Free
Speech Movement
From the California Monthly, February 1965
Chronology of Events
Three Months of Crisis
The following chronology traces events of the
"free speech" controversy at Berkeley from Sept. 10,
1964, through Jan. 4, 1965. Full texts of all important
documents, reports, statements and resolutions are included.
Where full texts were too long for inclusion, they appear in the
Appendix, beginning on page 76. Also included in the Appendix
are relevant portions of the State Constitution, Education Code,
"University Policies Relating to Students and Student
Organizations," and "The Position of the FSM on Speech
and Political Activity."
September 10
A letter authored by "a former student" and
distributed with the Slate Supplement Report called for
an "open, fierce and thoroughgoing rebellion" on the
Berkeley campus. Although the letter did not relate specifically
to the "free speech issue," it sounded the rallying
cry for subsequent events:
"The University does not deserve a response of loyalty
and allegiance from you. There is only one proper response to
Berkeley from undergraduates: that you ORGANIZE AND SPLIT THIS
CAMPUS WIDE OPEN!...
"Go to the top. Make your demands to the Regents. If
they refuse to give you an audience: start a program of
agitation, petitioning, rallies, etc., in which the final resort
will be CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. In the long run, there is the
possibility that you will find it necessary to perform civil
disobedience at a couple of major University public
ceremonies..."
September 15
The Ad Hoc Committee to End Discrimination—led by
former Berkeley student and SLATE founder Michael Myerson and by
Tracy Sims, leader of the Palace Hotel demonstrations—
announced plans to picket the Oakland Tribune for the
third Friday in a row, and held a noon rally at the Bancroft and
Telegraph entrance to the Berkeley campus.
September 16
1. Presidents or chairmen and advisers of all student
organizations received a letter from Dean of Students Katherine
A. Towle, dated Sept. 14, announcing that, effective Sept. 21,
tables would no longer be permitted in the 26-foot strip of
University property at the Bancroft and Telegraph entrance, and
that advocative literature and activities on off-campus
political issues also would be prohibited:
"Provisions of the policy of The Regents concerning `Use
of University Facilities' will be strictly enforced in all areas
designated as property of The Regents... including the 26-foot
strip of brick walkway at the campus entrance on Bancroft Way
and Telegraph Avenue..."
(Small copper plaques, imprinted: "Property of The
Regents, University of California. Permission to enter or pass
over is revocable at any time," outline University
campuses' boundaries. A series of these plaques is located
parallel to Bancroft Way, about 26 feet outside the large
concrete posts at the Bancroft-Telegraph entrance to the campus.
The new policy did not apply to an approximately eight-foot-wide
strip of City of Berkeley sidewalk located between the plaques
and the Bancroft Way curb.)
"Specifically," Dean Towle's letter said,
"Section III of the (Regents') policy... prohibits the use
of University facilities `for the purpose of soliciting party
membership or supporting or opposing particular candidates or
propositions in local, state or national elections,' except that
Chief Campus Officers `shall establish rules under which
candidates for public office (or their designated
representatives) may be afforded like opportunity to speak upon
the campuses at meetings where the audience is limited to the
campus community.' Similarly, Chief Campus Officers `shall
establish rules under which persons supporting or opposing
propositions in state or local elections may be afforded like
opportunity to speak upon the campuses at meetings where the
audience is limited to the campus community.'
"Section III also prohibits the use of University
facilities `for the purpose of religious worship, exercise or
conversion.' Section IV of the policy states further that
University facilities `may not be used for the purpose of
raising money to aid projects not directly connected with some
authorized activity of the University...'
"Now that the so-called `speaker ban' is gone,"
Dean Towle's letter continued, "and the open forum is a
reality, student organizations have ample opportunity to present
to campus audiences on a `special event' basis an unlimited
number of speakers on a variety of subjects, provided the few
basic rules concerning notification and sponsorship are
observed... The `Hyde Park' area in the Student Union Plaza is
also available for impromptu, unscheduled speeches by students
and staff.
"It should be noted also that this area on Bancroft
Way... has now been added to the list of designated areas for
the distribution of handbills, circulars or pamphlets by
University students and staff in accordance with Berkeley campus
policy. Posters, easels and card tables will not be permitted in
this area because of interference with the flow of (pedestrian)
traffic. University facilities may not, of course, be used to
support or advocate off-campus political or social action.
"We ask for the cooperation of every student and student
organization in observing the full implementation of these
policies. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
come to the Office of the Dean of Students, 201 Sproul
Hall."
Explaining the new ruling, Dean Towle said, "The growing
use and misuse of the area has made it imperative that the
University enforce throughout the campus the policy long ago set
down by The Regents." Only leniency on the part of the
administration slowed enforcement of these rules in the past,
she said, but more strict enforcement had been under discussion
for some time, she added.
Berkeley Chancellor Edward W. Strong, in a report to the
Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate dated October 26, said:
"The situation was brought to a head by the multiplied
activity incidental to the primary election, the Republican
convention, and the forthcoming fall elections. Representatives
of the Chancellor's Office, the Dean of Students Office, the
Campus Police, the Public Affairs Office, and the ASUC had the
problem on the agenda of meetings on July 22, July 29, and
September 4. They agreed that the situation would worsen during
the political campaign, and steps should be taken at the
beginning of the semester to assure use of the area in
accordance with University rules..."
2. Arthur Goldberg, former chairman of Slate, announced
lawyers representing Slate and other interested groups would
meet tomorrow (Sept. 17) to decide posible legal action.
Goldberg called the new policy "another in a long series of
acts to curtail either right or left wing political action on
campus...
"As the students become more and more aware of America's
social problems, and come to take an active
part in their solution, the University moves proportionally the
other way to prevent all exposure of political action being
taken.
"The most important thing is to make this campus a
market place for ideas. But, the University is trying to prevent
the exposure of any new creative political solutions to the
problems that every American realizes are facing this society in
the mid-Sixties."
September 17
Representatives of 18 student organizations met with
Dean Towle to point out what they considered to be the
unfairness and purposelessness of the new enforcement policy.
The student groups asked for:
1) Advocacy of any political viewpoint or action or to be
able to distribute literature to that effect in the
Bancroft-Telegraph area.
2) Permission to distribute literature from tables, from
which they can attract, by means of posters, interested people.
They said they do not want to force literature on pedestrians,
but rather hand out literature to those who approach them.
Student spokesmen offered to conduct a traffic flow survey,
and to police for violations of University rules regarding
placement of posters on University property. Most of the groups
also indicated they would be willing to forego collection of
money in the area.
Dean Towle answered that Regents' policy is clearly set down
for all on-campus areas, including Bancroft-Telegraph, and that
the University administration is under obligation to enforce
that policy.
Dean Towle also charged, during the meeting, that, although
the University had repeatedly asked for cooperation from groups
using the Bancroft-Telegraph area, it received little in the
matter of poster and table placement. "Some of the students
have been both impudent and impertinent," she added.
Dean Towle implied it might be possible for the University to
substitute the Hyde Park area in the Student Union Plaza for the
Bancroft-Telegraph area. This offer was rejected. The students
agreed to submit a list of written suggestions to the Dean of
Students for the possible use of the Bancroft-Telegraph area and
the Hyde Park area, although Dean Towle said further use of the
Bancroft-Telegraph area was "almost out of the
question."
The students insisted on their right, and "duty to
society" to remain at their south entrance posts.
September 18
The 18 student organizations affected by the
Bancroft-Telegraph controversy petitioned the Dean of Students
for the use of the Bancroft-Telegraph area, under the following
conditions:
"1. Tables for student organizations at Bancroft and
Telegraph will be manned at all times.
"2. The organizations shall provide their own tables and
chairs; no University property shall be borrowed.
"3. There shall be no more than one table in front of
each pillar and one at each side of the entrance way. No tables
shall be placed in front of the entrance posts.
"4. No posters shall be attached to posts or pillars.
Posters shall be attached to tables only.
"5. We (students) shall make every effort to see that
provisions 1-4 are carried out and shall publish such rules and
distribute them to the various student organizations.
"6. The tables at Bancroft and Telegraph may be used to
distribute literature advocating action on current issues with
the understanding that the student organizations do not
represent the University of California--thus these organizations
will not use the name of the University and will dissociate
themselves from the University as an institution.
"7. Donations may be accepted at the tables."
September 20
At an evening meeting, most of the groups affected by
the new University policy agreed to picket, conduct vigils,
rallies and touch off civil disobedience, if the University
stands firm on the Bancroft-Telegraph politics ban after a
meeting with Dean Towle, scheduled for 10:30 a.m. the next
morning.
September 21
1. Dean Towle met with representatives of student
groups affected by the new University rules for the
Bancroft-Telegraph area. She accepted most of the proposals
submitted by the students on Sept. 18: she would allow groups to
set up a regulated number of tables with posters attached in the
area, and she would allow distribution of informative--as
opposed to advocative--literature from them. Dean Towle also
announced the establishment "on an experimental basis"
of a second "Hyde Park" free-speech area at the
entrance to Sproul Hall:
"Individuals are free to speak at will in these
areas," she said, "provided they are registered
students or staff of the University of California and observe
the policies pertaining to use of University facilities. Since
the University reserves such areas of the campus for student and
staff use, those who speak should be prepared to identify
themselves as students or staff of the University. It is
suggested that speakers use as their podium the raised part of
the wall on either side of the main stairway or the lower steps
flanking the main stairway. Because of possible disturbance to
persons working in Sproul Hall offices, voice amplifiers will
not be permitted. There must be no interference with traffic or
the conduct of University business."
Dean Towle refused permission to advocate specific action and
to recruit individuals for specific causes. Also prohibited was
solicitation of funds and donations "to aid projects not
directly connected with some authorized activity of the
University...
"It is not permissible, in materials distributed on
University property, to urge a specific vote, call for direct
social or political action, or to seek to recruit individuals
for such action," Dean Towle said.
The students refused to accept Dean Towle's concessions.
Picketing, demonstrations and vigils would be conducted, they
said, until satisfaction was obtained from the University:
Jackie Goldberg, spokesman for the protesting groups,
insisted "the University has not gone far enough in
allowing us to promote the kind of society we're interested in.
"We're allowed to say why we think something is good or
bad, but we're not allowed to distribute information as to what
to do about it. Inaction is the rule, rather than the exception,
in our society and on this campus. And, education is and should
be more than academics.
"We don't want to be armchair intellectuals. For a
hundred years, people have talked and talked and done nothing.
We want to help the students decide where they fit into the
political spectrum and what they can do about their beliefs. We
want to help build a better society."
Dean Towle replied: "We have tried to be as fair as
possible --but University policy is clearly stated in this
area." The non-advocative
restriction is not directed specifically at students, Dean Towle
explained. Even non-students invited to speak on campus are
informed that on-campus advocacy of direct political or social
action is prohibited.
Dr. Saxton Pope, special assistant to Vice Chancellor Alex
Sherriffs, who was present at the meeting, said the University
was trying to discourage "advocacy of action without
thought."
2. Approximately 75 students held an all-night vigil on
Sproul Hall steps.
September 22
The ASUC Senate (by a vote of 11-5) requested the
Regents "to allow free political and social action to be
effected by students at the Bancroft entrance to the University
of California, up to the posts accepted as the traditional
entrance." The Senate motion also requested the privilege
of soliciting funds for off-campus activity. These privileges
were also requested for eight other campus locations where only
non-advocative literature is now permitted. The ASUC Senate also
began circulation of a petition to gather student grass-roots
support, and discussed the possibility of the ASUC purchasing
the disputed land and establishing it as a free speech area. The
Senate also proposed establishment of a board of control to
prevent congestion in the area and to protect students from
"overt confrontation" by leaflet distributors.
Commenting on the Senate's motion, Men's Residence Hall
Representative Mike Adams said, "Advocacy of action makes
our society a viable one, and is central to the entire
educational process." Alumni Representative Wayne Hooper
urged the Senate not to "use the petition as a crutch.
Don't wait for the students to pat you on the backside before
you take a stand of your own."
September 23
Chancellor Strong issued the following statement:
"I call attention to the following facts concerning
student use of University-owned property at the
Telegraph-Bancroft entry to the campus. The Open Forum policy of
the University is being fully maintained. Any student or staff
member is free to address a campus audience in the `Hyde Park'
areas in the heart of the campus. Printed materials on issues
and candidates can be distributed by bona fide student groups in
nine places on campus, including the Telegraph-Bancroft
location. A full spectrum of political and social views can be
heard on campus, and candidates themselves can be invited to
speak on campus.
"The University, rightly, as an educational institution,
maintains an open forum for the free discussion of ideas and
issues. Its facilities are not to be used for the mounting of
social and political action directed at the surrounding
community. The University has held firmly to the principles set
forth by President Kerr in his Charter Day Address on the Davis
Campus May 5, 1964:
" `The activities of students acting as private citizens
off-campus on non-University matters are outside the sphere of
the University... Just as the University cannot and should not
follow the student into his family life or his church life or
his activities as a citizen off the campus, so also the
students, individually or collectively, should not and cannot
take the name of the University with them as they move into
religious or political or other non-University facilities in
connection with such affairs... The University will not allow
students or others connected with it to use it to further their
non-University political or social or religious causes, nor will
it allow those outside the University to use it for
non-University purposes'."
September 25
University President Clark Kerr condemned the student
demonstrations, and disagreed with the protestors that you must
have action in order to learn:
"The Dean of Students has met many requests of the
students. The line the University draws will be an acceptable
one...
"I don't think you have to have action to have
intellectual opportunity. Their actions--collecting money and
picketing--aren't high intellectual activity... These actions
are not necessary for the intellectual development of the
students. If that were so, why teach history? We can't live in
ancient Greece...
"The University is an educational institution that has
been given to the Regents as a trust to administer for
educational reasons, and not to be used for direct political
action. It wouldn't be proper. It is not right to use the
University as a basis from which people organize and undertake
direct action in the surrounding community."
September 27
Spokesmen for the combined liberal and conservative
student political groups announced plans to picket tomorrow's
(Sept. 28) University Meeting: the groups would simultaneously
set up tables at Sather Gate and hold a rally in front of
Wheeler Hall, without giving the required prior notice to the
University administration. While the University Meeting is in
progress the students would march to the University Meeting.
Politically conservative protestors would participate only in
the march, since the other activities violated University
regulations.
September 28
Chancellor Edward W. Strong announced a substantial
concession--that campaign literature advocating "yes"
and "no" votes on propositions and candidates,
campaign buttons and bumper strips could now be distributed at
Bancroft-Telegraph and at eight other campus locations--as
pickets formed in front of Wheeler Hall and marched to the
University Meeting. Chancellor Strong's liberalization of
regulations--a result, he said, of a "reinterpretation of
Regents' policy"--was a direct contradiction to Dean
Towle's statements earlier in the dispute. Dean Towle had stated
Regents' policy prohibited distribution of literature advocating
either a "yes" or a "no" vote.
Arthur Goldberg, one of the protest leaders, said: "And
you're asking me if picketing is effective?"
Another protest spokesman said:
"The Bancroft-Telegraph issue has alerted us to the free
speech issue all over campus. We won't stop now until we've made
the entire campus a bastion of free speech."
Commenting on the student pickets disruption of the
University Meeting, ASUC President Charles Powell said:
"Placards like `Sproul Hall Will Fall' and constant
heckling and disruption among an audience... are... unnecessary
at this stage of the issue, and a reflection of student
sentiment of which I can no longer be proud."
September 29
1. Several tables were set up on campus at both
Bancroft-Telegraph and in front of Sather Gate. Only one or two
of the tables had the required permits from the University.
(According to the Dean of Students Office, permits were issued
only to "qualified organizations" that promised not to
solicit money or members, or initiate or advocate any off-campus
activity
other than voting.) Most of the organizations represented by
tables would not make this promise and, in fact, were conducting
such activities.
Dean of Men Arleigh Williams and University police officers
informed each of the tables that some of the activities being
conducted were illegal; a few times they asked for
identification from students manning the tables. Dean Williams
said: "Every effort will be made to remove those
tables." But, he did not indicate if such an effort would
involve action on the part of University police.
Arthur Goldberg, a protest leader, was asked to make an
appointment with Dean Williams.
2. Representatives of protest groups met at 10:30 p.m. to
plan future action.
September 30
1. At noon, University Friends of the Student
Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and Campus Congress of
Racial Equality (CORE) set up tables at Sather Gate. Neither had
permits from the Dean of Students Office. According to Mario
Savio, SNCC spokesman, the student groups were denied permits
because it was suspected that they would attempt to collect
funds for off-campus political or social action. According to
Brian Turner, who set up the SNCC table, funds were being
collected, in direct violation of University regulations.
University administration representatives approached each
table, and took the names of those manning the tables. Five
students--Mark Bravo, Brian Turner, Donald Hatch, Elizabeth
Gardiner Stapleton, and David Goins--were requested to appear
before Dean of Men Arleigh Williams at 3:00 p.m. for
disciplinary action. That action triggered what was to become
the first of the Sproul Hall sit-ins.
2. At 3:00 p.m.--under the direction of Mario Savio, Arthur
Goldberg and Sandor Fuchs--more than 500 students and protestors
appeared outside Dean Williams' office. Savio, Goldberg and
others stood on a narrow balcony outside the second floor lobby
of Sproul Hall, shouting to passing students and those gathered
on Sproul Hall steps, urging them to join the growing mass
seated and standing outside the Dean of Students Office.
Savio, the apparent spokesman for the protestors, presented a
petition signed by more than 500 students:
"We the undersigned have jointly manned tables at Sather
Gate, realizing that we were in violation of University edicts
to the contrary. We realize we may be subject to
expulsion."
Savio then issued two demands:
1) That everyone in the group who signed be treated exactly
the same as the students who were summoned into Dean Williams'
office, and
2) That all charges should be dropped until the University
clarifies its policy, and it is clear whether or not there has
been any violation.
Savio stated the group was absolutely firm on the first
point, but might give a little on the second.
Dean Williams answered Savio's demands:
"I can not make any guarantee to concede to any request.
We are dealing only with observed violations, not unobserved
violations. And, we will continue to do this."
Dean Williams thereupon cancelled a scheduled 4:00 p.m.
meeting with the leaders of all the groups protesting the
University's policy.
At 4:00 p.m., Dean Williams asked the original five students,
plus the three demonstration leaders, to enter his office to
discuss disciplinary action. None of the eight people summoned
entered the Dean's office.
Savio then announced that, since it appeared none of their
demands had been met, that they would remain in Sproul Hall
throughout the night:
"We want equal action," Savio declared. "And,
that's no action, because they can't take action against all
these people who are here. They're scared. We're staying."
Money was collected—Slate announced a sizeable
contribution—for food. By 5:00 p.m., women students were
preparing sandwiches in a second floor alcove.
3. At about midnight Chancellor Edward W. Strong issued the
following statement:
"Students and student organizations today enjoy the
fullest privileges in the history of the University, including
discussing and advocacy on a broad spectrum of political and
social issues. Some students demand on-campus solicitation of
funds and planning and recruitment of off-campus social and
political action. The University cannot allow its facilities to
be so used without endangering its future as an independent
educational institution. The issue now has been carried far
beyond the bounds of discussion by a small minority of students.
These students should recognize the fullness of the privileges
extended to them by the University, and ask themselves whether
they wish to take further actions damaging to the University.
"The University cannot and will not allow students to
engage in deliberate violation of law and order on campus. The
Slate Supplement Report this fall urged `open, fierce and
thoroughgoing rebellion on the campus... in which the final
resort will be Civil Disobedience.' Individual students must ask
themselves whether they wish to be a part of such action.
"When violations occur, the University must then take
disciplinary steps. Such action is being taken. Eight students
were informed individually by a representative of the Office of
the Dean of Students that they were in violation of University
regulations and were asked to desist. Each of the eight students
refused to do so. I regret that these eight students by their
willful misconduct in deliberately violating rules of the
University have made it necessary for me to suspend them
indefinitely from the University. I stand ready as always to
meet with the officers of any student organization to discuss
the policies of the University."
4. "I really don't know what to say," Mario Savio
told the group of students sitting-in in Sproul Hall, when he
heard Chancellor Strong's statement. "If you won't take
this as the official statement of the group, I think they're
(the administration) all a bunch of bastards."
Savio, one of the eight students suspended, acted as
spokesman for the protestors. He said the issue will be met with
continued protest. The three points of future protest action
will be:
1) A fight for the dropping of disciplinary action against
the suspended students;
2) A continuation of the fight for the demands on the free
speech areas, including a proposed meeting with Chancellor
Strong, and
3) The stipulation that no disciplinary action be taken
against any students participating in further demonstrations.
Savio went on to say that the problem was that parts of Clark
Kerr's Multiversity Machine, the students, "had broken down
and were gumming up the works." So, naturally,
the University had decided to expel the parts which weren't
running smoothly. His analogy was cheered by the demonstrators.
As the evening progressed, the demonstrators continued their
sit-in, lie-in, and representatives of the various political
organizations supporting the "Free Speech Movement" (FSM)—the
name born that evening—met to plan future moves.
October 1
1. The first Sproul Hall sit-in broke up at
approximately 2:40 a.m., when demonstrators voted to leave the
premises. Before leaving, they announced a rally to be held at
noon on Sproul Hall steps.
2. Several mimeographed fliers appeared on campus, calling
for student and faculty support for the suspended students and
announcing a "Free Speech Rally" at noon on Sproul
Hall steps.
3. At approximately 10:00 a.m. two tables were set up outside
Sather Gate, and one at the foot of Sproul Hall steps.
4. At approximately 11:45 a.m. Deans George S. Murphy and
Peter Van Houten, with University Police Lieutenant Merrill F.
Chandler approached and spoke to a man who was soliciting funds
at the Campus CORE table at the foot of Sproul Hall steps. The
man, later identified as Jack Weinberg, a former student,
refused to identify himself or to leave the table. Lieutenant
Chandler arrested the man for trespassing. Weinberg went limp.
Instead of carrying Weinberg into police headquarters in Sproul
Hall, University police moved a police car into the area where
students were gathering for the noon rally, intending to remove
Weinberg by auto.
The crowd chanted "Release him! Release him!" About
100 students promptly lay down in front of the police car,
another 80 or so sat behind it. Mario Savio removed his shoes
and climbed on top of it, urging the gathering crowd to join in.
By noon, about 300 demonstrators surrounded the immobile
police car; by 12:30 p.m., several thousand students were
crowded around the car--which became the focal point and rostrum
for the next 32 hours of student demonstrations.
Weinberg remained inside the captured police car throughout
the two-day demonstration. He was fed sandwiches and milk
through an open window.
Savio demanded Weinberg's release and the lifting of
University prohibitions against soliciting funds and memberships
on campus:
"We were going to hold a rally. We didn't know how to
get the people. But, we've got them now, thanks to the
University...
"Strong must say no to the suspensions. He must agree to
meet with the political organizations. And, there must be no
disciplinary action against anyone before the meeting!
