The Daily Californian
Vol. 186, No. 32Wednesday, October 28, 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
- Aune Van Dyke, Night Editor
- Alice Wong, Business Manager
- John Gueldner, Advertising Manager
- Paul Neal, Night Manager
Editorials make no claim to represent student or University opinion.
Regents Drafted Laws Charged
By Pete Benjaminson
The Free Speech Movement Steering Committee charged Monday that the "Regents have had legislation drafted which would make certain forms of otherwise legal demonstrations . . . misdemeanors."
The committee also charged President Clark Kerr with changing the regulations governing political activity on campus. (Presumably subsequent to the changes made at the beginning of the year.)
And in a spirit of growing impatience with negotiations, the Steering Committee 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."
Thomas Cunningham, University general counsel, replied with a "no comment" to the first charge. Cunningham would presumably be the official who would draft any legislation recommended by the Regents.
And all other University sources denied knowledge of either alleged action.
Peter Franck, an attorney for the FSM, claimed that the University Counsel's office asked the Regents for permission to "draft legislation which would put teeth into the present anti-political activity rules."
Franck contended that the Counsel's office would not make such a request to the Regents except at the urging of Kerr.
In their three page statement, the FSM steering committee indicated a general dissatisfaction with the course of negotiations so far.
"We may soon have to admit," the statement reads, "that the administration does not mean to deal fairly with us."
The statement charges that:
- Instead of stating that he supported the work of the Committee on Campus Political Activity, Kerr attacked the FSM as "non-students and Communists."
- 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, says the statement, "apparently the students are guilty until proven innocent."
- The committee will not allow the FSM counsel to question witnesses on points of law.
The FSM "demands that the administration acknowledge these on-campus rights":
- Freedom to advocate off-campus political and social action.
- Freedom to recruit for off-campus political organizations.
- Freedom to solicit funds for off-campus political causes.
- Freedom from harassment of '72 hour rules' and the mandatory presence at our meetings of tenured faculty moderators and police.
According to the committee, the most important demand for the FSM, "and the least palatable to the bureaucrats," is the first: freedom of advocacy.
Strong Adds Two Members
Chancellor Edward W. Strong has appointed two additional members completing the 18-member Committee on Campus Political Action.
Nominated from the staff of the University-wide administration, the new members appointed are:
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.
Letters to the Ice Box
To the Ice Box:
These negotiations are ridiculous. The California Supreme Court has shown ("Schwartz-Torrance Investment Corp. vs. Bakery Workers," 1964: see FSM newsletter) that it is a constitutional right even on wholly owned property, including company towns and shopping centers, for on- or off-property representatives to picket and to advocate action.
The FSM should immediately establish a status de facto of completely free speech on campus.
If any student is apprehended, immediate suit should be brought against the University. If the administration wants to negotiate there are other things to talk about.
Our rights as Americans are not negotiable.
To the Ice Box:
When a state reconsiders laws on capital punishment, they stop chopping heads off for a while. The Free Speech Movement recommended that while regulations on political action were under reconsideration there should be a return to the status quo before Sept. 21.
This is an appeal for limited privileges at Bancroft and Telegraph only.
The group against Proposition 14, for example, can have no redress or compensation for the loss of 100 to 200 precinct workers who could normally be recruited at tables in front of school.
If the Chancellor's Committee was honestly "reconsidering" the rules, they would not chop our heads off during negotiations.
However, the faculty and administration members rejected the FSM plea and would make no recommendation of their own on free speech in the "interim" period of talks.
Indeed, the committee is not reconsidering. As far as the administration goes, the spirit is not study but stall. They have spent over a week on procedural haggling.
This committee is re-teaching us what we already knew. If you want freedom on this campus, you've got to take it, not ask.
I intend to conduct myself this week as though I already had my constitutional rights of free speech and assembly.
Not At UCLA!
To the Ice Box:
Dear Sir: In the October 5, 1964 edition of the Daily Californian, you report that sympathy demonstrations were held on the UCLA campus for those demonstrations recently held on the Berkeley campus.
Neither myself nor the Daily Bruin editor were contacted to verify this report. I wish to inform your readers that to the best of our knowledge no sympathy demonstrations have been held on the UCLA campus.
Title: The Daily Californian: Vol. 186, no. 32
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.