1. AFFIDAVITS ON OUTSIDE PRESSURE (cf. Section II.)
A. "On Monday, Sept.21, while
attending the Chancellor's reception for holders of the Regents' Scholarship, I, Bill
Miller, heard Chancellor Strong state publicly in response to a question, that the Oakland
Tribune had called him and asked if he was aware that the picket then being organized
against that newspaper was being recruited from University property. Strong said that he
was not aware that the Bancroft-Telegraph area was University property, but he would
investigate. He found that it was University property. The above is the Chancellor's
statement in substance."
(Oct. 7, 1964)
B. "During the first week of classes
I attended the Chancellor's reception for holders of the Regent's Scholarship at
University House. At this meeting someone questioned Chancellor Strong about the cause of
the University's new policy on politics in the Bancroft-Telegraph area. How did all this
start? Chancellor Strong replied that the Oakland Tribune (a picket against their
office was being organized from Bancroft-Telegraph) had called him and asked if he was
aware that the picketing activity was being organized on University property. Strong said
he did not know that the Bancroft-Telegraph area was University property, but that he
would investigate. He discovered to his apparent surprise that the area was indeed the
University's, and not the city's property. There were many people at the meeting who must
have heard the same thing."
Raudenbush (Oct. 7, 1964)
C. "At approximately 1:20 pm on
Tuesday October 13 I went to Chancellor Strong's office and asked for a comment on Bill
Miller's paragraph on P.3 of the first FSM Bulletin. ("editor's note: this was
substantially the material contained in Miller's affidavit, above.) Chancellor Strong's
secretary had not seen the paragraph, and she made a photocopy and took my name and
At about 2:45 I called Chancellor Strong's office and he
spoke with me. He said that the Oakland Tribune had not called him; that at the
reception for Regents' Scholars he had said that it had been brought to his attention that
tables were being used on University property, but that permits had been secured from the
City of Berkeley. For instance, well over 100 permits had been issued for tables and many
for sidewalk speeches. A reporter had informed the Public Information Office that tables
were on University property, and he (Strong) had heard from the Public Information Office.
He said that he himself did not at that time know where the property line was, and he said
the matter would be looked into. He then discovered (he said) that the property line is at
the plaques and not at the posts, and he realized that tables for collecting funds and
various activities had encroached on University property. He added that there had always
been sporadic enquiries about congestion and he had always said that it was a matter for
the Berkeley police to control traffic congestion. He then gave an outline of the
regulations currently in force.
He said that Richard Hafner of the Public Information
Office would know the details about the statement from the reporter.
When I asked when this had happened, he said it was early
in the semester, perhaps before the first week of classes.
(Editor's note: now follows an interview with Richard
Hafner, Public Affairs Officer, 3:30pm, Tuesday October 13.)
Mr. Hafner said he did not know specifically who the
reporter was, but that he was from the Oakland Tribune; that he (the reporter)
came out to look at the tables, and said that they were interested in a particular table,
one that was recruiting for Scranton; that this was at the time of the Republican
Convention in San Francisco; that when the reporter got to campus, the table was gone and
the Berkeley Police had no record of it, and that the story was never printed in the Oakland
Mr. Hafner said he had told Chancellor Strong within a
few days. I asked whether this incident really occurred as long ago as the Convention, and
Mr. Hafner said he felt sure it was in July. I reported that Chancellor Strong felt he had
heard about it quite recently, at the start of the semester. Checking with Chancellor
Strong's office, we discovered that the Chancellor had been in Hawaii from July 8 to
August 9. Mr. Hafner pointed out that he might just have talked to someone in the
Chancellor's office, for instance Vice-Chancellor Sherriffs.
He said that before the building of the new Student
Union, political rallies etc. had been held at Sather Gate. When the
Bancroft-to-Strawberry Creek block of Telegraph was closed off (he said) these activities
retreated into Bancroft. Since there was some traffic danger there, the activities moved
onto the north side of Bancroft. He added that this was at the time of the ban on speeches
by Communists and by political candidates, and that it was helpful at that point that
there was a place where people could talk. He pointed out that when he arrived in the Fall
of 1961 he was led to regard the area as a "No Man's Land."