"And, I'm publicly serving notice that we're going to
continue direct action until they (the Administration) accede. I
suggest that we go into that building (Sproul Hall) and sit on
the desks and chairs and make it impossible for them to continue
their work."
Charles Powell, ASUC President, took Savio's place atop the
stranded car:
"I can see now that your cause is just," Powell
said. He asked that, instead of a mob scene in Sproul Hall, only
he and Savio enter the building to meet with Dean Williams.
The crowd demanded that Savio and Powell negotiate Weinberg's
release, and termination of the eight student suspensions, and
suspension of Administration action against any protestors until
the matter had been arbitrated.
Dean Arleigh Williams told Savio and Powell that the matter
was out of his jurisdiction. He referred them to Chancellor
Strong, with whom they discussed the problem.
Chancellor Strong refused Savio's demands. He said the
University would not give in to pressure, the suspensions would
stand, and that a meeting was possible only if the
demonstrations ceased.
Savio and Powell returned from their meeting with Chancellor
Strong at about 1:45 p.m.
Powell offered to have the ASUC Senate attempt to deal with
the entire situation concerning the University's edict. The
crowd refused Powell's offer, and he left.
At approximately 2:30 p.m., Savio suggested the demonstrators
force their way into Sproul Hall, in order to hinder operations
of the Administration there:
"I recommend that 500 of you stay here around this auto
and others join me in taking our request back to the
deans."
Savio then led about 150 students into Sproul Hall, where
they sat outside the Dean of Students Office.
About 4:00 p.m., the demonstrators inside now numbered about
400, voted to pack solidly in front of the door to the Deans'
office, and not allow anyone out. Deans Peter Van
Houten and Arleigh Williams were trapped within the office by
this maneuver.
The situation remained static until about 5:30 p.m. when
Savio, again atop the automobile, announced "a committee of
independent faculty members" would try to make contact with
high administration officials. If contact was made, the group
decided, the students in Sproul Hall would be notified and would
leave the building. The students also voted to have the faculty
committee notify them as soon as contact was made with the
Administration. Within a short time, contact was made with Vice
Chancellor Alex Sheriffs, but a breakdown in communications
prevented the students being notified.
At 6:15 p.m., 45 minutes before the scheduled closing, campus
and Berkeley police officers began closing the front doors of
Sproul Hall. Angered, about 100 of the approximately 2000
students outside Sproul Hall charged the doors, packing them to
prevent their closing. Two police officers were pulled to the
floor; one lost his hat and shoes (which were returned to him as
he escaped into the building) and was bitten on the leg. About
20 police officers took up stations at the foot of the main
stairway leading from the Sproul Hall lobby to the second floor,
where the Deans' offices are. The students took up positions on
the lobby floor.
After a long discussion, the demonstrators outside decided to
form a united front, and ordered those inside the building to
come outside to join them on the mall. All but five of those
inside Sproul Hall at the time obeyed the summons. The remaining
five were left unmolested. The demonstrations then continued
around the police car on the mall between Sproul Hall and the
Student Union.
5. Demonstration leaders met in a closed meeting at 10:00
p.m. They decided:
1) The demonstrators would attempt to remain on the steps and
in the mall through Family Day on Saturday, Oct. 3.
2) Tables would be set up at Sather Gate, separate from the
Sproul Hall demonstrations, in the hope that more people would
be suspended.
3) A rally would be held at noon tomorrow (Oct. 2), centering
around the car carrying Weinberg.
4) After the rally, groups of demonstrators again would move
into the second floor of Sproul Hall and block off the Dean of
Students Office.
6. At 11:15 p.m. small groups of anti-demonstration
demonstrators began converging on the mall from all directions,
swelling the crowd to about 2,500. At this point, the
demonstration degenerated into a shouting, singing, swearing and
egg throwing contest. The demonstrators sang "We Shall
Overcome!" The anti-demonstration forces shouted
"Mickey Mouse!"
7. California Governor Edmund G. Brown issued the following
statement:
"I support fully the stand of U.C. President Clark Kerr
and Berkeley Chancellor Edward W. Strong.
"This is not a matter of freedom of speech on the
campuses. I and President Kerr and The Regents have long fought
to maintain freedom of speech and an Open Forum policy on all
the campuses of the University.
"This is purely and simply an attempt on the part of the
students to use the campuses of the University unlawfully by
soliciting funds and recruiting students for off-campus
activities.
"This will not be tolerated. We must have—and will
continue to have—law and order on our campuses."
8. Berkeley Chancellor Edward W. Strong issued the following
statement:
"Because two facts respecting University policies on
students and student organizations are still being misunderstood
or misrepresented by some persons, I want again to emphasize
these two facts:
"1. The University's policy prohibiting planning and
recruiting on campus for off-campus political and social action,
and prohibiting also the solicitation or receipt of funds for
such purposes is now and has always been the unchanged policy of
the University.
"2. The University has not restricted or curtailed
freedom of speech of students on campus by any change of its own
Open Forum policy.
"No instance of a newly imposed restriction or
curtailment of freedom of speech on campus can be truthfully
alleged for the simple reason that none exists.
"Freedom of speech by students on campus is not the
issue. The issue is one presented by deliberate violations of
University rules and regulations by some students in an attempt
to bring about a change of the University policy prohibiting use
of University facilities by political, social and action
groups."
9. Charles Powell, ASUC president, issued the following
statement:
"The facts are these:
"The prohibition on the solicitation of funds and
membership on campus for partisan issues is not a ruling of the
Chancellor or of President Clark Kerr.
"It is, in fact, a State law.
"Therefore, the only rational and proper action at this
point is to seek changes in the law. Those opportunities are not
here on the campus--but in the houses of the State Legislature.
"In a conference with President Kerr, I have been told
that mob violence and mass demonstrations directed at the
Administration will, in no way, do anything to alleviate the
problem.
"In fact, we are indeed losing support among the Regents
for concessions which have already been made.
"I am certain, and President Kerr has confirmed this
fear, that if demonstrations such as today's continue, we will
lose the Open Forum policy.
"This is a tradition for which all students and
President Kerr have fought long and hard, and one which we need
not lose.
"I appeal to my fellow students.
"I ask that you not oppose the Administration—the
Administration can do nothing to meet the demands being made.
"But this I do ask, write your State legislators, then
give your full-hearted support to the ASUC Senate which will ask
the property at Bancroft and Telegraph be deeded to the City of
Berkeley for municipal administration.
"Above all, I ask you to discontinue demonstrations
which are endangering lives, property, and the Open Forum policy
which the entire University community enjoys."
10. Mona Hutchins, vice president of the University Society
of Individualists, a conservative group, issued the following
statement:
"The conservative campus groups fully agree with the
purpose of the sit-ins in Sproul Hall. Individual members of our
organizations have expressed their sympathy by joining in the
picketing on the steps of the Hall, and will continue to do so.
[picture]
"However, our belief in lawful redress of grievances
prevents us from joining the sit-ins. But, let no one mistake
our intent. The United Front still stands."
October 2
1. The Daily Californian, the campus student
newspaper, printed the following editorial, bordered in black
and signed by the Senior Editorial Board:
"Last night the students became a near mob, with a
police car for their symbol.
"The demonstrators surrounded a police car in front of
Sproul Hall as a banner for their disobedience against
University authority. It became a symbol of their power. And yet
when an opposition force appeared late last night from the
fraternities and residence halls, the demonstrators appealed to
the police to maintain `law and order.'
"No one can rationally justify the simultaneous defiance
of authority on one hand, the expectation of protection on the
other.
"We feel that, under these circumstances, the
demonstrations have dissolved into a morass of distorted goals,
inconsistent means, and blindness to their fallibility.
"The demonstrators say that the campus administration is
no longer open for discussion. How can the demonstrators
themselves be open for rational discussion when the basic issues
of solicitation of funds, recruitment of members and `mounting
social and political action' have been wholly overshadowed by
defiance?
"The antagonists of late last night exhibited something
just as dangerous. They overflowed with an explosive sing-song
belligerence. They went to Sproul Hall with anger and without
reason--and almost touched off a riot.
"The entire Open Forum policy has been threatened by the
action of both of these student groups. The concept of the Open
Forum will continue to be in jeopardy at the hands of persons
completely outside the University if the same irrational and
rash challenges to the Administration's final decision continue.
"The Administration has drawn the line at what it
believes is the last concession on the University level. We
completely believe they are telling the truth.
"Those who espouse over-simplified concepts of the
issues and solutions, will tell you otherwise.
"The University has drawn the last line it can.
"We therefore suggest that the emotional commitment of
the past two weeks needs a drastic reappraisal. We urge the
students to think by themselves—not by the group."
2. At 1:30 a.m., as conflicts between demonstrators and
anti-demonstration demonstrators threatened to erupt into a
full-blown riot, Father James Fisher of Newman Hall mounted the
police car. The crowd fell silent as he pleaded for peace—and
got it.
Demonstrations around the stranded police car, still
containing Jack Weinberg, continued throughout the day. Sproul
Hall was locked, except for one police-guarded door at the South
end through which those with legitimate business inside could
pass. A pup tent was pitched on one of the lawns. The entire
mall area was littered with sleeping bags, blankets, books, and
the debris of the all-night vigil.
Speakers continued to harangue the crowd from the top of the
sagging police car, gathering momentum as noon approached. At
noon, lunch-time onlookers enlarged the crowd to close to 4,000
persons.
3. At 10:30 a.m., after President Kerr and Chancellor Strong
agreed that the situation had to be brought under control, a
high-level meeting of administrators, deans and representatives
of at least four law enforcement agencies was held to formulate
plans for handling the demonstrations. At 11:55 a.m.,
representatives of the Governor's Office and the President's
Office joined the session. (It was agreed that Chancellor Strong
would read a statement at 6:00 p.m., declaring the assembled
group an unlawful assemblage and asking the crowd to disperse.
To enforce Chancellor Strong's declaration, plans also were
drawn up for a mass movement of police officers onto the campus
for the purpose of arresting those demonstrators who refused to
comply with Chancellor Strong's request to disperse.)
4. At about 4:15 p.m., demonstration spokesmen asked to meet
with President Kerr, President Kerr and Chancellor Strong agreed
to meet with the protest leaders at 5:00 p.m.
5. At 4:45 p.m. police officers from Oakland, Alameda County,
Berkeley and the California Highway Patrol began marching onto
the campus, taking up positions at the north and south ends of
Sproul Hall and on Barrows Lane, behind the Administration
building. Some 500 officers, including over 100 motorcycle
police, were on hand by 5:30 p.m., some armed with long riot
sticks.
As the police arrived, onlookers and protest sympathizers
swelled the crowd between Sproul Hall and the Student Union to
more than 7,000. Spectators lined the Student Union balcony and
the roof of the Dining Commons.
As the possibility of police action agaist the demonstrators
increased, protestors were instructed on "how to be
arrested" (remove sharp objects from pockets, remove
valuable rings and watches, loosen clothing, pack closely
together, do not link arms, go limp) and were counseled on their
legal rights (give only your name and address, ask to see your
lawyer, do not make any statements). All persons with small
children, those under 18 years of age, non-citizens, and those
on parole or probation were advised to leave.
And, as six campus police officers penetrated the periphery
of the crowd—in an effort to reinforce the stranded police
car—the demonstrators packed themselves solidly around the
car.
6. At about 5:30 p.m., the demonstrators were informed that
the meeting between protest leaders and University officials was
in progress at University House, and that President Kerr had
promised no police action until after that meeting.
Participating in the negotiations were President Kerr,
Chancellor Strong, members of an informal faculty group, student
leaders, representatives of the Inter-Faith Council, and nine
demonstration spokesmen. A six-point agreement was reached and
was signed by President Kerr and the demonstration spokesmen.
The meeting was disbanded at 7:15 p.m.
7. At approximately 7:20 p.m., the crowd was informed that an
agreement had been reached, and that the protest spokesmen were
en route from University House to present it to the
demonstrators.
8. At 7:30 p.m., with President Kerr and Chancellor Strong
watching from the steps of Sproul Hall (the crowd was unaware of
their presence), Mario Savio mounted the flattened roof of the
police car to read the agreement:
"1. The student demonstrators shall desist from all
forms of their illegal protest against University regulations.
"2. A committee representing students (including leaders
of the demonstration), faculty, and administration will
immediately be set up to conduct discussions and hearing into
all aspects of political behavior on campus and its control, and
to make recommendations to the administration.
"3. The arrested man will be booked, released on his own
recognizance, and the University (complainant) will not press
charges.
"4. The duration of the suspension of the suspended
students will be submitted within one week to the Student
Conduct Committee of the Academic Senate.
"5. Activity may be continued by student organizations
in accordance with existing University regulations.
"6. The President of the University has already declared
his willingness to support deeding certain University property
at the end of Telegraph Avenue to the City of Berkeley or to the
ASUC."
(The agreement was signed by Clark Kerr, Jo Freeman, Paul C.
Cahill, Sandor Fuchs, Robert Wolfson, David Jessup, Jackie
Goldberg, Eric Levine, Mario Savio and Thomas Miller.)
At 7:40 p.m., Mario Savio said:
"Let us agree by acclamation to accept this document. I
ask you to rise quietly and with dignity, and go home."
9. At 7:50 p.m., President Clark Kerr held a news conference
in Sproul Hall. Chancellor Strong was present, but did not take
part. Outside the window, the students were dispersing. The
police officers had been dismissed. President Kerr said:
"Law and order have been restored without the use of
force." University rules remain unchanged, he said. The
arrested non-student trespasser (Jack Weinberg) has been booked
by police. Although the University agreed not to press charges,
President Kerr said he could not speak for the district
attorney. The eight suspended students remain suspended. Their
cases will be reviewed, under the regular procedures, by a
faculty committee. The faculty committee's suggestions may, or
may not, be accepted by Chancellor Strong. Final disposition is
still in the hands of the Administration, President Kerr
stressed.
Chancellor Strong, the President continued, will issue
appointments to the special ad hoc committee to be established
under point two of the agreement. Four students, four faculty
members and four Administration representatives will be named to
the committee. Two of the students will be named from among
those who negotiated the agreement with President Kerr.
October 3
Edward W. Carter, chairman of the University Board of
Regents, issued the following statement:
"Law and order have been re-established on the Berkeley
campus of the University of California. That this was
accomplished without violence is a tribute to President Clark
Kerr and his administrative staff. All applicable University
rules remain unchanged; the non-student arrested has been booked
by the police; the eight suspended students are still on
suspension, and the regular procedures for review of student
conduct and grievances are functioning.
"A faculty committee will review individual cases in an
orderly manner, and in due course will make recommendations for
their disposition by the properly constituted administrative
authorities.
"It is regrettable that a relatively small number of
students, together with certain off-campus agitators should have
precipitated so unfortunate an incident."
October 4
1. California Governor Edmund G. Brown pledged to
maintain law and order on University campuses and asked
President Kerr to prepare, "as soon as possible," a
full and complete report on the student demonstration:
"I would like a detailed account of its causes, what
actions were taken and why, what issues were involved, and what
recommendations you have for preventing similar situations in
the future."
2. President Clark Kerr, answering Governor Brown's request,
said the Administration "has already begun an investigation
and analysis" of the demonstrations. Kerr's statement said,
in part:
"Law and order were restored to the Berkeley campus
without the use of force--a result the Governor desired as much
as I.
"...All applicable University rules remain unchanged;
the non-student arrested as a trespasser has been booked by the
police. The eight suspended students are still under suspension
and the regular procedures for review of student conduct and
grievances are functioning."
President Kerr described the situation as "highly
complicated...
"Students with left-wing and right-wing political
orientation
are more active than ever before. Off-campus elements excite
this orientation. As a consequence, the historical position of
the University against being made a base for political direct
action is placed under unusual attack.
"At the same time, the world and national situations
have most unfortunately placed more emphasis in the minds of a
few students on direct action, even outside the limits of the
law, than on compliance with law and order and democratic
process.
"Nevertheless, the University is fully responsible for
the maintenance of law and order and the guarantee that it
remain an educational institution."
3. Various reactions were inspired by the student protest
demonstrations:
1) Ernest-Besig, executive director of the Northern
California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),
disputed the University's interpretation of the State
Constitutional clause relating to political and sectarian
activity on the campus (Article IX, Section 9, see Appendix).
His statement was issued October 1:
"The ACLU does not share the opinion of the University
Administration that the constitutional ban on political and
sectarian activity is aimed at students."
Bessig said the ACLU Board of Directors would consider
intervening on behalf of the eight suspended students.
2) The Executive Committee of the Association of California
State College Professors expressed support for the student
protestors:
"Participation in social action, whether it is political
or non-political ought not only to be permitted, but actively
encouraged, so long as it does not interfere with the regular
instructional program..."
3) The Inter-Faith Staff Workers and Student Leaders, a local
religious group, supported the aims of the protestors:
"We affirm the right of members of the campus community
to solicit funds, distribute literature and recruit members for
involvement in common action."
4) Cal Students for Goldwater supported the Regent's right to
regulate as they deem necessary and complained of the
non-enforcement of rules applying to campus political
activities, according to Morris E. Hurley, vice president.
4. Chancellor Strong's office issued a statement outlining
plans to implement the agreement reached between protestors and
President Kerr last Friday night:
1) Tomorrow (Oct. 5), Chancellor Strong will send the names
of the eight suspended students to the Faculty Committee on
Student Conduct.
2) Tomorrow (Oct. 5), Chancellor Strong will send out letters
of appointment to members of the student-faculty-administration
committee which will discuss the dispute.
3) The University has not pressed charges against Jack
Weinberg (for trespassing), but re-emphasized the administration
had no authority to speak for the district attorney's office.
October 5
1. Protestors held a noon rally on Sproul Hall steps,
claimed victory and voiced their approval of Friday evening's
agreement. Art Goldberg said:
"We ask only the right to say what we feel when we feel
like it. We'll continue to fight for this freedom, and we won't
quit until we've won."
Approximately 1000 students gathered in the mall between
Sproul Hall and the Student Union to listen to the protest
speakers.
Mario Savio, one of the demonstration leaders who negotiated
the agreement with President Kerr and who urged the students to
accept the agreement, stated that "although the whole war
is far from over, we have won the biggest battle." That
battle, he explained, was to gain "jurisdictional
recognition" from President Kerr of a
faculty-student-administration committee to negotiate the
"free speech" issue.
To answer what he considered President Kerr's implication of
a Communist tinge to the anti-ban movement, Savio decried the
"great bogeyman raised... whenever a group is working for
social change. No one wants to admit that large numbers of
people are sick and fed up with the way things are."
A number of speakers addressed the assembled students,
including several of the eight suspended students, Professor
John Leggett of sociology, Professor Charles Sellers of history,
and Warren Coats of the Young Republicans. Statements of support
were read, including a document signed by 43 political science
and economics teaching assistants, commending demonstrators'
goals.
The rally was technically illegal under University
regulations regarding non-student speakers. It was permitted,
however, under a "special waiver" signed by Dean of
Students Katherine A. Towle. Dean Towle explained:
"We are honoring the spirit of the President's agreement
and therefore have granted a special waiver for this meeting
today, so that leaders of the demonstration may discuss the
written agreement of last Friday."
(University regulations require non-student speakers to
wait 72 hours after officially requesting permission from the
Dean's office to speak on campus. Most of the leaders of the
current demonstrations are either suspended or non-students. No
one requested permission for them to speak at this rally.)
(The Daily Californian speculated, on Oct. 6, that both
sides had maneuvered behind the scenes to persuade the other to
back down on the rally issue. The Administration wanted the
students to postpone the rally—or, hold it on city
property--apparently to avoid embarrassment over allowing
anti-ban students to again break University regulations. The
student protestors wanted to hold it on Sproul steps, in order
to honor their Friday night announcement of the rally's location
and time. Apparently, the students won.)
2. In an effort to atone for damage to the police car during
the Thursday and Friday demonstrations, the students began a
collection of funds to help pay the $334.30 in damages to the
police car.
3. Chancellor Edward W. Strong turned the cases of the
suspended students over to the Faculty Committee on Student
Conduct, in accord with the agreement between the demonstrators
and President Kerr to submit the suspensions to adjudication
within one week. Unfortunately, as the Chancellor found out--and
everyone soon knew--there was no "Student Conduct Committee
of the Academic Senate," as specified in the agreement. The
Faculty Committee on Student Conduct is a duly constituted
committee, and, even if it had been asked to do so, the Academic
Senate would have been unable to set
up an ad hoc committee to hear these cases before October
13, well beyond the one-week deadline stipulated in the
agreement.
4. Chancellor Strong also announced appointments to the
faculty-student-administration Study Committee on Campus
Political Activity. They were:
Faculty: Robley Williams, professor of virology;
Theodore Vermeulen, professor of chemical engineering; Joseph
Garbarino, professor of business administration; and Henry
Rosovsky, professor of economics.
Students: ASUC President Charles Powell and Marsha
Bratten, both winners of the 1964 Robert Gordon and Ida W.
Sproul Awards. Two additional student members will represent the
demonstrators.
Administration: Katherine A. Towle, dean of students;
Milton Chernin, dean of the School of Social Welfare; William
Fretter, dean of the College of Letters and Sciences; and Alan
Searcy, recently appointed vice chancellor for academic affairs.
October 6
1. The FSM Steering Committee met with Vice Chancellor
Alan Searcy to protest Chancellor Strong's
"unilateral" appointment of the Committee on Campus
Political Activity without consulting the demonstrators and to
express dissatisfaction with the way student-administration
negotiations were proceeding. Arthur Goldberg said the
Chancellor's action was "almost a breech of good faith by
the administration...
"It is dangerous to start out so arbitrarily. The
University has put us in an impossible position before we
start."
President Kerr had agreed to accept recommendations from the
demonstrators, and failed to do so, according to protest
leaders. The protestors also claimed Chancellor Strong's action
put them in a position of inequality, since, they claimed, ten
of the Chancellor's appointments were opposed to the students'
position.
The protestors argued that a special committee of the
Academic Senate should choose the faculty members; the students
would choose the student members.
2. The ASUC Senate passed a resolution asking President
Charles Powell to meet with President Kerr "to determine
whether the Administration has violated the spirit of Friday's
agreement..." The Powell-Kerr meeting would center on two
points:
1) The manner of the Administration's appointment of faculty
members to the faculty - student - administration committee
agreed to on Friday, and
2) The Administration's referral of the cases of the
suspended students to the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct.
The Senate also decided that, if the students approve, it
would negotiate with the Regents for detachment of the
controversial Bancroft-Telegraph area from the University and
its establishment as a "free area for political and social
action."
The ASUC Senate's first move would be a poll to determine
whether "the students wish it to attempt to secure control
of the Bancroft-Telegraph area... and if they would assent to
the use of ASUC funds for the purchase of the land." The
Senate would consider itself bound by the poll's results.
If the students approved, two possible alternatives would be
considered:
1) The ASUC would purchase the land and donate it to the City
of Berkeley, or to a trust of the Senate's choosing, or
2) The land will be donated or sold outright to the City of
Berkeley.
