356               Vetoes

ports this statement. The General Assembly should con-
sider this unseemly episode, still fresh in the public mind,
where the "unauthorized" building was initiated without the
sanction of any department of the State, and without re-
view of the plans; indeed, without knowledge of the Re-
gents. After the work had been begun the Board of Public
Works was faced with an embarrassing dilemma. It con-
cluded by a divided vote that it could not escape the com-
mitment thus made for the State. An important decision on
State policy in respect to Negro education was in this way
forced upon us.

No consideration of academic freedom or common sense
in the management of public funds requires that the door be
left open to the possibility of a repetition of such an affair.
If the University is to embark on a far-reaching program of
this sort, with heavy budget implications for the future in
the construction and furnishing of buildings and the sup-
port of activities begun therein, more than the University
alone should have a voice in the decision. This bill does
not make the necessary correction, but strengthens and
embeds permanently into the law a demonstrated evil.

5. The State Planning Commission is one of those agen-
cies from which the bill would give complete immunity to
the University. The State Planning Commission is neces-
sary to prevent waste and ill-advised building at the Uni-
versity, as elsewhere. Despite the slight restraint that this
Commission has succeeded in exercising over the Uni-
versity, it has been common experience for the cost of Uni-
versity building projects greatly to exceed the initial
estimates. If even this limitation should be removed, it
will be regular practice for a building program to be started
on its way by the University, and when the State is faced
with the accomplished fact, there will be nothing to do but
to grant additional appropriations. The plea will be made,
as in the past, that refusal would result in waste of the
existing investment.

There is simply no valid reason why the University
should not submit its program to the State Planning Com-
mission so that it may be considered along with the pro-
grams of other departments. The amount that should prop-
erly be appropriated to the University cannot be intelli-
gently determined except in relation to the total program of
the State. The University's plans should be scrutinized by
the Planning Commission, to enable the Legislature to judge
what is the rightful claim of the University which competes
for a share of the tax dollar.