Search this Site    --   FSM-A Home Page

FSM-A \ Free Speech Movement Archives FSM-A



     Campus Women for Peace was formed two and a half years ago, in March, 1962. We are a group of women students unified by the realization that military solutions to the world's conflicts are no longer feasible. Our program is directed toward the entire campus community. We provide a platform for discussion, disseminating information, and carrying out activities toward a peaceful world. Ours is a non-political group; we deal with issues, not parties or ideologies. Campus Women for Peace is a non-organizational group; it does not have "members" or "officers". We work from a mailing list that exceeds 250 each semester. Our activities are suggested and carried out by interested students on a voluntary basis.

     Since our group was organized we have found that the administration's rulings on student organizations have become increasingly complex, and have tended to severely hinder the scope of our activities. The following discussion will present some examples.

     We had difficulties in organizing our group from the beginning, owing to the rule that requires each student group to have a tenured faculty member as faculty advisor. We were hard pressed to find faculty members who were out-spoken on peace issues and might serve in this capacity, and were forced to postpone our activities for a number of weeks. In addition, in order to receive classification as a recognized group we were required to have a constitution, although we are not an organization. The rules regarding these matters are so unclear that we have never known for sure whether we were a "legal" off-campus group or not. Our first activity was a noon-time discussion with Russian women who were active in women's organizations in the USSR. We had to hold this discussion off-campus in Stiles Hall, a disadvantage because the room was much too small for the interested crowd that came. Stiles Hall is also out of the way for most people with only a noon-time to spare.

     We have found it increasingly difficult to implement and advertise a range of activities that will have wide-spread appeal. A maze of regulations restricts the kinds of activities we can sponsor on campus, the nature of our advertisements for these activities, and therefore the size of audience we reach.

     One detrimental set of rules pertains to regulations on the use of rooms on the campus That category of organizations designated as "off-campus" cannot use University classrooms for their business meetings. This rule hinders the effectiveness of our organization in reaching new, uninvolved students. Because of the "non-organizational" nature of our group we would find it very helpful to be able to hold business and planning meetings on campus, where interested students might drop by.

     Still another regulation limits our use of University facilities. This is the rule requiring a three-day notice before use of rooms for movies and speakers is granted by the Dean's office. This requires planning for the use of rooms for days in advance, securing signatures to forms in quadruplicate, etcetera, although it takes a mere five minutes to locate and reserve an empty room This rule throws cold water on instantaneous reaction to world or campus events. When the Soviet Union resumed nuclear testing in March 1962 we were unable to call an open meeting on the spot. Had we observed the rule that requires 72 hour advance notice for permission to speak, the issue would have been all but dead, and student consternation would have waned. Women for Peace held no meeting.

     The Administration not only restricts the forms our activities may take, but it restricts the content of what we present. An existing ruling prohibits student organizations from advocating certain kinds of on-campus demonstrations. An organization cannot sponsor a sit-down on Sproul Hall steps, for example, although an individual can. However, individuals cannot put up posters through the Student Union "poster service" to advertise such activities. Nor can individuals utilize the "Administration Service" which authorizes janitors to place posters about certain activities on University bulletin boards. Thus, when Madame Nhu came to our campus in November, 1963, we wanted to stage a sit-down as a form of dramatic protest to her treatment of Buddhists. But under the existing regulations we could not advertise the proposed sit-down.

     It is further illegal for us to urge in any way participation in demonstrations. During Madame Nhu's visit to San Francisco we prepared posters informing interested students about a walk around the Sheraton-Palace Hotel. We were informed by the authorities in the Student Union who must approve all posters, that these posters could not be placed on University property. We were informed that we might put up posters that were of a purely "informational" nature. A second set of posters was prepared. But it was decided that the mention of car-pools leaving for San Francisco implied something about the nature of the activity toward which they were headed; these posters were ordered removed. Six months later Women for Peace co-sponsored a meeting in Pauley Ballroom, presenting a tape by Bertrand Russell and a speech by Bob Scheer. Our advertising leaflet displayed the now-familiar photograph of the Vietnamese father holding his badly burned son. These leaflets were banned from the Student Union bulletin board, and from the approved University bulletin boards. In this way the Dean's Office imposes a contradictory censorship on the nature of our activities. If they allow us to hold the activities in the first place, we can advertise them only with difficulty. More importantly, a type of "prior-censorship" is employed; knowing the difficulty of receiving approval to post advertisements that are in any way controversial, we often choose a less effective method of presenting our message.