During the ASUC Senate meeting, Commuter-Independent
Representative Ed Wilson charged that the Administration had
failed to live up to the spirit of Friday's agreement.
Specifically:
1) The Administration tried to force the anti-ban students to
postpone Monday's rally for seventy-two hours (in conformance
with the University's rules regarding non-student speakers).
2) The Administration should let the Academic Senate choose
the faculty members of the negotiating committee, rather than
select them itself, which the Administration already had done.
3) The district attorney was pressing charges against Jack
Weinberg, even though the Administration had agreed not to. (President
Kerr, in announcing the agreement, carefully pointed out that
the University's decision not to press charges against Weinberg
did not prohibit the district attorney's doing so.)
4) The Academic Senate Committee on Student Conduct does not
exist. According to Friday's agreement, the cases of the
suspended students were to be referred to this group. Instead,
Wilson charged, the cases have been referred to the Faculty
Committee on Student Conduct, which is appointed by the
Administration.
3. The Advocate Young Republicans, a group of Boalt Hall
School of Law students, issued a statement "disagreeing
with, and expressing condemnation of lawless behavior." The
group also announced that it disagreed with the rules set up by
the University with regard to the restriction on political
conduct of students on campus.
October 7
The Committee on Campus Political Activity held its
first meeting. Ten FSM spokesmen appeared, presented a statement
condemning the Committee as illegally constituted and asked it
to disband, then left. The statement read, in part:
"As the duly elected representatives of the Free Speech
Movement (FSM), we cannot in good conscience recognize the
legitimacy of the present meeting.
"This present meeting is a result of unilateral action
by the Administration, and as such we cannot participate...
"... We were not even officially notified of this
meeting.
"... We respectfully request this body consider itself
illegally constituted and disband."
The Study Committee's purpose, announced as the meeting
convened, was to recommend action to the Administration on the
problem of political action on campus.
Following a three-hour session, minus FSM representatives,
the Study Committee issued two statements:
1) The Committee will conduct discussions, hold hearings, and
finally draft recommendations to the Administration as to proper
University policy.
2) The Committee will hold its first public hearing at 7:30
p.m., Tuesday (Oct. 13) in a room to be announced.
October 8
1. An FSM spokesman claimed the demonstrators were
surprised to discover the purpose of the Committee was
study--not negotiation. (The first announcement of the
Committee's name and purpose was made in statements issued last
night.)
Jack Weinberg said:
"The Administration feels they have the sole right to
say what this committee is supposed to do."
Weinberg, the former student whose arrest touched off the
October 1 and 2 "police car" demonstrations, is a
member of the FSM Steering Committee. He claimed FSM
representatives had attempted to meet with Administration
officials for two days, but had been unable to do so.
2. Two conservative groups took issue with the political
ideas of the two students who may ultimately represent the
demonstrators on the study committee. In a joint statement, the
University Young Republicans and the Cal Students for Gold-water
charged:
"These two are, in fact, being chosen by a sub-caucus
called the `Steering Committee,' a group which believes in
unlawful solutions to legitimate problems, and which represents
solely left-to-center political groups."
FSM's press relations group answered the above charges:
1) FSM's Steering Committee had attempted to reach the
conservative groups, but had been unable to do so.
2) The Steering Committee had been democratically elected
from members of the Executive Committee (which is composed of
representatives of all student groups involved in the
demonstrations).
3) FSM intended to add four independent students to its
Steering Committee at a 7:00 p.m. meeting tonight.
3. ASUC President Charles Powell was unable to meet with
President Kerr, as requested in the ASUC Senate resolution,
because President Kerr was in Southern California.
4. President Clark Kerr, during a speech before the San Diego
Chamber of Commerce, said:
"The situation (at Berkeley) is new in that students are
more activist than before and that diverse groups... are
attacking the historic policies of the University. Students are
encouraged, as never before, by elements external to the
University."
Kerr also described the incident as "one episode--a
single campus, a small minority of students, a short period of
time."
5. President Clark Kerr answered student charges of "bad
faith" on the part of the Administration in a statement
released tonight:
"A question has been raised about the appointment of the
joint advisory committee. The minutes of the meeting show the
following:
" `Kerr: This committee would have to be appointed by
the administration.'
"It was noted that it was the only agency with
authorization to appoint faculty, students and administrators.
"A question has also been raised about the `Student
Conduct Committee of the Academic Senate.' This is a misnomer.
It was used in a draft prepared by an informal group of faculty
members. I did not catch the misstatement at the time; nor did
anyone else. The only such committee that exists is the `Faculty
Committee on Student Conduct' which is composed of faculty
members. The minutes show the following:
" `Kerr: We need to understand that the Committee does
not make final determinations. You would have to be aware that
you would be dependent also on whatever confidence you have in
the decency and fairness of the Administration and respect for
it.'
"The campus administration went ahead promptly to show
its good faith in appointing the joint committee and submitting
the suspension cases to the Faculty Committee on Student
Conduct. The campus administration reserved two of four student
places for representatives of the demonstrators as they clearly
represent only a minority of students."
6. Following President Kerr's statement, the faculty advisory
group which proposed most of the six-point agreement of October
2, issued the following statement:
"We who have sought to mediate some of the issues
growing out of the recent demonstration, deeply regret that the
present steering committee of the demonstrators took during the
negotiations a rigid and unreasonable position on the question
of student representatives, jeopardizing the successful
organization of the student-faculty-administration committee.
"We continue to believe firmly in the importance of
maximum freedom for peaceful student political action, and in
company with all individuals whose primary interest lies in this
end, we shall bend every effort to realize that objective."
7. Richard W. Jennings, chairman of the Berkeley Division of
the Academic Senate, said the Senate will consider directing the
Committee on Academic Freedom and the Committee on Educational
Policy to inquire into the recent University rulings on student
political activity, the students' protest of the rulings, and
the problem of the students' rights to the expression of
political opinion on campus.
8. Dean of Men Arleigh Williams sent letters to the eight
suspended students, informing them that in accordance with the
agreement, their cases had been referred to the Faculty
Committee on Student Conduct. The letters also asked the
students to appear in the Dean of Students Office to set times
for hearings. (Two students appeared, but none submitted
himself to the Committee.)
9. The Northern California branch of the American Civil
Liberties Union announced it has agreed "to intervene on
behalf of the students recently suspended by the University...
"The ACLU's position is that the regulations which the
students were alleged to have broken violate their political
rights as guaranteed by the first amendment... the ACLU will
challenge the suspensions as a violation of due process of
law."
10. Dean of Men Arleigh Williams received a petition signed
by about 650 members of 37 fraternities and sororities,
asserting that FSM was "composed of responsible
students" and declaring support of its goals.
11. A petition was circulated among student leaders by Sharon
Mock, ASUC second vice president. The petition expressed a
belief...
"... that rational democratic procedures should be used
to voice opinion and to revise laws, since we as Americans have
benefitted by this process for years.
"We condemn the methods... used by a minority of
students and non-students which are disrupting the educational
process through the deliberate violation of present University
and State regulations. We also wish to preserve the Open Forum
Policy which now exists on our campus as a result of orderly
democratic procedure."
(The petition was signed by the presidents of
Inter-Fraternity Council, Winged Helmet, Deutsch, Davidson,
Griffiths and Cheney Halls, Treble Clef, the
Commuter-Independent Association, Golden Guard, and the Spirit
and Honor Society. It also was signed by the entire Panhellenic
Council, most of the Board and Cabinet of the Associated Women
Students, and by 29 Oski Dolls.)
October 12
1. The FSM Steering Committee met with Chancellor
Strong and called for suspension of activities of the Study
Committee until representatives of the Administration and the
FSM could reach agreement on "the interpretation and
implementation of the Pact of October Second" and either
immediate reinstatement of the suspended students, or submission
of their cases to an ad hoc committee of the Academic
Senate, with the provision that the Administration would abide
by their decision.
The FSM representatives stated that they could not recognize
the legality of the Study Committee without jeopardizing their
leadership and control of the situation. They also maintained
that, not only the students, but also the faculty members
selected to serve on the Committee should be appointed by
negotiations between the FSM and the Chancellor on selections
acceptable to the FSM.
Chancellor Strong answered that, since the Study Committee
had been appointed and was meeting, he would ask it for advice
on the propriety of suspending its activities. He also said
that, since interpretation of the intent of the Agreement was
best referred to the signers, they might discuss that point with
the President. Chancellor Strong also explained that he had
referred the cases of the suspended students to the only
existing appropriate committee that could have been meant by the
October 2 Agreement.
2. A petition, signed by 88 members of the faculty, was
presented to the Chancellor, urging reinstatement of the
suspended students.
October 13
1. The Academic Senate passed two motions:
1) The first noted "with pleasure the general
improvement in recent years in the atmosphere of free inquiry
and free exchange of opinion within the University." This
motion also declared in favor of "maximum freedom of
student political activity," and directed the Committee on
Academic Freedom to inquire into recent events and report to the
Senate as quickly as possible.
2) The second motion recognized "the welfare of the
University can only be maintained if the peace and order of an
intellectual community are also maintained," and called
upon all parties "to resolve the dispute in peaceful and
orderly fashion" and "make full use of the joint
faculty-student-administration committee for that purpose."
2. FSM leaders contacted Earl Bolton, University vice
president-administration, and subsequently sent telegrams to
Governor Edmund G. Brown and Edward W. Carter, chairman of the
Board of Regents, requesting that they be allowed an hour to
present their case to the Regents. The FSM leaders promised
"mass demonstrations" if they were not given
"some clear indication... that the administration is not
playing."
3. The Study Committee on Campus Political Activity held its
first public meeting at 7:30 p.m. in Harmon Gymnasium.
Approximately 300 students attended. The Committee heard
testimony from fifty students, all but one of whom, as
instructed by an insert in the FSM Newsletter, stated
that the Committee was illegally constituted and should disband.
October 14
Professor Arthur Ross, chairman of the Committee on
University Welfare, met with the FSM Steering Committee and
agreed to discuss with the administration proposed modifications
of the interpretation of the Agreement of October 2.
October 15
1. Agreements were reached with the FSM, the
Administration, the Regents and the Study Committee, and were
announced to a meeting of the Academic Senate by a communication
from President Kerr and Chancellor Strong, both of whom were
attending the Board of Regents meeting at Davis. The points of
the new agreement were:
1) The Study Committee was expanded from 12 to 18 members.
The new members will include two faculty members named by the
Committee on Committees of the Academic Senate; two
administration members to be named by the President to represent
the University-wide administration; and two additional student
members plus the two members initially assigned them to be named
by the FSM Steering Committee. The Study Committee would hold
two or three public hearings a week and finish such hearings
within three weeks. No more than five silent observers and two
silent attorneys were to attend all meetings, and all findings
and recommendations were to be by consensus.
2) The Academic Senate was asked to appoint an ad hoc
committee to hear the cases of the eight students suspended two
weeks ago. The ad hoc committee was to be advisory to the
administration.
2. The Academic Senate, meeting in Berkeley, unanimously
granted the administration request to establish an ad hoc
committee. The Committee on Committees appointed Ira M. Heyman,
professor of law, as chairman. Other committee members were
Robert A. Gordon, professor of economics; Mason Haire, professor
of psychology and research psychologist in the Institute of
Industrial Relations; Richard E. Powell, professor of chemistry
and chairman of the department of chemistry; and Lloyd Ulman,
professor of economics and industrial relations and director of
the Institute of Industrial Relations.
The Academic Senate, during the same meeting, also passed a
motion introduced by Frank C. Newman, dean of Boalt Hall School
of Law:
"Whereas, the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate
recently has gone on record as favoring maximum freedom for
student political activity and the use of peaceful and orderly
procedures in settling disputes;
"And, whereas, the attitude of the Division has been
widely misunderstood as condoning lawlessness, now, therefore,
this body reaffirms its convictions that force and violence have
no place on this campus."
3. Edward W. Carter, chairman of the Board of Regents, sent a
telegram to Mario Savio following the Regents meeting at Davis:
"The Regents have concluded that in view of the study
being conducted by the appropriate committee, no useful purpose
would be served by considering whether your group should be
heard by the Regents at this time."
4. President Clark Kerr, during a news conference following
the Regents meeting, reiterated his belief that some of the
demonstrators "had Communist sympathies."
5. The FSM Executive Committee met briefly this evening and
accepted the changes in the Study Committee and in the
appointment of the ad hoc Academic Senate committee.
Following this meeting, Art Goldberg said:
"For the first time in the history of the University, an
administration treated its students as representative members of
the University community. This is a major event in the life of
the University and for all the students on campus."
October 16
1. The FSM Steering Committee issued a statement at
12:30 a.m.:
"The FSM has every hope that the negotiations which we
are entering into with the administration can be productive.
"However, we hope that President Kerr's attack upon us
is not an indication of an unhealthy attitude with which the
administration is entering these negotiations.
"It is regrettable that the President has resorted to
such attacks and that the Board of Regents has permitted
President Kerr's attack."
2. The Board of Regents, meeting for the second day at Davis,
commended President Clark Kerr for his handling of the
"regrettable" demonstrations at Berkeley.
The Regents also "reaffirmed the University's
traditional policy of encouraging maximum freedom with
responsibility and disapproving resort to force or
violence."
October 18
The FSM Executive Committee nominated its
representatives to the Committee on Campus Political Activity:
Mario Savio, Bettina Aptheker, Sydney Stapleton, and Suzanne
Goldberg.
October 20
1. Chancellor Edward W. Strong appointed the four FSM
candidates to the Study Committee. Upon nomination of the
Committee on Committees of the Academic Senate, he also
appointed Earl F. Cheit, professor of business administration,
and Sanford H. Kadish, professor of law.
2. Particle Berkeley, an on-campus group devoted to
encouraging student scientific research, was warned by the Dean
of Students Office that it faced the possibility of losing
on-campus status, if it joined the Free Speech Movement.
Jack Weinberg, as FSM spokesman, said:
"We hope this is not an indication of future punishment
to be given on-campus groups involved in the FSM.
" `On- and off-campus' means `what we like and what we
don't like' to the Administration.
"This is a bad omen, especially at the start of
negotiations on the free speech issue."
(Particle Berkeley has no official connections with
Particle Magazine, a student scientific journal, published by
an off-campus corporation. Two members of the group represent
Particle Berkeley on the FSM Executive Committee.)
3. Chancellor Edward W. Strong issued a statement warning of
possible further demonstrations led by "hard core
demonstrators":
"The hard core demonstrators still are going to try to
open the campus," he said. Chancellor Strong identified
"hard core demonstrators" as activists who had spent
the summer in Mississippi as civil rights workers. Strong went
on to say: "The University will not be used as a bastion
for the planning and implementation of political and social
action." He said the activists returned to Berkeley
thinking the University should become more directly involved in
social justice, and that some of those involved were
"professional demonstrators, but I won't smear all the
other good kids by calling it Communist-led." As far as
freedom of speech was concerned, Strong said "the
University has truly an Open Forum policy, but we have to draw a
line between the freedom and the planning and implementing of
political action."
4. Arthur Goldberg, speaking for FSM, answered Chancellor
Strong's statement:
"If `hard core demonstrations' means that we are still
going to fight for our principles and the Free Speech Movement,
then Chancellor Strong is right." Goldberg said it was
possible that some of the demonstrators had been in Mississippi
during the summer.
There are two types of "political action," Goldberg
explained. "It's sort of like the double standard--we (FSM)
are the girls, with lock-out, and the administration is the
boys, with no limitations. When they want to talk about their
Democrat and Republican politics, it's `University policy.'
"But, if we say anything about social action, or
something that might make people think, it becomes `too
political.' If the University has a true Open Forum, why can't
we advocate social action? It seems we have a closed Open
Forum."
5. Commuter-Independent Representative Edward Wilson
introduced a motion in the ASUC Senate which called for a test
case in the courts to settle the problem of administration
responsibility on the free speech issue. Wilson withdrew his
motion in anticipation of a similar case to be initated by the
Amercan Civil Liberties Union.
6. The expanded Committee on Campus Political Action agreed
that all decisions would be by consensus of students, faculty
and administration, each voting as a bloc with one vote.
October 25
The Ad Hoc Academic Senate Committee on Student
Suspensions (known as the Heyman Committee) requested that the
eight suspended students be reinstated during the course of the
Committee's hearings.
October 26
1. Chancellor Edward W. Strong refused the Heyman
Committee's request for reinstatement of the eight suspended
students.
2. The FSM Steering Committee issued a policy statement,
charging "the Regents have had legislation drafted which
would make certain forms of otherwise legal demonstrations on
campus misdemeanors." The Steering Committee also accused
President Kerr of changing the regulations governing political
activity on campus (presumably, subsequent to the changes made
at the beginning of the semester). The Steering Committee also
stated:
"If the administration refuses to acknowledge the right
to advocate off-campus political and social action, we shall
have to consider action as well as talk."
The three-page FSM statement indicated a general
dissatisfaction with the course of negotiations to date:
"We may soon have to admit that the administration does
not mean to deal fairly with us."
Specifically, the FSM statement charged:
1) Instead of stating he supported the work of the Committee
on Campus Political Activity. President Kerr attacked the FSM as
"non-students and Communists."
2) Chancellor Strong has refused to reinstate, for the
duration of their hearings, the eight students suspended for
their part in the free speech demonstrations. Thus,
"apparently the students are guilty until proven
innocent."
3) The Committee on Campus Political Activity will not allow
the FSM counsel to question witnesses on points of law.
The FSM statement further "demands that the
administration acknowledge these on-campus rights:"
1) Freedom to advocate off-campus political and social
action.
2) Freedom to recruit for off-campus political organizations.
3) Freedom to solicit funds for off-campus political causes.
4) Freedom from harassment of `72-hour rules' and the
mandatory presence at meetings of tenured faculty moderators and
police.
3. Ernest Besig, director of the Northern California chapter
of the American Civil Liberties Union, threatened to take the
University to court. If the Heyman Committee fails to resolve
the question of student political rights, "we will
undertake legal action," Bessig said. Any court action
would challenge the constitutionality of the disputed
administration regulations and the procedure by which the eight
students were suspended, Bessig explained.
Peter Franck, head of the Berkeley ACLU chapter, proposed two
alternative methods of testing the constitutionality of the
University regulations:
1) Challenge directly the suspensions of the eight students,
or
2) Have someone else violate the regulations.
Franck indicated the second proposal would probably be
utilized, if court action became necessary. Franck, who also is
an attorney advising FSM members, also claimed the University
Counsel's office asked the Regents for permission "to draft
legislation which would put teeth into the present
anti-political activity rules." The Counsel's office would
only make such a request at President Kerr's urging, Franck
contended.
4. Thomas Cunningham, University general counsel, had
"no comment" on the FSM-Franck charges that his office
was drafting restrictive legislation. Other University sources
denied knowledge of either alleged action.
October 27
1. Chancellor Edward W. Strong announced the
appointment of two University-wide administration
representatives to the Committee on Campus Political Action,
bringing the Committee to full complement. The administration
representatives were Robert B. Brode, academic assistant to the
President and professor of physics, and Frank L. Kidner,
University dean of educational relations and professor of
economics.
2. Two University faculty members attacked the University
regulations governing student off-campus political activity
during an open forum meeting of the Graduate Coordinating
Council.
Seymour M. Lipset, professor of sociology and director of the
Institute of International Studies, described the rules as
"irrelevant and destructive to the purposes of the
University. Social action is relevant" to both graduate and
undergraduate education. He said that while the University has
liberalized a great deal in the last six years, it still has not
gone far enough. He said he felt President Kerr has been
responsible for "very significant changes" in the
liberalization of the University.
John R. Searle, associate professor of philosophy, claimed
that, while the avowed function of the regulations is to keep
the campus politically neutral, the actual result is an
"increase in the alienation, hostility and contempt"
of the students toward the Administration.
October 28
1. The Committee on Campus Political Activity
considered a recommendation that the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution be the only policy regarding political expression
on campus. The recommendation was introduced by FSM
representative Sid Stapleton. Although the Committee did not
adopt Stapleton's motion, Mario Salvio, another FSM
representative, expressed pleasure with the proceedings.
However, Savio said, if the Committee did not adopt the First
Amendment as the only policy regarding speech on campus,
"we will have to consider more direct action."
The Committee also heard an explanation, by Dean of Students
Katherine A. Towle, of University policy regarding on-campus and
off-campus groups, and activities permitted these groups. It was
permissible, she said, for a speaker to recommend certain
actions be taken, but it was not permissible for a speaker to
advocate such actions be committed:
"A speaker may say, for instance, that there is going to
be a picket line at such-and-such a place, and it is a worthy
cause and he hopes people will go. But, he cannot say, `I'll
meet you there and we'll picket'."
2. The Heyman Committee, appointed by the Academic Senate to
recommend action on the eight suspended students, met today for
six hours and heard the cases of three suspended students:
Donald Hatch, Mark Bravo and Brian Turner. All three were
charged with operating a table on campus without a permit, and
raising money for unauthorized purposes.
November 2
1. The FSM Newsletter strongly criticized
Chancellor Strong and President Kerr, made several references to
possible "direct action," and said:
"We repeat: when the morass of mediation becomes too
thick to see through, action must let in the light."
ASUC President Charles Powell deplored the tone of ultimatum
which permeated the Newsletter:
"The leaders of FSM must realize that if they wish the
recommendations of the committee to be seriously considered by
Chancellor Strong, the recommendations will necessarily need
strong support of the entire committee, and threatening the
committee with subtle hints that future demonstrations will
ensue is definitely not the wise course to take."
2. Chancellor Edward W. Strong, addressing the Town and Gown
Club, said:
"Finally, there is the problem of keeping the University
true to its role and purpose in society. We cannot permit the
University to be used or exploited for purposes not in accord
with its charter as an educational institution in a democratic
society. The University is a public trust. It was founded to
enlighten the minds of its students and to prepare them for
useful careers as educated men and women. Freedom of thought and
inquiry is essential for the sifting of ideas, the advancement
of knowledge, and the discovery of truth. No less essential, as
the accompaniment
of intellectual freedom, is exercise of that freedom with
responsibility. No civilized society can endure if obligations
are not honored in living under law. The most disturbing aspect
of the recent student demonstrations was the philosophy
expressed--the ends justify the means. The employment of illegal
means to secure ends desired in the name of freedom would, if
tolerated, be destructive of freedom. Individuals enjoy freedom
in so far as the guarantees are built into the laws that protect
individual rights. When these laws are flouted, protection is
weakened and a society is on the road to anarchy. Living as we
do under a system of representative government, the right way to
effect changes in the laws is by consent and majority vote.
"The functioning of any society requires that authority
be vested in some individuals, be they judges, legislators, or
executives. Arbitrary exercise of authority is always to be
challenged, but defamation of authority duly exercised
undermines respect for high offices and demoralizes a society.
