FSM-A \ Free Speech Movement Archives \ FSM-A
APPENDIX B : INCONSISTENCIES, ARBITRARINESS, AND DISCRIMINATION IN THE REGULATIONS AND THEIR APPLICATION
I. Examples footnoted in the covering text, section I.B.
Footnote 13: The Campus NAACP requested a room in early March, and the Dean of Students approved the request. When the name of the speaker, Malcolm X., was revealed later, the Administration did not react. A dispute over alleged discrimination by United Airlines led to picketing of the Placement Center (at which UA was holding interviews) in which the Campus NAACP was prominent. On May 5, the Daily Cal announced that Vice-Chancellor Kragen took full responsibility for canceling Malcolm X"s speech on the grounds that he represented a religious organization. The Campus NAACP argued that the talk concerned information, not religious affiliation. It is interesting to note that not only Bishop Pike, but also Billy Graham and Rabbi Fine, among others, had been allowed to speak on campus; c.f. D.C. May 8, 1961. (Information from Stephanie Lipney, via. interviews with Herman Blake, etc.)
Footnote 14. SRE was, to boot, an ad hoc committee of the ASUC, and held on-campus status. To quote Stephanie Lipney"s report further (c.f.D.C. Oct. 7, 1960):
"SRE"s first activity was a jazz concert. They were allowed the use of campus facilities..and everything went well for them until they announced their efforts resulted in $900. At this point the University imposed its rulings concerning funds raised on campus: that either these funds would be sent to the United Crusade, which is not known for its contributions to Southern Civil Rights organizations, or the World University Service, ...(which is) concerned with the purchasing and distribution of textbooks for foreign countries ...The SRE decided to donate the funds raised to the WUS in the hopes, and surely not the notion, that the funds might still be used for scholarships for Negro students expelled for participation in the Civil Rights struggle.
"The SRE was persistent. They proposed a second jazz concert and fund-raising drive for money and clothing, canned goods, etc., in support of the sit-ins and the Negroes who were victims of an economic boycott due to their involvement in voter registration. Once again the jazz concert was approved, and once again the problem of solicitation became the issue. After a long period of negotiations to no avail, the SRE cancelled the jazz concert until it could be determined what kind of fund-raising could be used... After continued debate on the issue, the SRE disbanded. Even though the Administration granted them recognition, they could not function in any meaningful way." (C.f.D.C. for 11/8/61, 4/20/61, 4/27/61.)
C.f. the Slate booklet, The Big Myth, for more about the Hungarian students.
Footnote 15. (from DuBois Club report by Jack Kurzweil.) Mrs. Weaver has recently decided that off-campus speakers under DuBois Club sponsorship need police protection. At the expense of the DuBois club, of course. Independent of the consent of the DuBois Club, of course. And without the right of the D.B.C. to even solicit donations to pay the compulsory fee of twenty-odd dollars. Of course, which speakers require police protection is Mrs. Weaver"s whim. Thus, one Friday noon Mike Myerson, presently a longshoreman, required two cops. The following Monday evening Henry Winston, a Communist spokesman who is blind, required none.
Footnote 19. (from a preliminary report on peace groups by Steven Salaff.) Dean Towle has stressed that the type of activity announced by a poster or leaflet determines whether she censors it. The same criterion is applied to the Student Union notice boards. A poster announcing a noon meeting in Pauley Ballroom to hear talks against the Vietnam war was censored because "it didn"t look very peaceful".
Section IV, Footnote 7. See DuBois Club data in Appendix A.
II. Other examples
The wealth of examples is impressive, their variety is bewildering. We cite a few.
A. (from a preliminary report on student-student communication on campus, regarding the functioning of rallies.) The passage of the Kerr Directives in 1959 complicated the situation instead of easing it. The Directives permitted "recognized" student groups to hold "special meetings or events...upon University facilities only with prior approval of the Chief Campus Officer or his delegated representative. On one hand, this ruling let groups hold rallies in the Dwinelle Plaza area. On the other, since "prior" was liberally interpreted, such rallies had to be scheduled a week in advance, which greatly hampered their potential usefulness.
