by Marshall H. Tanick
Newsworthy 1993

The University of Minnesota and the principle of freedom of the press, two infrequent allies, both lost a good friend with the death of Harrison Salisbury.

He contributed substantially to the enhancement of student journalism and freedom of the press at the University, especially when the Daily was under assault in the early 1980s for publishing controversial material.

Ten years ago, the Daily prevailed in a long legal battle against the University challenging the curtailment of its student service fees. The funding cutback was implemented by the Board of Regents after the Daily published an ill-advised Finals Week issue, spiced with X-rated language lampooning organized religion, individual student leaders, University officials and a number of other campus personalities and semi-sacred institutions. The regents, at the urging of then-President C. Peter McGrath, retaliated with a measure that deprived the Daily of mandatory student funding, while leaving the obligatory funding system intact for dozens of other organizations and publications in the University system.

Most of the journalistic establishment, with a few notable exceptions, were either indifferent or antagonistic to the Daily's position. An outpouring of sentiment from professional journalists supported the University's action and castigated the Daily's reporting and editorial view. But Salisbury, who was a reporter and editor of the Daily during his University days in the late 1920s, came to the beleaguered newspaper's defense. He was one of the few supporters who pleaded, in vain, that the University refrain from taking punitive action against the publication.

When the matter went to court, he was a staunch supporter of the Daily and testified on its behalf as an expert witness. At trial, he firmly stated that the action by the regents, in curtailing the Daily's financing, imposed a "chilling effect" upon the newspaper's freedom of expression in violation of the First Amendment.

Salisbury's presentation was so impressive that when he left the witness stand the University's attorneys approached him to shake his hand and congratulate him. Unfortunately, his sagacity had a less profound effect on the trial-court judge, who ruled against the Daily. However, the appellate court reversed the trial judge's decision and restored the funding to the Daily, citing the testimony of Salisbury and one other individual.

Unlike many others, Salisbury was able to focus upon the principle in the underlying cutback of the Daily's financial base, even though he may have disagreed with the content and style of the particular edition that sparked the controversy.

Overlooking a sophomoric effect at humor that misfired, he saw the larger issue at stake: Whether the University administration should be able to retaliate against the newspaper because some readers are upset by its contents.

The Daily's ultimate triumph in the lawsuit helped extend the freedom of speech and the press at the institution. As a result, the Daily and its attorneys, combined with the University, created a First Amendment Fund to sponsor scholarship, research and other academic programs concerning freedom of expression at the University. Salisbury participated in some of those programs on his occasional visits to the Twin Cities.

Although he testified against the University, Salisbury was not a basher of the institution. Despite his expulsion, he was a supporter of the University and appreciated it enough to wish to see its wayward actions rectified. The University also admired Salisbury, bestowing honors upon him long after the smoke from his days as a rebellious editor had evaporated.

The most recent, and final, accolade was his induction into the Daily's Hall of Distinction by the Minnesota Daily Alumni Association last May. When the hall was established, Salisbury was the first person nominated for induction.