Rio Grande from El Paso is Juarez, Mexico, which sends many day and some dormitory students to UTEP, and in El Paso itself more than half of the population bear Spanish sur- names. The Chicano students at UTEP (perhaps 36

percent of the student body) have one major student

group (MEChA), and four or five smaller organizations, through which they have expressed their concern for the lack of Chicano representation in student offices, on the

faculty, and in the administration. The recent incorpora- tion of El Paso Community College (a two-year insti-

tution) with a Mexican-American president and a larger Chicano representation on its faculty, has inadvertently helped to increase Chicano student frustration at UTEP.

Background

More than a year of unrest at UTEP lay behind the sudden appointment of the new president on December 22, 1972. For reasons that have nothing to do with the present controversy, there had been a change in the pres-

idency of the University in 1968. At that time President Joseph M. Ray had resigned and an Acting President, Robert M. Leech, served while a search which resulted in the appointment of President Smiley was going on. The UTEP Faculty Advisory Committee was consulted, felt that it had been successful in screening out a strong candidate whose appointment would have been extremely unpopular on campus, and was grateful that its former colleague (Dr. Smiley had been UTEP President from 1958 to 1960) with a successful career as university administrator in another state was returning to El Paso as its chief officer. Although faculty members have as- serted that participation in university government was not significantly strong at El Paso, faculty and student morale is reported as having been good, and the faculty had no evident reason to believe that it would not be consulted in any further administrative changes affecting its campus.

Nevertheless, in August, 1971, a vice president and a dean left their administrative posts and two new vice presidents and a dean were appointed by the Chancellor (the Board of Regents concurring) without faculty consultation. Whether President Smiley concurred in these administrative changes is less important than the fact that he did not initiate them. The relevance of these events to subsequent ones is that the faculty at UTEP felt that it had reason to believe that the central system at Austin, rather than the campus central administration, was at fault in by-passing UTEP faculty consultation.

At its first meeting for the academic year in October, 1971, the Faculty Council authorized its chairman to ex- press strong objection to the Board of Regents concerning the methods used in the administrative dismissals and appointments. Included in this protest was a quota- tion of the Board of Regents' rules concerning the appointment of administrative officers below the rank of institutional presidents, specifically Chapter II, Section 5, Point 3, as follows:

The Board of Regents endorses the principle of reasonable faculty and student consultation in the selection of administrative officers of the component institutions, and expects the Chancellor or Chief Administrative officer, as he deems appropriate, to consult in the selection process with representatives of the faculty and student body.

The faculty was quite aware of the form of faculty participation allowed under the rules. In terms of the "levels" of faculty participation in such administrative appointments (as categorized by the AAUP Survey Subcommit- tee of Committee T, AAUP Bulletin, Spring, 1971, pp. 68-69), the faculty clearly did not have the power to "determine" appointments, nor even the desirable "joint action" prerogative. But it did have reason to believe that it had been assured "consultation" by the regental rules, and when, in fact, not even "discussion" was permitted, there seemed to be entirely appropriate grounds for protest.

The Council's letter of protest to President Smiley was dated November 11, 1971, and was forwarded by him to Chancellor LeMaistre on November 17. President

summer 1974 127



Smiley's covering letter informed the Chancellor that he had given the faculty his "assurance that, because of unusual circumstances surrounding the administrative changes effected in August, the procedures followed at that time will not become standard practice."

On December 3, 1971, the Board of Regents acted to tighten procedures for administrative appointments throughout the system. The two relevant subsections of the Regents Rules and Regulations deserve to be quoted:

Subsection 4.1 of Chapter II.

Hie Chancellor shall appoint the Chief Administrative Officers of the component institutions with the approval of the Board of Regents. The Chancellor shall be assisted in making his appointment by a Selection Committee made up of the Chancellor, who serves as chairman, the Deputy Chancellor for Administration, the Vice Chancellors for Academic Affairs and Health Affairs and two Regents and three institutional heads from the U.T. System appointed by the Chairman of the Board of Regents and such other persons as the Chairman of the Board of Regents may deem appropriate. The availability of candidates and their interest in the position will be determined by this Selection Com- mittee.

The Chancellor will ordinarily authorize the establishment of an institutional advisory committee consisting of faculty and students at the institution to consult with the Selection Committee. This faculty-student committee may, in accordance with a schedule set by the Chancellor, suggest persons who should be considered by the Selection Com- mittee and individual members of that Committee. The Selection Committee shall be free to seek such additional consultation with the faculty and students as it deems appropriate.

The Chief Administrative Officer of each of the component institutions serves under and reports to the Chancellor, is responsible to the Chancellor, and has access to the Board of Regents only through the Chancellor.

Subsection 5.3 of Section 5 of Chapter II.

The Board of Regents endorses the principle of reasonable faculty and student consultation in the selection of administrative officers of the component institutions, and expects the Chancellor or Chief Administrative Officer, as he deems appropriate, to consult in the selection process with representatives of the faculty and student body. However, the Chief Administrative Officer of the institution will be held responsible for executing the duties of his office and consequently shall not be bound by nominations to key administrative positions in his office by campus selection committees in making his nominations to the Chancellor. Such advice and consultation as he may seek or be given shall not be binding upon his nomination for appointments to positions in the echelon immediately below his own position.

The UTEP Faculty Council, on February 8, 1972, unanimously expressed its opposition to the new rules as follows:

The Council accepts the principle enunciated by the Chan- cellor in his statement of December 3, 1971, that a candidate for appointment to high administrative position should be exposed to the several constituencies whose confidence he must maintain, but argues that these constituencies must invariably include the institutional faculty and students as well as the management and administrative echelons of the University of Texas system. The Council therefore expresses its opposition to the amendments to the Regents* Rules

passed on December 3, 1971, which contradict in fact the statement that the "Board of Regents endorses the principle of reasonable faculty and student consultation in the selection of administrative officers." [Minutes of the Faculty Council, Vol XI, p. 62]

The new rules being the guidelines, nonetheless, for

faculty input to administrative appointments, President

Smiley asked the Faculty Council to work out procedures for forming "a local faculty-student advisory committee" in case its advice should be requested in the future. The Council's compliance with this request in the late

spring of 1972 was put off by yet another incident that seemed one more reminder that faculty involvement had no high priority at UTEP. This time, in the summer of 1972, a new Registrar was appointed, again without fac-

ulty consultation, and the Steering Committee of the local chapter of AAUP offered a resolution to the Faculty Council at its July 11 meeting expressing vigorously, and even with the threat of sanctions, its disapproval of the latest in the series of unilateral administrative actions. This resolution was passed.

Concurrent with this disintegrating situation, another more public problem erupted. The large Chicano student body at UTEP had been for the most part nonaggressive during the early years of the University's history. In the 1960's, however, k responded, as minorities on other campuses also did, to the democratic aspirations of the time. At UTEP, one organization, MEChA, became dominant in the student surge for recognition. Beginning in 1970, and increasingly in 1971, MEChA spoke for Chicano needs with notable success in the formation of a Chicano studies program, in the attainment of a $130,000 HEW grant for counseling, tutoring, and social service support, in access to the free use of offices in the Student Union Building, and in student-fee support.

