The North Carolina Speaker Ban Law episode: Its history and implications for higher education

The primary purpose of this study was to examine in detail the North Carolina Speaker Ban Law, from its enactment until its being declared unconstitutional. A secondary purpose was to determine the long term implications of the law.;A combination of historical and oral history methods was used. Primary sources were utilized extensively, and personal interviews were conducted with key participants connected with the speaker ban episode.;The following major conclusions are evident in this study: (1) The North Carolina Speaker Ban Law was passed because of the effects of the residue of communism and the cold war, the Civil Rights Movement, and the belief of many North Carolinians that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was a hotbed of liberalism. (2) Consolidated University of North Carolina President William Friday and the student plaintiffs in Dickson v. Sitterson (1968) were mainly responsible for the law's amendment and eventual repeal. (3) The law lowered faculty morale and threatened to damage the university's ability to retain and attract the best faculty members.;There are three major, long-term implications which can be drawn from this study. First, the Speaker Ban Law's being declared unconstitutional was a significant victory for academic freedom in higher education. Second, had the law stayed in effect, there would have been great damage to the reputation of the Consolidated University of North Carolina. Third, the law would have had a considerable, adverse impact on the recruitment of industry and businesses to the state.