SOME COMMENTS ON THE FACULTY
The changes proposed by the faculty members of the former Committee
on Campus Political Activity are a first step towards liberalization of present University
regulations. But they do not provide for full freedom of speech on campus. We should like
to indicate briefly why certain sections of the proposal are unacceptable.
The other differences between this proposal and our platform are, we
SECTION III: It is not clear whether the faculty proposal gives the
Administration the power to decide that student conduct on campus has resulted in illegal
acts off campus before the courts have decided, by formal trial, that the
off-campus acts in question are illegal. This is, of course, unacceptable. Even if the
faculty proposal does not grant this prior jurisdiction, we cannot accept the double
jeopardy which would result from the exercise of this power.
We are shocked that the faculty proposal unquestionably gives the
Administration the power to punish students for acts of advocacy whether or not these
acts are in violation of the law. The Administration would thus usurp the
prerogatives of the courts in determining whether an act of advocacy (rather than an act
advocated) is illegal. This is blatantly unconstitutional.
Though the faculty proposal purports to establish safeguards
protecting the students from the Administration's exercise of this power, we note that (1)
the Administration is to appoint the faculty committee which holds hearings and (2) the
recommendations of the committee are advisory only. Such "safeguards"
against unconstitutional powers are useless.
SECTION II: The faculty proposal makes no provision for
student-sponsored "off-campus" speakers to use facilities other than the Hyde
Park Areas. For example, they cannot speak at meetings held in the new student office
building. This is unfortunate, since most speakers sponsored by student groups generally
require some other place to speak than outdoors.
Their proposal for registration of "off-campus" speakers
in the Hyde Park Areas makes it impossible to give adequate advance publicity to speakers
who, on short notice, are found to be available or who need to speak on issues which
suddenly arise. The faculty proposal institutes the unprecedented requirement that the
Chancellor be empowered to require tenured faculty moderators at Hyde Park speeches.
These moderators are often impossible to find, and this amounts to
censorship. The purpose of the Hyde Park Areas is to provide a place for spontaneous
speeches and rallies. The faculty proposals for registration, the 72-hour rule, and the
faculty moderator requirement all defeat that purpose.
SECTI0N V: For the reasons sketched in our platform, temporary
non-students should not be barred from membership in student groups.
SECTION VIII: From past history clearly the appointment by the
Chancellor of a student group to advise him on the interpretation only of rules cannot be
said to provide fair weight to the needs and views of the students. An autonomous body of
student advisors is necessary, and they must be part of a body which has the power to make
regulations and to interpret them. We suggest that the legitimacy of regulations depends
on consent of those they govern, and that the governed should have some effective voice in
the formulation of regulations. The faculty proposal does not even hint at this.
SECTION X: The use of Sproul Hall steps and the adjacent upper Plaza
as a Hyde Park Area should continue, since this is the only campus area large enough and
convenient enough to accomodate major rallies. No reason has been given for discontinuing
STATEMENT OF ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA STATE COLLEGE PROFESSORS
"In the press of October 3, 1964, it was reported that the
Administration of the University of California at Berkeley has prohibited its students
from collecting funds on campus for political purposes, from recruiting for political
groups, and from organizing off-campus demonstrations.'
"It was evident from the report that some student organization
which are not affiliated with political parties, but are generally dedicated to various
types of social actions, have been prohibited under these rules, from fund-raising,
recruiting, and organizing activities on the campus.
"The California State Colleges and the University of California
have a mutual interest in academic freedom for students and faculty, and in freedom of
speech in general. The Executive Committee of the ASFSC believe that student participation
in social action is consistent with our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and
contributes to the educational process. Therefore, whether it is political or
non-political, it ought not only to be permitted, but to be actively encouraged, so long
as it does not interfere with the regular instructional program, even if it involves
persons from off-campus who are invited to participate by students and faculty members.
"Consequently, the Executive Committee of the ACSCF supports
all University of California students and student groups, whatever their social or
politcal committments in their efforts io bring about the repeal of these rules against
"The ACSCF is in complete accord with the eloquent words of
University President Clark Kerr, who has declared...'when freedom of thought and
expression has died on a university campus, it will be dead everywhere..'."