The efforts of MEChA to rally student support became increasingly intense when Dr. Gary D. Brooks was named Vice President for Student Affairs in August, 1971, one of the appointments for which there had been neither faculty nor student input. MEChA had wanted a Chicano in that office, and they saw in Dr. Brooks a relatively unresponsive individual. Throughout the fall of 1971, Dr. Brooks and MEChA were at loggerheads, culminating in events which occurred on December 3, 1971, when a student rally got out of hand and twenty-six students were arrested. Charges against them were not pressed, final examinations and vacation intervened, and in January, 1972, Dr. Brooks recommended the appointment of Alvin D. Rivera as Assistant Dean of Students.

MEChA initially objected to Dean Rivera's appointment because Chicano students were not consulted or involved in the selection process, but in time the organization members found Rivera sympathetic to their aims and they welcomed his support and assistance. The tense- ness and anger of the previous December faded, although throughout the spring and early fall MEChA continued its pressure for mere Chicano faculty and administrators, and for other goafe in its campaign for Chicano recognition. On November 6, 1972, five days after President

128 AAUP BULLETIN



Smiley's public announcement of his intent to resign as soon as his successor could be named, Dr. Brooks asked for Dean Rivera's resignation. Although this request had no connection with Dr. Smiley's announcement, as far as the record shows, the concurrence of the events was important to the history of Dr. Templeton's appointment as President.

Campus Unrest, November and December, 1972

In his "Summary Statement" to the AAUP investi-

gating committee (See Exhibit A, appended), Chancellor LeMaistre gave as the chief rationale for his, the Selec- tion Committee's, and the Board of Regents' action in

setting aside the "ordinary" consultative procedures in this case, "the potentially explosive situation" with a

"potential for tragedy" that existed on the UTEP campus in late 1972. It is appropriate, therefore, to review some of the facts relevant to that unrest.

On November 6, Dr. Gary D. Brooks, Vice President for Student Affairs, asked for, but did not receive, the resignation of Assistant Dean Rivera. Subsequently, Dean Rivera was told that his position would be terminated on December 31, although no reasons were announced for his dismissal. Various Chicano groups meanwhile had learned that application for a renewal of a large HEW grant for a Special Services Program (counseling, tutor-

ing, career guidance, and other Chicano community enter-

prises) had not been made. The combination seemed a

planned adversary action to MEChA. On November 15, Dean Rivera appealed to President

Smiley for a tribunal to review his case. President Smiley at first considered such a review, but ultimately decided against it. On November 22 (the last day of school before Thanksgiving vacation) he wrote to Dean Rivera asking him to vacate his office by November 27 (the Monday after vacation) instead of December 31, and informing him that his salary would continue through the year, until August, 1973. MEChA announced it would organize a series of rallies to continue until Dr. Brooks was dis- missed and Dean Rivera restored.

Dean Rivera's office and that of Dr. Gary Brooks, the Vice President responsible for his dismissal, are in the Student Union Building, which also houses the offices of MEChA. Under MEChA's sponsorship a student protest rally was held on Wednesday, November 29, on the Union Mall. University police surveyed the crowd, taking pictures and films of students. A rock band preceded the rally and there were a few speeches. One, by Mr. David Campos, MEChA's president, contained a warn-

ing to the protesters that a repetition of the actions of the previous December when some thirty students were arrested would be counterproductive. After a speech by a student who was characterized (to the investigating committee) by Chief Ralph Coulter of the campus police as a member of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) , a crowd of some 200 moved to Dr. Brooks's office to oc- cupy it and demand an audience. When he did not return, some of the students moved to the adjoining office of Mr. Walter D. McCoy, Associate Dean of Students.

When Dean McCoy attempted to speak to them, the students demanded to see Dr. Brooks, and when told he was with the President, many moved on to the Adminis- tration Building. Subsequently, Mr. Campos addressed the group again, succeeded in regaining control and dis- persed the demonstration. Two students were arrested in connection with the event, one for allegedly being asso- ciated with theft of a file from Dean McCoy's office and another for interfering with the arresting officer.

The events of November 29 did not lead to a dangerous confrontation, but when MEChA announced another rally for Friday, December 1, Chief Coulter became concerned. On that date a meeting of the Coordi- nating Board for the State Universities was scheduled to be held on campus as part of its routine rotation of meetings from campus to campus, and in order to prevent any disruption of that meeting Chief Coulter asked for and received the support of eighteen security officers flown in from other campuses. Much has been made of the threatened disruption of this meeting, and Chancellor LeMaistre mentioned it as part of the "volatile situation" which precipitated his action on December 22. There is no clear indication that MEChA intended to disrupt that meeting, but Chief Coulter has stated that he was concerned that a small group of fifteen to twenty SDS members would use MEChA grievances when they could to further their own cause. The student rally of Decem- ber 1 actually materialized as a "silent vigil march," three abreast, of some 500 or so students, in support of Dean Rivera. The newspapers, campus and city, reported the event as a "peaceful rally"; the ad hoc Committee found no evidence to the contrary.

With respect to the call for System police reinforce- ments, it should be noted that the System maintains a specially trained and mobile force available for dispatch to any of the campuses where added security measures are deemed necessary. Chief Coulter has pointed out that his entire local security force consists of eleven commis- sioned and four noncommissioned officers.

On December 6, MEChA planned another rally for the Student Union area, but the petitioners were told the meeting would have to be held at Leech Grove, an open area near the center of the campus. MEChA representatives interviewed by the AAUP investigating committee

acknowledged that the organization knew of the revision in the rally permit but contended that the approval of Leech Grove came too late to get up posters and signs announcing the new site. Consequently, MEChA defied the order. Campos led a march of fifty persons through the nearby Liberal Arts Building "in an attempt to stim- ulate response" from the students and faculty. The students clapped their hands as they moved through the

building, according to the student newspaper, The Pros-

pector, account (December 7, 1972), and some shouting and slamming of doors were reported by faculty. Some

thirty students continued the march, through the Univer- sity Library and the Physical Science Building. This march and the meeting that preceded it were an infraction of the rules. The march, however, was short lived, and it

summer 1974 129



is the only instance reported to the Committee when classes were disrupted. After the march Mr. Campos called on students "not to pay spring pre-registration fees so the computer system used in registration will be made

inoperable," and urged "all beginning freshmen to en- roll at the El Paso Community College as a protest" (The Prospector, December 7, 1972).

But in fact student interest in the protests was waning. The Prospector (December 7, 1972) editorialized "Pre- dicting Student Apathy," and reported the police esti- mate of the largest of the rallies on December 1 to be only 500, or 5 percent of the student body. Mr. Campos himself said, according to The Prospector, "we are going to use the Christmas vacation to be more prepared than ever," but added that "There are no plans at this time for another rally in the immediate future." Semester exams were approaching.

