Chronology of Events
Three Months of Crisis - Part 2
From the U.C. Berkeley alumnii magazine California
Monthly
The following chronology traces events of the
"free speech" controversy Berkeley from Sept. 10,1964, through June 4, 1965.
Full texts of all important documents, reports, statements and resolutions are included.
Where full texts were too long for inclusion, they appear elsewhere online, along with.
relevant portions of the State Constitution, Education Code, "University Policies
Relating to Students and Student Organizations," and "The Position of the FSM on
Speech and Political Activity."
Reproduced with permission from the California
Monthly [Feb. 1965] Further segments (through June 4, 1965) appear in the March,
June, and July-Aug. issues. At present, the text below extends through October 28. We plan
to reproduce the rest through June 4, 1965.
October: 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 18 20 25 26 27 28
When ready, Parts Three
and Four will be linked from here.
1. The FSM Steering Committee met with Vice
Chancellor Alan Searcy to protest Chancellor Strong's "unilateral" appointment
of the Committee on Campus Political Activity without consulting the demonstrators and to
express dissatisfaction with the way student-administration negotiations were proceeding.
Arthur Goldberg said the Chancellor's action was "almost a breech of good faith by
the administration . .
"It is dangerous to start
out so arbitrarily. The University has put us in an impossible position before we
start."
President Kerr had
agreed to accept recommendations from the demonstrators, and failed to do so, according to
protest leaders. The protestors also claimed Chancellor Strong's action put them in a
position of inequality, since, they claimed, ten of the Chancellor's appointments were
opposed to the students" position.
The protestors
argued that a special committee of the Academic Senate should choose the faculty members,
the students would choose the student members.
2. The ASUC Senate passed a resolution asking
President Charles Powell to meet with President Kerr "to determine whether the
Administration has violated the spirit of Friday's agreement . . ." The Powell-Kerr
meeting would center on two points:
l) The manner of the Administration's appointment
of faculty members to the faculty student administration committee agreed to on Friday,
and
2) The Administration's referral of the cases of
the suuspended students to the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct.
The Senate also
decided that, if the students approve, it would negotiate with the Regents for detachment
of the controversial Bancroft-Telegraph area from the University and its establishment as
a "free area for political and social ction."
The ASUC Senate's
first move would be a poll to determine whether "the students wish it to attempt to
secure control of the Bancroft Telegraph area ... and if they would assent to the use of
ASUC funds for the purchase of the land." The Senate would consider itself bound by
the poll's results.
If the students
approved, two possible alternatives would be considered:
1) The ASUC would purchase the land and donate it
to the City of Berkeley, or to a trust of the Senate's choosing; or
2) The land will be donated or sold outright to
the City of Berkeley.
During the ASUC
Senate meeting, Commuter-Independent Representative Ed Wilson charged that the
Administration had failed to live up to the spirit of Friday's agreement. Specifically:
1) The Administration tried to force the anti-ban
students to postpone Monday's rally for seventy-two hours (in conformance with the
University's rules regarding non-student speakers).
2) The Administration should let the Academic
Senate choose the faculty members of the negotiating committee, rather than select them
itself, which the Administration already had done.
3) The district attorney was pressing charges
against Jack Weinberg, even though the Administration had agreed not to. (President
Kerr, in announcing the agreement, carefully pointed out that the University's decision
not to press charges against Wernberg did not prohibit the district attorney's doing so.)
4) The Academic Senate Committee on Student
Conduct does not exist. According to Friday's agreement, the cases of the suspended
students were to be referred to this group. Instead, Wilson charged, the cases have been
referred to the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct, which is appointed by the
Administration.
3. The Advocate Young Republicans, a group of
Boalt Hall School of Law students, issued a statement "disagreeing with, and
expressing condemnation of lawless behavior." The group also announced that it
disagreed with the rules set up by the University with regard to the restriction on
political conduct of students on campus.
