The Daily Californian
Vol. 186, No. 10Thursday, October 1, 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
- Alice Wong, Business Manager
- John Gueldner, Advertising Manager
Editorials make no claim to represent student or University opinion.
Williams Refuses Demands; 700 Sleep in Sproul Hall
By Jim Branson
Almost 700 University students ran the risk of explusion yesterday to support violations by several student groups of the University's ban on advocacy of social action on campus.
In what was termed a "spontaneous demonstration," the students sat in the hallway of Sproul Hall's second floor and vowed not to move until their demands had been meet. Many of the groups planned to remain there all night.
The incident began at noon when the University friends of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee and Campus Congress of Racial Equality set up tables at Sather Gate. They didn't have the permits from the Dean of Students Office which are required for any tables or speakers on campus.
According to Mario Savio, one of the leaders of the Sproul Hall demonstration, the student groups were denied permits because it was suspected that they would attempt to collect funds for off-campus political or social action.
According to Brian Turner, who set up the SNCC table, funds were being collected. This is contrary to the University's recent edict.
When the tables were up two representatives of the administration approached the SNCC table and wrote down Turner's name. When Turner left Donald Hatch, a senior in history major, took his place. His name was also written down.
The adminstration representatives made no comment on their actions and would not reveal their names to the Daily Californian.
The incident was repeated later at the CORE table.
Five students, Turner, Hatch, Mark Bravo, Elizabeth Gardiner, and David Goines were requested to appear before Dean of Men Arleigh Williams for disciplinary action at 3 p.m.
Not five students, but almost 500 appeared in the hall outside William's office at 201 Sproul Hall. Most of them had signed a document stating that they demanded to share the blame with the original five.
The statement they signed read:
"We the undersigned have jointly manned tables at Sather Gate, realizing that we were in violation of University edicts to the contrary. We realize we may be subject to expulsion."
Savio, the apparent leader of the demonstration, issued two demands from the group:
- That everyone in the group who signed be treated exactly the same as the students who were summoned into Dean William's office, and
- That all charges should be dropped until the University clarifies its policy, and it is clear whether or not there has been any violation.
Savio said the group will stand absolutely firm on the first request, but might be persuaded to give a little on the second one.
Dean Wiliams said, "I cannot make any guarantee to concede to any request. We are dealing only with observed violations, not unobserved violations. And we will continue to do this."
By 4 p.m. there were nearly 700 students seated in the hall. At this point Dean Williams appeared and requested the original five students, plus three more, to enter his office to discuss disciplinary action.
The other three students were Savio; Art Goldberg, former chairman of Slate; and Sandor Fuchs, the present Slate chairman.
At the same time Williams also announced that a meeting with representatives of all groups protesting the University's edict, scheduled for 4 p.m., had been cancelled. The meeting had been set up Tuesday.
None of th eight people summoned entered Dean William's office.
Savio then announced that, since it appeared none of their demands had been satisfied, many students in the group would remain in Sproul Hall throughout the night.
"We want equal action," Savio said. "And that's no action, because they can't take action against all these people who are here. They're scared. We're staying."
Sproul Hall closes every evening at 7 p.m. According to Lieutenant Chandler of the University Police, one door would remain open all night. People would be allowed to leave by this door, but no one could enter.
The Young Republicans, the University Society of Individualists, and Cal Students for Goldwater announced that they disapproved of the Sproul Hall demonstration. We "are opposed to trespassing and lawlessness as means of protest," the groups announced.
Senate Delays Bancroft Action
Postponed by the ASUC Senate last night were two proposals to make a stand on the Bancroft-Telegraph issue.
The first proposal, submitted by Representative-at-large Frank Rossi, would have withdrawn the Senate's request for any "free speech" privileges on campus other than those the University has already granted.
The second, submitted by Rep-at-Large Art Shartsis, would have strongly condemned student demonstrations that have erupted over the issue.
Both resolutions were referred by the Senate to the Student Welfare and Activities Committee, which will consider them at 8 this evening in the Representatives' Office in the Student Union.
Mike Adams, committee chairman and men's residence hall representative, invited the public to attend.
Clarifying the issue in a Rep's Report, Senior Rep-at-Large Dan Griset stated that, at various locations on campus, the following is permissible: distribution of campaign bumper strips, literature for or against a political candidate or proposition, and information about a political party.
(Prohibited is the solicitation of political party membership and of funds for activities not authorized by the University, and the on-campus mounting of off-campus political or social action.)
