Defendants' Letters — C

July 12, 1965

The Honorable Rupert Crittenden
Berkeley Municipal Court
Berkeley, California

Dear Sir:

Before giving my reasons for participating in the Sproul Hall sit-in of December 2-3, I should like to clarify several points.

It certainly was not Mr. Mario Savio's oratory ability that induced me to enter Sproul Hall. Nor did I enter Sproul Hall with the intention of purposely committing an illegal act just for "kicks". Above all, I did not have a childish desire to see the administration cease functioning in an academic capacity.

Rather, I participated in the sit-in because I believed that the administration's action with respect to political advocacy on campus was wrong. At that time, according to available information, normal channels of communication between administration, students and faculty had been all but closed. The sit-in was the last resort to reopen the channels and to establish a means of discussion between students and administrators. I felt that the effectiveness of the sit-in would depend on the number of people supporting it actively. So I joined the ranks in order to demonstrate to the administration that university students wish to have their political rights respected.

Yours very truly,

[July, 1965]

Judge Rupert Crittenden,
2120 Grove Street,
Berkeley, Calif.

Dear Sir,

I would like to take this opportunity to attest to the character of my son, who was recently found guilty in your Court on Charges arising from the University Free Speech demonstrations, and to offer you some information regarding his background and behavior pattern.

I am a retired Major, having served almost 23 years in the United States Air Force. At the time my son was involved in the incident mentioned above, I was in Australia engaged in operating a successful business in Loss Assessment in Industrial Accidents etc.

When — wrote to his mother and myself informing us of his problem, we both realized the seriousness of these charges and the far reaching effects they would have on his future, so I gave up my business and returned to the United States to be nearer my son and to use my influence as his father in an effort to prevent any further such actions on his part.

I hereby state that he has never been arrested for any reason what-soever before this time. He has never been any type of problem child to his mother or myself, and scholastically he has been a little better than average. Never at any time have any of his school teachers found it necessary to make derogatory remarks on his Report Cards, or to bring to our attention any misbehavior on his part in school. Nor has there been at any time any indication that he resents authority or disciplinary measures.

Most of his life until my retirement in 1961 was lived on Military Reservations, 7 years of which were spent with me on my overseas assignments, and I believe he was subjected to a way of life which indicated to him that our laws and restrictions must be obeyed.

When I went to Australia in 1961 accompanied by my wife and our son he soon after applied to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in Melbourne for employment in the capacity of Laboratory Technician, and upon his acceptance in same, proved to be able and was extremely well liked by both his Superiors and Contemporaries alike.

The man for whom he worked directly, is at present in the University Of London in England, and has indicated that when he returnss to Australia he would be very glad to employ in any capacity, prefer ably with his Degree in Bio chemistry from the University of California.

It was partially due to this suggestion and also our own wishes that decided last year to return to America and apply for admittance to the University of California. This was the first time he had lived away from our home.

I have discussed the circumstances of my son's arrest with him, and find he still feels very strongly about the principles involved in the Free Speech Movement. However he has made it quite clear to both my wife and myself that he has learned a valuable lesson from this episode. We will appear in Court with our son on July 20th next.

Yours faithfully,

[July, 1965]

Judge Rupert Crittenden,
2120 Grove Street,
Berkeley, Calif.

Dear Sir,

I can only add my heart felt recommendations to my husband's remarks. We were married in Australia in 1942, and I came to the United States on a freighter, through the war torn Pacific Area one year later to join my husband who had been returned with his squadron in the 19th Bomb Group. He was a Sergeant at this time.

In 1946, in Baltimore, Maryland, I was one, if not the first foreign bride of the 2nd World War to become an American Citizen. I was very proud indeed to offer our son the traditions and background of his father's Country and to choose it as my own; and in the years since then I have had many reasons to be very happy and proud in my marriage and the choice I made.

— accompanied us regularly to Sunday School and Chapel at all our Air Force Bases and was Confirmed in the Episcopalian Church in Amarillo, Texas in 1954.

He was very active in School and Chapel activities during the four years his father was stationed in Germany, and upon our return to the United States in 1960, he became an Acolyte and worked in Chapel activities with Chaplain (Lt.Col) Kennickle at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.

It is just 3 weeks since my husband and I returned from Australia to be with at this time.

