Where does the FSM
stand today?
10/15/1964
With great reluctance, the FSM Executive
Committee must announce that we've just about had it. For almost two weeks now we've been
shuffled back and forth through the maze of the University's bureaucracy and have
encountered nothing more than a clear indication on the part of the administration that
they are willing to do nothing more than keep us shuffling. We hear wry laughter behind
every closed door. We must hereby put the administration on notice that unless we get some
minimal sign of good faith by 5 p.m. today, Thursday, October 15, we shall conclude that
they have no intention of working toward an honorable settlement of our dispute. Let us
recount what has gone on since October 2, and indicate what we would consider a minimal
sign of good faith.
On the evening of Friday, October 2, after 32
hours of student demonstrations for the right of free speech and free political expression
on the Berkeley campus, and with over 3, 000 students assembled, leaders of the
demonstration were called to negotiate a settlement with President Clark Kerr. Before
entering the meeting, student leaders were apprised that 500 to 1,000 police, armed with
guns and riot clubs had massed just outside the campus. Although the student demonstrators
were pledged to nonviolence, there were strong indications that if the police were ordered
to disperse the crowd, they would move in swinging. .After discussion between Kerr and the
demonstration leaders, a document was presented by the administration which both parties
were requested to sign. After some discussion and modifications of the original document,
the demonstration leaders were informed that they could expect the police to move in
within ten minutes if no accord had been reached by then. Since the prospect of violence
against their fellow demonstrators was great, the leaders reluctantly agreed to sign the
document, and then attempted to disperse the demonstration. Points 2 and 4 of the pact
follows:
Point 2: A committee
representing students (including leaders of the demonstration), faculty and administration
will immediately be set up to conduct discussions and hearings into all aspects of
political behavior on the campus and its control, and to make recommendations to the
administration.
Point 4: The duration of the
suspended students will be submitted within one week to the Student Conduct Committee of
the Academic Senate.
Between Saturday and Monday, students held a
marathon meeting to establish an organization to continue their fight for free speech.
Under the name of the Free Speech Movement,
students united, and in an executive session decided to do their best to negotiate an
honorable settlement on the basis of the Pact of October 2. They immediately attempted to
meet with representatives of the administration to discuss interpretation and
implementation. Without consultation, Chancellor Strong appointed a study comnittee to
"satisfy" provision 2 of the pact.
FSM was not satisfied. It demanded that the
committee could not be established until the FSM and the administration could meet to
discuss such questions as the composition of the committee, its internal structure, and
decisionmaking procedures, its frequency of meetings, its specific charge, and the import
of its decisions. The administration refused to consider such a meeting, and immediately
announced in the press that their committee would meet the following day. Although the
administration claimed they wanted leaders of the FSM to participate on the committee, FM
was never officially notified of the meeting, and only learned about it indirectly. The
FSM refused to participate in the proceedings of the committee. They held that the
administration had set up a comittee unilaterally, thus perhaps trying to divert all of
the energies of the FSM to a "sandbox" committee. We hold that the refusal of
the administration to engage in serious discussion with the FSM concerning the nature of
an effective body to deal with these matters was de facto proof that the administration
would not tolerate the formation of a body which could deal with the dispute in an
equitable manner.
The FSM decided to continue patiently its
attempt to open up meaningful dialogue. An attempt was made to meet with President Kerr to
discuss and resolve conflicting opinions. Kerr held that he could not meet until after FSM
met with Chancellor Strong. Chancellor Strong then aggreed to meet with FSM . At this
meeting, FSM requested that Strong suspend the study committee until meetings could be
held to determine what it should be and what it should do. Strong replied that since he
had asked the committee to make recommendations, he could not suspend it until it
recommended he do so. Strong was asked to establish meetings to discuss interpretation and
implementation of the pact, and he replied that only Kerr could do that. Strong was
informed that although the pact specifically stated in Point 4 that the suspensions had in
fact been brought before a Chancellor-appointed committee. Strong replied that it was
quite alright.
On to Clark Kerr. Although now unwilling to meet
with us, he empowered a vicepresident to speak for him, The gentleman, a Mr. Bolton,
indicated that he would meet with us if we agreed to certain ground rules for the
discussions. These included such points as he would not meet with us at all, but would
meet only with the signatories of the pact, and would in no case consider them
representatives of the FSM, and that he would give us exactly two hours of his time, and 5
other points, some innocuous, some objectionable. With reluctance we agreed to this
meeting, and began discussing the agenda. We asked to begin discussions on point 4 of the
pact. He refused. We asked to begin with point 2. He refused. It became clear that he
wanted to spend the two hours without ever coming to the substantive points in our
dispute. We then asked for permission to take our case to the Regents. He promised to
consider it. He then consulted for four hours with the same Clark Kerr who could find no
place in his busy schedule to even consider meeting with us. No conclusion. We telegrammed
our request to the governor and to the chairman of the Regents. Here we stand.
W e have patiently tried every possible channel
which we have felt might lead to an honorable solution to our conflict. We have spent two
weeks talking about meetings, about interpretations, about who is empowered to say what,
about every thing but free speech. We have been playing the administration's game, it's
called bureaucracy, and we're it.
UNLESS WE GET SOME CLEAR INDICATION BY 5 P. M .
TODAY THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT PLAYING, WE CANNOT BUT CONCLUDE THAT WE HAVE BEEN
TAKEN. What would constitute a clear indication? Almost anything substantive, almost
anything that is not just another stall. Even if we just get permission to present our
case to the Regents tomorrow, are granted just one hour of their time, we will be
appeased, at least for the moment. If, however, all doors remain shut, we cannot but
conclude that THE PACT OF OCTOBER 2 HAS BEEN VOIDED.
LABOR DONATED FSM