During the December 6 meetings and parade, the campus and System police officials took photographs and observed but made no arrests. Arrests were made the next day. Seeking the advice of System lawyers, Chief Coulter was advised that charges of "disrupting campus activity" would not stick. His arrests on December 7 and subsequent days, therefore, were on the lesser charge of "disorderly conduct," but the twenty-eight arrests made resulted in dismissals in County Court during the next few days.

The arrests gave rise to widespread campus indigna- tion. Some witnesses said the police used aggressive tactics in carrying out the arrests. The Faculty Council was called into a special meeting.

Earlier, as a result of the November 29 rally and the invasion of Dr. Brooks's office, the Executive Commit- tee of the Council had spoken out firmly against disruption. As reported in the El Paso Times for December 1, 1972, the earlier statement had said: "The use of violence in preventing the discharge of instructional and administrative responsibilities constitutes a serious affront to some of the most basic aspirations of any institution of higher education. Any such actions that are intended to influence the implementation of the normal activities of the University should be thwarted through the usage of all reasonable means." This statement of principle, however, was not intended to sanction the measures adopted by the security forces in the days following the December 6 affair. On this point the Committee passed the following resolution:

The Faculty Council of the University of Texas at El Paso endorses the preservation of order on this, and any other, campus. We surely will not tolerate the interdiction of the University's function by students or anyone else. At the same time we protest the open presence of large numbers of armed police on campus, and actions such as indiscrim- inate photographing and recording of speakers at rallies. These methods have constituted an unfortunate and em- barrassing over-reaction to recent events on this campus. An injudicious display of armed force can contribute to a breach of the very peace which it is supposed to preserve. Moreover, such practices have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and assembly and are therefore antithetical to the principles of American democracy and incompatible with

the purpose and objectivity of any university. The Faculty Council therefore requests that such methods be used only in extreme emergency when there is a clear and present danger to life, property and the University's function. [Minutes of the Faculty Council, December 14, 1972] Following dismissal of the charges against the arrested

students, the campus returned to a semblance of nor- malcy, although the basic grievances felt by Chicanos remained. Final examinations started, regular classes were over for the semester, and those members of MEChA interviewed by the investigating committee stated that they could not have held a rally even if they had wanted to until the resumption of classes in late January, 1973. System police returned to the campus once more for unexplained reasons, on December 15, but were promptly released.

An unfortunate role was played by the Community Relations Service (CRS) of the U.S. Department of Jus- tice in reporting to Austin on the campus unrest at UTEP. This service, created by Title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to help communities resolve disputes, disagree- ments, or difficulties relating to discriminatory practices based on race, color, or national origin, was originally a component of the U.S. Department of Commerce but was shifted to Justice in 1966. It has no enforcement pow- ers, its method being to offer services of mediation and conciliation with a view to alleviating tensions.

A call, presumably from a student, on November 21, 1972, initiated CRS involvement in the UTEP case. When Mr. C. Gustavo Gaynett, of the Dallas regional office of CRS, returned the call, he talked with Ms. Karen Ramirez, instructor in linguistics, who served as director of the Chicano studies program and advisor to Mexican-American organizations. The first assessment CRS records in its files, as reported to a member of the ad hoc investigating committee, resulted in a decision "not to go into the case because a hearing on the Rivera case was upcoming." Mr. Gaynett, however, called President Smiley about the complaint at this time. On December 4 the situation was reassessed with a decision to "maintain telephone response," and Mr. Gaynett again called Dr. Smiley, arousing the latter's suspicions with

"questions regarding reported snipers on buildings and other matters" (from Dr. Smiley 's notes on the telephone conversation). According to President Smiley's notes, when he asked Mr. Gaynett for the source of the latter's information, Mr. Gaynett declined to respond. President

Smiley assured him that "the campus was quiet and matters under control" and recommended that he get in touch with Chief Coulter for "a factual report if he wished one." On December 12, in the light of events on December 6 and following days, CRS once more reassessed the situation and reached the decision to attempt a conciliation effort. Mr. Gaynett was dispatched to El Paso.

On December 14, Mr. Gaynett and President Smiley met for about an hour during which time Mr. Gaynett "proposed the assistance of his program in mediating the issues on campus" (Smiley notes). As far as President Smiley was concerned the dismissal of Dean Rivera, the

130 AAUP BULLETIN



continued appointment of Vice President Brooks, and the presence of campus police, whether armed or not, were not issues to be decided upon but decisions already made. Nevertheless, Mr. Gaynett pressed President Smiley "for a decision about accepting mediation assistance from his agency," wanting two panels, one of administrators and the other of students, over which his agency would serve as mediator.

In the afternoon of December 14, Mr. Robert Alex- ander, identified as being with the Department of Justice, called Vice Chancellor Ashworth in Austin and said his agency wanted to arrange "a meeting between students and the administration at U. T. El Paso to discuss issues such as the dismissal of Mr. Rivera, armed police on campus, the termination of a federal

project and other grievances expressed by students."2 As far as the investigating committee could determine, he did not tell Vice Chancellor Ashworth that Mr. Gaynett had tried to get President Smiley to agree to this plan and had been refused. Dr. Ashworth said that "we had not called in any outside assistance nor did I feel that at this time we needed any assistance from his offices." Dr. Ashworth concluded the call from Mr. Alexander with the reminder that "if students wish to have a meeting with President Smiley they could request an appointment to discuss their problems." Mr. Gaynett then called Dr. Ashworth to say that he disagreed with the view Dr. Ashworth had expressed to Mr. Alexander. He repeated his proposal for the mediation meeting mentioned above, saying that it was necessary "to establish a mechanism to save face" for both groups and "provide an opportunity for them to withdraw gracefully." If that were done, it would "defuse the situation." (Dr. Ashworth's notes.) Dr. Ashworth perceived something of a threat in Mr. Gaynett's reminder that the University's Affirmative Ac- tion Program had been turned down, that the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission was planning to take up the Rivera dismissal and that he (Gaynett) was returning to Dallas the next day where he would send a report to Washington pointing out that System author- ities had been apprised of "the sensitive situation."

On the afternoon of December 14 Mr. Gaynett sought unsuccessfully to get in touch, through President Smiley, with Regent Frank Erwin and Mr. Richard Gibson, of the University of Texas System Law Office, both of whom were in El Paso that day. On December 15, Mr. Gaynett called several persons, including Chairman of the Board of Regents John Peace, and Mr. Gibson, from

campus telephones. In fact, however, Mr. Robert Green- wald, in charge of the regional office of the Community Relations Service, and Mr. Gaynett's associate and immediate supervisor, had already talked with both Chan- cellor LeMaistre and Mr. Peace during the week of December 12. When Mr. Gaynett talked to Mr. Gibson on December 15, the latter extended an invitation to both Messrs. Gaynett and Greenwald to attend a special meeting of the Board of Regents on December 20. That meeting of the Regents was called off because of Chair- man Peace's illness. By that time the decision to send Dr. Templeton to El Paso had been reached in the Selection Committee and only the Regents' confirmation remained to make it a fait accompli.

