This new committee will consist of two former Senate presidents, Ann Tedards and Jeff Hurwit, and this year's chair of the Faculty Advisory Council, David Frank. These three distinguished elected faculty leaders have graciously volunteered to devote themselves to this important job, for which I thank them sincerely in advance. I will also serve on this committee ex officio.
I have given this committee the following charge: "To bring clarity to the many issues surrounding the University's membership in the WRC." The committee will listen to the many voices in this complex public debate, including students, faculty, administration, trustees, alumni, licensees, donors, and others. The President has offered office support to help the committee seek out the relevant facts and points of view. The committee will provide regular interim reports. Other than that, I am leaving the committee's procedures and goals to its own discretion.
I would like to make a short statement about the committee's charge. The University's decision to join the WRC and Phil Knight's public response created a very heated debate. Many people are obviously very angry. But different people are angry about different things. Some are angry about radical student activism, some about the University's system of governance; some about politics in a state agency, some about our bad business practices; some focus on a missing phone call, others on the faults of the still-unformed WRC; for some it's an issue of courtesy and loyalty, for others it's all about labor unions; some are angry about our relations with donors and alumni, others about the corporatization of the University; for some it's an issue of global economics and human rights, and for others it's really all about collegiate sports--and there are many other issues too. These issues are so entangled that it has been difficult even to frame a logical debate; and that is why I have asked the committee first of all "to bring clarity to the issues." The nature and the role of the University in regard to these many conflicting claims needs to be thought through and stated clearly for each of its constituencies. Thinking through problems intelligently, and sharing the results, is what a university does best: that is what education is. I hope all those with an interest in this debate about the University's mission will help us think about these issues in the coming months.