ADMINISTRATIVE PRESSURES AND
STUDENT POLITICAL ACTIVITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT
The recent effects of student dissatisfaction
with Administrative policy have been widely publicized, but the long and intricate
histories of both policy and dissatisfaction have not been subject to public discussion.
This essay is a preliminary abstract of a detailed analysis, with a supporting body of
evidence, of pressures on student political activities at the University. These pressures
have been transmitted primarily through the Administrative policies governing student
affairs .
This essay sketches certain general problems
that appear again and again in the studies which form the main body of this report.
(Footnotes refer to these studies and to the other appendices. ) This essay, and a
preliminary version of the supporting body of evidence, are to be submitted to the
Chancellor's Committee on Student Political Activity. We hope to make a final report, with
the supporting evidence, available relatively soon to the interested public. We offer this
report as background for a dialogue on the issues it deals with, and hope that it will
contribute to a genuine understanding of these issues.
Individual action in a complex society is
difficult, and individuals band together into groups to make effective action possible. If
group action is restricted, the individual loses his only workable means of exercising the
rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United States. [1]
[A]. STUDENTS HAVE FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO FORM
GROUPS, TO MAINTAIN GROUPS ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN FORMED, AND TO CARRY OUT THE ACTIVITIES FOR
WHICH THE GROUPS WERE FORMED. THESE DIFFICULTIES HAVE BEEN CAUSED PRIMARILY BY RESTRICTIVE
REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION UPON GROUP ACTIVITY. THESE RESTRICTIONS HAVE
SERIOUSLY IMPEDED ATTEMPTS BY INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS TO EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
[2]
(1) Student groups are hindered in their
attempts to inform the campus public of their very existence. "Students for
Lodge" and ''Students for Scranton", for example, could not put the names of the
candidates on posters advertising meetings of the clubs; thus they could not make their
nature known. [3] In addition, all political groups are forbidden to recruit
new members on campus; thus they are denied their only convenient access to the largest
available body of potential members. [4]
(2) Almost all groups perform their
functions primarily by means of conducting meetings; yet most groups concerned with
'off-campus' issues cannot hold meetings on campus. Students wishing to attend DuBois Club
meetings, for example, must travel to Oakland. [5] Such difficulties
discourage public contact with groups, and make the interest of members harder to
maintain.
(3) Administrative regulations
severely hamper the financial functioning of organizations. Student groups have precarious
finances and depend mainly upon the campus for support. However, collection of funds is
now prohibited on campus.[6] Regulations now require police 'protection for
the presentation of speakers judged 'controversial' by the Administration, at costs of up
to $45 to the sponsoring organization; but the regulations do not permit solicitation of
donations to cover such costs.[7]
(4) Even when individuals have
managed to form groups which have managed to maintain their existence, the possible
actions these groups can take are severely limited by the regulations. The regulations
governing 'off-campus' speakers and the holding of rallies make it difficult for groups to
keep their public informed about issues of immediate interest. For example, in 1962
several hundred students held an impromptu rally in Dwinelle Plaza to protest resumption
of atmospheric testing. The Dean of Students' office asked the police to disband the
rally, and later decided that it had been 'premeditated' and brought a member of the rally
before the Faculty Committee on Student Discipline. [8]
(5) Further, the regulations and
their interpretations have not permitted student interest in social and political issues
to be expressed through the student government. When this led the ASUC to create the
Student Forum as a vehicle for the expression of this interest, the regulations hampered
the Forum so severely that it soon died. [9]
(6) The regulations make it
difficult or impossible for groups to obtain speakers and to present them to a campus
audience. For example, when the YSA wished to sponsor four concurrent seminars on Civil
Rights and Industrial Political Activity, tenured faculty moderators were required for
each one. They were impossible to find, and the series was not held. [l0]
(7) Finally, the regulations make it
difficult for organizations to take action on the issues with which they are concerned.
Slate was forced to withdraw sponsorship of on-campus vigils and pickets in 1962 and 1963.
Off-campus activities could not be announced at impromptu rallies. [11] Here
again, the prohibition of on-campus fund collection defeats the purpose of those groups
which exist mainly to collect money for their causes.
[B] THE ADMINISTRATION'S REGULATIONS ARE NOT
SIMPLY RESTRICTIVE. THEY ARE VAGUELY AND INCONSISTENTLY FORMULATED, AND ARE APPLIED IN AN
INCONSISTENT, ARBITRARY, AND DISCRIMINATORY MANNER. We shall cite some examples.