While the efforts of the Community Relations Service of the Department of Justice were doubtless made in good faith in this case, the urgency which they pressed on Austin officials of the University of Texas System was surely exaggerated and played into the hands of those who wanted precipitate action.

The Appointment of President Templeton The delay until November of any public announce-

ment of President Smiley's resignation was, according to Chancellor LeMaistre, at the former's request and for personal reasons. A result of the delay, however, was that the Chancellor and the Regents had more than two months in which to consider his replacement before members of the El Paso university community were even aware of the resignation. The delay lends credibility to other evidence that consideration of Dr. Templeton for the post was well advanced prior to the unpublicized formation of the Regents' Selection Committee in Decem- ber. Several UTEP faculty members have testified to reports reaching them in November from professional colleagues and former students to the effect that Dr. Templeton would succeed Dr. Smiley. During his meeting with the ad hoc investigating committee in Austin, Regent Erwin readily expressed his early preference for Dr. Templeton, and acknowledged that during the fall he had sought out Dr. Templeton at a social affair to assure him of his wish to have him at El Paso to straighten out matters there. It is noteworthy that Mr. Erwin subsequently was the only Regent to serve on the hastily assembled Selection Committee which met on December 20, and that he presided over the opening of the Board of Regents meeting, in the absence of Chairman Peace two days later when the nomination of Dr. Templeton was confirmed. Dr. Templeton himself is reported in The Prospector (January 18, 1973) to have said to an interviewer - following his appointment - that he had been asked to accept the position about "a week before the meeting" of the Board of Regents.

Nonetheless, the UTEP faculty were led throughout November to believe they would have a significant consultative role in the selective process. At the El Paso luncheon, November 1, at which President Smiley made public his resignation, the Chancellor was reported in the school and city papers as saying that "traditionally

2 A letter addressed to the Association by Mr. Maurilio Ortiz, identifying himself as the Regional Director of the Southwest Regional Office of the Community Relations Ser- vice, states in part:

Our telephone contacts with Dr. LeMaistre and Dr. Ashworth in Austin were intended to underscore our concern for the need to have on campus as soon as possible an official with decision-making authority to fill the existing void. Our recommendation had no bearing whatever on long-term administrative changes. Our expectation was that a representative of the Chancellor would be quickly dispatched to the scene for the sole purpose of dealing with the problem at hand - perhaps an official with successful past experience in coping with campus unrest.

SUMMER 1 974 1 3 1



a student-faculty Institutional Advisory Committee con- sults with the Selection Committee," that "the possibility of community people participating in some way is great," and that "we will try to hear all responses, as long as they are responsible and constructive."

On November 21 Vice Chancellor Kenneth Ashworth had come from Austin to meet with the UTEP Faculty Council and explore with it the selection procedures that would presumably be followed. After compliment- ing the Council on the steps that had been taken to form the local Institutional Advisory Committee, he acknowledged that the Selection Committee, of which the Chancellor would be Chairman, was not as yet formed, but explained the composition of the Committee provided for in the Regents' Rules, and noted that the Chairman of the Board of Regents was entitled to appoint such other persons as he thought appropriate. The minutes of the Faculty Council (Vol. XIII, p. 39) record him as suggesting that, "in view of the procedure described, . . . there might be common membership between this committee and the Institutional Advisory Committee." He is reported as saying further that the persons seriously considered for the position by the Selection Committee would be given a chance to talk with the faculty, students, and the Institutional Advisory Committee of the institution. He closed by pointing out, lest there be any mis- understanding, that "the Selection Committee is not bound by the names suggested by the Institutional Ad-

visory Committee," but he said the two committees would be in close touch, that there would be free exchange between them, and that the Selection Committee would "set the time schedule under which the Institutional Advisory Committee shall work" (Minutes of the Faculty Council, Vol. XIII, p. 39).

Even earlier in the year, following on the changes in the Regents' Rules for selecting institutional administrators, President Smiley had asked the Faculty Council to recommend "how faculty members on a local faculty- student advisory committee could be chosen," indicating he was "making a similar request to the President of the Student Association." The faculty and students had ac-

cepted this request to structure an Institutional Advisory Committee without being aware that the first assignment to such a committee would be that of advising on Dr.

Smiley's successor. In early November, the Faculty Council determined

that an Institutional Advisory Committee concerned with a vacancy in the University's presidency should be com- posed of thirteen members, including nine members of the faculty and two graduate and two undergraduate students. Each of the University's colleges would be re-

presented, with remaining vacancies filled by the Faculty Council from nominees presented by the Council's Executive Committee. The chairman of the Faculty Council emphasized the importance of selecting for the Institutional Advisory Committee capable people who subscribed to the view that "a very high degree of faculty- student participation in this significant matter is essential to the progress of the University" (Minutes of the Faculty Council, Vol. XIII, p. 36). Faculty Council representa-

tives from the colleges met on November 20 to elect five members of the Institutional Advisory Committee, and, at the same special meeting of the Faculty Council addressed by Vice Chancellor Ashworth on November 21, the remaining faculty members were elected. Similarly, student members were promptly elected by student constituencies, and the committee was certified to President Smiley and to the Chancellor.

Regrettably, the potential of the Institutional Advisory Committee for responsible consultation was never tested. The Committee was charged by the Faculty Council to

report back to the Council on January 16. But having met three times, and having authorized their chairman to write to Austin for procedural instructions, members of the Committee, along with other members of the faculty, learned from the press and ultimately from the Chancellor's letter to each faculty member (Exhibit B) that the task had been completed and that once again a major administrative appointment had been completed from Austin without any faculty-student participation in the decision. The Institutional Advisory Committee was not informed of the appointment of a Regents' Selec- tion Committee, of its nominee, or of the Board of Re- gents meeting to appoint a president until that appointment was a fait accompli. Ironically, the news first came

through the El Paso Herald-Post which had obtained, through its Austin bureau, advance information of the action to be taken in the Regents meeting that very afternoon and bannered its evening edition on December 22, "Templeton Due for U.T. Post." The newspaper carried extensive biographical material on the appointee.

The Regents' Selection Committee was in fact appointed by Chairman of the Board of Regents John Peace sometime following the Regents' meeting on December 8. The Selection Committee held its first and only meet-

ing on December 20, 1972. The Chancellor's Summary Statement to the investigating committee (Exhibit A, below) states clearly that the Selection Committee did not meet at that time to plan its work, to offer instructions to the Institutional Advisory Committee or to take other

steps consistent with deliberate consultation with the El Paso faculty, but "for the purpose of selecting a qualified person who would be competent to cope with the situation at El Paso and recommending to the Chancellor and the Board of Regents that such person be appointed President of the University of Texas at El Paso."

