Stated that way, the question, framed by the Kalven Report, is why the University should take a position on an issue that is as broad as the terms and conditions on which goods are manufactured and sold. Many individuals within the University have positions on this, and have expertise to bring to policy-makers outside the university. But the reality is that their positions vary widely, as do those of commentators. I realize that even adherence to the principles of the Kalven Report does not necessarily provide a clear resolution of the current issue. Congress, which has the unquestioned authority to set the terms and conditions on which goods may be imported for sale in this country, has not acted to impose higher standards on the terms and conditions for manufacturing of apparel such as this.
Tobacco products comprise at least one salient example.
Usually, of course, we adopt such practices because of our belief about our academic principles or the health and welfare of our own populations. And I think there is a significant cost when the University takes a substantive position on issues other than those of our own academic principles or the health and welfare of the populations for which we are directly responsible. There may be occasions when it is appropriate to do so, but even then, the reasons must be weighty enough to overcome this point, and the justification framed in these terms. The Committee did not find those weighty reasons in November, nor did I. Nothing fundamental has changed this spring. Precisely because the appropriate resolution of the underlying issue is a matter of significant academic debate, the University must hesitate before making its own pronouncements in areas not directly related to the running of our own institution that might seem to chill that campus discussion.