The Committee on Campus Political Activity held
its first meeting. Ten FSM spokesmen appeared, presented a statement condemning the
Committee as illegally constituted and asked it to disband, then left. The statement read,
in part:
"As the duly elected
representatives of the Free Speech Movement (FSM), we cannot in good conscience recognize
the legitimacy of the present meeting.
"This present meeting is a
result of unilateral action by the Administration, and as such we cannot participate . . .
". . . We were not even
officially notified of this meeting.
". . . We respectfully
request this body consider itself illegally constituted and disband."
The Study
Committee's purpose, announced as the meeting convened, was to recommend action to the
Administration on the problem of political action on campus.
Following a
three-hour session, minus FSM representatives, the Study Committee issued two statements:
1) The Committee will conduct discussions, hold
hearings, and finally draft recommendations to the Administration as to proper University
policy.
2) The Committee will hold its first public
hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday (Oct. 13) in a room to be announced.
1. An FSM spokesman claimed the demonstrators
were surprised to discover the purpose of the Committee was study -- not negotiation. (The
first announcement of the Committee's name and purpose was made in statements issued last
night.)
Jack Weinberg said:
"The
Administration feels they have the sole right to say what this committee is supposed to
do."
Weinberg, the
former student whose arrest touched off the October 1 and 2 "police car"
demonstrations, is a member of the FSM Steering Committee. He claimed FSM representatives
had attempted to meet with Administration officials for two days, but had been unable to
do so.
2. Two conservative groups took issue with the
political ideas of the two students who may ultimately represent the demonstrators on the
study committee. In a joint statement, the University Young Republicans and the Cal
Students for Goldwater charged:
"These two are, in fact,
being chosen by a sub-caucus called the 'Steering Committee,' a group which believes in
unlawful solutions to legitimate problems, and which represents solely left-of-center
political groups."
FSM's press
relations group answered the above charges:
1) FSM's Steering Committee had attempted to
reach the conservative groups, but had been unable to do so.
2) The Steering Committee had been democratically
elected from members of the Executive Committee (which is composed of representatives of
all student groups involved in the demonstrations).
3) FSM intended to add four independent students
to its Steering Committee at a 7:00 p.m. meeting tonight.
3. ASUC President Charles Powell was unable to
meet with President Kerr, as requested in the ASUC Senate resolution, because President
Kerr was in Southern California.
4. President Clark Kerr, during a speech before
the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, said:
"The situation (at
Berkeley) is new in that students are more activist than before and that diverse groups
... are attacking the historic policies of the University. Students are encouraged, as
never before, by elements external to the University."
Kerr also described
the incident as "one episode -- a single campus, a small minority of students, a
short period of time."
5. President Clark Kerr answered student charges
of "bad faith" on the part of the Administration in a statement released
tonight:
"A question has been
raised about the appointment of the joint advisory committee. The minutes of the meeting
show the following:
"'Kerr: This committee
would have to be appointed by the administration.'
"It was noted that it was
the only agency with authorization to appoint faculty, students and administrators.
"A question has also been
raised about the 'Student Conduct Committee of the Academic Senate.' This is a misnomer.
It was used in a draft prepared by an informal group of faculty members. I did not catch
the misstatement at the time; nor did anyone else. The only such committee that exists is
the 'Faculty Committee on Student Conduct' which is composed of faculty members. The
minutes show the following:
"'Kerr: We need to
understand that the Committee does not make final determinations. You would have to be
aware that you would be dependent also on whatever confidence you have in the decency and
fairness of the Administration and respect for it.'
"The campus administration
went ahead promptly to show its good faith in appointing the joint committee and
submitting the suspension cases to the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct. The campus
administration reserved two of four student places for representatives of the
demonstrators as they clearly represent only a minority of students."
6. Following President Kerr's statement, the
faculty advisory group which proposed most of the six-point agreement of October 2, issued
the following statement:
"We who have sought to
mediate some of the issues growing out of the recent demonstration, deeply regret that the
present steering committee of the demonstrators took during the negotiations a rigid and
unreasonable position on the question of student representatives, jeopardizing the
successful organization of the student faculty-administration committee.