In criticism of the Senate's in-action, Commuter-Independent Rep. Joe Hacker stated that "It is obvious that the ASUC is not an effective vehicle of protest. Our main road must be through direct action.
Hacker and Ed Wilson, the other Commuter-Independent rep, then took off for the Sproul Hall demonstration after inviting the other Senate members to accompany them.
Disagreeing with Hacker was Rep-at-Large Art Shartsis: "Screaming from the Sproul Hall balcony doesn't prove a damn thing.
"This will lead to the rule of anarchy," he said.
Students and student organizations today enjoy the fullest privileges in the history of the University, including discussion and advocacy on a broad spectrum of political and social issues. Some students demand on-campus solicitation of funds and planning and recruitment of off-campus social and political action. The University cannot allow its facilities to be so used without endangering its future as an independent educational institution. The issue now has been carried far beyond the bounds of discussion by a small minority of students. These students should recognize the fullness of the privileges extended to them by the University, and ask themselves whether they wish to take further actions damaging to the University. The University cannot and will not allow students to engage in deliberate violations of law and order on campus. The Slate Supplement report this fall urged "open fierce and thoroughgoing rebellion on the campus... in which the final resort will be Civil Disobedience." Individual students must ask themselves whether they wish to be a part of such action. When violations occur, the University must then take disciplinary steps. Such action is being taken. Eight students were informed individually by a representative of the Office of the Dean of Students that they were in violation of University regulations and were asked to desist. Each of the eight students refused to do so. I regret that these eight students by their willful misconduct in deliberately violating rules of the university have made it necessary for me to suspend them indefinitely from the University. I stand ready as always to meet with the officers of any student organization to discuss the policies of the University.
"I don't really know what to say," Mario Savio told the group of 500 students lying-in Sproul Hall this morning, after hearing Chancellor Strong's statement. "If you won't take this as the official statement of the group, I think they're all a bunch of bastards."
Mario was one of the eight students suspended, along with Art Goldberg, Elizabeth Gardner, Mark Bravo, David Goines, Dan Hatch, Brian Turner, and Sandor Fuchs.
Mario, acting as spokesman for the group, stated that the issue will be met with continued protest.
The three points of the future protest will be: 1) a fight for the dropping of disciplinary action against the suspended students, 2) a continuation of the fight for the demands on the Free Speech areas, including a proposed meeting with Chancellor Strong, and 3) the stipulation that no disciplinary action be taken against any students participating in further demonstrations.
Mario went on to say that the problem was that the parts to Clark Kerr's Multiversity Machine, the students, had broken down and were gumming up the works, and so naturally, the University had decided to expel the parts which weren't running smoothly. He elucidated on the analogy at some length, interrupted frequently by applause and cheers from the listening students.
Art Goldbert proposed that the tables be set up as usual with lines of students waiting to take the place of any student suspended.
The students returned to their lie-in, while representatives of the various political organizations supporting the "Free Speech Movement," including the suspended students, met to plan their future moves.
As the Bancroft-Telegraph controversy rages in full furor again, it seems a new era has dawned in student political demonstrations.
It is the "sleep-in," a term heretofore not used in reference to political problems. First it was Sproul Hall's steps. Last night, the second floor.
We admire the intrepidity and old fashioned persistance of the mixed political groups, despite a certain amount of rashness creeping into their methods.
The time is not ripe for an observer's assessment of the controversy, since its face and facets change daily. Earlier this week, we thought it had ended.
Whatever result, we hope that troubled minds occupying the hard hallways last night relaxed momentarily for blissful sleep.
It will be needed when the hard reality of classroom activities once again confronts them.
The Picket Fence: Free Speech Now!
By Eric Levine
Is the University's "willingness to listen to reason" really the important thing to remember in the current fight for the right to advocate political activity on campus?
A few students have argued this position.
But judging from the way the campus has come alive over the issue it is clear that most of us recognize that concessions won this year, like those won in the past, come only after direct pressure—after students showed that they really do want the opportunity to listen to exhortations.
Furthermore, the "off-campus" groups, from Goldwater supporters to the radical and socialist organizations, remain united and adamant in the face of administration restrictive actions and current threats of disciplinary action.
It is often forgotten that there was a time when off-campus speakers were not allowed on campus at all.
In fact, each beach head of free speech which now exists has been won from the administration in similar clashes.
Despite the brave rhetoric of President Kerr and Chancellor Strong, the University clearly is little concerned with the quality of educational experience at Cal.
