Search this Site    --   FSM-A Home Page

FSM-A \ Free Speech Movement Archives FSM-A


Statements of the University
Students for Law and Order


Leaflet, early December.

The organization which I represent, University Students for Law and Order, was organized as an alternative course of action to the so-called Free Speech Movement. We believe that the FSM has exceeded the limits of protest acceptable to the majority of students at our university.

There is no need nor is there any excuse for civil disobedience on this campus. Those students involved demand protection of their rights while at the same time they are violating our rights.

As an organization, USLO does not pretend to know solutions to the varied and complex problems which presently confront us as students. But one fact is undeniably clear --that unless we are willing to express ourselves as a responsible body, we have no right to expect the continued financial support of the community at large.

As a course of action, USLO urges the students to support the legally constituted administration of this campus on all issues until such a time as the civil judicial authorities dictate otherwise.

We therefore request that you express your moral support of our viewpoint by signing the petition which is now being circulated and by disassociating yourself from the FSM.


Leaflet, December 7, 1964.

Before Dr. Kerr became president, the following conditions existed on campus. In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, Democratic party nominee for the presidency of the United States, was not allowed to speak on this campus. He was a political speaker and for that reason was not allowed to appear.

Before President Kerr took his present position the governor of California could not even address a political-science class in session here on campus. Today, speakers may talk on any subject. An example of this is the appearance of a Nazi, Sergeant Forbes, last spring.

Through the direction, support, and energies of President Clark Kerr the OPEN FORUM has been initiated, and the SPEARERS' BAN LIFTED. More liberalization of regulations at the university has taken place in the past six years, under Kerr's direction, than happened in the ninety years before he assumed the presidency.

This man, Clark Kerr, speaks today in the Greek Theater at 11:00 A.M.!


Leaflet, December 9, 1964.

"Support the Academic Senate" is the new slogan heard around the troubled Cal campus. Why?

Because the Academic Senate has supported the FSM.

"Down with the administration" is another popular but slightly hackneyed slogan resounding from the Terrace to the Steps of Sproul Hall. Why?

Because the administration will not be intimidated by the tactics or demands of the FSM. Because the laws and statutes of California say it CANNOT.

If the Regents approve the Academic Senate Resolution passed on December 8 then we can look forward to a new slogan "Support the Regents." If instead they choose to stay within the present interpretation of state law and reject the proposal we shall hear, "Down with the Regents!"

The next step is to change state law. If the voters refuse to do this, what? "Down with the State"? Will this be the next cry? Don't fool yourself. FSM is not going to stop now! A "victory rally" today at noon. Another rally tomorrow. They're not going to stop so long as so many are under their control.

In a press conference after the Academic Senate meeting yesterday Mario Savio warned the Regents and the statethat if the senate resolution were not rubber-stamped then the university could expect further trouble. Mario Savio WARNED the Regents and the state.

We of the University Students for Law and Order wish to make it clear that we are firmly opposed to any further disruptions on this campus. That we continue our activity under this uneasy truce demonstrates that we do not believe the FSM will stop. No matter what concessions are granted to them, they will continue towards their purpose of bringing ALL wheels to a grinding halt.



Leaflet, December 14, 1964.

Pardon us for patting our own backs. But a prediction by University Students for Law and Order that the FSM is not going to stop is being proven daily. Savio and other FSM officials have taken their "crusade" to the country. Mario's departure for his national tour came shortly after revealing to the press that he was "tired of rallies" and that he was going to resume his function as a student. The next day, in New York, after directing several weak rallies on campuses across the country, he threatened a massive rally in New York City's Times Square

Evidently Savio's "protest" across the nation is falling flat. What has he left in his wake at this university? Faculty members on both sides of the issue have threatened to resign. An unresolvable dilemma has been raised. Recruitment of new faculty, with the situation at such a crucial stage, is impossible. Democratic ideals have been flaunted in the name of democracy and threats of continuing these flaunts have been made. A Latin-American style of government is being initiated --stability is fighting against instability.

At Penn State, where Savio spoke, university President Walker said that the FBI had informed him last March that there would be "an organized attempt, using bogus students and bogus faculty members, to divert the energies of students into channels embarrassing to our universities." He further said that they would be using slogans like "Free Speech" to achieve their goals.

Whatever decision is made by the Regents must be accepted by the university, whether we agree with it or not. It is only when the legally constituted authority is recognized that the university can continue to function. It is only when the divisive tactics predicted last March are repudiated that the framework of law and order can prevail.

If the FSM refuses to abide by the decision of the Regents, it is their prerogative. But let them challenge this decision in the courts. Are they so afraid that their position is legally indefensible that they will refuse to do this? Or are they rallying students to revolt for revolution's sake?

What is the position of FSM? Why are its leaders turning to the nation in an attempt to heap discredit upon the university? Why do they refuse so categorically to follow the judicial processes on which America was founded? When will they be satisfied? Where will their putsch end?




Leaflet, December 17, 1964.

USLO does not advocate either the acceptance or the rejection of the Academic Senate proposal. We continue to publish for one principal reason: we firmly believe that the Regents will not, in fact, accept the proposal in its entirety. The reasons behind our belief are, in part:

1. There is no reason for this governing body to abdicate any of its power. It would if it accepted the proposal.

2. In light of past decisions of the Regents, we feel that they will continue to maintain the balance of its power as the final controlling body over this university.

3. In a recent court decision, Wilkenson vs. Ohio State University, the court maintained that it was not only the right, but the responsibility of the president to regulate student activity both on and off campus, and that the president had the right to regulate THE CONTENT OF SPEECHES ON THE CAMPUS.

Assuming then, that the Regents do reject or at least defer the proposal, or any part of the proposal, WHAT WILL BE THE FSM's COURSE OF ACTION? We believe that renewed demonstrations and strikes will occur in an attempt to completely "bring the wheels to a grinding halt."

It must be emphasized that each and every student who supports or honors future FSM demonstrations and/or strikes will have to realize his responsibility for the probable consequence: legislative control of the University of California. The public at large feel that they have an investment to protect here, and that they cannot permit chaos to prevail.

The immediate goals of the FSM are exemplified in the five points of the Academic Senate proposal. Many responsible and dedicated people have worked, and continue to work, to achieve these points through peaceful negotiation. Don't be led into believing that strikes and demonstrations are the ONLY solution.

The ends do not justify the means, especially in regard to the ends and means now in question upon this campus.

A little foresight should reveal that a future strike, or any other disruptive action on this campus, will completely destroy any hope of attainment of these goals.

We submit, for the benefit of all, that the Regents' decision be accepted. Further action must be limited to the courts and other legal bodies.



Search this Site    --   FSM-A Home Page