"We continue to believe
firmly in the importance of maximum freedom for peaceful student political action, and in
company with all individuals whose primary interest lies in this end, we shall bend every
effort to realize that objective."
7. Richard W. Jennings, chairman of the Berkeley
Division of the Academic Senate, said the Senate will consider directing the Committee on
Academic Freedom and the Committee on Educational Policy to inquire into the recent
University rulings on student political activity, the students' protest of the rulings,
and the problem of the students' rights to the expression of political opinion on campus.
8. Dean of Men Arleigh Williams sent letters to
the eight suspended students, informing them that in accordance with the agreement, their
cases had been referred to the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct. The letters also
asked the students to appear in the Dean of Students Office to set times for hearings. (Two
students appeared, but none submitted himself to the Committee.)
9. The Northern California branch of the American
Civil Liberties Union announced it had agreed "to intervene on behalf of the students
recently suspended by the University . . .
"The ACLU's position is
that the regulations which the students were alleged to have broken violate their
political rights as guaranteed by the first amendment ... the ACLU will challenge the
suspensions as a violation of due process of law."
10. Dean of Men Arleigh Williams received a
petition signed by about 650 members of 37 fraternities and sororities, asserting that FSM
was "composed of responsible students" and declaring support of its goals.
11. A petition was circulated among student
leaders by Sharon Mock, ASUC second vice president. The petition expressed a belief . . .
". . . that rational
democratic procedures should be used to voice opinion and to revise laws, since we as
Americans have benefitted by this process for years.
"We condemn the methods
... used by a minority of students and non-students which are disrupting the educational
process through the deliberate violation of present University and State regulations. We
also wish to preserve the Open Forum Policy which now exists on our campus as a result of
orderly democratic procedure."
(The petition was signed by
the presidents of Inte- Fraternity Council, Winged Helmet, Deutsch, Davidson, Griffiths
and Cheney Halls, Treble Clef, the Commute-lndependent Association,Golden Guard, and the
Spirit and Honor Society. It also was signed by the entire Panhellenic Council, most of
the Board and Cabinet of the Associated Women Students, and by 29 Oski Dolls.)
1. The FSM Steering Committee met with Chancellor
Strong and called for suspension of activities of the Study Committee until
representatives of the Administration and the FSM could reach agreement on "the
interpretation and implementation of the Pact of October Second" and either immediate
reinstatement of the suspended students, or submission of their cases to an ad hoc
committee of the Academic Senate, with the provision that the Administration would abide
by their decision.
The FSM
representatives stated that they could not recognize the legality of the Study Committee
without jeopardizing their leadership and control of the situation. They also maintained
that, not only the students, but also the faculty members selected to serve on the
Committee should be appointed by negotiations between the FSM and the Chancellor on
selections acceptable to the FSM.
Chancellor Strong
answered that, since the Study Committee had been appointed and was meeting, he would ask
it for advice on the propriety of suspending its activities. He also said that, since
interpretation of the intent of the Agreement was best referred to the signers, they might
discuss that point with the President. Chancellor Strong also explained that he had
referred the cases of the suspended students to the only existing appropriate committee
that could have been meant by the October 2 Agreement
2. A petition, signed by 88 members of the
faculty was presented to the Chancellor, urging reinstatement of the suspended students.
1. The Academic Senate passed two motions:
1) The first noted "with pleasure the
general improvement in recent years in the atmosphere of free inquiry and free exchange of
opinion within the University." This motion also declared in favor of "maximum
freedom of student political activity," and directed the Committee on Academic
Freedom to inquire into recent events and report to the Senate as quickly as possible.
2) The second motion recognized "the welfare
of the University can only be maintained if the peace and order of an intellectual
community are also maintained," and called upon all parties "to resolve the
dispute in peaceful and orderly fashion" and "make full use of the joint faculty
student-administration committee for that purpose."