B. (from the DuBois Club report.) We are supposed to be allowed to charge money to meet the expenses of a meeting. However, what these expenses can include is somewhat arbitrary. Thus, last year we showed a film, "The Spanish Earth", in Dwinelle and were allowed to charge a dime admission to cover expenses. However, when we use Pauley Ballroom, for which there is a $35 fee, we are not even allowed to solicit donations to meet this expense. Just what criteria are applied, and when, seems to be a matter of whim ...
C. (from Robin Room"s report on Slate, re the sources for some regulations.) In early December 1961, PLATFORM Slate"s equivalent at UCLA, invited Dorothy Healy, a Communist, to speak on campus. In response to a query from UCLA Chancellor Murphy (Berkeley Daily Gazette, Dec. 16), Kerr ruled that American Communist speakers were not included in the Open Forum policy. In a presentation to the Regents on Dec. 13, Kerr cited in support of this ruling statements made by President Sproul in 1951. In speaking of the authority of the Chancellors to implement this policy, Kerr concluded by citing the phrase (from University Regulation No. 5, 1944), "to prevent exploitation of the University"s prestige by...those who would use it as a platform for propaganda," and added: "The latter phrase has been specifically interpreted by word and by practice to exclude speeches by members of the Communist Party..." (See Slate Newsletter 2/17/62) (We do not criticize President Kerr"s interpretation, nor his sources. We wish to point out, however, that, to our knowledge, this was the substantive content of the fabled Communist Speaker Ban, and was, at best, a vaguely-formulated policy whose sources were not easily accessible. The difficulties of responding to such a policy, or of trying to effect its change, are evident.)
D. (ibid.) Although the formalities of getting posters set up by the ASUC, which had been delegated to this task by the Administration, were formidable, no censorship was felt in this field until Spring 1963. Before then it had been necessary to get approval of the aesthetics of posters; this varied according to the aesthetic theories held by the approver and not by any coherent regulatory rationale. In Spring, however, the ASUC functionary in charge of approving posters benignly announced to a member of Women For Peace that the Dean of Students had told her not to approve any posters announcing pickets, demonstrations, peace marches, or like political activities...
E. When the Administration chooses, it relaxes its regulations to test them. For example, the Daily Cal of October 8, 1958 reported:
"Chancellor Glen T. Seaborg announced today that President Kerr has temporarily suspended University Regulation 17 ((the previous form of the Kerr Directives)) in view of the upcoming state elections...From now until January 1, the prohibition has been set aside in order to test the necessity of retaining Section B-7...which ..is designed to forestall political embarrassment for the University and for candidates or the opponents of candidates who would receive speaking invitations from partisan student groups. Seaborg pointed out that it also limits to some extent the rights of free speech and the opportunities of students to hear from all political candidates."
We are grateful for the Administration"s concern for the civil-libertarian welfare of the students.
F. (from Stephen Salaff"s report on the peace movement.) Students are familiar with the noon hour brass-band performances in the Student Union plaza, and the loudspeaker broadcasts on behalf of a favorite project of an "on-campus" committee. (Faculty are also aware of the intrusion of the pep-band into classrooms and lecture halls.) Yet until the Free Speech Movement seized a police car we had never heard an unscheduled political speaker using a microphone. It is difficult to be heard outdoors, and the volume of noise could not be an objection, as witnessed by the toleration of the above activities. But University regulations have prohibited amplification for "off-campus" speakers, whether at the rally tree in Dwinelle Plaza or on the Student Union steps. Here again, the right to speak and be heard has been abridged....
As other examples, we cite again the appendix on Women For Peace, and the latter half of the appendix on the HUAC Demonstrations, which contains several descriptions of contradictory application of administrative policy.