     Similarly, we find it increasingly difficult to find acceptable forms in which to present our programs. There seems to be some latitude in Administration regulations that allows the Dean's Office to construe the rules as they choose. The regulation involving the necessity for a faculty moderator for "controversial" topics is one which necessarily judges the content of that which is presented. For example, in Spring 1963, Women for Peace presented a noon talk in 110 Wheeler with Dr. Carleton Goodlet, publisher of the San Francisco Sun Reporter. Dr. Goodlet had recently returned from a tour of Africa for the World Council of Peace. Because of the difficulties of obtaining a faculty moderator, we decided to call his talk "My Trip Through Africa"; this title sounds like a travelogue, although it was more a political trip than a safari. The title passed by the Dean's Office, and they did not require a moderator. This incident indicates that since moderators are only required for "controversial" titles, obviously what is controversial is defined by the Administration via Mrs. Weaver. Non-controversial becomes that which the Administration agrees with, and controversial, by definition, everything else. No objective standard is involved; the Administration both formulates the rules and interpretations.

     In October, 1963, the Student Union began to charge rent for the use of Student Union rooms for "off-campus" and non-student organizations alike. It now costs more to rent Pauley Ballroom than it does to rent the Brazilian Room. This expense prohibits in advance most speakers. We can afford to invite one or two speakers a semester, those that we know are the best drawing cards. When we do use Pauley Ballroom we are not allowed to charge admission or to raise funds. We can collect "donations", hoping that the amount collected will cover the cost of the room. We may not, however, collect donations to help pay for speakers. Consequently we can only invite people who will donate their services, and this often limits the field to people seeking publicity, omitting many worthwhile speakers. We could not, for example, pay for our presentation of Professor Yasui, the head of the Japanese Movement Against the Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs, the largest peace organization in the world. And when "The Committee" offered to stage a special daytime performance for us last Spring, we were forced to refuse because we could not charge admission to pay them, let alone raise funds. It seems that the ASUC activities have a monopoly on the students' money.

     Because our group cannot raise money on campus, or even arrange for on-campus activities to pay for themselves, it is necessary to go off campus to try to raise funds. Thus we presented our March 1964 "Hoot for Peace" in the I-House auditorium, which decreased our profit by the $100 cost of the hall. In view of all this, the latest ruling prohibiting groups like ours from raising money at Bancroft and Telegraph, where we regularly set up a table in the past, will put an end to our activities.

     In addition to the prohibitory nature of certain specific University regulations, there has been a general attitude of indifference or willful disregard on the part of the Administration towards the expression of student and faculty opinion on certain issues. A case in point is our campaign for removal of fallout shelter signs from campus buildings.

     In January 1963 a fallout shelter program was instituted on this campus, in cooperation with the Federal Civil Defense Program. Protest on the part of students and faculty members was immediate and widespread. In March 1963 the Academic Senate passed a resolution calling for "an investigation of the reasons for, and implications of, the fallout shelter signs." No investigation was made. Under continued pressure of public opinion, University spokesman O.W. Campbell issued a statement to the effect that the Regents had agreed to cooperate in the civil defense effort, to the extent that it did not interfere with the University's main purpose of education. (Daily Cal, March 14, 1963)

     In April 1963 Women for Peace published a documented fact sheet on civil defense, and placed a referendum on the Spring ballot of the ASUC elections, calling for the removal of shelter signs from the campus. On April 17, 1963 a Daily Californian editorial by Sandie North called upon authorities to remove the shelter signs and to "devise more realistic alternatives than those now in effect." She urged the students to vote for removal of the signs in the coming referendum.

     On April 23, 1963 the students voted 2,196-1296 that shelter signs on the University campus be removed. Three months later a Daily Cal article of July 5, 1963 reported that the shelters were "still in business", and that supplies were being moved in.

     On October 8, 1963 the ASUC Senate voted unanimously to draft a resolution reminding the Regents of the student referendum, and calling upon President Kerr "to issue a statement detailing University policy on fallout shelters, and declaring the Regent's intentions with regard to the student referendum."

