The Daily Californian

Vol. 186, No. 40

Monday, November 9, 1964 Copyright © 1964 by The Daily Californian All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
The Independent Berkeley Student Publishing Co., Inc. (The Daily Californian)
600 Eshleman Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720

  • Susan Johnson, Editor
  • Justin Roberts, Managing Editor
  • Jim Wilwerth, Assistant Editor
  • Hannah Shearer, Night Editor
  • Peggy Krause, City Editor
  • Stanley Schmidt, News Editor
  • Nancy Tolbert, Assistant City Editor
  • George Crow and Ron Enfield, News Photographers
  • Alice Wong, Business Manager
  • John Gueldner, Advertising Manager
  • Paul Neal, Night Manager
  • Chris Shores, Production Manager
  • Ken Luk, Promotions Manager

Editorials make no claim to represent student or University opinion.

FSM to Lift Political Moratorium

The Free Speech Movement his declared it will "lift (its) self-imposed moratorium on political activity" today following the impasses reached during the tense Committee on Campus Political Activity meeting Saturday. The Committee has not been able to agree on the first resolution proposed by the faculty for recommendation to the Chancellor.

Members of the FSM Steering Committee said Sproul Hall steps would be the focus of the resumption of political activities. They did not specify the nature of their activities.

Mario Savio, FSM Steering Committee members, said there would be nothing illegal, and nothing in the nature of a picket or demonstration.

According to Savio, the Committee on Campus Political Activity meetings have not shown promise of reaching a solution. Savio said the FSM could not accept the administration's demand that the University have jurisdiction over the legality and "appropriateness" of off-campus political activity.

Large numbers of teachers assistants and graduate students are expected to participate in the Monday political activities, according to FSM spokesmen.

A member of the FSM Steering Committee indicated FSM members were anxious to avoid violating any laws except the University regulations in question.

"The University has changed its position considerably through-out the period of negotiation," said a member of the FSM Steering Committee. "Originally there was no suggestion that the administration wanted to have jurisdiction over the legality of off-campus activities."

Whether the University will be able to take action against students who are involved in illegal acts off campus when the acts were advocated or organized on campus, (even though at the time the acts were organized or advocated they were legal) was the question discussed at the CCPA meeting Saturday.

University-wide Dean of Educational Relations Frank Kidner offered an amendment which read: "If acts unlawful under California or Federal law directly result from advocacy, organization or planning on the campus, the students and organizations involved may be subject to such disciplinary action as is appropriate and conditioned upon as fair hearing as to the appropriateness of the action taken."

A discussion between Kidner and Savio followed, during which Kidner said he believed an act would not have to be proclaimed unlawful for the administration to take action.

Sid Stapleton, student member of the committee and a member of the Young Socialist Alliance, said he felt the University would not be able to conduct a fair hearing due to political pressures, to which Vice-Chancellor Alan Searcy responded "the administration is made of men of good will."

A vote was taken on the Kidner amendment and it failed, with the administration voting affirmative, the faculty abstaining, and the students voting no.

The students offered an amendment which read: "In the area of first amendment rights and civil liberties the University may impose no disciplinary action against members of the University Community and organizations. In this area members of the University Community and organizations are subject only to the civil authorities.

Law Professor Sanford Kadish offered a substitute amendment which he said defined the notion of collective responsibility and incorporates into general law the problem of the responsibility of one person or a number of people.

Kadish's substitute amendment failed by one vote.

The student proposed amendment came to a vote. Administration and faculty voted negatively thus killing the amendment.

When it was obvious no agreement was going to be reached, Business Administration Professor Earl F. Cheit proposed it be reported to the Chancellor that points two through seven of the faculty recommendations were agreeable, and that the student and the faculty prepare a statement of the nature of their differences and present it with one as it stands, to the University community.

Savio agreed to making the differences public, but did not think part one was the only point of disagreement.

Rososvky said that he did not want any action on this until everyone was in agreement, and the meeting adjourned with no action taken.