"The University is a champion of intellectual freedom;
it must no less be a champion of orderly and responsible
conduct. It cannot and will not tolerate deliberate violations
of its rules and regulations. If it did, it would be in the
position of aiding and abetting disrespect for law and order. As
the twig is bent, so the tree grows. Among the lessons to be
learned, even if it be by a hard way, is the lesson of
responsibility. The University remains steadfast in teaching
this lesson."
3. The ASUC Senate passed the following resolution:
"WHEREAS: Specific infractions of University rules and
regulations occurred during the demonstrations of September 30,
and of October 1 and 2 which were:
1) Disruption of University business in Sproul Hall and of
ASUC business in the Student Union.
2) Deliberate prevention of University police action by
detaining a police car and an arrested man for 32 hours.
"AND WHEREAS: There have been on various occasions
verbal threats on the part of leaders of the Free Speech
Movement to resort to open demonstrations again in order to
force individuals, the Administration, or the Hearing Committee
on Campus Political Activity to be sympathetic to their demands,
"BE IT RESOLVED: That the ASUC Senate condemn mass
demonstration which violates University regulations on this
campus of the University of California as a means of forcing
compliance on the part of those in positions of authority to
student demands. Willful and blatant violation of law and order
in a democracy cannot be tolerated by an ordered society, nor
should it be used by those who seek changes of rules and
regulations governing this campus, even when those same rules
may not be agreed upon by all.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the ASUC Senate does
recognize that there may be inconsistencies in the University
laws regulating campus political activity and urges all who are
concerned about the existing regulations in one way or another,
to support the efforts of the Hearing Committee on Campus
Political Activity and to communicate their concerns to the
individuals on that committee.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That subsequent to the report
of the Hearing Committee the ASUC Senate calls upon all students
to express their sentiments through the processes of the ASUC
Senate, their constituted student government.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the ASUC Senate encourages
all other on-campus and off-campus organizations to go on record
as supporting the stand of the Senate in an effort to prevent
future unlawful demonstrations."
November 3
The Heyman Committee completed hearings on the eight
student suspensions.
November 4
1. Two letters, one bearing the typewritten name of
Clark Kerr and the other the typewritten name of Thomas
Cunningham, University general counsel, were introduced by FSM
as "documentary proof" that the Administration
"had been drafting legislation without waiting for the
report of the Committee on Campus Political Activity." Both
letters were photostatic copies; neither had been signed. The
letters dealt with University rules and were dated October 13,
1964.
President Kerr said the letter bearing his name had been
prepared by a staff member; he disagreed with it and never signd
it. "I made no proposals for any changes in the rules at
the October (Regents') meeting, neither those in the letter nor
any others," Kerr said. The Kerr letter included an
addition to University Regulations on the Use of University
Facilities:
"University facilities may not be used for the purpose
of recruiting participants for unlawful off-campus action."
The second letter, bearing the name of Thomas Cunningham, was
presented to the Regents. Cunningham said he had been authorized
to study the situation and to prepare proposed legislation for
the State Legislature, if he deemed it necessary:
"They (the Regents) told me to go ahead and study the
problem and report back to them. I am. There has been absolutely
no legislation prepared at all, and I am still studying the
problem. My letter has nothing to do with University
rules."
Regarding the first letter, with Kerr's name, Cunningham
said:
"I prepared it. The president discussed it with the
chief campus officers, and decided he would not recommend it. He
said the students were studying it at that time."
2. Between 50 - 60 picketers took part in a demonstration on
Sproul Hall steps. The picket line was established "to
bring to light the misunderstanding" and "to focus
attention on the Free Speech Movement," according to Skip
Richheimer, a graduate student in history.
The pickets' specific purpose, Richheimer said, was to call
attention to the afternoon meeting of the Ad Hoc Academic Senate
committee (Heyman Committee). FSM intends to ask the committee
if the students should be able to enjoy their constitutional
rights as citizens in certain geographical areas of the campus.
The answer to this question, Richheimer said, will determine
whether the administration intends to be sincere in its
negotiations. If FSM concludes the administration is not
sincere, and that nothing can be gained from the committee, the
FSM "will have to resort to other measures,"
Richheimer said.
November 5
The Committee on Campus Political Activity continued to
debate a faculty proposal introduced by Earl Cheit, professor of
business administration, during yesterday's (Wednesday,
Nov. 4) meeting. The debate centered around phrases which the
Administration claims are necessary to protect the University,
but which the students contend would give the University the
right of "prior restraint."
The first part of Professor Cheit's proposal read:
"That in the Hyde Park areas, the University modify its
present regulations by dropping the distinction between
`advocating' and `mounting' political and social action.
Although we could find no case in which this distinction has
been in issue, the position of the students and the recent
resolutions of the Academic Senate and the Regents all support a
University policy which (subject only to restrictions necessary
for normal conduct of University functions and business) permits
free expression within the limits of the law. Subject only to
these same restrictions, off-campus speakers invited by
recognized student groups to speak in the Hyde Park area should
be permitted to do so upon completing a simple registration
procedure which records the inviting organization, the speaker's
name, and the topic of the talk."
An amendment to this paragraph, passed Nov. 4, added the
phrase: "and his willingness to answer questions."
An amendment proposed by Sanford Kadish, professor of law,
would have rephrased Professor Cheit's original sentences
dealing with action "within the limits of the law." It
would have inserted two new sentences after the first:
"The advocacy of ideas and acts which is
constitutionally protected off the campus should be protected on
the campus. By the same token, of course, speech which is in
violation of law and constitutionally unprotected should receive
no greater protection on the campus than off the campus."
The students and faculty representatives seemed agreed on
this amendment, but Administration representatives felt the
emphasis on prohibiting unlawful action was not strong enough.
The committee adjourned for an hour while Kadish, Kidner and
Attorney Malcolm Burnstein attempted to find suitable
phraseology acceptable to all three factions. They returned with
this amendment:
"If, as a direct result of the advocacy on the campus,
acts occur in violation of U.S. or California laws, the
University should be entitled to take appropriate disciplinary
action against the speakers and their sponsoring organizations,
to the extent that the person or organization can fairly be
found to be responsible for the unlawful acts."
Mario Savio, speaking for the student representatives,
claimed the compromise amendment would, in effect, give the
University the right of prior restraint, as it leaves
interpretation of unlawful acts up to the University. The
students were not in favor of the amendment.
The meeting adjourned.
November 7
The Committee on Campus Political Activity reached an
impasse over the first resolution proposed by the faculty for
recommendation to Chancellor Strong. The question again was over
whether the University should be able to take action against
students involved in illegal acts off campus when the acts were
advocated or organized on campus (even though, at the time the
acts were advocated or organized, they were legal).
Frank Kidner, University dean of educational relations and an
Administration representative, offered an amendment to the
faculty motion which read:
"If acts unlawful under California or Federal law
directly result from advocacy, organization or planning on the
campus, the students and organizations involved may be subject
to such disciplinary action as is appropriate and conditioned
upon as fair hearing as to the appropriateness of the action
taken."
According to the Daily Californian, a heated
discussion between Dean Kidner and Mario Savio followed, during
which Dean Kidner expressed the view that an act would not have
to be proclaimed unlawful for the Administration to take action.
Sid Stapleton, student committee member and a member of the
Young Socialist Alliance, said he felt the University would be
unable to conduct a fair hearing because of political pressures.
Vice Chancellor Alan Searcy responded, "the Administration
is made of men of good will."
Dean Kidner's amendment failed. The Administration
representatives voted affirmatively, the faculty abstained, and
the students voted negatively.
The student representatives then offered this amendment:
"In the area of first amendment rights and civil
liberties, the University may impose no disciplinary action
against members of the University community and organizations.
In this area, members of the University community and
organizations are subject only to the civil authorities."
Sanford Kadish, professor of law, offered a substitute
amendment which, he said, defined the notion of collective
responsibility and incorporated into general law the problem of
the responsibility of one person or a number of people.
Professor Kadish's substitute amendment failed by one vote.
The student amendment was defeated, with the Administration and
faculty voting negatively.
When it was obvious the committee could not reach agreement,
Professor Cheit proposed the committee report agreement on
points two through seven of the faculty recommendations, and
that the students and the faculty prepare a statement of the
nature of their differences and present it to Chancellor Strong
and the University community.
Mario Savio agreed to make the disagreement public, but he
indicated he did not agree that point one was the only point of
disagreement.
It was agreed that no action would be taken until everyone
agreed.
The meeting adjourned.
November 8
The Free Speech Movement issued the following
statement:
"Ever since Oct. 2 the organizations composing the Free
Speech Movement have voluntarily refrained from exercising their
constitutional liberties on the Berkeley campus of the
University of California. The FSM imposed this moratorium in the
hope that agreement with the administration regarding any
regulations could soon be reached. Although we continue to be a
party to the Campus Committee on Political Activity, we feel
that we must lift our self-imposed moratorium on political
activity because the committee is already deadlocked over the
issue of political advocacy and appears headed for a long series
of radical disagreements... We must exercise our rights so that
the University is not permitted to deny us those rights for any
long period and so that our political organizations can function
to their maximum capacity. Many students and organizations have
been hampered in their efforts in the past election and in civil
rights activity because of the moratorium.
"Saturday the CCPA became deadlocked over the issue of
the student's right to advocate off-campus political activity.
... (the proposed) amendment is directly aimed at student
participation in the civil rights movement and is totally
unacceptable to the students. The administration would give
themselves the right (1) to decide on the legality and the
`appropriateness' of the students' off-campus political
activity, (2) to decide the legality of the students' on-campus
advocacy of off-campus action, and (3) to discipline the
students in the area of their civil liberties.
"... The Free Speech Movement proposed (an) amendment
which is the position of the American Association of University
Professors and the American Civil Liberties Union.
"... the administration vetoed our position and insisted
on the ability of the University to discipline students in the
area of their civil liberties. The FSM believes that the
University is not a competent body to decide questions
concerning civil liberties, especially since it is subject to
strong political pressure. Because students' rights have great
political impact as well as legal significance, the courts
should be the only body to decide upon them.
"The AAUP has declared that `students should enjoy the
same freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly, and the
right to petition the authorities that citizens generally
possess.' The Free Speech Movement intends to exercise those
freedoms on Monday (Nov. 9)."
November 9
1. The following statement by Chancellor Edward W.
Strong appeared in the Daily Californian:
"If the FSM returns to direct action tactics, this will
constitute a clear breach of the agreement of October 2.
Students and organizations participating will be held
responsible for their actions."
2. The following statement by the faculty representatives of
the Committee on Campus Political Activity appeared in the Daily
Californian:
"In view of the continuing newspaper reports that the
FSM has threatened demonstrations in violation of the agreement
under which the committee was constituted, the faculty
representatives wish to reiterate their statement made at the
Saturday morning meeting.
"It is our belief that substantial progress has been
made and will continue to be made so long as no action is taken
which jeopardizes the continuation of the good work of the
committee.
"Once again, therefore, we call upon FSM to abide by the
terms of its agreement."
3. Because of the lack of agreement and action by the
Committee on Campus Political Activity, the FSM Steering
Committee declared it was lifting "its self-imposed
moratorium on political activity" and held a rally on
Sproul Hall steps at noon, the first such activity since the
October 2 agreement.
According to Mario Savio, the Committee on Campus Political
Activity meetings have not shown promise of reaching a solution.
Savio said the FSM could not accept the Administration's demand
that the University have jurisdiction over the legality and
"appropriateness" of off-campus political activity.
Another member of the FSM Steering Committee said:
"The University has changed its position considerably
throughout the period of negotiation. Originally there was no
suggestion that the Administration wanted to have jurisdiction
over the legality of off-campus activities."
During the demonstration, FSM and eight other off-campus
organizations set up card tables along the steps of Sproul Hall.
There were donation cups and sign-up sheets on each table, in
violation of University regulations. About 75 persons involved
had their names taken, according to FSM spokesmen. Each table
also offered a petition which stated: "We were at the
tables and support those who were manning them."
Speakers addressed the rally from the top of an old dresser.
The crowd sat, squatted and stood around the dresser, as it had
around the stranded police car early last month. Approximately
200 students participated in the rally, while an additional 400
watched from the fringes.
4. The Graduate Co-ordinating Committee announced members of
its group would set up tables tomorrow afternoon with FSM and
other protesting groups. The graduates would sit under signs
identifying their departments for at least an hour. They said
they would man their tables until they were suspended, arrested,
or their demands were met. Approximately 75 or 100 graduate
students at the meeting said they would man tables. The motion
to man the tables was passed with only one dissent.
Steve Weissman, Graduate Co-ordinating Committee
representative to FSM, said that if the police attempt to arrest
the students, the graduates will refuse all cooperation. He
added that such an action might be cause for a strike by the
teaching assistants and the faculty.
5. The following statement was issued jointly by President
Clark Kerr and Chancellor Edward W. Strong this evening:
"FSM has abrogated the agreement of October 2, and by
reason of this abrogation, the Committee on Campus Political
Activity is dissolved...
"We shall now seek advice on rules governing political
action on campus from students through the ASUC and from the
faculty through the Academic Senate.
"The Academic Senate and the ASUC Senate have called for
the use of peaceful and orderly procedures in settling disputes.
We welcome proposals from all interested groups."
Regarding political activities, the statement said:
"... students participating in violation of rules will
be subject to penalties through established procedures."
And, the Kerr-Strong statement concluded:
"The University is devoted to rational discussion, to
law and order, and to freedom for students and faculty matched
with responsibility in the use of this freedom."
6. An FSM statement called the dissolution of the Committee
on Campus Political Activity the "destruction of one more
line of communication between the students and the
Administration... it makes the possibility of ultimate
settlement even more remote."
Mario Savio added his own comments to the official FSM
statement:
"By its continuing acts of political oppression, the
University Administration has abrogated the Pact... Accordingly,
the students have lifted the self-imposed moratorium on the
exercise of the constitutionally-guaranteed political rights...
No institution, except the courts, has any competence to decide
what constitutes the abuse of political freedom.
"The students shall not cease in the responsible
exercise of their rights."
November 10
1. Graduate student protestors continued defiance of
University regulations on the steps of Sproul Hall. The
University took no official notice of their actions. Tables
soliciting money--in one case, for a haircut for a
professor--were manned by
196 teaching assistants and graduate students who worked in
large groups. The large number of workers was intended to
prevent administration action against a few participants,
according to FSM. Demonstrators and spectators heard a speech by
Mario Savio, then members of the Graduate Co-ordinating
Committee of the FSM set up tables to distribute literature and
to collect funds. Savio said: "The administration is on the
horns of a real dilemma. They must either take all of us or none
of us."
The Dean's office took no official notice of the violations,
nor was any effort made to obtain names of those manning tables.
The demonstrators obligingly sent a list of their names to the
Dean's office, however.
2. Participants in Monday's (Nov. 9) demonstration were
mailed notices to appear at the Dean's Office for disciplinary
action. Students whose names were taken in Monday's
demonstration held a late-afternoon conference at Westminster
House, where Malcolm Burnstein, an Oakland attorney, counseled
them on their legal rights. Burnstein told them:
"The regulations attempt to deprive you of a kind of
speech, not a place to do it in. It is the opinion of all of us
who have read the regulations that the University cannot legally
do this."
3. Ira Heyman, professor of law and chairman of the Ad Hoc
Academic Senate Committee studying the case of the eight
suspended students announced the committee's decisions and
recommendations will be issued Thursday, Nov. 12.
4. Faculty representatives of the Committee on Campus
Political Activity met at noon to report on the status of the
committee's deliberations at the time the committee was
dissolved. The Faculty Representatives' report said negotiations
deadlocked on "the question of the authority of the
University to discipline for on-campus conduct that results in
off-campus law violation." Earl F. Cheit, professor of
business administration, said: "We were very concerned lest
the committee go out of existence when we were so close to an
agreement." Faculty representatives expressed a general
disappointment over the dissolution of the committee.
5. Art Goldberg, one of the student protest leaders from the
beginning, announced he was no longer a member of the FSM
Steering Committee. "No comment," he said. (He was
later reinstated.)
6. ASUC President Charles Powell announced formation of a
five-man ASUC Senate committee to make recommendations regarding
student political activity. Powell said he was acting because of
the dissolution of the Committee on Campus Political Activity.
Powell noted that the ASUC Senate was the first body to formally
endorse the free speech rights of students on campus, but that
the efforts of the Senate and of the class officers had been
undermined and destroyed by the militant demonstrations of the
FSM. "Up until now, the Administration has chosen or been
forced to negotiate around the Senate. Now, the issue is back
where it started, where it should be, and where real decisions
are going to be made," Powell said. Powell also said:
"Members of the ASUC Senate placed their faith in the
ability of the committee to solve the problem. Now that the
committee is defunct, the Senate must take decisive independent
action to reach a solution.
"The whole idea is that it's time the Senate took charge
of this question of political activity on campus which was so
confused and distorted by demonstrations, and we intend to take
charge with conviction and responsibility."
According to Senior Representative Dan Griset, "The new
committee will be the true voice of the students. It will be the
only student group to offer official recommendations to the
Chancellor."
Mario Savio and Dean Frank Kidner addressed the ASUC Senate
in the evening. Savio demanded equal rights for students, both
on and off the campus. He said: "If the FSM must resort to
mass demonstrations, they will not be halted unless we receive
substantial concessions from the administration." Kidner
listened to Savio's remarks "with some interest and some
sympathy," then reported, "the administration will
continue to consider revisions in its policy."
November 12
President Kerr released the report of the faculty
members of the disbanded Committee on Campus Political Activity.
(Full text, see Appendix) The report recommended
substantial liberalization of University rules regarding
on-campus political activities. In essence, the six faculty
members recommended on-campus mounting of legal off-campus
political and social action be permitted. Recognized student
organizations, they said, should be allowed to accept donations
and sign up members in designated areas on campus. However, the
report said:
"The on-campus advocacy, organization or planning of
political or social action... may be subject to discipline where
this conduct directly results in judicially-found violations of
California or Federal criminal law; and the group or individual
can fairly be held responsible for such violations under
prevailing legal principles of accountability."
The faculty group also recommended:
1) Room should be made available for meetings of off-campus
groups in the student office building, scheduled for completion
next semester.
2) The experimental use of Sproul Hall steps and the adjacent
area as a Hyde Park area should be discontinued.
November 13
1. The Academic Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Suspensions
recommended six of the eight suspended students be reinstated as
of the date of their suspensions. The committee also recommented
six-week suspensions for Art Goldberg and Mario Savio, the
suspensions to begin Sept. 30 and end November 16:
"We recommend that Messrs. (Mark) Bravo, (David) Goines,
(Sandor) Fuchs, (Brian) Turner, and Mrs. (Elizabeth) Stapleton
be reinstated as of the date of their suspensions. The penalty
of indefinite suspension should be expunged from the record of
each student...
"Instead, the penalty for each of these six students
should be recorded as that of `censure' for a period of no more
than six weeks.
The committee recommended heavier punishment for Goldberg and
Savio because of their alleged roles in organizing and leading
demonstrations. Goldberg was charged with leading a picket which
interfered with a University meeting on Sept. 28, and Savio was
charged with leading the Sproul Hall sit-in of Sept. 30.
The committee's findings, in the form of a 14-page report, (Full
text, see Appendix) were formally submitted to the Berkeley
Division of the Academic Senate. Copies were sent to the
administration and to the students involved. The next regularly
scheduled meeting of the Academic Senate is Dec. 8. An emergency
meeting was scheduled for Nov. 24.
Regarding the Heyman Committee report, Chancellor Edward W.
Strong issued the following statement at 5:15 p.m. today:
"I have received a copy of the report of an ad hoc
advisory committee which was established by the Berkeley
Division of the Academic Senate to review the duration of
suspension of eight students indefinitely suspended last
September for violation of University rules. This advisory
committee has been under the chairmanship of Professor Ira M.
Heyman, a member of the faculty of the school of law, Berkeley.
"Although Regents, the President and I had understood
that the committee was to be advisory to me, Professor Heyman
has addressed the report to the Academic Senate and his
committee concludes `that it should render its report to the
Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate, with copies of the
report to go to the University administration and students
involved.' President Kerr and I completely disagree with this
procedure. Out of respect for and courtesy to the Academic
Senate, however, we shall await the reaction of the Berkeley
Division to the report before commenting on its recommendations.
"As the report stresses, the committee, with the assent
of the parties, `has been concerned only with events occurring
through September 30, 1964, and has not been asked to, nor has,
considered any events after that date.' Much has happened since
September 30. Some of the students mentioned in the report have
since engaged in seriout misconduct since that date and with
regard to those actions, regular disciplinary procedures will
prevail, including the immediate filing of charges by
appropriate officials and hearings before the faculty committee
on student conduct. In a conversation with Professor Heyman on
November 9, he agreed recent violations of rules should be
referred to the faculty committee on student conduct.
"President Kerr has today sent a copy of the Heyman
Committee report, together with this statement, to each of the
Regents for their information in accordance with the request of
the Regents made at their October meeting."
Meanwhile, a University spokesman said, the University will
continue to enforce its regulations. Those people who have been
called before the deans for manning tables have been given a
warning, if they have not previously violated University rules,
the spokesman said.
Members of the Free Speech Movement were generally pleased
with the Heyman Committee findings.
Mario Savio said:
"It is gratifying that the initial contentions of the
students that the rules governing political activity were
obscure and their reinforcement was arbitrary have been upheld
by the faculty findings."
Art Goldberg, however, was unhappy with Chancellor Strong's
refusal to act on the committee's findings before hearing from
the Academic Senate:
"The committee's recommendations that six of the
students should never have been suspended in the first place
constitutes a clear moral imperative for the administration to
reinstate them immediately."
2. The recently formed ASUC Senate committee on the free
speech controversy considered a compromise proposal to resolve
the conflict. According to Mike Adams, a committee member, the
committee re-evaluated proposals made last Thursday, and made a
number of substantial improvements on them. Adams did not reveal
what the "improvements" involved.
3. The FSM issued a clarification of a statement made
Wednesday (Nov. 11):
"We request that an action be taken against all
participating grops or students equally. It must be understood
that membership in the FSM is contingent upon an organization's
endorsement of the principle of full political freedom, and not
necessarily upon an endorsement of the tactics of the FSM."
November 16
1. Tables again appeared on the steps of Sproul Hall
for solicitation of funds and recruitment of members. FSM
spokesmen said the tables would remain on the steps all week.
2. The Free Speech Movement began circulation of a petition
in support of its stand on advocacy of illegal off-campus acts,
in preparation for the Board of Regents meeting in Berkeley on
Friday (Nov. 20). The petition, which will be presented to the
Board of Regents, disagrees with point three of the
recommendations of the faculty members of the former Committee
on Campus Political Activity.
"We the undersigned resolve that:
"Only courts of law should have the power to judge
whether the content of speech on campus is an abuse of
constitutional rights of free speech. Only courts of law should
have the power to impose punishment if these rights are abused.
"Therefore, we ask the administration to recognize that
it not usurp these powers."
(Point three of the faculty report, which is advisory to
President Kerr, recommends students be disciplined by the
University for advocating off-campus action only if such
advocacy:
"1) Directly results in judicially-found violations
of California or Federal criminal law, and
"2) The group or individual can fairly be held
responsible for such violations under prevailing legal
principles of accountability.")