     On November 12, 1963 Clark Kerr stated in a letter to ASUC President Mel Levine, "It is recognized that there are differing opinions concerning the fallout shelter program. Not withstanding these points of view, as long as a national shelter program is the existing policy of Civil Defense, it is reasonable that the University should cooperate with the federal and state agencies undertaking this program." "A statement concerning the areas of responsibility in Civil Defense may be issued in the near future."

     Such a statement was never issued. Women for Peace has continually asked the University to review its participation in the federal government's civil defense program, in view of its policy of non-involvement in political matters. In an open letter to President Kerr (Daily Cal, December 11, 1963) Women for Peace spokesmen Jackie Goldberg and Ann Forrest demanded, "Are we being ordered into a program we don't want? Or are we volunteering for a program we don't want? Or further, are we desirous of the program for other than scientific and rational reasons? If the latter is the case, we students of this University feel that our Regents should re-examine educational and moral integrity.

     "To the best of our knowledge, no public statement was ever made to this campus even acknowledging the referendum, and no explanation was given for any part of the program. The statement that it is reasonable to cooperate with a program that may very well be unreasonable should be debated publicly. We call upon you, Mr. President, to enter an open debate on the merits of the shelter program, either through the Daily Cal or preferably in person."

     This letter was never answered.

     On December 13, 1963 Women for Peace sponsored a noon time panel discussion on the subject of fallout shelters, with Owen Chamberlain, fire chief Moller, and Ben Seaver. Chamberlain stated, "For Berkeley, fallout shelter protection is so inadequate as to be beside the point, it seems."

     On February 5, 1964 Professors Dalziel and Kuhli of the Governor's Educational Advisory Committee on Disaster Preparedness stated that Civil Defense at the University is in a state of chaos, and may even be a waste of time."

     When it became apparent that the Administration was intent on ignoring the opinions expressed by the majority of students and faculty members in advisory positions as well as all requests for discussion it was decided to hold a test of the fallout shelter facilities. The test was planned to demonstrate

     (1) That shelters provided no shelter at all, and

     (2) That the University was lending its name and prestige to a dangerous hoax.

     Once again University regulations thwarted us. Since recognized off-campus groups cannot sponsor any form of test, drill or demonstration on campus, Women for Peace could not directly arrange for the fallout shelter drill. Therefore a group of "individuals" organized the Ad Hoc Committee on Fallout Shelter Information, which was supported and endorsed by Slate, W.E.B. DuBois Club, and Women for Peace. This organization received permission to conduct the test on February 26, 1964.

     The test demonstrated beyond any doubt that the shelter program on this campus was an utter farce. The Daily Cal of the following day referred to the shelter as "the Black Hole of Calcutta." Berkeley fire chief Moller admitted that capacity figures were unreasonable. And in a letter to the Editor (Daily Cal March 2, 1964) Raymond T. Birge, Professor of Physics, Emeritus, predicted that under the conditions of the test "anyone not dead of suffocation in 24 hours would be dead from the heat."

     The shelter "pack-in" received coverage on local and national television networks and newspapers. The University Administration maintained an unbroken silence on the issue.

     On February 27, 1964 the ASUC Senate voted 13-2 to request the Chancellor's Office to conduct a campus-wide fallout shelter drill. This request was ignored. The barrage of letters to the Daily Cal on this issue gradually dwindled to nothing. The University Administration had effectively squelched the desire of the Academic Senate, the ASUC Senate, the majority of the student body, and individual professors to have an open discussion and investigation of the fallout shelter program on the campus.

     As has been pointed out in this report, there has been increasingly repression on this campus of activity and thought that has directly affected Women for Peace. At this writing, Women for Peace has not organized at all this semester. Ordinarily we would have set up a table on campus for distribution of information, and offering peace literature, bumperstickers and the like for sale. With the money thus obtained, and donations accepted, we would have been able to send an announcement of a meeting to those students who had indicated their interest by signing a mailing list at that table. Since we could collect neither money nor signatures, we were unable to do this. In addition, because of lack of funds we are unable to print and distribute information concerning the positions of the various political candidates on issues concerning peace, disarmament, and economic conversion to a peacetime economy. If the present situation remains unchanged, the Administration will have succeeded in permanently terminating the existence of Women for Peace on this Campus.

          -- Deborah Rossman, Junior, Humanities field major
             Janet Salaff, graduate Sociology
             Jackie Goldberg, Senior, Social Science Field Major


Search this Site    --   FSM-A Home Page