'Even though duck season hasn't opened yet, The Bee fired off both barrels at the faculty members of the University of California who objected to having former Harvard President Lawrence Summers address the UC Board of Regents. Hundreds of faculty members objected to the invitation that had been extended to Summers, and then Chair Richard Blum retracted it [Meaning Blum caved to numbers? What happened to principle?]. The Bee suggested that Summers had been "censored" in a manner that infringed on academic freedom.

This controversy has nothing to do with academic freedom. [Borrowing language here from another free speech-challenged U Cal person, Irvine Chancellor Michael Drake, who tried to fire the new dean he'd just hired when he decided the new dean would be too free in his speech... Drake too came out with these blanket statements denying the censoring had anything to do with censoring.] Blum invited Summers to address the regents at a private dinner in Sacramento -- away from an academic campus -- where there would have been no opportunity for any meaningful public scrutiny or debate. Blum invited Summers without consulting the university community, and secrecy was maintained when Summers was not listed on the agenda or any other public document. [So the faculty gets to vet all invited guests? UD'd be interested in hearing more about this rule.]

In short, Summers' appearance before the Regents was stacked in such a way that no debate or discussion was possible, violating a bedrock principle of academic freedom. Summers was to be given privileged access to the governing body of one of the world's premier public educational institutions without any public accountability. [So no private meetings between the trustees and guests may take place? All meetings have to be open to the entire university community?] When Blum learned that many faculty members objected to this arrangement, he retracted the invitation, as he had every right to do. [Faculty expressed no objection to the arrangement. They expressed, in terms strong and direct, an objection to Lawrence Summers.]

If Summers had been part of a public forum on campus, rather than speaking at a private dinner in Sacramento, his views would have been put on sale in the "marketplace of ideas." Despite the insulting and uninformed opinions he expressed about women scientists in a 2005 speech in Boston, we doubt that there would have been objection to a public discussion featuring Summers. [Are you following the logic of this? Why object to a private rather than a public appearance of this man? What sort of a cabal do these people think he and the trustees represent?]

Blum has indicated that at the private dinner Summers would have addressed "the ability of UC to compete with private universities such as Harvard and Stanford." Given the contentious nature of Summers' tenure as president of Harvard, and his early exit from the presidency, the entire UC community has a vital stake in any advice he is providing to the regents. [Again, there are vast leaps of logic here that I just don't get. Most presidents have contentious tenures. Summers was extremely popular with Harvard students, among other constituencies. But however you characterize his tenure, why does this have anything to do with how many people get to watch him talk about competitiveness? Note again: The "entire UC community" has to be there whenever Summers speaks.]

The UC faculty did not in any way depart from the principles of academic freedom. [Pure Orwellianism.] Summers remains entirely free to present his views to university audiences and to the public at large [But he's not allowed to give private talks.], and we will defend his right to a public discourse, at the University of California and elsewhere.'