2. FSM leaders contacted Earl Bolton, University
vice president-administration, and subsequently sent telegrams to Governor Edmund G. Brown
and Edward W. Carter, chairman of the Board of Regents, requesting that they be allowed an
hour to present their case to the Regents. The FSM leaders promised "mass
demonstrations" if they were not given "some clear indication ... that the
administration is not playing."
3. The Study Committee on Campus Political
Activity held its first public meeting at 7:30 p.m. in Harmon Gymnasium. Approximately 300
students attended. The Committee heard testimony from fifty students, all but one of whom,
as instructed by an insert in the FSM Newsletter, stated that the Committee was
illegally constituted and should disband.
Professor Arthur Ross, chairman of the Committee
on University Welfare, met with the FSM Steering Committee and agreed to discuss with the
administration proposed modifications of the interpretation of the Agreement of October 2.
1. Agreements were reached with the FSM, the
Administration, the Regents and the Study Committee, and wereannounced to a meeting of the
Academic Senate by a communication from President Kerr and Chancellor Strong, both of whom
were attending the Board of Regents meeting at Davis. The points of the new agreement
were:
1) The Study Committee was expanded from 12 to 18
members. The new members will include two faculty members named by the Committee on
Committees of the Academic Senate; two administration members to be named by the President
to represent the University-wide administration; and two additional student members plus
the two members initially assigned them to be named by the FSM Steering Committee. The
Study Committee would hold two or three public hearings a week and finish such hearings
within three weeks. No more than five silent observers and two silent attorneys were to
attend all meetings,and all findings and recommendations were to be by consensus.
2) The Academic Senate was asked to appoint an ad
hoc committee to hear the cases of the eight students suspended two weeks ago. The ad
hoc committee was to be advisory to the administration.
2. The Academic Senate, meeting in Berkeley,
unanimously granted the administration request to establish an ad hoc committee.
The Committee on Committees appointed Ira M. Hey man, professor of law, as chairman. Other
committee members were Robert A. Gordon, professor of economics; Mason Haire, professor of
psychology and research psychologist in the Institute of Industrial Relations; Richard E.
Powell, professor of chemistry and chairman of the department of chemistry; and Lloyd
Ulman, professor of economics and industrial relations and director of the Institute of
Industrial Relations.
The Academic
Senate, during the same meeting, also passed a motion introduced by Frank C. Newman, dean
of Boalt Hall School of Law:
"Whereas, the Berkeley
Division of the Academic Senate recently has gone on record as favoring maximum freedom
for student political activity and the use of peaceful and orderly procedures in settling
disputes;
"And, whereas, the
attitude of the Division has been widely misunderstood as condoning lawlessness, now,
therefore, this body reaffirms its convictions that force and violence have no place on
this campus."
3. Edward W. Carter, chairman of the Board of
Regents, sent a telegram to Mario Savio following the Regents meeting at Davis:
"The Regents have
concluded that in view of the study being conducted by the appropriate committee, no
useful purpose would be served by considering whether your group should be heard by the
Regents at this time."
4. President Clark Kerr, during a news conference
following the Regents meeting, reiterated his belief that some of the demonstrators
"had Communist sympathies."
5. The FSM Executive Committee met briefly this
evening and accepted the changes in the Study Committee and in the appointment of the ad
hoc Academic Senate committee. Fob lowing this meeting, Art Goldberg said:
""For the first time
in the history of the University, anadministration treated its students as representative
members of the University community. This is a major event in the life of the University
and for all the students on campus."
1. The FSM Steering Committee issued a statement
at 12:30 a.m.:
"The FSM has every hope
that the negotiations which we are entering into with the administration can be
productive.
"However, we hope that
President Kerr's attack upon us is not an indication of an unhealthy attitude with which
the administration is entering these negotiations.
"It is regrettable that
the President has resorted to such attacks and that the Board of Regents has permitted
President Kerr's attack."
2. The Board of Regents, meeting for the second
day at Davis, commended President Clark Kerr for his handling of the
"regrettable" demonstrations at Berkeley.
The Regents also
"reaffirmed the University's traditional policy of encouraging maximum freedom with
responsibility and disapproving resort to force or violence."
