in doing so and eager to set matters
straight. But Mr. Coignet, brave lawyer and protector of innocent young
ladies, would not permit me to "browbeat the girl", or to know her name or
to review her official version of the incident.
As I had no desire to bring a lawsuit
against Tulane, and as Mr. Coignet knew that my grounds for doing so would
expire in a year, we were able to reach a compromise based upon my desire
to return to campus. He was to instruct Security to allow me back on
campus and to refrain from harassing me. The young lady's parents were to
be informed of her reckless, false complaint (I doubt he kept this promise
as he later denied having made it). I was to file no lawsuit against
Tulane in this matter.
Mr. Coignet's strategy in this was to allow
things to proceed normally for one year, until my cause of action could
have time to expire, the while affording Tulane Security ample opportunity
to gather false and specious reports from students opposed to my presence
and confident in the support of the Kelly administration in providing
protection from the consequences of filing such reports.
There has been no system established by the
Kelly administration to glean positive or favorable reports about
controversial figures on campus from other students who may wish to make
such reports. The administration simply chooses to interpret its
collection of unverified nonsense in the form of "complaints to Tulane
Security" as factual, if, due to its own esoteric agenda,
it chooses to censor the views of any
particular controversial individual. Armed with its secret file, the
administration effectively silences the odd voice on campus by excluding
its owner as an endangerment.
If the Kelly administration fails to
recognize that controversy and the exchange of a broad range of
philosophical viewpoints are desirable features on the university
landscape, what does this say about the Kelly administration? Should such
an administration be permitted by the body which empowered it to indulge
in a one-sided promotion of its own, private value system at the expense
of a healthy intellectual exchange on campus? Is that the sort of
environment you would prefer for the campus of Tulane
University?
I am enclosing fourteen pages of
documentation of my presence on, and then exclusion from the Tulane
campus. I would like to take a moment to highlight certain aspects
thereof. The Ellis article portrays me as an interesting figure on campus,
an alumnus returned to study, observe and communicate, on an informal
level. Shultz's Crossroads brings to light the
controversial