(1) In 1956 the Administration prohibited
distribution of pro-voluntary ROTC literature while at the same time allowing the Military
Department to distribute pro-compulsory ROTC pamphlets in all of its classes. [l2]
(2) In 1962 Malcolm X was forbidden
permission to speak on campus on the grounds that he was a religious leader who 'might
proselytize'. But Episcopal Bishop James Pike had spoken on campus the previous day, and
in recent on-campus speeches had discussed birth control and the consequences of there
being a Catholic in the White House. [l3]
(3) The World University Service may
solicit funds on campus for students abroad, and the ASUC ExCom was allowed to raise funds
for the relief of Hungarian students. But the Administration forbade the Students for
Racial Equality to use $900 they had collected to establish a scholarship for a Negro
student expelled from a Southern university for his civil rights work. [l4]
(4) Police 'protection' and a
tenured faculty moderator are required for speakers judged 'controversial'. The DuBois
Club sponsored a Communist who was not 'controversial' and an ex-student longshoreman who
was. [l5] The Administration determines who is 'controversial' and its
decisions cannot be appealed; but it has not published criteria that define
'controversial'.
(5) The student government is
ostensibly forbidden to take stands on political issues, which include State Ballot
Propositions. This restriction, however, has been lifted when the Administration feels
such lifting to be to its interests. Thus the Administration has encouraged the ASUC to
support Proposition 3 in 1958, Proposition 1A in 1962, and Proposition 2 in 1964. In 1962
it reluctantly allowed the ASUC to also take a stand on Proposition 24 (the 'Francis
Amendment'), which was frankly political; a similar situation occurred with Proposition 14
this Fall. [l6]
(6) The Administration has earmarked
a million dollars of ASUC funds to construct a building providing office space for student
groups. Though all students have contributed their funds, 'off-campus' groups cannot use
these offices. [l7]
(7) Some almost-amusing paradoxes
result from the Administration's policies. Thus, individuals can organize some kinds of
demonstrations on campus, but cannot publicize them. Groups can publicize, but not
organize, these demonstrations. But if individuals do organize them, they cannot publicize
them through groups. [l8]
(8) The rules governing the
publicizing of student activities have not been fully written down, and their enforcement
has been arbitrary and sometimes whimsical. For example, a Women For Peace poster
announcing a meeting to hear speakers on the Vietnam war was censored because "it
didn't look very peaceful". [l9]
The grievances we have sketched have many
immediate causes. Their basic source, however, is the Administration's current conception
of the nature of the University, and the policies that result from this conception. [1] In
particular, these policies, and the ways in which the Administration implements them, make
the Administration responsive to certain outside pressures, and unresponsive to pressures
from within, i.e. from other components of the University.
The long-range policies of the Administration
make it unduly responsive to outside influences. Student political activity is discouraged
on the ground that such activity exposes the University to political pressures [2],
but the Administration voluntarily subjects the University to far greater pressures by
actively seeking private and Government research contracts. [3] The University
is and will continue to be subject to pressures. The question is which pressures will gain
response from the Administration.
In 1949 the Administration decided that a
faculty anti-Communist oath would serve as "a preventive to the possible passage of
legislation dangerous to the University. " [4] The resulting "Loyalty
Oath controversy" had disastrous consequences for the faculty, and made it clear that
the Administration would set major policy despite vigorous faculty opposition when outside
pressure was applied. [5] In another case, a 1959 Subject A exam posed the
question, "What are the dangers to a democracy of a national police organization,
like the FBI, which operates secretly and is unresponsive to public criticism?" The
FBI and other groups found the question distasteful and protested. The Administration made
a public apology, burned the remaining copies of the exam, and promised that no similar
questions would appear again.[7] In these cases, the special sensitivity of the
Administration to outside pressures is manifest.
A wealth of other such examples exists. More
recent ones include the role of William Knowland in helping to stimulate the
Administration's 'clarifications' of the Kerr Directives this Fall [8]; and the
Administration's refusal to contest PG&E's decision to build a nuclear reactor at
Bodega Head, which resulted in the University's abandoning its plans for a marine biology
station there. [9]
B. THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT RESPONSIVE TO
CRITICISMS OF ITS POLICIES BY STUDENTS AND FACULTY.
Chancellor Strong's rejection of the
recommendations of the Heyman Committee [10] is the most recent incident in a long
history of Administrative disregard for criticism and recommendations from the Academic
Senate, the ASUC Senate and ExCom, and other campus groups.