3. Letters were sent to approximately 70 students who
violated University regulations last week by manning tables.
according to Arleigh Williams, dean of men. The students were
asked to report to the Dean of Students' office for interviews.
Teaching assistants who sent their names to the administration
and claimed they had violated regulations also were sent
letters, Williams said. "All the interviews will be
completed before we decide what action will be taken concerning
those students," Williams explained. (Interviewed
students were advised by legal counsel not to answer any vital
questions, according to an FSM spokesman.)
4. FSM announced a vigil aimed at Friday's Regents meeting.
Details were not announced.
5. ASUC President Charles Powell addressed the following
letter to the Berkeley student body. It appeared in today's Daily
Californian:
"Tonight at an emergency meeting of the ASUC Senate,
recommendations will be submitted by the Senate subcommittee on
campus political activity for final approval. They will then be
submitted to Chancellor Strong and President Kerr for
consideration before the Chief Campus Officers meeting and the
Regents meeting later this week. The Senate sub-committee will
suggest modifications of the Faculty Report as well as proposing
a new solution which would allow and center all student
political expression in the Student Center area.
"Until such time as the Regents have considered our
recommendations, as well as those of other individuals and
groups, the ASUC Senate stands firmly on the positions it has
taken during the entire crisis--that is:
"1. The ASUC Senate supports the ideals and freedoms
sought by the FSM (Senate motion of Sept. 22 authorizing a
petition supporting privileges of advocacy and of solicitation
of funds and membership--a petition which has 3500 signatures)
and;
"2. The ASUC Senate will not endorse a student movement
such as the FSM which encourages willful violation of University
regulations while those regulations are being re-evaluated
(Senate Law and Order motion of Nov. 2).
"Pending the Regents' action this week the ASUC Senate
may find it necessary to strengthen its position which is, in
essence, in substantial accordance with the objectives of the
FSM but disagrees as to the means. Until the Regents have had
time to consider all the proposals to be presented and to make
some decisions, I am extremely serious in my request that all
students not associated with the FSM stay away from any
demonstrations. Large on-looking crowds only make for greater
distortions of facts by news media and for greater traffic
problems.
"And to the FSM I would say that I think you have made
your points clear; you've had enough to command the attention of
the campus community for the first seven weeks of classes. I
would suggest that it is time for us all to relax somewhat and
allow the Regents a chance to consider all proposals made."
6. The ASUC Senate held a special meeting tonight, and
considered three possible proposals regarding student political
activity. The proposals, if approved, would be forwarded to the
administration:
1) A five-member committee, formed last week by ASUC
President Powell, produced a majority report favoring
considerable modification and liberalization of existing
regulations governing on-campus political activity.
2) Representatives-at-Large Dan Griset and Frank Rossi
submitted a minority report favoring adherence to existing
University regulations.
3) Representative-at-Large Art Shartsis submitted an
independent report rephrasing, but supporting, the
Administration's current regulatory powers.
The ASUC Senate voted to separate control of the
Bancroft-Telegraph area from the other University political
activity areas. This will allow groups not permitted on campus
to have an adjacent activity area.
The Senate also approved a suggestion that a committee be
appointed to advise the Chancellor on the administration of
student political action.
A debate arose between Senate members over the University's
right to discipline studnets participating in illegal political
activity. The Senate committee's majority report recommended
that students arrested for political activity be placed on
temporary probation until the legality of their actions can be
determined in a civil court.
November 17
1. Tables again appeared on Sproul Hall steps. No
attempt was made to remove them.
The FSM Newsletter stated "the illegitimate
tables will remain until they have become legal, through repeal
of the restrictive rulings."
The Newsletter also denounced the University faculty:
"They allow their colleagues to be victimized one at a
time. They are loath to use their power to fight for their own
freedoms or anyone else's... They may think like men; but they
act like rabbits."
2. A meeting of the Boalt Hall Student Association
overwhelmingly (402-170) approved a statement condemning the the
administration's political action rulings. The statement said,
in part:
"... a free society can tolerate no less than an
unrestricted opportunity for the exchange of views on the
political and social questions of the day... we believe that the
University's restrictions raise serious constitutional
questions.
"We believe that the spirit and perhaps the letter of
our Constitution command that these restrictions be withdrawn.
Where the choice is between expediency and freedom of speech, a
nation of free men can have no choice."
3. The ASUC Senate tonight approved a proposal for a solution
of the free speech issue. ASUC President Charles Powell and
First Vice President Jerry Goldstein will personally deliver the
report to President Clark Kerr tomorrow.
The ASUC Senate's proposal recommends:
"The University shall maintain that 1) all legal
activity is allowed on campus, and 2) illegal activity off the
campus is, as always, the private business of the student as a
private citizen."
Also suggested was a method of operation, should the
Chancellor "suspect that a student... used University
facilities to incite, plan or organize illegal off-campus action
or used criminal speech on campus." Under the ASUC
proposal, the Chancellor could convene the Faculty Committee on
Student Conduct which would give the student a fair hearing.
Presumption of innocence, with burden of proof to be the same as
in criminal courts, would be used in the hearing. The
committee's report would be advisory to the Chancellor. The
Senate recommendation also included the suggestion that the
Faculty Committee, a standing committee now appointed by the
Chancellor, should be appointed by the Academic Senate,
beginning next semester.
The ASUC Senate also adopted an alternative proposal,
introduced by Faculty Representative Lyman Porter. Porter's
proposal recommends the University set off the entire student
center area, including the contested Bancroft-Telegraph strip,
as a region for complete freedom. Under Porter's plan, the free
speech area would be completely under the control of the
students. The ASUC would set up a board to administer the
practical organization of the area.
November 18
1. The Free Speech Movement announced plans for a mass
vigil during Friday's Regents meeting in Berkeley. The FSM
Steering Committee also issued an open letter to the Regents,
requesting permission for FSM leaders to appear before the
Board. The letter requests permission for a five-member
delegation to appear before the Board and "formally present
the platform of the FSM, which consists of a carefully
formulated body of proposed regulations to govern student
political activity on campus."
Mike Rossman, an FSM Steering Committee member, said,
"Many proposals are being taken to the Regents, but the FSM
desires to plead its own case."
President Kerr indicated the Regents would rather not have
anyone speak, but would review written proposals.
2. The report issued yesterday by the ASUC Senate Study
Committee on Campus Political Activities also brought comment
from FSM leaders.
Mario Savio admonished the ASUC committee for "failing
to endorse a principle stand of the Free Speech Movement,
namely, that only the courts may judge when speech is an abuse
of constitutionally guaranteed political rights."
Mike Rossman said:
"The ASUC Senate has acted too hastily. The members of
the Senate have too little knowledge of legal language necessary
to guarantee that any liberalizations will be implemented. The
language of the Senate proposal and of the Faculty report which
they have amended is too obscure and open to interpretation...
This proposal does not provide for many of the major needs of
the students, which have been expressed by the FSM."
3. Sanford Elberg, dean of the graduate division, called a
meeting of all University teaching assistants. According to
Elberg, the meeting was "to clear up the various aspects of
the free speech issue." Faculty members of the defunct
study committee and FSM representatives addressed the meeting,
but it was "not intended to be a debate," Elberg said.
About 450 students attended the meeting in Pauley Ballroom.
Earl F. Cheit, professor of business administration, and
Henry Rosovsky, professor of economics, explained the
controversial faculty position in regard to student discipline.
According to Cheit, the proposals drastically limit the power of
the University to discipline students. Under the proposals,
students cannot be punished until they have received "a
fair hearing" from a faculty committee.
Many attending the meeting were critical of Chiet's
statement. Students questioned the ability of the University to
grant students "a fair hearing." "The only
institution which guarantees citizens a fair hearing is a civil
court of law," one of the students said.
4. An unidentified man telephoned Oakland police, threatening
to shoot Mario Savio. Berkeley and University police were
informed.
5. The Ad Hoc Committee on Student Conduct (the Heyman
Committee), issued a statement in which the committee said their
report on the cases of the eight suspended students should not
have been addressed to the Berkeley Division of the Academic
Senate. The report was properly field with the Senate, the
statement said, but it should have been addressed to the
Chancellor.
"By filing the report with the Division, the committee
did not intend that the Division review the findings of fact and
recommendations since the members did not sit at the hearings
and receive the evidence and arguments which are the only
relevant basis for the findings and recommendations."
November 19
The State Board of Directors of the California
Democratic Council asked the University administration and
Regents to protect "the constitutional liberty" of the
students:
"... advocacy of ideas and acts which are
constitutionally protected off campus should be protected on
campus..."
November 20
1. A mass student rally on Sproul Hall steps,
encouraged by folk singer Joan Baez, preceded a "peaceful
mass pilgrimage-demonstration" by more than 3,000 persons.
Following a noon rally on Sproul Hall steps, the majority of the
gathering quietly marched across campus, led by a banner
declaring "Free Speech," to sit on the lawn across
Oxford Street from University Hall while the Regents met this
afternoon.
2. A delegation of five FSM representatives requested a
hearing before the Regents. Although the FSM delegation was
admitted to the Regents' meeting room, they were not allowed to
speak.
Michael Rossman, a member of the FSM Steering Committee,
explained why FSM believes it should be "the legitimate
spokesman for the students":
"Although others have proposed solutions to the problem
facing the students (some of them well-meant and sympathetic),
the Free Speech Movement is the legitimate spokesman for the
students since it is most intimately acquainted with the needs
of the students. It is only within the ranks of the Free Speech
Movement that nearly all of the political, religious, and social
action groups on the campus are represented."
3. As demonstrating students gathered across the street, the
Regents considered the following recommendations submitted by
President Kerr and Chancellor Strong:
"1) That the sole and total penalty for the six students
be suspension from September 30 to date.
"2) That the other two students be suspended for the
period from September 30, 1964, to date and that they be placed
on probation for the current semester for their actions up to
and including September 30, 1964.
"3) That adjustments in academic programs be permitted
for the eight students on approval by the appropriate Academic
Dean.
"4) New disciplinary proceedings before the Faculty
Committee on Student conduct will be instituted immediately
against certain students and organizations for violations
subsequent to September 30, 1964.
"5) That rules and regulations be made more clear and
specific and thus, incidentally and regrettably, more detailed
and legalistic; and that explicit penalties, where possible, be
set forth for specific violations.
"6) That the Berkeley campus be given sufficient staff
in the Dean of Students Office and the Police Department so that
as nearly as possible all students involved in violations be
identified with the fullest possible proof since the
incompleteness of identification of participants and collection
of full proof have been held against the University; also that
the General Counsel's office be given sufficent staff so it may
participate, as necessary, in the legal aspects of student
discipline cases, particularly since a more legalistic approach
is being taken toward student discipline.
"7) That the right and ability of the University to
require students and others on campus to identify themselves be
assured by whatever steps are necessary."
The Regents approved these suggestions. Six of the suspended
students received suspensions from Sept. 20 to date. Arthur
Goldberg and Mario Savio, demonstration leaders, were placed on
probation for the rest of the semester, in addition to the
suspensions.
The Board of Regents also revised University policy on
political action. The Regents' resolution, introduced by
President Kerr, read:
"1) The Regents restate the long-standing University
policy as set forth in Regulation 25 on student conduct and
discipline that `all students and student organizations... obey
the laws of the State and community...'
"2) The Regents adopt the policy effective immediately
that certain campus facilities, carefully selected and properly
regulated, may be used by students and staff for planning,
implementing or raising funds or recruiting participants for
lawful off-campus action, not for unlawful off-campus
action."
(No specific procedure on discipline for advocacy of
"unlawful off-campus action" was passed. Approval for
the
first section was unanimous; the second section received a
few "nays.")
4. FSM leaders immediately denounced both the Regents and
President Kerr for having "ignored" the Heyman
Committee recommendations and FSM's own recommendations in
presenting the matter for Regents' consideration.
5. During a new conference following the Regents' meeting.
President Kerr expressed the belief that the new regulations
were more liberal than the previous University regulations.
Asked who whould decide the illegality of advocated action.
President Kerr said:
"In the usual case, you'd wait for the courts to decide.
It would then go to the Faculty Committee on Student
Conduct."
Specific regulations were not set down, President Kerr said.
because "the question of writing rules and regulations is
pretty complicated. The Regents prefer to make general policy
statements."
The President also indicated the University's General
Counsel, Thomas Cunningham, would "probably make up the
specific regulations, and the Board will take a look at
them."
President Kerr also expressed doubt that the FSM would accept
the Regents' action.
November 23
1. The Free Speech Movement responded to the Regents'
"free speech issue" ruling with a mass rally at noon,
followed by a three-hour sit-in in Sproul Hall.
The tone of the rally was sad but resolute. The demonstrators
sang anti-administration songs (set to the tunes of Christmas
Carols and well-known folk songs); denounced President Kerr and
Chancellor Strong for "ignoring" the Heyman
Committee's recommendations; and verbally advocated actions
which, according to some interpretations, were against
University regulations.
During the rally, Vice Chancellor Alan Searcy delivered a
statement by Chancellor Edward W. Strong from a small,
improvised rostrum on the first landing of Sproul Hall steps:
"This statement is directed to the action of The Regents
in their meeting of November 20...
"The new policy provides opportunities for direct
political action requested by 18 off-campus student
organizations on September 18, and by the ASUC Senate on
September 22.
"Prior to adopting this policy, the Regents received and
reviewed materials submitted by individuals and groups including
a motion of the ASUC Senate, and the recommendations of the
faculty group of the Committee on Campus Political Activity.
"Activities of students in disobedience of the laws of
the State and community are punishable in their courts. The
University maintains jurisdiction over violations of its rules
including those which prohibit use of University facilities for
planning and recruiting for actions found to be unlawful by the
courts. There will be no prior determination of double jeopardy
in matters of political and social activities organized on the
campus by students and staff. The demand of the FSM that the
University permit the mounting of unlawful action on the campus
without penalty by the University cannot and will not be
granted.
"Most of the items in the report of the faculty group of
the Committee on Campus Political Activity are subject to action
by the Chancellor. I will take appropriate action upon
consultation with the Student Affairs Committee and through that
Committee with the ASUC Senate. These items include such matters
as specific rules and regulations concerning collection of
funds, issuance of permits for use of tables, and so-called
`Hyde Park' areas. These rules and regulations will receive
immediate attention. Pending this action the new policy will be
in effect at Bancroft and Telegraph beginning today. Permits for
tables may be obtained from the Office of the Dean of
Students."
Vice Chancellor Searcy asked protestors to wait 24 hours,
until the administration had worked out the specific application
of the new Regents' policy on this campus.
At the completion of his statement, Vice Chancellor Searcy
turned to leave. Mario Savio grabbed the microphone of FSM's
powerful dual-speaker public address system, demanding Searcy
engage in debate with him. "Hey! Get back here!" Savio
demanded. The Vice Chancellor returned to his microphone, but
refused to debate with Savio.
The Chancellor's statement was met with charges of
"another stall" by FSM orators, who claimed the
Administration, armed with the power to act against students
whose on-campus advocacy caused off-campus illegal action, would
be able to crush off-campus social movements at moments they
would be most needed.
Following Searcy's statements, much of the remaining time was
taken up with debate over whether or not to sit-in. After about
an hour of debate, at 2:00 p.m., several dozen protestors arose
and walked into Sproul Hall. About 300 others gradually followed
them, as the debate continued.
Once inside, the demonstrators lined the second floor hall
outside the deans' offices. Most of their time was spent
debating their next move.
Mario Savio explained the disagreement: Either the protestors
could stay in the building and face possible arrest for
trespassing, or they could leave at 5:00 p.m. when the Sproul
Hall offices closed. The reason for debate, Savio said, was that
the FSM Steering Committee was split on whether a trespassing
charge could be used as a test case for the free speech cause.
The Steering Committee finally voted, 6-5, to recommend
students leave the building at 5:00 p.m. The decision was met
with dissent from many demonstrators. There was more debate and,
at one point, Bettina Aptheker, a member of the Steering
Committee, told the crowd:
"Damn it, if we're going to win, then we've got to abide
by the decision of the Steering Committee, no matter how badly
split it was."
At 5:00 p.m., the demonstrators left Sproul Hall.
2. The FSM Executive Committee met at 9:30 p.m. to plan
further protest action.
November 24
1. Chancellor Edward W. Strong announced the following
new rules for political activity on the Berkeley campus:
"Authorized student organizations will be permitted in
designated areas (these designated areas to include the
Bancroft-Telegraph area, North entrance, and area in the Student
Center to be delineated by the ASUC Senate), to accept donations
and membership signups, and to distribute political and social
action material from tables provided by the organizations. On an
experimental basis, the administration of this activity is
delegated by the Dean of Students to the ASUC President.
"The following conditions shall apply:
"A. Permits for tables must be obtained from the ASUC.
"B. Tables for the student organizations shall be
manned at all times.
"C. The organizations shall provide their own tables and
chairs.
"D. At Bancroft and Telegraph there shall be no more
than one table in front of each pillar and four at the east
side, and three at the west side of the entrance way. No tables
shall be placed in front of the entrance posts. No posters shall
be attached to posts or pillars or set up on easels.
"E. In using the tables for purposes of political
action, organizations must not use the name of the University
and must dissociate themselves from the University as an
institution by means of a printed disclaimer.
"F. Donations may be solicited at the tables.
"Participation in the activities described above shall
be limited to members of the University--students, staff, and
faculty."
2. The Academic Senate defeated, by the narrow margin of
274-261, a motion to limit University regulation of speech,
political and social activity only to the extent "necessary
to prevent undue interference with other University
affairs." The Academic Senate also defeated a motion to
establish an Academic Senate committee to deal with questions of
student political conduct.
November 28
Letters from Chancellor Edward W. Strong, initiating
new disciplinary action, arrived at the residences of Mario
Savio and Arthur Goldberg today. Both Savio and Goldberg were in
Southern California, attempting to rally support for the Free
Speech Movement on other college campuses.
The letters charged the two FSM leaders with entrapping a
University police car and an arrested person:
"On October 1 and 2, 1964, you led and encouraged
numerous demonstrators in keeping a University police car and an
arrested person therein entrapped on the Berkeley campus for a
period of approximately 32 hours, which arrested person the
police were then endeavoring to transport to police headquarters
for processing."
Savio's letter additionally charged him with organizing and
leading demonstrators in "packing in" the hallway
outside the Dean of Students Office in Sproul Hall,
"thereby blocking access to and from said office,
disrupting the functions of that office and forcing personnel of
that office to leave through a window and across a roof."
It also charged Savio:
"... led and encouraged demonstrators forcefully and
violently to resist the efforts of the University police and the
Berkeley city police in their attempts pursuant to orders, to
close the main doors of Sproul Hall on the Berkeley
campus," and, "On October 1, 1964, you bit Berkeley
city police officer Phillip E. Mower on the left thigh, breaking
the skin and causing bruises, while resisting Officer Mower's
attempts to close the main doors of Sproul Hall."
Goldberg's letter also accused him of having:
"... threatened Sgt. Robert Ludden of the University
police by stating to him, in substance, that if police
reinforcements attempted to remove the prisoner from your
control and that of the demonstrators, he, Sgt. Ludden, and
other police officers stationed at the entrapped police car,
would be violently attacked by you and other
demonstrators."
The letters required Savio and Goldberg to attend a hearing
by the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct, and added:
"You may be represented by counsel at the hearing. The
recommendations of the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct will
be advisory to me."
November 29
1. The FSM Steering Committee held an emergency meeting
at 4:00 p.m. At 8:30 p.m., the Steering Committee issued the
following statement:
"The Administration sees the free speech protest as a
simple problem of disobedience and refuses to recognize the
legitimacy of the students' needs... By again arbitrarily
singling out students for punishment, the Administration avoids
facing the real issues.
"Its action violates the spirit of the Heyman Committee
report and can only be seen as an attempt to provoke another
October 2. We demand that these new charges be dropped."
A University spokesman admitted he knew the letters had been
written, but said the Administration normally makes no comment
on cases dealing with the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct.
Chancellor Strong would not confirm the letters:
"Out of concern for the students, no matter what the
occasion, the Chancellor's office makes no announcement of
students being called up for disciplinary action."
November 30
1. Chancellor Edward W. Strong rejected FSM demands
that the new charges against Mario Savio and Arthur Goldberg be
dropped:
"The Heyman Committee limited itself to charges of
misconduct up to and including September 30, and declined to
consider charges of violations after that date...
"These further charges have been referred to the faculty
Committee on Student Conduct for hearing...
"... In threatening to engage in direct action if the
charges are not dropped, those who make such threats demand a
decision based not on facts but on intimidation. The charges,
properly, will be subjected to the test of evidence."
FSM spokesmen refused comment on Chancellor Strong's
statement. However, an FSM Executive Committee meeting was held
this evening to decide on future action.
2. The Graduate Co-ordinating Council announced a meeting
"to plan for a T.A. strike" to be held tomorrow
(December 1).
3. "Free Speech" enthusiasts held a rally on the
UCLA campus. An FSM spokesman claimed "strong FSM
movements" now exist and are planning action on Univeristy
campuses at Santa Barbara, UCLA, Davis, and on other Southern
California college campuses. The spokesman predicted "some
statewide action will be taken this week."
4. Administration spokesmen refused comment on an FSM charge
that new disciplinary action had been taken against eight
organizations affiliated with FSM.
5. University President Clark Kerr addressed the following
letter to the Daily Californian. The letter appeared,
with the appended Daily Cal reply, in the paper's
December 1 issue:
"Relying on the Daily Californian as a medium of
information is like relying on smoke signals. You can gain an
impression that something is being said, but you can never be
quite sure what. My current concern is the continued
unwillingness of the Editors to quote what I actually said in an
item which has been discussed within the University Community
from time to time, with the Daily Californian being the
chief carrier of misquotations.
"Now I realize that misquotations may be more
interesting than quotations and the Daily Californian
succeeds in
being interesting. With the hope that it might also be accurate,
I am turning to the Icebox as a last resort, hoping it may be
open also to the cause of accuracy as it is to so many other and
sometimes quite contrary causes.
"Herewith are two actual quotations that are a lot less
interesting than the misquotations:
"1. At a press conference held in conjunction with a
speech before Town Hall in Los Angeles on Oct. 6 and in response
to a reporter's question, I said:
" `Experienced on-the-spot observers estimated that the
hard core group of demonstrators--those who continued as part of
the demonstrations through the night of Oct. 1--contained at
times as much as 40 per cent off-campus elements. And, within
that off-campus group, there were persons identified as being
sympathetic with the Communist Party and Communist causes.'
"2. On October 2 at a press conference in San Francisco
following a meeting of the American Council on Education, I
said:
" `I am sorry to say that some elements active in the
demonstrations have been impressed with the tactics of Fidel
Castro and Mao Tse-Tung. There are very few of these, but there
are some'."