The Selection Committee consisted of the Chancellor of the System, the Deputy Chancellor (Dr. E. D. Walker), two Vice Chancellors (Dr. Ashworth and Dr. William

Knisely) three presidents of member institutions (Dr. Lee Clark, Dr. Bryce Jordan, and Dr. Frank Harrison), and two members of the Board of Regents (Messrs. Erwin and Peace). Mr. Peace was absent due to illness, and Mr. Erwin was the only member of the Board of

Regents participating. The meeting was a long one, from 11:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The Chancellor's Summary Statement indicates that some eleven names had been

brought, in one way or another, to the attention of the Selection Committee. In its report, the Committee

unanimously recommended the following:

132 AAUP BULLETIN



1. The Selection Committee recommends to the Chancel- lor and the Board of Regents the appointment of Dr. Arleigh Templeton as President of the University of Texas at El Paso.

2. In view of the apparently dangerous situation existing at U.T. El Paso and the concern of the Department of Justice in what it considers a potentially explosive setting, it is recommended that this action be effective immediately and not permit the consultation with faculty, students and community, which is ordinarily a part of the selection process as set forth in the Regents' Rules and Regulations.

3. It is also recommended that immediately after announcement of the appointment efforts be undertaken to contact the faculty, students and community in order to provide a stable environment for the new president and to ease the current situation on the campus.

The Board of Regents' acceptance of the report was

clearly never in doubt. File materials concerning Dr.

Templeton were available for the press when the Regents met two days later, and a Chancellor's statement and a "Dear Colleague" letter had been prepared and envelopes addressed to each individual UTEP faculty member. Post- marks indicate that some of these letters to faculty were

postmarked as early as 12 noon on December 22, al-

though the Board of Regents did not meet until 2:00

p.m. that day. Pursuant to Texas statute, notices of called meetings

of the Board of Regents must be filed with the Secretary of State, and on December 21, the day following the long session of the Selection Committee, the Secretary of the Board of Regents dispatched the required notice

by special messenger. Curiously, the meeting was described in the notice as one to consider "U.T. El Paso: Personnel Matters and Appointment of an Acting Presi- dent or a Permanent President," although the decision had already been reached to make a permanent appointment. On December 22, the Regents met in Executive Session, Regent Erwin presiding over the opening in the absence of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board, and unanimously adopted the Selection Com- mittee's report.

In their meeting with the investigating committee, members of the Chancellor's staff acknowledged that the possibility of an AAUP investigation had arisen in the deliberations of the Selection Committee on December 20. That fact must be seen as a background for the Chancellor's call to the General Secretary of AAUP on the following day. At 2:25 p.m. on December 21, Chancellor LeMaistre telephoned the General Secretary, and the two were later joined in the conversation by Vice Chancellor Ashworth. The investigating committee has been provided with notes concerning that conversation by Dr. Ashworth, on the one hand, and by the General Secretary on the other. According to Dr. Ash- worth's outline of Chancellor LeMaistre's conversation, the Chancellor, after outlining the special circumstances at UTEP, said, "I do not know what action we will take at this time, but we cannot continue much longer to do nothing. I wanted you to know the dilemma we are in between following the usual procedure and the need to do something quickly to avoid a possible tragedy on

the campus." In fact, of course, the Chancellor did know what action would be taken, for the Selection Com- mittee had met, the Board of Regents had been called into special session, and materials for the faculty must have been in production in his office at that very time. Dr. Davis's notes indicate that the conversation closed with his suggestion that Chancellor LeMaistre personally look into the situation before the Board took action to appoint an interim administrator. By going to the campus, Chancellor LeMaistre would have an opportunity to determine whether the situation was explosive, since he could talk with President Smiley, faculty leaders, and students and thereby secure a better feeling for the situation. According to Dr. Davis's notes, "Chancellor LeMaistre said that he would call President Smiley and see about making a visit to El Paso immediately." Tak- ing the General Secretary's notes at face value, the investigating committee cannot help but regard it as most unfortunate that the Chancellor did not inform the AAUP of what had actually occurred, as he failed also to inform the faculty at El Paso. Of course, at the very time he accepted the General Secretary's suggestion to see about making a trip to El Paso personally to assess whether the situation there was so urgent as to require setting aside "ordinary" procedures, he already knew that the appointment of President Templeton had been decided upon. On the next day he wrote to the General Secretary, saying:

I promised in our telephone conversation on December 21 to keep you posted on what was required to cope with the serious situation at U.T. El Paso. The Board of Regents met in a special called meeting today and the actions taken are described in the enclosures. You will note that I have sent to each faculty member (at his home address in view of the holidays) a copy of my statement under a covering letter. I must say in all candor that as regretfully as I have come to my position and recommendations to the Board of Re- gents to act without faculty consultation, I do not feel apologetic about my decision in view of the circumstances we faced in this serious situation with potential risk for safety of personnel and students. The investigating committee infers that the decision

to proceed with the appointment of a permanent president at UTEP, without faculty consultation, must have been arrived at soon after contacts with the Chancellor's office were made by representatives of the Dallas Regional Office of the Community Relations Service (who con- sistently identified themselves as representatives of the Department of Justice) around December 14-15. The Selection Committee was convened at the earliest date at which the required three presidents of system institutions could be brought together in Austin, and the Board of Regents then met as quickly as the statutory require- ment of public notice could be fulfilled. No notice of these actions was provided faculty and student members of the Institutional Advisory Committee in El Paso.

Issues and Findings With President Templeton's appointment, the Chan-

cellor wrote each member of the UTEP faculty:

summer 1974 133



I sincerely regret that the volatile situation on your campus did not permit following our carefully laid plans already discussed and under way for faculty and student consultation on the selection of a replacement for President Smiley. Were these ordinary times at U.T. El Paso we would have been able to follow ordinary procedures. Since early De- cember reports have been submitted to me from reliable sources on the deteriorating situation on the campus, and repeated threats of campus disruption required additional security personnel to be sent to U.T. El Paso. These potentially violent circumstances led me reluctantly to the conclusion that immediate remedial measures were more important to the welfare of U.T. El Paso than following the traditional consultation with the faculty on the selection of a new president.

One issue in the case, therefore, concerns the seriousness of the so-called "volatile situation" and "potentially violent circumstances" on the UTEP campus in Decem- ber, 1972. Talks with former President Smiley, former Vice President for Student Affairs Gary Brooks, members of the faculty, the clergy, the Chief of Campus Police, representatives of MEChA, other student leaders, and officials of the regional office of the Community Re- lations Service have convinced the investigating committee that the Chancellor's description of the situation at that time was overdrawn. While the frustrations felt

by Chicano students and their sympathizers were real, they were frustrations created by just the kind of unilateral actions which the Regents further exemplified in their precipitate appointment of President Templeton. Chief of Campus Police Ralph Coulter has stated to the in-

vestigating committee that his genuine concern was limited to the role that might have been played by a handful of SDS-oriented students. The largest of the

protest rallies (on December 1) drew only about 500 students (approximately 5 percent of the student body), by police estimates, and was entirely peaceful. The nearest thing to "violence" that occurred on the campus was undoubtedly the brief occupation of the offices, in turn, of Dr. Brooks and Dean McCoy. This protest, too, remained reasonably orderly. Students were taking examinations in the week following December 15, and the Christmas recess, when the campus would be vacated, lay just ahead. The student newspaper had reported waning student interest in MEChA's protest meetings, and the MEChA student leader had publicly admitted that the group could not have organized another successful rally had it chosen to try. The evidence is that had Chancellor LeMaistre chosen to go to the El Paso campus for a personal review of the situation before taking the decision unilaterally to appoint a new Presi- dent for the University, he would have found a faculty- student Institutional Advisory Committee eager to co- operate in seeking necessary new leadership for the campus. He also would have found that there was no emergency. He and his staff, apparently under pressure from the most active member of his Board of Regents, chose, instead, to acquiesce in further unilateral action of the very sort that was largely responsible for the faculty and student frustrations at El Paso, with a view to an imposed solution to the problems there.