FSM Statement

(The following was issued yesterday by the Free Speech Movement)

Ever since Oct. 2 the organizations composing the Free Speech Movement have voluntarily refrained from exercising their constitutional liberties on the Berkeley campus of the University of California. The FSM imposed this moratorium in the hope that agreement with the administration regarding any regulations could soon be reached. Although we continue to be a party to the Campus Committee on Political Activity, we feel that we must lift our self-imposed moratorium on political activity because the committee is already deadlocked over the issue of political advocacy and appears headed for a long series of radical disagreements... We must exercise our rights so that the University is not permitted to deny us those rights for any long period and so that our political organizations can function to their maximum capacity. Many students and organizations have been hampered in their efforts in the past election and in civil rights activity because of the moratorium.

Saturday the CCPA became deadlocked over the issue of the student's right advocate off-campus political activity.

... (the proposed) amendment is directly aimed at student participation in the civil rights movement and is totally unacceptable to the students. The administration would give themselves the right (1) to decide on the legality and the "appropriateness" of the students' off-campus political activity, (2) to decide the legality of the students' on-campus advocacy of off-campus action, and (3) to discipline the students in the area of their civil liberties.

... The Free Speech Movement proposed (an) amendment which is the position of the American Association of University Professors and the American Civil Liberties Union.

... The administration vetoed our position and insisted on the ability of the University to discipline students in the area of their civil liberties. The FSM believes that the University is not a competent body to decide questions concerning civil liberties, especially since it is subject to strong political pressure. Because students' rights have great political impact as well as legal significance, the courts should be the only body to decide upon them.

The AAUP has declared that "students should enjoy the same freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly, and the right to petition the authorities that citizens generally possess." The Free Speech Movement intends to exercise those freedoms on Monday.

Strong's Statement

The following is a statement from Chancellor Edward W. Strong:

If the FSM returns to direct action tactics, this will constitute a clear breach of the agreement of Oct. 2. Students and organizations participating will be held responsible for their actions.

Faculty Statement

The faculty representatives of the Committee on Campus Political Activity have released the following statement:

In view of the continuing newspaper reports that the FSM has threatened demonstrations in violation of the agreement under which the committee was constituted, the faculty representatives wish to reiterate their statement made at the Saturday morning meeting.

It is our belief that substantial progress has been made and will continue to be made so long as no action is taken which jeopardizes the continuation of the good work of the committee.

Once again, therefore, we call upon the FSM to abide by the terms of its agreement.

Agreement Out the Window

Editorial Page

The tables will be manned again today.

Student protestors have announed they "will exercise their Constitutional rights" and set up card tables on campus contrary to University regulations.

The Hearing Committee on Campus Political Activity is still meeting. It has not finished its work by any means.

Yet the student protestors cannot wait. Or rather they will not wait. They will not wait until the committee has accomplished the purpose for which both the administration and the students agreed it should accomplish.

The students will go ahead and man the tables anyway.

So what will it prove?

The students have made the point time and again that the only issue involved is complete free speech on campus. Several students were suspended as a result of what they believed was defense of that freedom, and several hundred more demonstrated in front of Sproul Hall for the same cause.

Then the six-point agreement was signed between the University president and student protest leaders. Both sides compromised to establish that agreement.

Students complained that the negotiations were going too slowly. But the complaints have focused on the committee's inability to come to fast unilateral decisions involving many complexities. And again much of the slowness came from the students themselves—refusing to participate in the Hearing Committee until more of their members were admitted to the committee.

The students wanted fair and impartial treatment. Fairness and impartiality does not mean immediate decisions.

Student protest leaders have signed their names to a six-point agreement. But today they will throw out that agreement if they participate or encourage further violation of existing University regulations—by civil disobedience and do not wait until the Hearing Committee completes its obligations.

When the students agreed with the administration to sit down and rationally talk over the problems of political and social advocacy on campus, they relinquished civil disobedience to obtain their ends.

There have been no reasonable provocations to break this agreement.

The administration has not broken the agreement. But the student protest leaders will today.

About this text
Title: The Daily Californian: Vol. 186, no. 40
Copyright Note: Copyright status unknown. Some materials in these collections may be - protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). In addition, the - reproduction, and/or commercial use, of some materials may be restricted - by gift or purchase agreements, donor restrictions, privacy and - publicity rights, licensing agreements, and/or trademark rights. - Distribution or reproduction of materials protected by copyright beyond - that allowed by fair use requires the written permission of the - copyright owners. To the extent that restrictions other than copyright - apply, permission for distribution or reproduction from the applicable - rights holder is also required. Responsibility for obtaining - permissions, and for any use rests exclusively with the user.