The Daily Californian answered President Kerr's letter
with the following statement:
"Early in the Bancroft-Telegraph `free speech' dispute
President Kerr was quoted by a metropolitan newspaper as saying
that 49 per cent of the student demonstrators were Mao-Marxists.
"The Daily Californian never ran that so-called
quotation at any time because we understood it was not accurate.
"We believe that we acted for the `cause of
accuracy'."
December 1
1. The FSM issued an ultimatum, and the Graduate Co-ordinating
Council announced that teaching assistants would strike on
Friday (Dec. 4), or sooner, "if conditions warrant."
The FSM demanded the University fulfill three major requests:
1) Disciplinary action initiated against FSM leaders Mario
Savio, Arthur Goldberg, Jackie Goldberg and Brian Turner,
resulting from the demonstrations of Oct. 1 and Oct. 2, be
dropped.
2) Present rules on political speech be revised so that only
the courts regulate the content of political speech. All
regulations which "unnecessarily restrict" political
activity be repealed.
3) The Administration refrain from further disciplining of
students or organizations for political activity.
If the Administration did not meet their demands within 24
hours, FSM said, "direct action will follow."
2. The ASUC Senate passed the following "Demonstration
Resolution" during an evening meeting:
"WHEREAS all of the original requests and demands of the
ASUC Senate, faculty and FSM seeking the rights of free speech
have substantially been met or are in the process of negotiation
on this campus, and
"WHEREAS the decisions concerning the administration of
the means of free speech have been put in the hands of the
students, specifically the ASUC Senate, and
"WHEREAS, in specific, the FSM has advocated a sit-in at
the Chancellor's office on December 2 and a portion of the
teaching assistants at this Univeristy are planning to strike,
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
"1) That in view of continuing progress toward full
on-campus political rights the ASUC Senate draws the inevitable
conclusion that the FSM no longer has the extension of on-campus
political rights as its goal, and that its present plans for
civil disobedience are directed solely towards meaningless
harassment of the University.
"2) That the ASUC Senate encourages all responsible
students to avoid the scheduled sit-in December 2nd so as not to
indicate that more students support this type of irresponsible
action than is actually the case.
"3) That the ASUC Senate emphasizes the right of a
student to an education and therefore encourages department
chairmen at the University of California to make preparations to
accommodate students in the event that any teaching assistants
neglect their classes.
"4) That the ASUC Senate encourages all students to
continue to attend their classes and, in that manner, to
cooperate in continuing as normal an academic schedule as
possible.
"5) That the ASUC Senate shall fully investigate the
manner in which the administration has pursued prosecution of
students involved in demonstrations throughout this semester.
December 2
1. Approximately 1,000 persons--students, some faculty
members and non-University persons--packed four floors of Sproul
Hall following a huge rally in the plaza between Sproul Hall and
the Student Union.
Leading the mass sit-in Mario Savio said: [picture]
"There is a time when the operation of the machine
becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't
take part; you can't even tacitly take part, and you've got to
put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the
levers, upon all the apparatus and you've got to make it stop.
And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the
people who own it, that unless you're free, the machines will be
prevented from working at all."
Folk singer Joan Baez told the demonstrators:
"When you go in, go with love in your hearts."
Then, as Joan Baez sang "We Shall Overcome," the
demonstrators filed through the right-hand main entrance to
Sproul Hall, up the main stairway and--as the first and second
floors filled--on up the inside stairways to the third and
fourth floors.
Protestors sat one and two deep along all hallways, leaving
an aisle for traffic down the center. Plans were laid for at
least an all-night siege, and possibly as long as two or three
days.
As the sit-in developed, the University closed all offices in
the building, except Public Information and the Business and
Finance departments. Employees were sent home.
Protest leader Mario Savio demanded admittance to the Dean of
Students Office. Dean Peter Van Houten and two University police
officers refused his request.
Most of the demonstrators contented themselves with singing
folk songs, playing cards or studying. Folk singer Joan Baez,
seated in a second floor hall, slept part of the afternoon.
As evening arrived and the 7:00 p.m. closing time for Sproul
Hall approached, food was brought into the building and
distributed to the demonstrators.
At 6:45 p.m., University Police Lieutenant Merrill Chandler
informed the students the building would be closed. He ordered
those inside to leave. At 7:00 p.m., police locked the doors,
allowing anyone who wished to do so to leave, but no one could
enter. Ropes dangled from the second floor balcony, used to lift
some food and several demonstrators into the building.
Sit-in leaders urged juveniles, non-citizens, women with
young children and individuals on probation or parole to leave,
because of possible legal problems concerning their arrest.
As the evening wore on, and possibility of arrest or other
administration action appeared to lessen, protestors watched
movies ("Laurel and Hardy," "Operation
Abolition"), attended "Freedom School" classes in
stairwells and open areas, sang, attended Hanukkah services,
danced, played cards, studied, talked ("This may be a lark
now, but we may regret it."), or slept.
Joan Baez left at approximately 11:00 p.m.
Hallway lights were turned off and by 1:00 a.m., most of the
demonstrators had settled down for the long night ahead.
2. ASUC President Charles Powell denounced the sit-in. He
attacked "the FSM's insatiable hunger for full
capitulation..." The sit-in, Powell maintained, can only
result in a "showdown" from which neither the
University nor the students would "escape unscathed."
Powell further called the demonstrations "needless" on
the grounds that the Regents already had granted the FSM the
privileges it had requested.
3. University Young Republicans formally withdrew from the
FSM tonight. UYR President Warren Coats stated:
"What the FSM is asking, in effect, is that the
Administration cease to be an administration." [picture]
December 3
1. Beginning at 3:05 a.m., Chancellor Edward W. Strong,
assisted by a portable "bull horn," delivered a terse
message to students assembled on each of Sproul Hall's four
floors:
"May I have your attention? I am Dr. Edward Strong,
Chancellor of the Berkeley campus. I have an announcement.
"This assemblage has developed to such a point that the
purpose and work of the University have been materially
impaired. It is clear that there have been acts of disobedience
and illegality which cannot be tolerated in a responsible
educational center and would not be tolerated anywhere in our
society.
"The University has shown great restraint and patience
in exercising its legitimate authority in order to allow every
opportunity for expressing differing points of view. The
University always stands ready to engage in the established and
accepted procedures for resolving differences of opinion.
"I request that each of you cease your participation in
this unlawful assembly.
"I urge you, both individually and collectively, to
leave this area. I request that you immediately disperse.
Failure to disperse will result in disciplinary action by the
University.
"Please go."
Outside the building, approximately 635 uniformed police
officers had been assembling for nearly an hour. They came from
the Alameda County Sheriffs Department, Oakland Police
Department, Berkeley Police Department, University Police
Department and California Highway Patrol.
At 3:45 a.m., California Governor Edmund G. Brown issued the
following statement:
"I have tonight called upon law enforcement officials in
Alameda County to arrest and take into custody all students and
others who may be in violation of the law at Sproul Hall. I have
directed the California Highway Patrol to lend all necessary
assistance. These orders are to be carried out peacefully and
quietly as a demonstration that the rule of law must be honored
in California."
Simultaneously, in compliance with Governor Brown's orders,
police officers entered the fourth floor of Sproul Hall, and the
arrests began. It took 12 hours to clear the building. After
clearing the fourth floor, police moved down to the third. After
clearing a portion of the third floor, the police shifted their
attention to the second floor, where demonstrators from the
first and third floors had joined those on the second for a
massive jam-in. Police spent most of the day clearing the second
floor.
Any demonstrator was free to leave the building at any time,
before his arrest. Only those who insisted on remaining in the
building were arrested.
Each arrested demonstrator was given the choice of walking or
being dragged. Some walked; most "went limp" and were
dragged. Men were fingerprinted and searched, then taken down
inside stairways to the basement. Women were taken to the Dean
of Students Office, searched, then taken down an elevator to the
basement. From the basement, demonstrators were loaded into
buses and "paddy wagons" for the trip to one of three
detention locations: Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, Oakland
City Jail, or Berkeley City Jail.
Arrests were formally made by the Berkeley Police Department
on one or more counts: failure to disperse, refusal to
leave a government building after being ordered to do so, and
resisting arrest. (Civil rights attorney Robert Truhaft, the
first person arrested, commented that this was the first time
sit-in demonstrators have been charged with resisting arrest for
going limp while being arrested.)
Bail for arrested demonstrators was originally set at $75 per
offense, with $100 for resisting arrest (going limp and having
to be dragged). Individual bails, depending upon specific
charges, ranged from $166 to $276. At 9:10 p.m., Berkeley
Municipal Judge Rupert Crittenden reduced the bails, lowering
the range to between $56 and $110. (Bail totals include
"penalty assessment" of approximately ten per cent.)
A group of University faculty members raised contributions
(from students, T.A.'s and faculty members) of approximately
$8,500 for bail bond fees for the arrested students. All
demonstrators, except one being held for narcotics possession,
were released by December 4. Transportation back to Berkeley
also was arranged.
Charges of "police brutality," "sadism,"
and "torture" began even before the first arrested
students were on their way to jail. FSM spokesmen, including
leader Steve Weissman--who "escaped" out of a
window--claimed the demonstrators were being clubbed, kicked,
had their arms twisted, hair pulled, etc.
Arthur Goldberg later charged:
"The police laughed with pleasure while they inflicted
pain on the students."
According to Dr. James Terry, Santa Rita medical officer, the
police were to be commended for their "skill in doing what
they had to do without hurting the students."
2. At 1:00 p.m., a general faculty meeting was held in
Wheeler Auditorium. Nathan Glazer, professor of sociology,
presided. More than 800 professors and instructors attended (T.A.'s
attended, but did not vote). During the two-hour meeting, the
group passed two resolutions:
1. A resolution introduced by Henry F. May, chairman of the
department of history, addressed to the President, the
Chancellor, and the Daily Californian:
"In view of the desperate situation now confronting the
University, every effort must be made to restore the unity of
our campus community, and to end the series of provocation and
reprisal which has resulted in disaster. With this purpose, the
undersigned faculty members urge that the following actions be
taken immediately:
"1) That the new and liberalized rules for campus
political action be declared in effect and enforced, pending
their improvement,
"2) That all pending campus action against students for
acts occurring before the present date be dropped,
"3) That a committee selected by and responsible to the
Academic Senate be established, to which students may appeal
decisions of the Administration regarding penalties for
violations relating to offenses arising from political action,
and that decisions of this committee are final."
Herbert McClosky, professor of political science, offered two
additions, both of which were overwhelmingly accepted:
1) Retraction of the Regents' decision that the University
could prosecute students for advocating illegal off-campus
action, and
2) A demand that no student be prosecuted by the University
for participating in any off-campus activity.
2. A telegram to Governor Edmund G. Brown,
signed by 361 faculty members:
"The undersigned members of the faculty of the
University of California at Berkeley strongly condemn the
presence of the State Highway Patrol on the Berkeley campus. We
also protest the exclusion of faculty members, including at
least one member of our Committee on Academic Freedom, from
Sproul Hall, at a time when the police were admitting newsmen
and photographers. Punitive action taken against hundreds of
students cannot help to solve our current problems, and will
aggravate the already serious situation. Only prompt release of
the arrested students offers any prospect of restoring the unity
of campus life and of a return to normal academic
functions."
The faculty assembly also heard a statement, read by John H.
Reynolds, professor of physics and chairman of the Berkeley
chapter of the American Association of University Professors.
The statement was met with cheers, but was not introduced or
passed as a motion:
"The Executive Committee of the Berkeley Chapter of the
AAUP unanimously believes that the present crisis cannot be
properly resolved without:
"1) Complete amnesty for past offenses in the course of
the Free Speech controversy,
"2) A new chief campus officer for Berkeley who will
have the confidence of the University community."
3. As arrests continued in Sproul Hall, pickets attempted to
block campus entrances, encouraging faculty members, teaching
assistants, and students to stay away from classes in protest
over the demonstrators' arrests.
4. Governor Brown's office in Sacramento was picketed by a
group from the Davis campus. Brown conferred with the pickets in
the afternoon. His decision to order the arrests was based on a
"consensus of opinion," he said. The Governor also
said:
"I assume full responsibility for this in every shape,
form and manner. I felt it was the right thing to do. The
overriding matter became one between the people of the State of
California versus the demonstrators."
5. Later in the afternoon, President Clark Kerr issued a
statement condemning the demonstration and the FSM (Full
text, see Appendix). Kerr's statement said, in part:
"The FSM and its leaders from the start declared the
police would have to haul them out. They are now finding that,
in their effort, to escape the gentle discipline of the
University, they have thrown themselves into the arms of the
less understanding discipline of the community at large...
"When patience and tolerance and reasonableness and
decency have been tried, yet democratic processes continue to be
forsaken by the FSM in favor of anarchy, then the process of law
enforcement takes over."
6. The Graduate Co-ordinating Council met late this afternoon
to discuss plans to implement the strike. Significant support
for the movement was evident: the Daily Californian
reported 50 per cent or more of the T.A.'s in anthropology,
English, French, geography, German, history, Italian, molecular
biology, philosophy, physics, political science, Slavic
languages, social science, sociology and subject A would refuse
to cross picket lines.
7. Chancellor Edward W. Strong issued a statement this
evening. The statement began with the statement Chancellor
Strong read to the students occupying the corridors of Sproul
Hall, then continued:
"Only those persons were placed under arrest who refused
in subsequent hours to leave the building voluntarily. When
Sproul Hall was closed at 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, warning was given
at that time that further occupancy of the building by
demonstrators was illegal.
"The deliberate refusal of individuals to obey the law,
after being warned of consequences of disobedience, made it
necessary to proceed with their arrests. Concerned for the
welfare of its students, the University hoped that the warning
given would be heeded. When it was not, no further recourses
remained except enforcement of the law.
"The University, as a public trust, cannot default on
its responsibility of maintaining law and order on its campuses.
There must be no interference with nor disruption of the orderly
conduct of University business.
"In his statement, President Clark Kerr places the most
recent defiance of legitimate authority by the FSM in the
context and perspective in which it should be viewed by all
members of the campus community. I join with him in his appeal
to reason in the conduct of University affairs, and in the firm
expectation that reasonableness will prevail."
December 4
1. Demonstration leaders and others arrested yesterday
and released on bail appeared on campus wearing large white
"V's" on black backgrounds and attended a huge noon
rally on Sproul Hall steps. More than 5,000 persons jammed the
plaza and many lined the balconies and Dining Commons roof to
hear protest leaders and faculty members condemn Governor Brown,
The Regents, President Kerr, Chancellor Strong and the police.
2. The student strike continued through the day, with picket
lines at campus entrances and construction sites. Labor unions,
asked to support the FSM pickets, generally condemned the use of
police and the "denial of free speech" on the campus,
but would not officially endorse or recognize the student
strike. "This is not a dispute between labor and
management," a local Teamster official said, although
several individual delivery truck drivers were reported to have
refused to cross the students' picket lines.
3. FSM set up a committee of 125-150 people to call
University students during the week end. Attempts were made to
reach every Berkeley student. "I'm calling to ask for your
support of the walkout," callers were supposed to say;
however, many students reported receiving telephone calls from
someone who said:
"I'm your T.A. in__________________________. It wouldn't
be advisable for you to attend classes during the strike."
4. Henry F. May, chairman of the department of history,
announced formation of a Council of Department Chairman (Full
text, see Appendix).
5. ASUC President Charles Powell issued the following
statement during a news conference this afternoon:
"Because of the fact that the issues have become muddled
and because the FSM has refused to use the right channels and
have the patience to use the right channels, the majority of
this campus community doesn't support the actions of this body
of individuals. The campus community would support proper
channels--the only two remaining channels which are
available--but sit-ins, strikes, and arbitrating bodies are not
going to bridge the gap which divides this campus.
"Education and the normal processes of learning are of
utmost importance here, and the FSM regards itself as being able
to decide for everyone else on this campus that their demands
are more important than the basic purpose of this University. I
maintain that such disregard of others' rights to an education
on this campus if it continues will have serious consequences.
"Our world-renowned faculty members will leave, large
numbers of students will change campuses having done poorly in
courses here for lack of the proper atmosphere, and legislative
influence from Sacramento is threatening more and more the
autonomy of the University of California. Destroying the
political autonomy of the University would be a disastrous
consequence, and along with the other reasons which I have
stated, make the FSM continual demonstrations and tactics
completely invalid and unwanted."
December 5
1. The FSM Executive Committee and Steering Committee
began a week-end-long series of meetings to plan details of
their strike and future action. The strike is to continue until
noon, December 8. The strike would end shortly before the
Academic Senate is scheduled to meet to consider its Committee
on Academic Freedom's recommendations to end the current
dispute.
2. The 37-member California Alumni Council, governing body
for the 50,000-member California Alumni Association, met today
and issued the following statement:
"WHEREAS recent events have seriously endangered, in the
eyes of the people of the State of California, the fine
reputation of the University established over nearly 100 years
of creative growth; and
"WHEREAS the overwhelming law-abiding majority of
students, faculty and alumni have privately deplored the
threatened state of anarchy sought to be imposed on a great
University by relatively few agitators and malcontents and their
misguided sympathizers; and
"WHEREAS all too seldom in the past week have the voices
of this majority of thinking citizens been raised to speak in
defense of law and order; and
"WHEREAS the time has come for this Council to speak out
on this challenge to duly constituted authority, and to speak
also of civil responsibilities as well as civil rights;
"NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Alumni Council of
the University of California as follows:
"We are appalled and do condemn the tragic conduct of a
group which has announced its intention to engage in unlawful
conduct characterized by itself as `civil disobedience.'
"We commend Governor Brown, President Kerr, Chancellor
Strong and District Attorney Coakley for their forthright and
vigorous action.
"We adopt and concur in President Kerr's recent
statement that the means adopted by these dissidents have now
`become an instrument of anarchy and personal aggrandizement.'
"We do recommend and fully support firm disciplinary
action including expulsion or dismissal where warranted.
"We urge the great majority of students, faculty and
citizens of California who have an ingrained respect for law and
order to speak up in its defense and support the
administration's maintenance of traditional democratic
principles and processes."
3. Charles Powell, ASUC president, called a news conference
to issue a statement which read, in part:
"The FSM, a minority group, is imposing needless
suffering on the majority of the students on the campus by
illegally demonstrating for an aspect of political activity
which is now not allowed and can only be changed... through
legal means."
4. The College Federation of Young Republicans said:
"We condemn the leadership and lawless tactics of the
Free Speech Movement which can in no way claim to represent the
great majority of students at the University of
California..."
5. The Berkeley chapter of the American Federation of
Teachers directed a resolution to President Kerr, which declared
in part:
"We would like to inform you that any punitive action
taken against teaching assistants or officers of instruction
would be intolerable to our group and create a situation in
which class instruction could not continue...
6. The ASUC Senate, holding an emergency meeting tonight,
passed the following resolution:
"1) We urge all members of the faculty and all teaching
assistants to immediately resume classroom instruction. We
further urge all students to resume attending their classes for
the pursuit of knowledge and higher education.
"2) The new and liberalized regulations regarding
political and social activity on the campus, must be immediately
implemented and enforced. Any inconsistencies should thereafter
be corrected by the proper authorities of the stable,
established bodies for orderly change. In
essence the regulations are essentially these:
"1. Advocacy of off-campus action falling within legal
speech areas is allowed.
"2. Solicitation of funds is allowed.
"3. Solicitation of membership is allowed.
"Means for implementing these ideas including speakers
and tables, are `subject only to restrictions necessary for
normal conduct of University functions and business.'
"All students should remain within the new regulations
while the student committee interprets, establishes, and defines
these regulations.
"3) We recognize the arrests of the students, and
realize that legitimate due process of law was and will be
enacted against them, regardless of the difficulties involved in
the administration of due process in such a situation.
"Before the students are tried, we wish that the
following points, which have great bearing on the overall
picture, be given the court's deepest consideration:
"1. The students involved were cognizant of their
actions, however, reasons for their conduct were obscured by
cloudy issues.
"2. Prior to the arrests, there was a breakdown in
communication between all groups involved and an inconsistency
in actions best exemplified by changing stands on all sides.
"3. The events have been an intermixing of emotionalism
and rational conviction, the value of which, none save the
courts, may hope to presume.
"Realizing that there were such extenuating
circumstances involved in this issue, we hope the court will
give this case a most liberal consideration and grant sufficient
leniency so as not to interfere with the education of these
students.
"4) The ASUC Senate will press for the initiation of
legal proceedings to resolve the complex issues by immediately
beginning procedures to bring a test case to the courts on the
issue of jurisdiction over charges regarding illegal advocacy of
off-campus political and social action.
"5) The ASUC Senate urges that charges against the four
students be dropped."
Commuter-Independent Representative Joel Hacker, a member of
Slate, was the only senator in opposition to the proposal.
In reaction to the ASUC Senate recommendations, Arthur
Goldberg, former Slate chairman and one of the FSM leaders,
said:
"How can I go to class and learn of our country's
democratic processes when I'm not allowed to practice them on
campus?"
December 6
1. President Clark Kerr announced he had cancelled a
planned trip to Chicago, and that he would address a special
University meeting at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow (Dec. 7) in the Greek
Theatre. All classes between 9:00 a.m. and noon were cancelled.
President Kerr announced the meeting would serve to introduce a
proposal "to inaugurate a new era of freedom under
law" which had been unanimously approved by 73 department
chairmen yesterday.
Kerr's announcement came after he had spent four hours in
discussions with Governor Brown, members of the Board of Regents
and faculty members. President Kerr previously had announced he
would speak to the students on his return from Chicago, Tuesday
or Wednesday.
2. The following statement was released by the Council of
Department Chairmen:
"On December 3, in the midst of the great crisis at the
University, a meeting of all Department Chairmen of the Berkeley
campus was convened. It carried on earnest deliberations for
several hours and established a Working Committee to explore
approaches to all problems concerned with the crisis.
"A second meeting was convened on December 4, and almost
unanimous agreement was achieved on a proposal forwarded by the
Working Committee.
"This proposal in its essential elements was finally
approved unanimously by the Chairmen on December 6 and has the
concurrence of the President. All chairmen have been advised by
the Council of Department Chairmen to hold departmental meetings
at 9:00 a.m. on Monday morning, December 7. The agreement will
be publicly announced at 11:00 a.m. in an extraordinary
convocation in the Greek Theatre called by the Department
Chairmen at which Professor Robert A. Scalapino and President
Clark Kerr will speak. Department Chairmen have recommended that
classes be dismissed from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Department
representatives will speak with students about the agreement
throughout the afternoon.
"All parties to this agreement are extremely optimistic
that it will unite the great body of the University, strengthen
faculty-student relations, and inaugurate a new era of freedom
under law."
3. A new organization, University Students for Law and Order,
and the ASUC announced joint sponsorship of a noon rally to be
held in the lower Student Union plaza tomorrow (Dec. 7).
