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 Discriminationled 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 collectedSlate announced a sizeable contributionfor 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 eveningmet 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 haveand will continue to havelaw 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 Administrationthe 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 themselvesnot 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 peaceand 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 crowdin an effort to reinforce the stranded police carthe 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 rallyor, 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
October 16 1. The FSM Steering Committee issued a statement at 12:30 a.m.:
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.""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
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.
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.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 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
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4