The FSM Executive Committee nominated its
representatives to the Committee on Campus Political Activity: Mario Savio, Bettina
Aptheker, Sydney Stapleton, and Suzanne Goldberg.
1. Chancellor Edward W. Strong appointed the four
FSM candidates to the Study Committee. Upon nomination of the Committee on Committees of
the Academic Senate, he also appointed Earl F. Cheit, professor of business
administration, and Sanford H. Kadish, professor of law.
2. Particle Berkeley, an on-campus group devoted
to encouraging student scientific research, was warned by the Dean of Students Office that
it faced the possibility of losing on-campus status, if it joined the Free Speech
Movement.
Jack Weinberg, as
FSM spokesman, said
"We hope this is not an
indication of future punishment to be given on-campus groups involved in the FSM.
"'On- and off-campus'
means 'what we like and what we don't like' to the Administration.
"This is a bad omen,
especially at the start of negotiations on the free speech issue."
(Particle
Berkeley has no official connections with PARTICLE MAGAZINE, a student scientific journal,
published by an off-campus corporation. Two members of the group represent Particle
Berkeley on the FSM Executive Committee.)
3. Chancellor Edward W. Strong issued a statement
warning of possible further demonstrations led by "hard core demonstrators":
"The hard core
demonstrators still are going to try to open the campus," he said. Chancellor Strong
identified "hard core demonstrators" as activists who had spent the summer in
Mississippi as civil rights workers. Strong went on to say: "The University will not
be used as a bastion for the planning and implementation of political and social
action." He said the activists returned to Berkeley thinking the University should
become more directly involved in social justice, and that some of those involved were
"professional demonstrators, but I won't smear all the other good kids by calling it
Communist led." As far as freedom of speech was concerned, Strong said, "the
University has truly an Open Forum policy, but we have to draw a line between the freedom
and the planning and implementing of political action."
4. Arthur Goldberg, speaking for FSM, answered
Chancellor Strong's statement:
"If 'hard core
demonstrations' means that we are still going to figh1 for our principles and the Free
Speech Movement, then Chancellor Strong is right." Goldberg said it was possible that
some of the demonstrators had been in Mississippi during the summer.
There are two types of
"political action," Goldberg explained. "It's sort of like the double
standard -- we (FSM) are the girls, with lock-out, and the administration is the boys,
with no limitations. When they want to talk about their Democrat and Republican politics,
it's 'University policy.'
"But, if we say anything
about social action, or something that might make people think, it becomes 'too
political.' If the University has a true Open Forum, why can't we advocate social action?
It seems we have a closed Open Forum."
5. Commuter-Independent Representative Edward
Wilson introduced a motion in the ASUC Senate which called for a test case in the courts
to settle the problem of administration responsibility on the free speech issue. Wilson
withdrew his motion in anticipation of a similar case to be initated by the American Civil
Liberties Union.
6. The expanded Committee on Campus Political
Action agreed that all decisions would be by consensus of students, faculty and
administration, each voting as a bloc with one vote.
The Ad Hoc Academic Senate Committee on Student
Suspensions (known as the Heyman Committee) requested that the eight suspended students be
reinstated during the course of the Committee's hearings.
1. Chancellor Edward W. Strong refused the Heyman
Committee's request for reinstatement of the eight suspended students.
2. The FSM Steering Committee issued a policy
statement, charging "the Regents have had legislation drafted which would make
certain forms of otherwise legal demonstrations on campus misdemeanors." The Steering
Committee also accused President Kerr of changing the regulations governing political
activity on campus (presumably, subsequent to the changes made at the beginning of the
semester). The Steering Committee also stated:
"If the administration
refuses to acknowledge the right to advocate off-campus political and social action, we
shall have to consider action as well as talk."
The three-page FSM
statement indicated a general dissatisfaction with the course of negotiations to date:
"We may soon have to admit
that the administration does not mean to deal fairly with us."
Specifically, the
FSM statement charged:
1) Instead of stating he supported the work of
the Committee on Campus Political Activity, President Kerr at tacked the FSM as
"non-students and Communists."
