Search this Site    --   FSM-A Home Page

FSM-A \ Free Speech Movement Archives FSM-A



I. Examples cited in the covering text, Section I.A.

10. From interview by J. Donald Moon with YSA representatives.

Footnote 11. "The first pressure on the right to advocacy was in the area of outdoor rallies in Dwinelle Plaza. Advance notification of rallies had to be given to the Dean's office. By Fall 1962, Mrs. Weaver of the Dean of Students" Office was warning Slate members, giving such notification that announcements of off-campus political meetings and activities were not permitted." (From a preliminary report on Slate by Robin Room.)

II. Further Examples

The spectrum of restrictions upon the functioning of groups that the regulations impose is so broad that it is difficult to describe. There is an inexhaustible fund of examples. We shall cite a few that speak for themselves.

A. (From a report on Campus CORE by Gretchen Kittredge:) On July 9, 1964 a letter from the Dean's office was sent to Campus CORE to inform it that because two officers named on its "off-campus" application were not U.C. students during first summer session, CORE would not be eligible to use University facilities. The letter went on, "I can conclude only that the organization is not made up of bona fide students, faculty members, or employees of the University. Therefore, I must declare the organization ineligible to use University facilities." The letter was signed by Arleigh Williams, Dean of Men. This incident was similarly repeated during the second summer session, when CORE reapplied with a new slate of officers. It seemed that their secretary had only attended first summer session and since she was not a student second summer session, Campus CORE could not have "off-campus" privileges. This letter was received by Dave Freedman.

B. A similar incident concerned the DuBois Club. In the words of Jack Kurzweil, "In order to have use (albeit limited) of the facilities of the University during the period in question, we must register at the beginning of each semester, Fall, Spring, SSI, SSII. An extraordinary thing happened at the beginning of SSII, 1964. The club was asked ... to supply proof that it could qualify as a bona-fide off-campus organization, and it was strongly implied that a membership list would be good proof."

D. (From the DuBois Club report cited above.) The Administration does not allow us to give classes on campus: that is, we cannot advertise a series of classes on campus, we can only advertise individual lectures...Among the classes we would like to give is one by Bill Mandel on the Soviet Union. It should be mentioned that even if we were to advertise each class as a separate lecture, we would have to have a tenured faculty moderator at each one...

When the Communist speaker ban was lifted, we were informed (by Mrs. Weaver in the Dean's office) first that we would require a tenured faculty moderator for Mickey Lima, the first Communist to speak on campus after the ban was lifted, then for all "controversial" speakers sponsored by us, and finally that all speakers we sponsored would be considered a priori controversial. Of course, getting a faculty moderator is an immensely time-consuming task...On at least three occasions over the past fifteen months we have had to cancel meetings because we had no moderator.

G. (From the report on Slate cited above.) THE VIGIL AGAINST NUCLEAR TESTING. In Fall 1961, Krushchev announced that a 50-megaton bomb would be exploded in the atmosphere at the end of October. At the Slate General Assembly of October 25, a motion was proposed that 'slate condemns as immoral and inhuman the testing by and and all powers of nuclear devices..." and that 'slate will organize and coordinate a demonstration on or off campus within one week." The motion passed, and the Assembly then decided on a vigil extending from noon Oct. 31 to noon Nov. 1, to be held if possible on Sproul Hall's steps.

The Administration asked for and received an exact description of the plans the next day. On October 27 it denied permission (which had not been requested) for Slate to hold a vigil on campus "as an organization"... On October 28, the Slate CoCom voted to comply with the ruling under protest rather than lose the nuclear testing issue in a dispute over students" civil liberties, and adopted the position that: "(1) Slate withdraws its legal sponsorship of the vigil but endorses the spirit of the protest and encourages individuals to participate as individuals; (2) Slate explains that it is holding the vigil on campus for reasons of convenience and symbolic significance; (3) Slate retains its previous position of opposition to the rulings of the administration limiting student political activities and student rights, but will withhold any challenging of these rulings until after discussion at the next General Assembly."

The vigil was duly held on Sproul steps, with about 600 people, 250 of whom remained overnight, sitting on the steps under a banner reading "For Humanity's Sake, Stop All Nuclear Testing", 10,000 leaflets and 7,000 sympathy blue armbands were handed out. The vigil served to establish a precedent that unorganized individuals could act on campus on off-campus issues.

At the time of Kennedy's visit on Charter Day, in March 1962, (some students) organized a vigil to be held on Sproul Hall steps on the morning of Charter Day, solely on the subject of nuclear testing. Following the precedent set the previous Fall, this group did not formally organize...

(Editor's note: the group was the Students Against Nuclear Testing. Chancellor Strong denied them permission to hold the vigil, claiming that it would interfere with the flow of traffic. They planned the vigil anyway, saying that they would leave easy access to the building and would welcome the assistance of the University police. Their announcement to this effect in the Daily Cal of March 22 was accompanied by an editorial protesting Strong's ruling. The next day Dean Towle announced that no action would be taken unless the group impeded traffic. Evidently they did not.)

H. (Information from Brian Shannon on the YSA.) When events break, students often want to hold special meetings or to plan for meetings and demonstrations off the campus. For instance, during the blockade of Cuba we were unable to secure a room on campus and had to hold a meeting in Stiles Hall at which we planned a demonstration in San Francisco. We had to turn away over 200 people, since the hall only held 170 ...

I. (Information from Bob Starobin and Daily Cal. Feb.19,1963) At the instigation of graduate students in the department, the Colloquium Committee of the History Department invited Herbert Aptheker, a leading Communist, to speak before a colloquium on an academic topic. His speech was to have been given in the Alumni House. When the Administration learned of this, it told the Department that (1) Aptheker could not speak on campus; (2) the History Department's name could not be used in connection with his talk; and (3) Aptheker could not be paid. The History Department protested, to no avail. The colloquium was held in Stiles Hall, under the History Department's name, and a collection was taken up to provide an honorarium for Aptheker.

(We might note that these last two examples from part of a general pattern. In many ways, Stiles Hall and similar organizations function as a 'safety-valve" by partially fulfilling needs that the Administration will not allow the University to fulfill. The magnitude of their service is remarkable: for example, to quote Damon Tempey's report on Stiles Hall,

"The building-use statistics of the academic year 1963-4 are typical. Of the 185 uses by 36 political, religious, and issue-oriented groups, 146 of these were by nine groups, including Campus CORE (36), University Friends Of SNCC (21), Young Socialist Alliance (22), Slate (15), and YPSL (15). That such groups have a place to meet and to present speakers no doubt makes the Administration feel more justified in preventing them from using campus facilities . . . Nonetheless, there are inconveniences and expenses involved in using Stiles Hall that would not be present if campus facilities were available.")


Clearly, such examples can be multiplied indefinitely; but our space is limited. (For other types of difficulties occasioned by the regulations, see in this report the appendix on KPFA and the excellent discussion and examples in the appendix on Women For Peace.) After examining the restrictive effects of the regulations upon groups, we are mildly surprised that groups still manage to function at all.


Search this Site    --   FSM-A Home Page