Court Opposes Stout In Nevada U. Dismissal

dismissal? "We are not called upon to determine the question of academic freedom," he wrote.

As to (1), "assuming for the sake of argument that there was some impropriety or lack of taste in Dr. Richardson's remarks in opening the A.A.U.P. meeting, we have no hesitancy in concluding, in view of Dr. Richardson's history and record at the University, that it did not of and in itself constitute cause for removal."

Charge (2) required more attention, but the Court's reasoning and conclusion remained the same; the issue of admissions requirements was still meet; the distribution violated no rule. Whether a faculty member did or did not agree with the article (many did not, and said so), Richardson's distribution failed to provide "support of a charge of insubordination."

The order of removal was voided.

Richardson and his supporters were jublian: "My greatest satisfaction was in being true to what I knew and felt was right," Richardson said. Now assured of his job at Nevada, Richardson is not certain that he wants to return. "They haven't offered me a contract yet," he says dryly.

As might be expected, President Stout's comments were less triumphant:

"I've always tried to play according to the rules of the game as they've been set up, operating under the constitution, the laws of the state, and previous Supreme Court decisions. If this means that's no longer the law, we'll have to change our rules of operation."

And so the Richardson case is officially closed, and an honest differing on educational policy is no longer called insubordination.