A decade of protest through established channels
saw two petitions totalling 10, 000 signatures, three ASUC ExCom resolutions, three
massive student referendums, and strong recommendations from a faculty committee, all
urging an end to compulsory ROTC. The Administration ignored these criticisms of its
policy; compulsory ROTC was abolished only after the Department of the Army had finally
joined the other military Departments in deciding that compulsory ROTC was unnecessary. [11]
Similarly, the Administration has disregarded a
student referendum, resolutions of the ASUC Senate, and requests from other campus groups
for removal of the fallout shelter signs. Though the Administration has promised these
bodies various statements clarifying its policy on the fallout shelters, these statements
were never received. [l2] Again, the Administration ignored a joint
student-faculty petition to end the Communist Speaker Ban, as well as a student referendum
and severalASUC Senate resolutions to this effect. [13]
The Administration has most consistently refused
to heed criticisms of its policies in the case of the Kerr Directives. Since the
Directives were issued in 1959, they have been the target of repeated criticism. The ASUC
ExCom and Senate have passed many resolutions protesting the restrictions of the
Directives. The Daily Californian has often editorialized against them, and
has provided a forum for public criticism. More detailed criticism has been provided by
pamphlets distributed on campus, and by the Student Civil Liberties Union. The Academic
Freedom Committee of the Academic Senate has made detailed recommendations for revision of
the Directives, and other faculty groups have asked that the Directives be submitted to
the Academic Senate for discussion. [l4]
But the Administration has not heeded these
criticisms and protests. There is no evidence that changes of policy have come about on
the Administration's initiative or in response to the kinds of criticism and pressure
described above. Instead, there is evidence that fear of outside pressure has caused the
Administration to make the Directives more restrictive. [l5]
In short, the legal channels for criticism and
protest of policies have been extensively employed by students and faculty. These
'legitimate' channels have a nominal existence, but there is little evidence to suggest
that they actually serve their nominal function The mass of evidence suggests that these
channels function mainly as a means of containing criticism and rendering it ineffective. Criticism
of Administrative policies through established channels has had little or no effect on the
policies.
MORE GENERALLY, THE REGULATIONS AND OTHER
ACTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE CREATED CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH CRITICISM AND PROTEST OF
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY ARE DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE.
The role of the faculty. The cessation of
faculty resistance in the Loyalty Oath controversy of 1950 established a pattern. [1]
Since then most of the real power to make policy has rested with an Administration
attentive to other counsels, and faculty powers have tended to be at best advisory. We
have already cited examples of the general tendency of the Administration to ignore the
recommendations of the faculty. There are many others: for instance, faculty protest
against the Administration's suspension of Slate in 1961 had no effect. [2] In
addition, individual members of the faculty are often reluctant to become leaders of
dissent through their fear of reprisals, which they feel might include loss of privileges
or even of their jobs. [3]
The role of the student government. The
ASUC, which ought to be the main vehicle for student criticism of Administrative policy,
has been almost ineffective in this function. Its recommendations, like those of the
faculty, have been largely ignored, and continual pressures by the Administration to
restrict its activities seem to have made it disinclined to question policy.
Administrative officials have at times discouraged the ASUC from criticizing their
policies, and often ASUC officials have felt that such criticism was not within their
authority.[4]
The role of the graduate students. The
graduates might have been expected to provide the leadership of student criticism of
Administrative policies. But they were disfranchised from the ASUC under highly
questionable circumstances, and did not manage to form a viable voluntary association. [5]
The role of Slate. The faculty and the
ASUC were ineffective in their criticisms of Administrative policies. Partly for this
reason, from its birth in 1958 Slate was the most constant and vocal voice of student
dissatisfaction with these policies. Slate representatives initiated most of the ASUC's
protests. Slate itself sponsored discussions on the regulations, and circulated literature
analyzing and criticizing them. In l96l Slate was suspended for supposedly violating the
Administration's regulations [6], and a later change in these regulations reduced
Slate to 'off-campus' status, exposing it to difficulties we have already discussed. The
disfranchisement of the graduates weakened Slate's position in the ASUC, and Slate was
made the object of direct attacks by the Administration. [7] The result has been to
reduce drastically Slate's role in making protests of any sort.
IN SHORT, THE POLICIES AND ACTIONS OF THE
ADMINISTRATION HAVE REDUCED SYSTEMATICALLY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POSSIBLE INTERNAL SOURCES
OF OPPOSITION TO ITS POLICIES. This pattern has not been restricted to organizations. The
Administration has at times attempted to publicly discredit individuals leading such
opposition, and recently suspended leaders of student opposition to its policies. [8] In
at least one case, the Administration has tampered directly with the mechanisms and bodies
of dissent, by effectively dictating a resolution supporting its policies to the ASUC
ExCom when public criticism of these policies was at a peak. [9]
How change in policies occurs. Since the
Administration both directly and indirectly discourages criticism of its policies, and the
customary channels for the expression of such criticism have been ineffective, groups and
individuals have sometimes resorted to more direct tactics to effect desired changes.