USLO Chairman Robert Dussault took the opportunity to issue
the following statement:
"There is no need, nor is there any excuse, for civil
disobedience on our campus. Those students involved in the
demonstrations demand protection of their rights while, at the
same time, they are violating our rights. We urge all students
support the legally-constituted administration on all issues
until such a time as the civil judicial system dictates
otherwise."
The USLO-ASUC announcement of the noon rally brought the
following statement from Brian Turner, an FSM spokesman:
"FSM has never precipitated any violence. Our presence
in Sproul Hall Plaza at noon is well known. Any students who
attempt to bring together opposing emotion-packed student
elements must bear the responsibility for any reaction between
the groups."
4. It was announced that Chancellor Edward W. Strong was
admitted to the University Medical Center in San Francisco last
night with abdominal pains, tentatively diagnosed as gall
bladder trouble. Hospital spokesmen estimated Strong would be in
the hospital for a week.
5. The Academic Senate announced its meeting Tuesday (Dec. 8)
will be held in Wheeler Auditorium.
6. Eight hundred arrested demonstrators met with some of
their attorneys at 7:00 p.m at Garfield Junior High School in
north Berkeley. The students, scheduled for arraignment at 9:00
a.m tomorrow (Dec. 7), were advised on their legal position and
on court procedures.
Nearly 40 lawyers were involved in defending the arrested
demonstrators. They held a meeting Saturday (Dec. 5) and chose a
coordinating committee to spearhead their efforts. The
coordinating committee was composed of attorneys Norman
Leonard, John Dunn, Malcolm Burnstein, Howard Jewell, Milton
Nathan, Stanley Gold, and Spencer Strellis. The lawyers stressed
they are not working for FSM, but are merely representing
various students.
(Figures on the total number of sit-in demonstrators
arrested on Thursday depended upon whose figures one preferred
to use. The police figure was 761, a decrease from the original
police total of 801, due to discovery of fictitious names,
duplications and mis-numbering. The University announced,
however, following a check of its records, that 814 arrests were
made with the following breakdown: Students, 590 or 72.5 per
cent; Non-Students, 135 or 16.6 per cent; Teaching and Research
Assistants, University Employees and Unidentified Persons, 89 or
10.9 per cent.)
The district attorney's office announced demonstrators' cases
will be assigned to various deputies within the department for
investigation, with no distinction between students and
non-students.
December 7
1. Seven hundred and sixty-eight demonstrators arrested
in Sproul Hall on December 3 appeared for arraignment before
Municipal Judge Rupert Crittenden in the Berkeley Community
Theater at 9:00 a.m. On motion of counsel, Judge Crittenden
postponed arraignment to December 14, in order to allow legal
counsel an opportunity to prepare their clients' cases.
2. The following statement, signed by nine full professors of
political science, appeared in the Daily Californian. The
statement was signed by Professors Charles Aiken, Eric Bellquist,
Thomas C. Blaisdell Jr., Joseph P. Harris, George Lenczowski,
Albert Lepawsky, Frederick C. Mosher, Julian Towster, and Dwight
Waldo:
"We commend the preponderant number of University
students who have at this time conscientiously and with good
humor continued to attend their classes and pursue their
studies.
"We condemn the illegal occupation of University
facilities by striking students and we deplore the partial
disruption of University activities which such conduct has
caused.
"We advise any students who still remain on strike to
return to their classes and resume their studies forth-with.
"We especially urge them to do this immediately instead
of waiting for some deadline designated by others, so that they
may demonstrate they are mature men and women capable of making
up their own minds.
"Particularly in our capacity as teachers of government,
do we call students' attention to the absolute necessity for
pursuing orderly and legal processes in attempting, in good
conscience, to correct any grievances they may have.
"Especially in a University in a democratic society,
students must recognize that the derogation of due process and
the disruption of normal administration in the name of Freedom
of Speech is demagoguery, not democracy.
"And finally, as teachers of American government,
comparative political science, and international politics and
administration, along with the entire University system of the
State of California which has sprung from it, has now become a
national and international model for higher education,
scientific research and intellectual services of vast array,
with crucial contractual relationships to other institutions and
governments and with prime educational responsibilities on its
own burgeoning campuses abroad.
"To hamper the work of such a world-renowned and
world-committed institution and to engage in behavior which
subjects it to obliquy, is not solely an injury to a single
University campus, but a threat to the attainment of the larger
ideals of freedom, science, and service which, we are convinced,
continue to motivate the minds of University students here and
all over the world."
3. At 11:00 a.m., approximately 16,000 students, faculty
members and staff gathered in the Greek Theatre for the unusual
convocation ceremonies. University President Clark Kerr was
introduced by Professor Robert A. Scalapino, chairman of the
political science department and of the Council of Department
Chairmen, who announced "our maximum effort to attain peace
and decency."
President Kerr, flanked by all the Berkeley campus department
heads on the Greek Theatre stage, publicly accepted the proposal
presented to him by the Council of Department Chairmen and
announced the terms:
"1. The University Community shall be governed by
orderly and lawful procedures in the settlement of issues; and
the full and free pursuit of educational activities on this
campus shall be maintained.
"2. The University Community shall abide by the new and
liberalized political action rules and await the report of the
Senate Committee on Academic Freedom.
"3. The Departmental Chairmen believe that the acts of
civil disobedience on December 2 and 3 were unwarranted and that
they obstruct rational and fair consideration of the grievances
brought forward by the students.
"4. The cases of all students arrested in connection
with the sit-in in Sproul Hall on December 2 and 3 are now
before the Courts. The University will accept the Court's
judgment in these cases as the full discipline for those
offenses.
"In the light of the cases now and prospectively before
the courts, the University will not prosecute charges against
any students for actions prior to December 2 and 3; but the
University will invoke disciplinary actions for any violations
henceforth.
"5. All classes shall be conducted as scheduled."
Professor Scalapino provided background on the Council of
Departmental Chairmen's proposals. Scalapino praised President
Kerr for the "courage and vision" in accepting it.
Scalapino also said:
"No one would claim that we are presenting here a
panacea--a perfect and final answer. We are offering the
possibility of an orderly and fair atmosphere in which to
reassess our problems, a possibility that demands for its
success the good will and the good faith of all the members of
this community."
President Kerr accepted the Council's proposals, and told the
meeting that the proposals would go into effect immediately:
"As President of the University, I welcome it (the
proposal) and endorse it and shall present it to the Regents of
the University at their next meeting. In the interim, until the
Regents meet next week, this proposal is in full force and
effect."
4. Prior to the Greek Theatre meeting, Mario Savio, FSM
leader, conducted a heated argument backstage with Professor
Scalapino. Both Assistant Professor of Sociology John Leggett
and Savio charged the department chairmen had
"usurped" the Academic Senate's authority by
presenting their proposal in advance of the Academic Senate
meeting scheduled for tomorrow afternoon (Dec. 8). Savio
demanded an opportunity to address the Greek Theatre meeting.
Scalapino, who served as meeting chairman, told Savio that the
meeting was "structured" and, as such, was not an
"open forum." He
refused Savio's request to speak.
During the meeting, Savio sat approximately 15 feet from the
edge of the stage. As President Kerr spoke, he shook his head
and muttered "Hypocrite!" A reporter asked Savio if he
was going to speak. Savio nodded and said, "I'm going to
speak."
As President Kerr neared the end of his remarks, Savio rose
and walked to the far left (south) end of the Greek Theatre
stage, mounted the stage, and stood there for two or three
minutes while President Kerr completed his remarks. At the
conclusion of the President's address, Chairman Scalapino moved
to the rostrum and announced the meeting's adjournment.
Simultaneously, Savio moved rapidly across the front of the
stage to the rostrum, clutching a scroll of paper in his hand.
As he reached the rostrum, two University police officers
grabbed him and pulled him away from the rostrum. Savio was
dragged through the center rear stage entrance and into a small
room at the south end of the backstage area used by performers.
Several of Savio's supporters attempted to assist Savio; they
were pushed aside or knocked down and held in place. No arrests
were made.
Scores of people--faculty and staff, newsmen, students and
police--gathered in front of the building where Savio was being
held. At first, no one was allowed to enter. Alex Hoffman, an
attorney defending some of the arrested students, shouted
through the door: "Demand to see your lawyer, Mario."
Attorney Hoffman and several departmental chairmen eventually
were admitted to the room where Savio was being held.
As Savio was being held at the south end of the Greek
Theatre, Arthur Goldberg pleaded with President Kerr to release
him at the north end. Kerr agreed, and, it was announced Savio
was not under arrest, that he would be allowed to speak.
Surrounded by well-wishers, Savio told the crowd he merely
wanted to announce an FSM rally at noon in front of Sproul Hall (President
Kerr had personally given permission for this rally, so that the
protestors could discuss the terms of the new agreement).
Then Savio said:
"Please leave here. Clear this disastrous scene, and get
down to discussing the issues."
Following the meeting, President Kerr indicated he was quite
upset over the incident:
"There had been some indications of threats to disrupt
the meeting... The police were prepared. Apparently, they
weren't aware the meeting was over...
"Whether we have a new start seems somewhat doubtful...
We wanted to walk one additional mile. There are those who think
we've walked too many miles already."
5. Nearly 10,000 persons jammed the plaza between Sproul Hall
and the Student Union at noon. They rejected, by acclamation,
the proposals announced by President Kerr less than an hour
earlier.
Jack Weinberg, a non-student member of the FSM Steering
Committee, told the crowd:
"I really expected that we were going to get something
today. But, we didn't. We are the ones who must save this
University, but we're not going to save the University by
capitulating."
Steve Weissman, also a Steering Committee member, denounced
President Kerr as a "liar":
"Kerr stated, `We agree on ends and are divided on
means.' This is a lie--a bold-face lie. The sit-in did not
obstruct, but rather caused, the first rational discussion of
the problem on this campus."
Martin Roysher, still another Steering Committee member, read
a telegram of support from British Philosopher Bertrand Russell:
"You have my full and earnest support. Warm
greetings."
Roysher also announced that Russell had sent the following
telegram to Governor Edmund G. Brown:
"Urgently appeal to you to halt University and police
oppression of students at Berkeley Campus. Appalling
restrictions upon their civil liberty. All who value individual
liberty are supporting their cause."
FSM leaders also announced that James Farmer, national
director of CORE, would appear at an FSM rally next Tuesday
(Dec. 15).
6. In anticipation of the Academic Senate meeting at 3:00
p.m. tomorrow, the FSM announced its strike would end at
midnight tonight. Students were urged to attend classes tomorrow
as a demonstration that the students have faith in the Academic
Senate.
Jack Weinberg said:
"Clark Kerr demanded that the strike end. We can't do
that. But, at midnight tonight we will temporarily end our
strike and we will wait and see if they (the Academic Senate)
can merge as an independent force."
Steve Weissman added:
"Let's give them tomorrow one day of real peace and
quiet."
7. In response to the FSM request for suspension of strike
activities, the Graduate Co-ordinating Council voted to suspend
the strike of teaching assistants, readers and research
assistants. The Council refused, however, to delete a warning
that the strike might be resumed, if the Academic Senate fails
to take initiative action in supporting the free speech
activities. A Council member said:
"There has been plenty of pressure from the
Administration, so we might as well exert a little pressure
ourselves."
The GCC also turned down motions to hold a rally and vigil
tomorrow.
Steve Weissman, a Council member as well as a member of the
FSM Steering Committee, said:
"Frankly, many of the strike and protest signs have
alienated some members of the faculty."
8. An emergency meeting of the ASUC Senate was cancelled
tonight, because a majority of the Senate failed to attend.
9. Elections for seven representative positions on the ASUC
Senate were being held today and tomorrow. "If you support
FSM's goals, vote for the Slate candidates," Arthur
Goldberg told the noon rally.
December 8
1. The Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate met in
Wheeler Auditorium at 3:10 p.m. and, after nearly three hours of
debate--half of the time on an amendment introduced by Lewis
Feuer, professor of philosophy--passed (824-115) unchanged
"a resolution unanimously approved at a meeting of
approximately 200 faculty members on December 7":
"In order to end the present crisis, to establish the
confidence and trust essential to the restoration of normal
University life, and to create a campus environment that
encourages students to exercise free and responsible citizenship
in the University and in the community at large, the Committee
on Academic Freedom of the Berkeley Division of the Academic
Senate moves the following propositions:
"1. That there shall be no University disciplinary
measures against members or organizations of the University
community for activities prior to December 8 connected with the
current controversy over political speech and activity.
"2. That the time, place, and manner of conducting
political activity on the campus shall be subject to reasonable
regulations to prevent interference with the normal functions of
the University; that the regulations now in effect for this
purpose shall remain in effect provisionally pending a future
report of the Committee on Academic Freedom concerning the
minimal regulations necessary.
"3. That the content of speech or advocacy should not be
restricted by the University. Off-campus political activities
shall not be subject to University regulation. On-campus
advocacy or organization of such activities shall be subject
only to such limitations as may be imposed under Section 2.
"4. That future disciplinary measures in the area of
political activity shall be determined by a committee appointed
by and responsible to the Academic Senate.
"5. That the Division pledge unremitting effort to
secure the adoption of the foregoing policies and call on all
members of the University community to join with the faculty in
its efforts to restore the University to its normal
functions."
Professor Feuer's amendment, which was defeated, 737-284,
would have amended Section 3 to read: "... the content of
speech or advocacy on this campus provided that it is
directed to no immediate act of forced or violence..."
The University Board of Regents considered the Academic
Senate's resolution at its next meeting, December 17 and 18, in
Los Angeles.
Nearly 3,000 observers gathered outside Wheeler Hall listened
to the proceedings over loudspeakers. They cheered as the vote
defeating Feuer's amendment was announced; they wildly cheered
the announcement of the main motion's final passage.
Joseph Tussman, professor of philosophy and chairman of the
philosophy department, summarized the Senate's resolution:
"Anything that is illegal in the community at large is
still illegal on the campus. The question is: Should the
University impose more restrictions on its students in the area
of political activity than exists in the community-at-large? The
Senate said: No."
For Mario Savio, who returned from an attempt to see Governor
Brown in Sacramento just in time for the Senate's decision, the
Senate action was a perfect birthday present. Savio turned 22
today. He said:
"Our tactics caused the present success... The Senate
action was a direct attack on the doctrine of en loco
parentis...
"The FSM will now be a defense committee for 800
patriots."
In a statement, issued soon after the Senate had adjourned
and entitled "Happiness is an Academic Senate
Meeting," FSM said:
"With deep gratitude the Free Speech Movement greets the
action of the faculty. The passing of the proposals of the
Academic Freedom Committee is an unprecedented victory for both
students and faculty. For months the FSM has fought to bring the
issues to public discussion and to rouse the faculty to take
action. Our efforts have finally succeeded, and our protest has
been vindicated.
"Now that the University community is again united, we
hope that it will work together for speedy implementation of its
proposals. The faculty must see that the Regents adopt its
recommendations. For our own part, the FSM will be completely at
the service of the Committee on Academic Freedom in its coming
efforts to formulate proper regulations.
"We regret having been forced to undertake controversial
actions to begin a dialogue. The actions have weighed more
heavily upon us than upon any others in the academic community.
We hope that the dialogue which has at last begun will continue
and increase, and that the success of this dialogue will mean
that such actions will never again be necessary.
"We urge the faculty and the Academic Senate to do
everything in their power to see that the court charges against
the 800 are dropped. These students risked arrest to protest
unfair regulations and arbitrary disciplinary actions. They made
a responsible protest, and should not be punished for having
fought in the only ways available for just goals which are now
largely achieved. We ask that the faculty honor their dedication
by taking appropriate action."
University President Clark Kerr also commented on the
Academic Senate resolution:
"The action of the Academic Senate at Berkeley involves
such basic changes in the policies affecting all campuses of the
University, including changes in the Standing Orders of the
Regents, that no comment will be possible until the Regents have
next met."
2. In related action, the Berkeley Division of the Academic
Senate also passed the following resolution:
"Whereas, the present grave crisis in the life of the
University demands that the Berkeley Division of the Academic
Senate offer leadership to the campus community;
"And whereas, the existing organization of the Division
is not well adapted to the exercise of such leadership under the
emergency circumstances now prevailing;
"Therefore, be it resolved:
"1. That an Emergency Executive Committee, consisting of
six elected members and the Chairman of the Division ex officio,
be constituted to represent the Division in dealing with
problems arising out of the present crisis during the remainder
of the present academic year, reporting its actions regularly to
the Division, and convening the Division when necessary.
"2. That the election of the six elective members shall
be conducted by the Secretary of the Academic Senate and the
Committee on Elections; that nominations be filed at the office
of the Secretary, 220 California Hall, by 8 p.m., Wednesday,
December 9; that each nomination be accompanied by the
signatures of five sponsors and a signed statement that the
nominee will serve if elected; that voting take place by written
secret ballot in the office of the Secretary of the Academic
Senate between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m., Thursday, December 10; that
each voter vote for not more than six candidates; that the six
candidates with the highest votes be elected; and that the
committee be convened immediately after the results are
determined to choose its chairman.
"3. That the Emergency Executive Committee be authorized
to call on any of the Standing Committees or to appoint ad
hoc committees to assist it; and that committees thus called
on for assistance report to the Division through the Emergency
Executive Committee."
3. Slate candidates swept to victories in all seven ASUC
Senate positions for which elections were held Monday and
Tuesday, Sandor Fuchs, Slate chairman and FSM member, said:
"The victory for Slate is a victory for the Free Speech
Movement, and an independent ASUC. It comes at a time of the
greatest victory for the student movement, just hours after the
Academic Senate voted for full free speech on campus."
Slate officials also promised:
"... to immediately implement its (Slate's) program upon
taking office, including full freedom of speech on campus, a
co-op ASUC store, low cost student apartments, and the
readmission of graduate students."
4. The ASUC Senate, meeting only hours after the announcement
of the Academic Senate action, unanimously passed the following
resolution:
"The ASUC Senate urges all professors, instructors and
teaching assistants to be most tolerant of and lenient toward
students missing classes, examinations, and papers during this
semester, and especially within the last week."
Commenting on the ASUC Senate resolution, Vice President
Jerry Goldstein said:
"A great deal of intolerance towards these students has
been shown... This resolution may do something to help the
students out."
Faculty Representative Lyman Porter gave the resolution his
"full endorsement."
5. Charles Powell, ASUC President, evaluated the ASUC
Senate's role in the "free speech" controversy:
"Overall, we've missed the boat. We have in many ways
been inadequate in dealing with the free speech problem."
December 9
1. Edward W. Carter, chairman of the University Board
of Regents, issued the following statement:
"The Constitution of the State of California clearly
charges the Regents with full and ultimate authority for
conducting the affairs of the University of California. This
they exercise principally through their appointed administrative
officers and by delegation of certain specific but revocable
powers to properly constituted academic bodies.
"It now appears that on the Berkeley campus these
traditional methods have proved inadequate to deal effectively
with the extraordinary problems created there by regrettable
recent incidents. Hence, the Regents will consider this whole
matter directly at their next meeting now scheduled to be held
on December 18 in Los Angeles."
2. Governor Edmund G. Brown, president of the Board of
Regents, issued the following statement:
"I have been asked to comment on the Academic Senate at
Berkeley. I have also been asked to comment on reports that I
will be asked to grant amnesty to members of the FSM who were
arrested on December 3. The Academic Senate proposes fundamental
changes in the policies now in effect at Berkeley and the other
eight campuses of the University of California. These proposals
deserve and will get my careful attention. But I do not intend
to make a judgment on them until the Board of Regents meets in
Los Angeles next week.
"As to the request for amnesty, I will not intervene in
the cases now pending before the courts, nor do I intend to
intervene at any other stage. For ten weeks the campus of one of
the world's leading universities has been in turmoil. The
orderly pursuit of knowledge has been all but impossible. This
strife and dissention has deeply disturbed the people of
California who have been generous in their financial support of
the University and in their defense of its need for academic
freedom to grow in intellectual stature.
"The trouble on campus has been caused by a group called
the Free Speech Movement which had a grievance and which had
several courses to follow in petitioning for a redress of that
grievance. The FSM chose a chaotic course of demonstrations,
sit-ins and threats against the administration of the University
of California. Their actions resulted in charges against several
hundred students. Whether the charges will be sustained by a
court, I do not know, and I do not intend to prejudge their
cases. But it should be clear to the members of the Free Speech
Movement that in a society governed by law, a decision to defy
the law must include a decision to accept the consequences. I
have considered the question of amnesty carefully and my
decision is final. I will not intervene."
3. Two hundred and fifty teaching and research assistants
pledged themselves to abide by the constitution of the Union of
University-Employed Graduate Students, formed today at Berkeley.
The union was constituted "for the purposes of affiliation
with organized labor." Teaching and research assistants
from almost every department are included in the new
organization, with strongest support from the mathematics and
economics departments. Under the chairmanship of Michael
Abromovitch, mathematics, the group passed a motion to adopt a
constitution to be discussed and amended at a later date. The
proposed constitution was drafted by Barry Shapiro, philosophy
grad student on leave of absence; David McCullah, philosophy
teaching assistant, and Michael Rabbitt, economics teaching
assistant.
4. The Berkeley Chapter of the American Association of
University Professors met today and heard the following
statement by its Executive Committee:
"Six days ago, in the darkest hour this campus has seen,
the Executive Committee of the Berkeley Chapter of AAUP called
for amnesty for students and for a new chief campus officer. Our
concern was for fresh leadership which could enter upon the work
on restoration without the taint of past discords.
"Events of the past five days have gone a distance
toward this restoration. Fresh leadership was provided by the
committee of department chairmen. For future leadership in this
crisis we can look toward the newly created Executive Committee
of the Academic Senate.
"The amnesty we sought for students has been granted by
the President of the University in an agreement with the
department chairmen.
"The faculty has closed ranks in this crisis and has
acted with unprecedented unity. Actions of a devisive character
must be avoided in the work of re-knitting our campus community.
"For these reasons the Executive Committee presents no
motion to the membership. It wishes to make two further
statements.
"1. Chancellor Strong has long been a respected member
of this faculty. We are immensely saddened by the news of his
illness and hope for his early recovery to full health.
"2. There must always be the continuous possibility of
direct and human negotiation between students and a local
administrator who has full authority commensurate with his
responsibility for order on the campus."
A motion from the floor, duly seconded, called for adoption
of the Executive Committee's statement of December 3, requesting
amnesty for students and removal of Chancellor Strong. After
thorough debate, the motion was tabled.
December 13
1. Chancellor Edward W. Strong, released from the
hospital yesterday, cancelled, then approved with
qualifications, a pre-court client-counsel meeting scheduled at
7:30 p.m. in Wheeler Auditorium. The meeting was moved to the
Berkeley Community Theater.
Dean of Students Katherine A. Towle initially approved a
request, on December 10, to hold the meeting in Wheeler
Auditorium for the purpose of "legal representation for
arrested students." The request was submitted by Thomas
Barnes, associate professor of history and a member of Campus
CORE.
At the time the request was presented, Dean Towle did not
realize the meeting would involve private client-counsel
relationships, a University spokesman said later.