Academic and libertarian standards are ignored in favor of grinding out degrees, fulfilling government contracts, and keeping peace with the community.
The current dispute is a perfect case in point. The Oakland Tribune complained to the Chancellor that students were recruiting their colleagues to protest the newspaper's hiring practices.
The Chancellor agreed to stop the practice.
He had Dean Towle announce that the traditional Bancroft and Telegraph table area was University property. Until the announcement, the Dean's Office had been telling groups that University rules did not apply there.
The rest is history. The united off-campus groups issued protests and put their bodies in the breach. As a result they won a series of concessions from the administration.
First, tables were allowed and a new open forum area was set up on the steps of Sproul Hall.
Then, modifying President Kerr's intransigent position of last Friday, Chancellor Strong on Monday allowed limited advocacy on campus.
Groups are still barred from advocating political activity, especially announcing demonstrations for civil rights. They also may not enroll members or otherwise collect money.
Meanwhile, the administration has failed after more than a week to set up clear permit regulations regarding tables. Yet they have refused permits in several instances without giving a reason.
Most groups agree that the University may regulate tables in order to be sure traffic is not blocked. But the university has in practice, so far used the permit rule as a bludgeon to restrict free speech.
Now, students protesting the restrictions are threatened with disciplinary action. The possibility has been raised by Dean Williams that some students may be expelled.
It is hard to believe that this University would dare expell a student who fights for free speech.
The only answer to University threats is continued pressure from the students, faculty and community. The prospects look good. Seldom has the entire campus been so united on one issue.
Letters to the Ice Box
To the Ice Box:
I am quite pleased and proud that so many of my fellow students are coming out to support the Freedom of Speech movement on the campus and I hope this will lead to an eventual victory. Win or lose on campus however, I would like to advocate freedom of speech and expression off campus. I refer to the fine old Berkeley practice of tearing the bumper strips off cars at night. This is an election year and feeling is high, but I would like to recommend that these feelings be expressed at the polls by voting rather than be defacing bumper strips. I refer mainly to Goldwater stickers, Baxter-Haas stickers, McNutt stickers, Mulford stickers and Yes on 14 stickers, which are all in a minority in the campus area of Berkeley. People who tear these off in the dark of night are presumably liberal and it is very likely that these same people were not so long ago fighting for the right of communist and fascist and radical middle speakers to orate on campus. Is freedom of speech to be for only those one agrees with? Let us be consistant or we may someday degenerate to the state where the thing to do on Saturday night will be to casually heave a bomb into an opposition party's favorite coffee house like the frantic times of Berlin in 1932.
graduate, business administration
To the Ice Box:
These words perfectly describe the disgusting hecklers at the free speech rally before the University Meeting. The University has been successful in its attempt to limit thinking to off campus grounds.
At the rally, interested students were annoyed by the immature, insipid, and vulgar comments of students who lambasted without thinking.
Are those who uttered these inanities the people this University is trying to protect? What are they protecting them from? The opportunity to evaluate reasonably all sides of a particular issue?
Since I am a defender of free speech, I acknowledge the heckler's right to degrade themselves.
However, I acknowledge and demand my right to be able to solicit funds to deserving organizations, and to make my fellow students aware of moral political activities—hoping that in the future these "people" will be creatively constructive rather than obnoxiously destructive.
("Intellectual masturbators" was a phrase used by Commuter-Independent rep. Ed Wilson speaking at the rally Monday by Wheeler Oak. —Ed.)
ASUC President Charlie Powell turned his back on the students at the University Meeting Monday.
"Our" President showed disrespect for student opinion when he criticized the demonstrators, since there were more students demonstrating than attending the meeting.
This is typical of Charlie Powell, who voted against the students and for the administration on the still undecided "free speech on campus" issue, a who has consistently voted this way throughout his career in student government.
As one would expect, Charlie Powell's criticism of the free speech-picketers sounded like an Administration statement. He said they were in "Bad Taste."
What Charlie failed to realize was that his own Senate voted 11-5 against the Administration (and several of our ASUC Senators were on the picket line), and therefore by all rights, he should have joined the line himself, to show that our student government wants to put pressure on the administration.
Charlie would probably say "There is a time and place for everything," but we students know that the time to put pressure on the Administration for our free speech is now.
junior, dramatic art
junior, industrial relations.
Title: The Daily Californian: Vol. 186, no. 13
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.