Taking note of the way the Administration responds to outside pressures, the students have
found that it sometimes responds similarly to internal pressures.
These inside pressures take two main forms, the
first being the threat of legal action. In 1959 students at UCLA filed suit to force the
Administration to allow leaflets to be handed out on campus. Rather than fight the suit,
which would have resulted in a decision as to whether University property was state-owned
or privately owned, the Administration adopted new regulations incorporating the desired
change.[1] Similarly, the threat of a lawsuit in 1962 on the Riverside campus
provoked the Administration to lift the ban on Communist speakers. [2]
The second main form of internal pressure has
been the organizing of dramatic public protest, in the forms of picketing and rallies.
Perhaps from fear of publicity, the Administration has shown considerably more sensitivity
to such protest, or to the threat of such protest, than to reasoned appeals through the
established channels we have mentioned.
For example, in 1959, when the Administration
ignored faculty recommendations and massive student pressure for modification of the Kerr
Directives, Slate held a rally in defiance of the regulations and sent a traveling
committee to organize supporting protest on other campuses. The Administration then issued
revisions embodying some of the original recommendations of the faculty. [3] In
the same year Slate held an on-campus rally in support of a local ballot proposition. The
Administration brought several members of the rally before the Faculty Committee on
Student Conduct for disciplinary action. More than 500 students attended the committee's
first session to insist that they were equally 'guilty' and to demand that they be subject
to the same possible disciplinary action. The committee discontinued its hearings.[4] In
Fall 1964, when the Administration had Jack Weinberg arrested for trespassing, the massive
demonstration that followed was responsible for charges being dropped against him and for
the formation of a committee to discuss policies that before had not been subject to
genuine discussion. [5]
The nature of changes in policy. When the
Administration does change its policies as a result of pressures such as we have
described, the force of its action is often lessened in two ways. Frequently the
Administration tries to placate protests by granting only the most minimal concessions.
Thus, in 1961 the SCLU organized a massive protest of the political restrictions of the
Kerr Directives. The Administration ignored all of their major demands, and made only a
minor change: it shortened the advance notice required for 'off-campus' speakers.[6]
At other times, the Administration makes an
apparent concession, but follows it with a new restriction which lessens its value. For
example, though the Communist Speaker Ban was lifted, a tenured faculty moderator was
required for all speakers judged 'controversial'. Such moderators are difficult to obtain,
and recently more and more speakers have been judged to be 'controversial'. [7]
The Administration' s responses to the student
protests this Fall provide striking examples of most of the problems we have sketched. The
Administration had ignored years of continual criticism by students and faculty through
established channels of protest. In banning the solicitation of funds and members by
student groups, the Administration suddenly and unilaterally reinterpreted existing
conditions without consulting the groups affected or the faculty.
When a large demonstration put the
Administration under pressures that it could not ignore, it responded to demands for
complete freedom of speech and assembly (which had been made for years) by granting only
minimal concessions: it dropped charges of trespass against one demonstrator and set up a
committee to make an investigation. It reduced the possible effects of this committee by
unilaterally determining the committee's composition. This composition was not acceptable
to the other party involved in the negotiations; pressure on the committee and the threat
of renewed demonstrations led to a more equitable composition of the committee. The
Administration disregarded the recommendations of a faculty committee, to whose
appointment it had agreed, that the suspended students be reinstated. Currently, there are
persistent rumors that the Administration is seeking to have legislation enacted to make
future demonstrations misdemeanors; the Administration's general legal counsel has refused
to comment on these rumors. [8]
The presence of 500 policemen on the campus the
night of October 2 demonstrated that a certain failure in dialogue had occurred. This
report has been prepared by an independent group in the University community, composed of
people agitated by this failure who wished to help provide a background for proper
dialogue about the issues it deals with.
We began to gather material on October 17; this
preliminary version was completed on November 2. The supporting body of evidence, in this
preliminary presentation to the Chancellor's Committee, includes some twenty studies
totalling 60, 000 words. Much more material remains to be edited. More than 100 persons
have contributed to the present form of the report; we hope to be able to give them credit
by name in the final version.
This report has been prepared under the general
editorship of Michael Rossman. Lynne Hollander has been responsible for editorial
coordination, and Marston Schultz and Tom Irwin for technical coordination.
We accept responsibility for any errors of fact
or interpretation which these pages, and those that follow, may contain.