The insensitivity of the Regents and the Chancellor

of the University of Texas System is reflected in the Re- gents' Rules and Regulations for the appointment of institutional heads and administrators. It is worth com- paring those rules with the 1966 Statement on Govern- ment of Colleges and Universities jointly formulated by the AAUP, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, and with the 1972 Report of Committee T on Faculty Participation in the Selection and Retention of Administrators. The 1966 statement contains the following passages:

The variety and complexity of the tasks performed by institutions of higher education produce an inescapable inter- dependence among governing board, administration, faculty, students and others. The relationship calls for ade- quate communication among these components, and full opportunity for appropriate joint planning and effort. Joint effort of a most critical kind must be taken when an institution chooses a new president. The selection of a chief administrative officer should follow upon cooperative search by the governing board and the faculty, taking into consideration the opinions of others who are appropriately interested. The president should be equally qualified to serve both as the executive officer of the governing board and as the chief academic officer of the institution and the faculty. His dual role requires that he be able to interpret to board and faculty the educational views and concepts of institutional government of the other. He should have the confidence of the board and the faculty.

The selection of academic deans and other chief academic officers should be the responsibility of the president with the advice of and in consultation with the appropriate faculty.

The 1972 Report of Committee T specifies desirable procedures:

The Statement emphasizes the primary role of faculty and board in the search for a president. The search may be initiated either by separate committees of the faculty and board or by a joint committee of the faculty and board or of faculty, board, students and others; and separate committees may subsequently be joined. In a joint committee, the numbers from each constituency should reflect both the primacy of faculty concern and the range of other groups, including students, that have a legitimate claim to some involvement. Each major group should elect its own members to serve on the committee, and the rules governing the search should be arrived at jointly. A joint committee should determine the size of the majority which will be controlling in making an appointment. When separate committees are used, the board, with whom the legal power of appointment rests, should either select a name from among those submitted by the faculty committee or should agree that no person will be chosen over the objection of the faculty committee.

The Statement on Government indicates that the faculty role is not as fully coordinate with the selection of academic deans and other administrative officers as it is with respect to the selection of a president. Some academic administrators whose role is almost entirely that of advisor to the president are less directly accountable to the faculty than is the president himself, and they must, therefore, be con- genial or at least acceptable to him. Other academic administrators, such as the academic dean, or the dean of a college or other academic sub-division, are by nature of their duties more directly dependent on faculty support. In such instances, a primary faculty role in the search is

134 AAUP BULLETIN



highly desirable, and may be particularly critical in institutions where the dean plays a directly influential role vis- a-vis the faculty. Even here, however, the president, after fully weighing the views of the faculty, must make the final choice. Nonetheless, sound academic practice dictates that he not choose a person over the reasoned opposition of the faculty.

In contrast to the 1966 Statement that "joint effort of a most critical kind must be taken when an institution chooses a new president," is the Regents' rule that "The Chancellor will ordinarily authorize the establishment of a component institution advisory committee consisting of

faculty and students ... to consult with the Selection Committee." The Rules go on to say that "This faculty- student committee may, in accordance with a schedule set

by the Chancellor, suggest persons who should be considered by the Selection Committee." "The availability of candidates and their interest in the position," however, "will be determined by this Selection Committee" (emphases added).

These Rules fulfill neither the spirit nor the letter of the 1966 Statement, and they are quite out of keeping with

procedures suggested in the 1972 Report of Committee T. Not only may the Chancellor authorize, or not authorize, establishment of a faculty-student Institutional Advisory Committee when a president is to be chosen, he may, when he does authorize it, unilaterally determine both its role and its time schedule. Complete authority for the selection of a nominee for an institutional presidency is vested in a Selection Committee consisting of the Chan- cellor himself as chairman, three members of his own immediate staff, three institutional presidents who are his

appointees, and two members of the Board of Regents. No institutional representation on this Committee is provided for in any way, other than in the vague caveat that the Selection Committee may be enlarged by "such other

persons as the Chairman of the Board of Regents may deem appropriate." This can hardly be construed as a

"cooperative search by the governing board and the fac-

ulty" aimed at securing a president who is "equally qualified to serve both as the executive officer of the governing board and as the chief academic officer of the institution and the faculty." It certainly is not a "joint effort; em-

phasizing the primary role of faculty and board in the search for a president." It represents unqualifiedly unilateral control of such appointments from Austin.

The Regents Rules on the appointment of institutional administrators below the rank of president are equally inimical to shared authority, saying only that "the Board of Regents endorses the principle of reasonable

faculty and student consultation in the selection of administrative officers of the component institutions, and

expects the Chancellor or Chief Administrative Officer, as he deems appropriate, to consult in the selection process with representatives of the faculty and student body" (Subsection 5.3 of Section 5 of Chapter II; emphases added).

The record shows these rules, and those they replaced in 1971, to be little more than form, reflecting a genuine insensitivity on the part of the System government to the

needs of the UTEP campus. Even these rules, however, were not implemented. The series of administrative appointments engineered from Austin during the 1971-72 academic year without faculty consultation are evidence of this, as was certainly the decision to proceed unilaterally on the appointment of a successor to President Smiley.

Postlude

President Templeton's instructions from Austin upon his appointment were to proceed to El Paso without delay and to "defuse the situation." Early in the year Dr. Gary Brooks resigned his Vice Presidency for Student Affairs and returned to teaching and research in the College of Education. There have been no further mass student protests. President Templeton has described himself to the investigating committee as one who sees university administration as a management task, like that of a bank or another business enterprise.

At its first meeting of the spring term, 1973, the Fac- ulty Council passed a resolution requesting the General Secretary of the AAUP to "give early consideration to authorizing an official inquiry into the December 22, 1972, action " Two days later the Student Association supported the request. Anticipating the Faculty Council's action, the Chairman of the Council invited the Chancel- lor to have read into the Faculty Council's minutes any statement he would like to make. The Chancellor did sub- mit a statement (Exhibit C) which closed with an offer that, "should your Chairman and members of the Faculty Council, through the Office of the President, request and have approved a meeting with me on the improvement of comunications, I will be pleased to meet with the group at a mutually agreeable time either before or after Feb- ruary 13, 1973." Five members of the Council subsequently met with the Chancellor, but without significant results.

