FSM
WHY THE COMMITTEE DEADLOCKED
It is crucial that everyone be absolutely clear on the issues that deadlocked the
Committee on Campus Political Activity last Saturday. The differences between the
FSM-supported position and that supported by the Administration seem technical, but
we depend upon the intelligence of all concerned to see through the technicalities, to see
that the first position protects civil liberties, while the second denies them.
FSM Position on Advocacy
The range of civil liberties and political freedoms of any member of the university
community or anyone else which are constitutionally protected off the campus should be
equally protected on the campus. By the same of course, speech or conduct which is in
violation of law and constitutionally unprotected, should receive no greater protection on
the campus than off the campus. In the area of speech and political conduct the University
may not regulate content, and must leave to the appropriate civil authorities the sole
right to punishment for any transgressions of law. While we recognize the need for
appropriate regulations regarding the time, place, and manner of exercising constitutional
rights, based upon maintenance of the appropriate function of the University and its
peaceful operation, such regulations may not either directly or indirectly interfere with
the right to speech or the content of such speech.
The Lawyers of the American Civil Liberties Union
Support the Above Position
Administration-supported position on advocacy: (This was the most
liberal position of the several taken by the Administration in the Committee.) (It is not
clear that they remain willing to grant even this much.) If unlawful acts directly result
from campus advocacy, for which unlawful acts (deemed finally and conclusively unlawful in
a court of law) the speaker or his organization can fairly be held directly accountable
under prevailing legal principles. By virtue of this on-campus advocacy the University
should be entitled to impose appropriate disciplinary action against the speaker and his
organization.
The Differences Between the Positions
(In questions of advocacy, two distinct acts are involved: the act of advocacy, and the
act that is advocated. For example, if someone speaks on campus advocating a sit-in and
the sit-in does occur, that person's speech is the act of advocacy and the sit-in is the
act advocated.) The Administration position is unacceptable in two respects.
1. It allows the University to pass judgment on the legitimacy of the act of advocacy
itself (although it gratuitously allows the courts to determine the legitimacy of the act
that is advocated). It is not within the competence of the University to make such
judgments. Only courts of law are competent to make them.
2. It allows the University to impose punishments for acts of advocacy that it deems
illegal, This would be unacceptable even if the judgments as to the legality of the act of
advocacy were left to the courts. Just as the civil authorities are the only ones
competent in these cases, they are also the only ones competent to impose punishments.
For the University which is an arm of the State to punish the same act that the courts
punish is, in fact, double jeopardy.
The Practical Effect of the Administration-Supported Position
The practical effect of giving the University the power to judge the legitimacy of acts
of advocacy and to impose punishments on the basis of these judgments is to give the
University a weapon. This weapon would be dangerous and potentially lethal to effective
political action on this campus. It is clear that the University is subject to great
external pressure. The power of this pressure was illustrated last spring when the
University attempted to take disciplinary action against student demonstrators
participating in sit-ins at the Sheraton-Palace Hotel and the auto agencies. The
University proposal would give the administration the power to impose disciplinary action
against students for advocating off-campus political and social action.
Further, the Administration would have the power to take away all the on-campus
rights of the organizations that sponsored that advocacy on campus. It would, if accepted,
now give them a weapon in the future to crush any student movement on this campus that had
become effective enough in the outside community to bring pressure on the University to
repress.
Both in principle and in effect the Administration-supported position constitutes an
intolerable infringement upon political rights. That is why we voted against this proposal
in the Committee. We made clear at that time that we were willing to continue discussions
on other issues in the committee. We regret the Administration's unilateral dissolution of
that body.