During this summer (he said), after the Oakland
Tribune reporter pointed out that the strip was University property, discussions went
on sporadically on whether the situation could be ignored. The feeling finally (he said)
was that the regulations were clearly being violated and they must be enforced."
Nicholas Zvegentzov (Oct. 15, 1964)
2. AFFIDAVIT ON ADMINISTRATIVE INTERFERENCE IN THE ASUC.
In the first week of November, 1961, Roger Hollander and
I, both representatives on ASUC Ex-Com, wrote a letter to the Daily Cal trying to
explain to the students our feelings about the Kerr Directives -- why we felt they were
bad and why we felt they restricted political activity on campus. The letter was left in
the DailyCal mailbox in the representatives-at-large office in the Student Union.
It mysteriously disappeared, never appearing in the Daily Cal. On November 12th
we rewrote the letter and personally handed it in to the Daily Cal that
afternoon. It was printed on November 13th.
The next day, Nov. 14th, 1961, there was an Ex-Com
meeting. At that time, Michael Tigar and I were sponsoring a motion on in loco
parentis -- the University's acting as the parent of the student. The motion came up
on the agenda of the meeting, but ASUC President Brian Van Camp, instead of calling on me
or Mike (the co-authors of the motion), called on Dean Towle to read a statement from
President Kerr. We had heard nothing of President Kerr's letter at this time, and we
didn't know quite what to expect. (Roger Hollander said at the time that he had received a
copy thirty minutes before the meeting and had not had time to digest the contents.) We
protested because we thought that this had nothing to do with in loco parentis.
President Van Camp assured us that it did. Dean Towle read the letter (the letter was an
attack on the Cloke-Hollander attack on the Kerr Directives. It was printed in the Daily
Cal on Nov. 15.) We were by our own motion (by our pleas really) given time to rebut
President Kerr's statement, which we did.
Then Ex-Com began nominally to discuss the motion on in
loco parentis. But the discussion proceeded not on the grounds of the University's
acting as a parent but on the grounds of the Kerr Directives. Larry Beyersdorf stood up
and said that there was so much Slate had said about the Kerr Directives which was untrue
that he felt it was time Ex-Com took a stand on the issue. He said that the Kerr
Directives really were in the interests of the students of the University. About half-way
through the discussion, John Grissim, a temporary representative-at-large appointed by
Ex-Com to fill a position which had been vacated, proposed a fifteen page motion affirming
the Kerr Directives. All motions, by Ex-Com rules, are required to be in the boxes of the
representatives by three o'clock of the day prior to the Ex-Com meeting. Mr. Grissim's
motion, which he had with him, did not meet this requirement. We raised this point and
were duly rebuffed. The discussion then proceeded on Mr. Grissim's motion which was
offered as a substitute for the in loco parentis motion sponsored by Tigar and
me. Grissim's motion was amended and passed.
We all received copies of the motion then, and Tigar and
I also received a copy of President Kerr's letter. By that time we had become quite
perplexed by the strategy of the Ex-Com meeting; we couldn't figure out why all of these
anti-Slate forces had come together at one point, seemingly from many different directions
and apparently unaware of the others existence. Mike and I compared the Grissim motion and
the Kerr letter. It turned out that both were written on the same typewriter. The
"l"s and "w"s had the same kind of faulty type, and there were certain
other characteristics of type that were exactly the same. We talked to John Grissim after
the meeting and he conceded to us that his motion was typed in Alex Sheriffs's office by
Alex Sheriffs's secretary. Grissim also acknowledged that he, himself, had done relatively
little work on the motion, practically none. Sheriffs, or someone working for him, had
done most of the work. Grissim, in effect, was handed the motion by Sheriffs,
vice-chancellor of student affairs, prior to the meeting.
In addition to this, Grissim began to realize that he had
been a fall-guy for the administration. He appeared the next day at a Slate rally on this
specific subject (on which both Mike Tigar and I also spoke.) Grissim stated then that he
thought there was something fishy about the motion and that he didn't know exactly what it
was, but he promised to get to the bottom of it. Nothing was heard about it after that.
Kenneth Cloke (Nov. 1, 1964)
(Note: This statement was dictated