Conclusions

It is the view of the investigating committee that the series of events leading to the appointment of President Templeton reflected a cynical disregard of the sound procedure to which the University of Texas administration had committed itself, had encouraged faculty members and students to expect, and which it had insufficient reason to disregard.

Chancellor LeMaistre, pointing to the Rules and Regu- lations of the University of Texas Regents, has noted that he and the Regents acted fully within their authority in by-passing faculty consultation in the appointment of the El Paso president. This justification, founded on existing regulations, serves only to emphasize the need to rewrite Section 4 of the University of Texas Rules with a view to bringing it into conformity with the Association's 1966 Statement on the Government of Colleges and Universi- ties and the 1972 Report of Committee T. The record of events emphasizes the need for a heightened sensitivity, in both the Board of Regents and the Chancellor's office, to the very wholesome contribution that faculty representatives can make when they are given genuine par-

summer 1974 135



ticipatory roles in administrative decisions that are of C. Addison Hickman (Economics), Southern Illinois consequence to the campus community. University, Chairman

^ ^ ,1 xx «• ,r> i- i_x tt • r xt _*t_ a> Members: Daniel L. Adler (Psychology), * Washington C. ^ Carroll ^ ,1 xx Holhs «• (English) v ,r>

& i- i_x

/ tt University

• j of r xt North _*t_ Caro- a> „. _ . „ ^ . /c \.

* m £ ™« -. . v & / j Office;

„. Bertram _ .

H. „ Davis ^ . /c (English), m Washington ™« Office, hna, Chairman

-. . ~ . „ t ^ , „ ,„ . , n ,, TT . T' .- - ,„ -xcixi- w *i_ j- * £* officio; ~

~ . Kalman „ t Goldberg ^ , „

*y (Economics), ,„ .

" , n

Bradley ,,

* TT Uni-

. J. Carter Murphy

.- r

- j (Economics) y

,„ -xcixi- Southern Methodist w *i_ j- * ~ / _ __ . *y _ " . * ,

TJ . 1 ̂ r j y

versity; Anne T. _

Harrison __ .

(Romance Languages), _ .

Mich- , 1 ̂ . ,. , ^ igan e State University; Butler A. Jones (Sociology), v Cleve-

Investigating . ,. , Committee ^

, e , _ x __ . :' __ _ . . v

,_ ,:/ , o . land , , State

_ x University; __ .

Henry __

L. _

Mason . .

(Political ,_ , Sci- o .

Committee T on College and University Government ence), Tulane University; Joan Templeton (English), has by vote authorized publication of this report in the Long Island University, Brooklyn Center; Julius Wishner AAUP Bulletin. (Psychology), University of Pennsylvania.

EXHIBIT A

SUMMARY STATEMENT REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF

DR. ARLEIGH B. TEMPLETON AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO

A proper consideration of the appropriateness of the appointment of Dr. Arleigh B. Templeton as President of The University of Texas at El Paso must take into account the selection procedure for the chief administrative officer (Pres- ident) of the various component institutions of The University of Texas System as prescribed in Part One, Chapter II, Sec- tion 4.1 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Regents of The University of Texas System. This Section reads as follows:

The Chancellor shall appoint the chief administrative officer of each component institution, as defined in Section 4, Chapter II, Part One, Regents' Rules and Regulations, after receiving the prior approval of the Board of Regents. The Chancellor shall be assisted in making this appointment by a Selection Committee made up of the Chancellor, who serves as chairman, the Deputy Chancellor for Administration, the Vice Chancellors for Academic Affairs and Health Affairs and two Regents and three chief administrative officers from the U.T. System appointed by the Chairman of the Board of Regents and such other persons as the Chairman of the Board of Regents may deem appropriate. The availability of candidates and their interest in the position will be determined by this Selection Committee. The Chancellor will ordinarily authorize the establishment of a component institution advisory committee consisting of faculty and students at the institution to consult with the Selection Committee. This faculty-student committee may, in accordance with a schedule set by the Chancellor, suggest persons who should be considered by the Selection Committee and individual members of that Committee. The Selection Commit- tee shall be free to seek such additional consultation with the faculty and students as it deems appropriate. The chief administrative officer of each of the component institutions serves under and reports to the Chancellor, is responsible to the Chan- cellor, and has access to the Board of Regents only through the Chancellor.

It is also necessary to consider the chronology of events which preceded the appointment of Dr. Templeton.

Dr. Joseph R. Smiley, President of the University of Texas at El Paso, informed Dr. Charles A. LeMaistre sometime during the summer of 1972 that he wished to resign as President of the institution and return to teaching and research. Dr. Smiley informed the Board of Regents of his decision in the executive session of the meeting of the Board on September 11, 1972, and formally announced his resignation in a press release on November 1, 1972.

On November 28, 1972, the Faculty Council of the faculty at The University of Texas at El Paso appointed an institutional advisory committee to consult with the Selection Com- mittee in accordance with the above quoted Regents* rule.

During the fall of 1972 there was a great deal of unrest among the student body at The University of Texas at El

Paso, which was engendered principally by the efforts of M.E.Ch.A., S.D.S., and a few individual students. Several unmanageable rallys [sic] were held, and both classroom and administrative processes were disrupted. These activities reached such proportions that eighteen security officers from other campuses within the System were flown to El Paso in order to prevent a threatened disruption of a meeting of the State Coordinating Board, which was scheduled to be held on the campus on December 1, 1972. Subsequent dem- onstrations necessitated the return of security officers on De- cember 6 and 15, 1972.

On December 14 and 21, two representatives of the United States Department of Justice advised the Chancellor's Office in Austin, Texas, that the situation on the campus at El Paso was extremely volatile, and that there was a potential for tragedy similar to that having occurred on other campuses in the recent past. The Director of The University of Texas System Police, George Carlson, also advised that in his judgment the situation was quite unstable and that the assessment of the Department of Justice was correct. Thus, a clear emergency situation existed. Moreover, the Department of Justice representative stressed that he could only hold the situation in abeyance temporarily and he needed someone with local authority to act "to defuse the situation."

Faced with the potentially explosive situation, it became apparent to the Board of Regents and the Chancellor that even though the ordinary procedure for consultation with a faculty committee in the selection process prescribed by the Regents* rules had already been set in motion, time did not allow for the culmination of the consulting process. Thus, the Selection Committee for the chief administrative officer of The University of Texas at El Paso, as constituted by appointments made by the Board of Regents' Chairman John Peace, subsequent to the December 8, 1972, Regents' meeting, met in Austin, Texas, on December 20, 1972, for the purpose of selecting a qualified person who would be competent to cope with the situation at El Paso and recommending to the Chancellor and the Board of Regents that such person be appointed President of The University of Texas at El Paso. Prior to this meeting, the names of a number of candidates had come to the attention of the Chancellor and the Selection Committee.