[1],[2] As the
recent suspensions demonstrate, students who attempt to change the Administration's
regulations may be placed in the position of 'breaking the law'. But the students'
grievance, consistently ignored, is that the Administration has broken the laws by issuing
regulations which infringe Constitutional liberties. (There is considerable legal opinion
to this effect; see the appendix on Legal Matters. ) These regulations have been
based on a single interpretation of a sentence in the University Charter (Article IX,
Section 9 of the State Constitution), which states: "The University shall be entirely
independent of all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the
appointment of its Regents and in the administration of its affairs.'' Despite strong
faculty protest (see Appendix D) that the intent of this sentence was to prevent
political influences from acting upon the Administration itself, the Administration has
persisted in the following interpretation: that students who advocate 'political' causes
or distribute 'political' literature thereby ''involve the University as an
institution", and may only hold meetings on campus or on occasion indulge in such
activities at the will of the Administration. Always the definition of 'political' rests
with the Administration, and there is no appeal of its decisions.
For amplification of footnotes [1] and
[2], see the appendix on Legal Matters.
[3] Information
from these groups. For additional examples see Appendix A.
[4] Information
from these groups. For additional examples see Appendix A.
[5] Information
from these groups. For additional examples see Appendix A.
[6] By the Fall 1964
'reinterpretations' of the Kerr Directives. See the appendix on Free Speech 1964.
[7] See Appendix A for
examples.
[8] Daily Californian,
March 5, 1962. Also see Appendix A.
[9] See the several appendices on the ASUC and the
appendix on the Student Forum.
[10], [11] For
documentation and additional examples, see Appendix A.
[12] See the appendix on The
ROTC Controversy.
[13], [14], [15]
See Appendix B for documentation and further examples.
[16], [17] See Appendix
B and the appendices on the ASUC.
[18], See Appendix
B for documentation and further examples.
[19] See Appendix
B for documentation and further examples.
[1] See The Uses Of The
University, Clark Kerr; The Mind Of Clark Kerr, Hal Draper (published by the
Independent Socialist Club); and the appendix on Clark Kerr.
[2] And may hinder the
University's attempts to get funds. See e.g. the statement by Gerry Grey in the appendix
on The HUAC Demonstrations, and the appendix on Free Speech 1964.
[3] E.g., the University
received $227 million for special Federal research projects in 1961-62, over half its
budget. (See Sanity, September 1963, p.16)
[4] George Stewart, The
Year Of The Oath, p.28. (The quote is the Administration's, not his.)
[5] See the appendix on The
Loyalty Oath Controversy.
[7] See the appendix on The
Subject A Controversy.
[8] See affidavits in Appendix
C.
[9] The University later
returned, despite misgivings; the Administration still refused to contest PG&E's
decision. See the appendix on The Bodega Head Affair.
[10] For reinstatement of
the suspended students. See the appendix on Free Speech 1964.
[11] See the appendix on The
ROTC Controversy.
[12] See Appendix D, and
also the appendix on Women For Peace.
[13] See Appendix D.
[14] See the
appendix on The Kerr Directives.
[15] See the
appendix on Changes in the Kerr Directives.
[1] See the appendix on The
Loyalty Oath Controversy.
[2] See the appendix on Slate.
[3] Opinions expressed by
faculty members to the compilers of this report (see also the appendix on The Faculty.)
They have suggested as examples of possible reprisals loss of advancement, loss of
research monies, being forced to teach undesirable courses, etc. As an expression of these
and graver fears, the initiators of the faculty advertisement criticizing the presence of
police on campus this Fall permitted only tenured faculty members to sign the protest.
[4] See the appendices on The
ASUC.
[5] See the appendix on The
Graduate Students.
[6] See the appendix on Slate
And Due Process, the appendix on [7] See Appendix D and
the appendix on The Graduate Students.
[8] See the appendix on Free
Speech 1964.
[9] See Appendix C.
[1] See Appendix D.
[2] See Appendix D. Moreover,
other changes in the Administration' s regulations appear to have been influenced by
threats of lawsuits. See the appendix on Changes In The Kerr Directives.
[3] See the appendix on Changes
In The Kerr Directives.
[4] See the appendix on Free
Speech 1959.
[5] See the appendix on Free
Speech 1964.
[6] See note [3].
[7] See Appendix A.
[8] Daily Californian,
October 28, 1964. For other examples of the specific appearance this
Fall of the general problems we describe, see the appendix on Free Speech 1964.
Labor Donated
Copyright 1964 by Michael Rossman and
Lynne Hollander
Copyright 1998 by the Free Speech Movement Archives