Theodore R. McKeldin, Governor      353

over the selection, promotion and retention of its faculty;
and generally, over all concerns that have any bearing what-
soever upon the preservation of independence of thought
and inquiry. Even further, I assert that great care should
be taken to prevent abuses that might lead to indirect inter-
ference with true freedom of teaching and scholarship.

On the other hand, this does not mean that a university
should be freed from certain minimal procedural require-
ments which are needed to assure proper business adminis-
tration, the principles of which are applied to other State
agencies of no less importance, such as hospitals, courts, and
other essential activities which are likewise acknowledged to
be entitled to protection against external influences.

Encroachments by other arms of the State Government
upon the legitimate prerogatives of the University should
not be tolerated. Neither should the University be made a
law unto itself, displacing agencies whose function it is to
shield the taxpayer against those abuses which inevitably
are associated with the exercise of absolute power. Neither
Governors, nor judges, nor university administrators are
fit to be entrusted with unlimited power. This defect is not
personal to the present management of the University; it is
inherent in human nature.

No legitimate interest of the University needs the sweep-
ing grant of authority given by House Bill No. 26. The
University has not been unduly restricted in its operations
or inhibited in its growth. On the contrary, it has flour-
ished and prospered. My predecessors and I have not been
niggardly in dealing with the University through the years.
In this year's budget I included a large grant for increased
pay to its faculty. The University's budget is now over
$18,000,000 in State funds alone—an increase of nearly two
and three quarter millions of dollars over last year's
budget.

My fundamental objection to the bill is that it does not
attempt to deal with any special needs of the University,
but boldly sweeps away all limitations upon every phase of
the University's operations. Under the guise of defending
an academic institution against undue interference, it
would enthrone another evil which is no less to be feared.

In providing the necessary protection to the University
against outside pressure, we need not embrace the equally
indefensible alternative of complete exemption from
established procedures of a business character which long
experience has shown to be necessary to avoid favoritism,
waste, and lack of coordination with other State agencies
and development plans. We have here no genuine issue of