Late this afternoon, Chancellor Strong cancelled the meeting,
explaining:
"State property cannot be used for the private
practicing of attorneys counseling their clients."
At 6:30 p.m., one hour before the meeting was scheduled to
begin, Chancellor Strong released the following statement:
"The meeting is approved for open informational
presentation of general statements of legal principles and
procedures applicable to such cases. It is not proper to use
University facilities for the private counsel-client
relationships."
Loudspeakers outside Wheeler Hall informed the 768 students
that the Chancellor had refused permission to use the building,
and that the meeting had been moved to the Community Theater.
2. The University Students for Law and Order denied the
"implied authorship" of a leaflet being circulated on
the Berkeley campus:
"University Students for Law and Order deny the implied
authorship of a ditto copy dated December 11 and distributed to
departmental mailboxes referencing alternative proposals to
those of the Academic Senate. This ditto copy is typical of the
smear tactics which have been employed by the opposition in
pursuit of their goals."
3. Sculptor Benny Bufano donated a sculpture of a crouched
polar bear to the Academic Senate to help raise funds to support
the "free speech" movement. Bufano estimated the
sculpture could raise $5,000, "if handled properly."
4. A number of meetings and programs related to the
"free speech" controversy were announced over the
weekend:
1) James Baldwin would give a benefit lecture for the Free
Speech Movement on Wednesday (Dec. 16).
2) James Farmer, national director of CORE, would speak at
noon Tuesday (Dec. 15) on the subject: "Civil Liberties and
Civil Rights."
3) Students interested in participating in local forums
throughout the state on the "administration-student
controversy" were asked to leave their names at the Student
Union information desk.
4) A meeting to discuss how "students can effectively
communicate support to the Regents of the Academic Senate
proposal" would be held Monday (Dec. 14) at Hillel
Foundation.
5) John Hendrix, Vince Guaraldi and Les McCann would appear
in a benefit jazz concert for the arrested students at 8:00 p.m.
tomorrow (Dec. 14) in Wheeler Auditorium.
6) The Graduate Co-ordinating Council announced a tutoring
program for persons arrested recently and who may have been hurt
academically by the recent controversy.
December 14
1. Berkeley Municipal Court Judge Rupert Crittenden
continued the cases of most of the persons arrested in the
Sproul Hall sit-in to January 5. Judge Crittenden's action came
during a hearing in the Berkeley Community Theater. The
continuance allows most students to leave Berkeley for
Christmas-New Year vacation.
Judge Crittenden anticipated defendants would begin entering
pleas on January 5. He planned to handle 100 pleas a day.
2. Dean of Students Katherine A. Towle refused to permit use
of Wheeler Auditorium for a benefit concert scheduled for 8:00
p.m. this evening. The concert was planned to raise funds for
the defense of students arrested in the Sproul Hall sit-in. The
concert was moved to the Finnish Hall in Berkeley.
In refusing Arthur Goldberg permission to hold the concert in
Wheeler Auditorium, Dean Towle said:
"I cannot approve Slate's request for tonight's proposed
jazz concert in Wheeler Auditorium, because it includes the
collection of donations prohibited by University
regulations."
The application for use of the hall had been received only
five and one half hours before the concert was scheduled to
begin, Dean Towle said. But, even if it had been received
sooner, Dean Towle noted, the request would have been denied,
because it violated rules restricting collection of funds to the
Sather Gate and Bancroft-Telegraph areas.
Dean Towle also criticized FSM for selling tickets and
advertising the concert before asking permission to hold it.
Dean Towle did, however, suggest possible alternative off-campus
locations where the concert could be held.
3. The proposed appearance of author James Baldwin was
cancelled because of the no-collection edict. Instead, Baldwin
appeared at the Masonic Auditorium in San Francisco.
4. An initiative petition was circulated on campus, asking
the ASUC Senate to pass a motion supporting the Academic Senate:
"The ASUC Senate fully supports the position on campus
regulations adopted by the Berkeley Academic Senate on Dec. 8,
1964; and urges the Regents to adopt this position as University
policy."
5. The Academic Information Committee, an ad hoc
group, began distribution of pamphlets entitled "A Message
on the Proposed Solution to the Free Speech Controversy."
The pamphlet is sponsored by Professors Henry Nash Smith,
William Kornhauser, Sheldon Wolin, Charles Muscatine, Charles
Sellers and David Freedman. It was prepared by a volunteer
committee of the University professional staff.
According to Jay Levine, professor of English and Information
Committee Secretary:
"Our main purpose is to publicize the position taken by
the Academic Senate... We are in no way connected with the FSM...
Our fund is being used entirely to inform the public of the
nature and grounds of the resolution. We're not persuading
anyone to do anything."
6. The Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate today elected
six members of the Emergency Executive Committee, authorized by
Senate motion on Dec. 8.
Elected to the Committee were Raymond G. Bressler, professor
of agricultural economics; Earl F. Cheit, professor of business
administration; Arthur M. Ross, chairman of the department of
business administration; Carl E. Schorske, professor of history,
and Robley C. Williams, professor of
molecular biology. Richard W. Jennings, professor of law and
chairman of the Berkeley Division, holds an ex-officio
position on the committee. Professor Ross was elected committee
chairman.
December 15
1. James Farmer, national director of the Congress of
Racial Equality (CORE), addressed an FSM noon rally while
standing on City of Berkeley property, outside the disputed
Bancroft-Telegraph area. The rally, originally planned to be
held on Sproul Hall steps, was moved as "our token of good
faith," according to Steve Weissman, FSM leader. The rally
was moved, Weissman said, so as not to alienate either the
faculty or the administration. FSM would do nothing to make the
faculty's attempt at settlement less effective, and it would do
nothing where someone could claim "it's our fault,"
Weissman said.
The University administration invited Farmer to speak in
Pauley Ballroom. But, as FSM spokesman John Sutake explained:
"It was felt it should be an outdoor rally; that is the
nature of FSM rallies."
If the "battle for free speech and advocacy" is
lost, Farmer warned the crowd of approximately 3,000, it would
provide "a tool to turn off the faucet on the mainstay of
the civil rights movement." Farmer also praised the
protesting students:
"Whenever the battle for equal rights is fought, the
students of the University of California are in the forefront...
I applaud you and salute you. I come as your guest and will lend
whatever support I possibly can to your ultimate
victory..."
Farmer described charges that he was pulling strings in the
Free Speech Movement as "absurd" and
"ridiculous," but he said he was "not
afraid" of being labeled "an outside agitator...
"Every housewife knows the value of an agitator. It's
the instrument inside the washing machine that bangs around and
gets out all the dirt."
Both Steve Weissman and Martin Roysher spoke to the crowd
before Farmer was introduced.
Roysher said:
"We have definite interests as students... which might
indeed be different from the faculty. We the students believe,
yes, the faculty and students should have a voice, a determining
role, but we should be as equals on this campus. There should be
no paternal subordinating relationship between students and the
faculty or the administration."
Jacobus tenBroek, professor of political science who
introduced Farmer, avoided the "student voice"
reference when he said:
"The faculty and the students have identical interests
in broad areas: that students should have the rights guaranteed
to them by the Constitution, and that this is an educational
institution."
That education, Professor tenBroek added, should
"encourage students' commitment to the action and passion
of our time."
2. The newly elected Emergency Executive Committee of the
Academic Senate requested a conference with the University Board
of Regents during its meeting in Los Angeles, Thursday and
Friday, December 17 and 18. The request was delivered to
President Kerr's office after two meetings of the Committee
today. A statement issued by the Committee today said:
"The newly elected Emergency Executive Committee met
twice today and requested a conference with the Board of Regents
at its Los Angeles meeting this week. Pledged to support the
faculty resolution passed December 8, 1964, by the Berkeley
Division of the Academic Senate, the Committee will seek to
present the resolution to the Regents as a basis for restoring a
campus environment in which teaching, learning and research may
be effectively resumed. Under its provisions members of the
University community would be assured freedom of political
expression under reasonable regulation as to time, place and
manner, safeguarding the University's primary academic
functions.
"In view of the Committee, these proposals of the
Academic Senate fall largely within the framework of the
Regents' policies governing political activity enunciated at
their meeting of November 20. The Committee regards the
proposals which will be presented to the Regents as an extension
of Chancellor Strong's interpretation of their policies.
Accordingly, the Committee does not regard itself as in conflict
with either the Administration or the Regents.
"The resolution proposes that disciplinary measures in
the area of political activity be determined by a Senate
committee. The Emergency Executive Committee observed that the
Academic Senate had responsibility in this area until 1938, and
that present circumstances justify the return of this function
to the Senate."
3. The ASUC Senate tonight approved (6-5) a recommendation
that the Regents approve the five-point Academic Senate proposal
to end the "free speech" controversy. The resolution
was introduced by Bob Nakamura, newly elected Slate
commuter-independent representative.
December 16
1. State Senator Hugh Burns (D-Fresno), chairman of the
State Senate Subcommittee on Un-American Activities, said that
his committee will not hold public hearings on the student
revolt at Berkeley. Public hearings at this time would serve no
useful purpose, Burns said. A hearing "would create a
climate which would make it difficult for the University of
California Board of Regents to solve the problem," Burns
added. He had few kind words for the Free Speech Movement,
however, describing it as "a group of malcontents, silly
kids and addle-headed teachers, egged on by Communist
stooges." The Committee would discuss the student revolt in
its next report, Burns promised.
2. The ASUC Senate, called into emergency session tonight by
President Charles Powell, wrangled over the expenditure of $500
to be spent on forums to discuss the "free speech"
issue throughout the state.
The Senate passed a resolution last Tuesday night,
authorizing the forums and an expenditure of $500 for staging
them.
Mike Adams, men's residence hall representative and forum
coordinator, planned to spend $200 to print a report compiled by
eight graduate political science students. The 40-page report
was intended to refute charges of "outside agitation"
and "Communist subversion" in the Free Speech
Movement.
At the emergency Senate meeting, Representative-at-Large Art
Shartsis proposed that the $500 could only be spent on physical
arrangements. Shartsis' motion specifically forbade printing of
the report. "This document (the report) is not factual. It
presents only one side," Shartsis said.
The Senate voted, 10-2, with one abstention, in favor of
Shartsis' motion.
3. A new organization of undergraduate students, called the
Undergraduate Association, has grown rapidly since its founding
10 days ago, according to an announcement by Richard Romanoff,
founder of the new group. The group already had 700-800 members,
Romanoff claimed. Romanoff is a senior in anthropology.
Explaining his group's growth, Romanoff said:
"A huge number, perhaps even a majority, of the
undergraduates feel the ASUC has dismally failed to represent
them in any meaningful way...
"During the Free Speech Movement crisis the ASUC did
nothing whatsoever to speak for the undergraduates, or to guide
and aid them. The demand for the Undergraduate Association has
grown from the failures of the ASUC."
Earl Salo, a junior in history, added:
"Many people hope the newly elected members of the (ASUC)
Senate from Slate will carry ASUC government out of the sandbox.
"But, it may be the ASUC is structured so it is
incapable of effectively taking action for the undergraduates,
no matter who its members are. We need an Undergraduate
Association to do the things the ASUC Senate is too restricted
to do."
Although many members of the new Undergraduate Association
were also members of Slate and FSM, Romanoff said the
Association is entirely independent of Slate and FSM:
"You don't have to be a member of FSM or agree with its
actions to be a member of the Undergraduate Association."
The new Association would be organized along departmental
lines, Salo said:
"This way, each department has its own small group to
engage in activities that interest only members of that
department, and also membership in the central Undergraduate
Association, which will be large enough to give the students a
real voice in University affairs."
One of the new organization's first activities would be
establishment of a tutoring program similar to that announced by
the Graduate Co-ordinating Council. Many students who are not in
academic difficulty have expressed interest in tutorials as a
method of individual communication between teachers, graduates,
and undergraduates, Romanoff said:
"The ASUC has done nothing to help undergraduate
students achieve a closer contact with graduates and faculty.
This will be one of our first objectives."
Other Association goals would be improvement of teaching
quality, and study, and encouragement of possible course changes
and other academic reforms.
December 17
1. Twelve University Regents, including Governor Edmund
G. Brown, met with the Emergency Executive Committee of the
Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate for two hours in Los
Angeles. After the meeting, Governor Brown said he could see
little misunderstanding between the faculty and the Regents.
Emergency Committee Chairman Arthur Ross called it "a frank
discussion." The Academic Senate committee had requested
the meeting Tuesday.
According to Ross:
"This meeting permitted the Committee to make a full
presentation of the Berkeley Division resolution of December 8
as a basis for a constructive solution to the crisis at
Berkeley."
2. While Berkeley faculty representatives met with the
Regents, the statewide Academic Council of the Academic Senate
held its own meeting at UCLA. The Academic Council issued its
report and recommendations directly to the Board of Regents (see
Appendix).
3. During a news conference, President Clark Kerr said:
"We are dealing in difficult areas, such as the
distinction between advocacy and action."
The President went on to say that the Regents put up no bars
against on-campus advocacy in their meeting of Nov. 20. He also
emphasized that the Regents "will not respond to
threats."
4. Robert Dussault, founder of University Students for Law
and Order, resigned as chairman of that group's executive
committee:
"This resignation has become effective, not because of
internal policy disagreement or harrassment by the opposition,
but rather because of immediate responsibilities as indicated by
my marriage and January graduation."
USLO would continue as an organization in pursuit of its
original goals, Dussault added, but he will act only in an
advisory capacity.
December 18
1. The University Board of Regents, meeting in Los
Angeles, did not accept the Berkeley Division of the Academic
Senate's proposed solution to the "free speech"
controversy. Instead, the Regents adopted the following motion:
"1. The Regents direct the administration to preserve
law and order on the campuses of the University of California,
and to take the necessary steps to insure orderly pursuit of its
educational functions.
"2. The Regents reconfirm that ultimate authority for
student discipline within the University is constitutionally
vested in the Regents, and is a matter not subject to
negotiation. Implementation of disciplinary policies will
continue to be delegated, as provided in the by-laws and
standing orders of the Regents, to the President and
Chancellors, who will seek advice of the appropriate faculty
committees in individual cases.
"3. The Regents will undertake a comprehensive review of
University policies with the intent of providing maximum freedom
on campus consistent with individual and group responsibility. A
committee of Regents will be appointed to consult with students,
faculty and other interested persons and to make recommendations
to the board.
"4. Pending results of this study, existing rules will
be enforced. The policies of the Regents do not contemplate that
advocacy or content of speech shall be restricted beyond the
purview of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution."
The Regents also issued a four-point statement to the
University faculty:
"1. The Regents express appreciation to the Academic
Council of the University-wide Senate for its constructive
proposals and analysis of recent developments, and welcome the
continuing discussion taking place in the divisions of the
Academic Senate on the several campuses.
"2. The Regents reaffirm faith in the faculty and
student body of the University, and express the conviction that
this great academic community is in the process of finding the
means to combine the freedom with responsibility under today's
new circumstances.
"3. The Regents respect the convictions held by a large
number of students concerning civil rights and individual
liberties.
"4. The Regents reaffirm devotion to the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, and note that
University policies introduced in recent years have liberalized
the rules governing expression of opinion on campus. The support
of all the University community is essential to provide maximum
individual freedom under law consistent with the educational
purposes of the University."
Edward W. Carter, chairman of the Board of Regents, stressed
that the Board was standing firm on its resolution of Nov. 20,
which provided that students could plan lawful off-campus
political or social action, with the Regents retaining the right
to regulate such activities on-campus.
2. The Emergency Executive Committee of the Berkeley Division
of the Academic Senate, which met with 12 Regents yesterday,
issued the following statement today:
"Members of the Emergency Executive Committee of the
Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate announced today that
they believe substantial progress has been made toward solving
the problems which have beset the Berkeley campus.
"Our extensive discussion with members of the Board of
Regents and with President Kerr, plus the actions of the Regents
today, assure that the University will not restrict the content
of speech or advocacy on the campus. This was the main point in
the resolution passed over-whelmingly by the Berkeley Faculty
Senate on December 8, and represents a desirable clarification
of University policy sought by student groups.
"It is now clear that the advocacy of ideas and acts,
which is constitutionally protected off the campus, will be
protected on the campus.
"The Committee is satisfied that President Kerr stands
committed personally to follow the policy, announced on December
7, that in view of the cases pending in court, the University
will not take additional disciplinary action against students
involved in the recent sit-ins.
"The Regents have established a Study Committee and
charged it with the urgent mission of reviewing and, where
necessary, revising University policy with respect to student
political activity. If possible, this assignment is to be
completed before the opening of the Spring Semester. The
Regents' Committee will consult with students and faculty with
the intent of providing maximum freedom with responsibility.
"The Regents reaffirmed their ultimate responsibility
for discipline, and their delegation of authority to the
President and the Chancellors. The Emergency Executive Committee
believes further study and negotiations must be pursued in order
to guarantee procedures which will preserve impartial
adjudication of violations in the area of campus political
activity.
"The positive attitude of the Regents, their resolution
on advocacy, and the current development of new regulations by
administrative and faculty committees working with students at
Berkeley, make it possible for the campus to return to its
primary functions of teaching, learning and research.
"We believe that the base is being established for full
political freedom within academic order, and we call on all
members of the University community to join in strengthening
it."
3. Free Speech Movement leaders were unhappy with the
Regents' action.
In Los Angeles, Michael Klein, a Berkeley graduate student
and an FSM spokesman, said the Regents' four-point resolution
was "an affront to the Academic Senate." He said Free
Speech Movement unhappiness with the Regents' action did not, in
itself, constitute a threat of "immediate demonstrations
... But," Klein warned, "if an atrocity is committed,
we'll be prepared to take whatever actions are necessary."
Such an "atrocity," he said, would be "suspension
of the students who participated in the December 3
sit-ins." (President Kerr said no action is pending
against arrested students and teaching assistants.)
FSM leaders in Berkeley termed the Regents' decision to
uphold the Administration's authority in discipline on political
matters "a repudiation of the policy we've been fighting
for."
In a prepared statement, Steve Weissman said:
"We are shocked that the Regents refused (the faculty's)
recommendations... Despite the efforts of students and faculty,
the Regents have decreed that there shall be no change in the
policies repudiated by both students and the Academic Senate.
"The students, as in the past, will continue to defend
the rights of the academic community. The faculty, we hope, will
stand with us in this fight."
Mario Savio declared the Regents' "horrendous
action" marked a "tragic day in the history of the
University." FSM had not planned a specific response to the
Regents' action, Savio said; but, he reminded, "we're
moving into a long vacation period that will give us time to
speak with the faculty, consolidate our forces, and decide what
appropriate action to take."
In an aside, Savio said he was somewhat surprised by the
Regents' strong stand:
"The Board was not as tactically adept as I had
suspected they were. I had expected some action less
clear."
December 28
The Committee on Academic Freedom of the Berkeley
Division of the Academic Senate released its recommendations
concerning regulation of student political activity. The report
was formally presented to the Academic Senate on January 5. (Full
text, see Appendix)
December 31
Chancellor Edward W. Strong announced the Committee on
Academic Freedom's recommendations would go into effect
"provisionally" on Monday, January 4, the first day of
classes after the Holiday Recess.
January 1
Chancellor Strong revised his previous statement on
implementation of the Committee on Academic Freedom's proposals,
adding:
"The recommendations of the Senate Committee on Academic
Freedom contain certain minor points that require further study
and clarification.
"The statement by me yesterday should not be taken as
implying approval of the committee's recommendations."
January 2
An emergency meeting of the Board of Regents named
Martin Meyerson, dean of the College of Environmental Design, as
"Acting Chancellor" for the Berkeley campus, replacing
Edward W. Strong. Strong was granted a leave of absence "to
recuperate from his recent illness." Meyerson's appointment
was effective "immediately" and was for an
"indefinite" period.
Acting Chancellor Meyerson conducted a series of meetings
with faculty, administration and students over the New Year's
weekend.
January 3
Acting Chancellor Martin Meyerson issued two
statements. The first was addressed to "Colleagues and
Students." This statement was primarily Acting Chancellor
Meyerson's introduction of himself to the campus community; it
included a lengthy discussion of the new chancellor's
philosophy, especially as it related to the current crisis. His
second statement, issued later in the day, set down provisional
rules for political activity on the Berkeley campus:
"The Regents and the President have asked me to issue
provisions concerning the time, place and manner of political
activity on the Berkeley campus. I shall do so as soon as I have
had the opportunity to hear the views of the Berkeley Division
of the Academic Senate on the reports of its Committee on
Academic Freedom, and the views of others, as they relate to
Regents' policies.
"Meanwhile, for political activity during this interim
period, the following rules will cover those matters of greatest
concern during the next few days:
"1. OPEN DISCUSSION AREA: Until final plans can be
developed for a suitable alternate discussion area, the Sproul
Hall steps are available for temporary use for this purpose at
the noon hour and between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. Suitable voice
amplification will be provided by the University.
"2. TABLES: Student organizations may set up tables in
the following areas between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
(a) At the Bancroft and Telegraph entrance.
(b) At the Golden Bear Restaurant area, east of the low
concrete wall.
(c) At the North Gate and Tolman Hall areas, and between
Kroeber Hall and the Law Building.
(d) Student organizations may receive donations, distribute
literature, recruit members, and engage in the sale of such
items as buttons, pins, and bumper stickers at the tables.
Publications of a student organization may be sold at the
tables.
(e) Posters or placards identifying the sponsors are to be
attached to the tables and other posters may also be attached.
"3. SPEAKER NOTIFICATION: The required advance
notification for off-campus speakers is reduced to 48 hours; the
Dean of Students Office will reduce or waive this requirement in
those instances in which 48-hour notification is not feasible
for reasons beyond the control of the sponsoring organizations.
"Students should refer to the office of the Dean of
Students for necessary clarification.
"The Emergency Executive Committee of the Berkeley
Division of the Academic Senate concurs in these rules."
January 4
The Free Speech Movement held its first legal rally on
the steps of Sproul Hall at noon.
Between ballads sung by folk singer Joan Baez, FSM spokesmen
expressed dissatisfaction with the proposals of the Committee of
Academic Freedom, denounced the new rules for campus political
activity, and announced a pending "investigation of the
Board of Regents" under the auspices of the American
Federation of Teachers.
Discussing the appointment of Acting Chancellor Meyerson,
Mario Savio said:
"The important comment is that the person is nowhere
near as important as the pressures on the person from higher up.
His statement yesterday was hopeful. He seems to understand the
situation, whereas the previous Chancellor (Strong) did
not."
HOME
PAGE
![[ HELP/FAQ ]](http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Images/help.gif)
![[ CATALOGS ]](http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Images/catalogs.gif)
![[ COMMENTS ]](http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Images/comments.gif)
![[ HOME ]](http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Images/home.gif)
Copyright (C) 1998-2000 by the Library, University of
California, Berkeley.
All rights reserved. Document maintained on server:
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ by Elizabeth Stephens
Last update 03/21/00. Server manager: webman@library.berkeley.edu
Post WW II economic restructuring