2) Chancellor Strong has refused to reinstate,
for the duration of their hearings, the eight students suspended for their part in the
free speech demonstrations. Thus, "apparently the students are guilty until proven
innocent."
3) The Committee on Campus Political Activity
will not allow the FSM counsel to question witnesses on points of law.
The FSM statement
further "demands that the administration acknowledge these on-campus rights:"
1) Freedom to advocate off campus political and
social action.
2) Freedom to recruit for off-campus political
organizations.
3) Freedom to solicit funds for off-campus
political causes.
4) Freedom from harassment of '72-hour rules' and
the mandatory presence at meetings of tenured faculty moderators and police.
3. Ernest Besig, director of the Northern
California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, threatened to take the
University to court. If the Heyman Committee fails to resolve the question of student
political rights, "we will undertake legal action," Bessig said. Any court
action would challenge the constitutionality of the disputed administration regulations
and the procedure by which the eight students were suspended, Bessig explained.
Peter Franck, head
of the Berkeley ACLU chapter, proposed two alternative methods of testing the
constitutionality of the University regulations:
1) Challenge directly the suspensions of the
eight students, or
2) Have someone else violate the regulations.
Franck indicated
the second proposal would probably be utilized, if court action became necessary. Franck,
who also is an attorney advising FSM members, also claimed the University Counsel's office
asked the Regents for permission "to draft legislation which would put teeth into the
present anti political activity rules." The Counsel's office would only make such a
request at President Kerr's urging, Franck contended.
4. Thomas Cunningham, University general counsel,
had "no comment" on the FSM-Franck charges that his office was drafting
restrictive legislation. Other University sources denied knowledge of either alleged
action.
1. Chancellor Edward W. Strong announced the
appointment of two University-wide administration representatives to the Committee on
Campus Political Action, bringing the Committee to full complement. The administration
representatives were Robert B. Brode, academic assistant to the President and professor of
physics, and Frank L. Kidner, University dean of educational relations and professor of
economics.
2. Two University faculty members attacked the
University regulations governing student off-campus political activity during an open
forum meeting of the Graduate Coordinating Council.
Seymour M. Lipset,
professor of sociology and director of the Institute of International Studies, described
the rules as "irrelevant and destructive to the purposes of the University. Social
action is relevant" to both graduate and undergraduate education. He said that while
the University has liberalized a great deal in the last six years, it still has not gone
far enough. He said he felt President Kerr has been responsible for "very significant
changes" in the liberalization of the University.
John R. Searle,
associate professor of philosophy, claimed that, while the avowed function of the
regulations is to keep the campus politically neutral, the actual result is an
"increase in the alienation, hostility and contempt" of the students toward the
Adminstration.
1. The Committee on Campus Political Activity
considered a recommendation that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution be the only
policy regarding political expression on campus. The recommendation was introduced by FSM
representative Sid Stapleton. Although the Committee did not adopt Stapleton's motion,
Mario Savio, another FSM representative, expressed pleasure with the proceedings. However,
Savio said if the Committee did not adopt the First Amendment as the only policy regarding
speech on campus, "we will have to consider more direct action."
The Committee also
heard an explanation, by Dean of Students Katherine A. Towle, of University policy
regarding on-campus and off-campus groups, and activities permitted these groups. It was
permissible, she said, for a speaker to recommend certain actions be taken, but it was not
permissible for a speaker to advocate such actions be committed:
"A speaker may say, for
instance, that there is going to be a picket line at such-and-such a place, and it is a
worthy cause and he hopes people will go. But, he cannot say, 'I'll meet you there and
we'll picket'."
2. The Heyman Committee, appointed by the
Academic Senate to recommend action on the eight suspended students, met today for six
hours and heard the cases of three suspended students: Donald Hatch, Mark Bravo and Brian
Turner. All three were charged with operating a table on campus without a permit, and
raising money for unauthorized purposes.
(To be continued, when someone lends a hand.)
Back to
Chronologies of the Conflict List