Although each of the candidates possessed high qualifications and credentials for the position of President of The University of Texas at El Paso, the gravity of the situation dictated that someone immediately available and of proven capability be selected and recommended by the Selection Committee. Dr. Arleigh B. Templeton was at that time Presi- dent of The University of Texas at San Antonio, and had

136 AAUP BULLETIN



previously been President of Sam Houston State Univer- sity. Each member of the Board of Regents and the Selec- tion Committee was personally acquainted with Dr. Temple- ton and personally familiar with his qualifications, capabilities and performance as the chief administrative officer of a university. The exigencies of the moment did not allow for experimentation with the unfamiliar, therefore the Selection Committee chose Dr. Arleigh B. Templeton as their recommended choice for President of The University of Texas at El Paso. This recommendation was accepted by the Chan- cellor and the Board of Regents on December 22, 1972, and Dr. Templeton assumed his duties as President at El Paso on December 26, 1972. The selection of Dr. Templeton has proved to be a wise choice. He has done a commendable

job in dispelling the explosive situation which previously existed on the El Paso campus. Perhaps another of the candidates could have accomplished the task, but it was considered unwise to attempt to deal with an uncertain situation through a person with whom the Board of Regents was unfamiliar and whose performance was uncertain. Under different circumstances, experimentation would have been permissible; under those that existed it was not.

Charles A. LeMaistre, M.D. Chancellor The University of Texas System

October 31, 1973

EXHIBIT B

The University of Texas System Office of the Chancellor 601 Colorado Street, Austin, Texas 78701

December 22, 1972 Dear Colleague:

While you will have read in the paper of my recommendation to the Board of Regents and the Board's approval of Dr. Arleigh B. Templeton's appointment as President of U.T. El Paso, I want you to have a copy of the statement I released to the press on December 22.

I sincerely regret that the volatile situation on your campus did not permit following our carefully laid plans already discussed and underway for faculty and student consultation on the selection of a replacement for President Smiley. Were these ordinary times at U.T. El Paso we would have been able to follow ordinary procedures. Since early December reports have been submitted to me from reliable sources on the deteriorating situation on the campus, and repeated threats of campus disruption required additional security personnel to be sent to U.T. El Paso. These potentially violent cir-

cumstances led me reluctantly to the conclusion that immediate remedial measures were more important to the welfare of U.T. El Paso than following the traditional consultation with the faculty on the selection of a new president.

The new situation is now defined with Dr. Templeton having been given full authority as President. I am confident that he will perform effectively in this position. However, any person moving into such a situation will be immensely aided if he does not have to cope with pre-judgments and has the general goodwill of the constituencies with which he must deal.

I hope that President Templeton may count on your assistance in stabilizing the current situation and moving U.T. El Paso ahead to further advancements.

Sincerely yours, Charles A. LeMaistre, M.D. Chancellor

dwp Enclosures

EXHIBIT C

The University of Texas System Office of the Chancellor Assistant to the Chancellor: Mike Quinn Box 7969, University Station, Austin, Texas 78712 Area Code 512 471-1820

STATEMENT BY CHANCELLOR CHARLES A. LEMAISTRE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM:

Under my authority as chancellor, I have today (Dec. 22) recommended to The University of Texas System Board of Regents the immediate transfer of Dr. Arleigh B. Temple- ton from the presidency at UT San Antonio and his appointment to the presidency at UT El Paso.

The Board of Regents approved this recommendation. My recommendation was prompted by conclusive evidence

that there is a clear emergency potentially jeopardizing the safety of personnel and students on the UT El Paso campus some details of which can be stated publicly.

First, members of my staff and I were advised on Decem- ber 14 and again just yesterday (Dec. 21) by the United States Department of Justice that the campus situation is extremely volatile and has the potential for tragedy similar to that having occurred on other campuses in the country in the recent past unless immediate corrective steps are taken. Indeed, newspaper reports to this effect have already appeared in El Paso. The representatives of the Department of Justice offered their assistance to the University in mediating the situation.

Second, I have been advised by the UT System Director of Police, George Carlson, that in his judgment the situation is quite unstable and the assessment of the Department of Justice is accurate. He informed me that plans are known to have been made to attempt to force an over reaction or provoke a serious incident on the UT El Paso campus in order to polarize different groups on the campus behind a common cause against the present administration.

Third, on November 29 and 30, the UT System, at the request of the UT El Paso Police Chief, transferred specially trained officers from other System institutions to El Paso in response to threatened disruptive activities. Again on De- cember 6, officers were rushed to that institution to avert class disruptions by demonstrators and to protect State property.

Under the Regents' Rules and Regulations faculty and students are ordinarily consulted in the selection of a president on UT System component campuses. However, under the clear emergency that exists at UT El Paso, there simply is not time to go through that process to select a successor to Dr. Joseph Smiley who announced November 1 that he was stepping down from the presidency to return to full time teaching and research. I am today, by mail, advising each faculty member at UT El Paso of my decision, recommendation, and Board action.

President Templeton will be in El Paso December 26 to begin immediate preparations for reestablishing tranquility and order upon the resumption of classes in mid-January.

December 22, 1972

summer 1974 137



EXHIBIT D

STATEMENT TO THE FACULTY COUNCIL THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO

FEBRUARY 13, 1973 BY

CHANCELLOR CHARLES A. LEMAISTRE

(I) I do not feel it appropriate to personally appear or place an item on the agenda for this meeting related to the proposed motion by Mr. Levosky. I feel that the regental decision of December 22, 1972 was an advised and considered one, and that any inquiry by the AAUP will sustain the judgment of the (Selection Committee, the Chancellor, and the Board of Regents.

As I reviewed the two letters regarding the presidential appointment which undoubtedly had the widest circulation on the El Paso campus, e.g., my letter dated December 22, 1972 addressed to the home address of each faculty member, and my letter dated January 11, 1973 to Professor Kruszewski, President of the local AAUP Chapter, I regretted that neither letter emphasized that initial consid- sideration of the matter was by a Selection Committee appointed by the Chairman of the Board of Regents in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Regents. The final decision of the Board of Regents was to adopt the recommendation of the Selection Committee which I had submitted to the Board with my approval, even though I regretted that there was not time for the faculty and student consultation permitted under normal circumstances. I make

this point to clarify my earlier statement that, in my opinion, any AAUP inquiry "will sustain the judgment of the Selec- tion Committee, the Chancellor, and the Board of Regents.'*

(II) I have personally advocated to the institutional presidents the establishment of formal or informal avenues of communication between representatives of the institutional faculties and my office, provided that these have the approval of the President of the institution. To date, no mechanisms acceptable to the faculty and the presidents have been received by me. I feel that both the Regents' Rules and Regu- lations and the principles of good administrative practice require me to administer The University of Texas System in the normal course of events through the Presidents of the several institutions.

As an initial step with regard to the El Paso Faculty Coun- cil, I wish to assure you that, should your Chairman and members of the Faculty Council through the Office of the President, request and have approved a meeting with me on the improvement of communications, I will be pleased to meet with the group at a mutually agreeable time either before or after February 13, 1973.

138 AAUP BULLETIN



college and university government: the university of texas at el paso

Documents