It was my husband's wish when he retired from the Air Force in 1961 to return to Australia and start in business. — had graduated in the top 20 per cent of his High School Class in Florida and we were very happy when he made his decision to return to California and enter the University here last year.

We also, unhesitatingly, gave up our business in Australia and have now taken up residence in Berkeley. We were here just one week and we (my husband and myself) were offered the Management of a very nice apartment house at the above address by the owner and landlord, — Attorney at Law, of San Francisco.

My husband and I are staunchly and loyally in back of our son in his trouble at this time although it grieves us both that he has been involved in this unfortunate breach of the law.

We will be in Court with him on 20th July next.

Yours very sincerely,

July 13, 1965

Honorable Rupert G. Crittenden
Judge of the Municipal Court
2120 Grove Street
Berkeley, California

Dear Judge Crittenden:

Would you please accept this letter as a plea for leniancy for my son, has never been in any trouble before and since graduating from the University of California at Berkeley he has worked diligently for the City Roofing Company, Inc., of which he is secretary and treasurer. He has been saving every nickel he can earn to pay his way through graduate school at California State College at Fullerton at which he has enrolled next semester. I respectfully plead that you show my son all the leniency that you can so that he may be able to continue his studies uninterrupted.

Yours truly,

July 7, 1965

Honorable Rupert G. Crittenden
Judge of the Municipal Court
2120 Grove Street
Berkeley, California

Dear Judge Crittenden:

I have been asked to write to you on behalf of one of the defendants in the actions arising out of the October "sit-ins" at Sproul Hall, University of California, Berkeley.

I have known — and his natural mother and father for quite some years. They are all sincere, hardworking and honorable people. One of the family characteristics is a strong motivation to stick to a job and to do it right when they firmly believe in their cause. They can be great helpers or allies when they are on your side, or fierce opponents when they are against you.

— as I may refer to him in this letter, has been awarded a B. A. degree in paleontology at the June, 1965, Commencement at Berkeley. Prior to his graduation he worked for his father in the roofing and contracting business for many summers, as well as working on projects as far away as Mexico and Central America. He is an excellent student, and associates well with his fellow classmates. He is respectful of his family obligations, and is well thought of by his friends, family, and business associates.

To my knowledge he has never been arrested, has never participated in any other demonstrations other than Sproul, has never been in trouble or discharged for cause from any business or occupation.

One of the most interesting things about him is his tactful way of dealing with situations. I am reminded that recently in honor of United Nations week he flew the U. N. flag from a flag staff in front of his home. When a passerby objected to this flag being flown instead of the United States flag, he tactfully wrote a letter suggesting the complainant and he get together and discuss the situation. I think this speaks of the man's understanding and capability.

I am certain in my own mind that this young man, as well as many others, were misled and induced to participate in Sproul on false premises. I believe he should be given every consideration that you can possibly give him in this case in order to make the result fair under the circumstances. I ask your consideration on his behalf.

Yours truly,

July 14, 1965

The Hon. Rupert Crittenden
Municipial Court
Berkeley, Calif.

Dear Sir,

My lawyers have explained to me that you have requested a personal statement from each of the defendants in the Sproul Hall sit-in trial.

I am sorry that my response is so late. I did not write to you earlier because I felt that the reasons for my entering Sproul Hall on Dec. 2 and participating in the subsequent petitioning of government authorities by means of a sit-in and civil disobedience had been accurately represented by the evidence presented at the trial.

I sincerely believe that my position has already been clarified and I do not want to take up your time with mere repetitions.

I am writing now at the advice of my lawyers only to assure you that I desire to co-operate with your request but simply have nothing further to say.

Respectfully,

July 12, 1965

Dear Judge Crittenden,

In order to justify my participation in the December 2 sit-in in Sproul Hall, I must begin with some personal background information. I spent my first year in college at U.C.L.A.. Although I have never been terribly active in politics, I have always been concerned. At U.C.L.A. I was aware of the fact that the great majority of the students were oblivious to national and world changes and those who were not oblivious seemed to feel that they were personally far removed, and little effected by any political matters. Not sharing that belief, I was dismayed by the apathy that surrounded me. Upon visiting the Berkeley campus for a short time during the summer of 1963, I was greatly impressed by the healthy atmosphere of concerned and committed students. This was one of the major reasons that I transfered to the Berkeley campus, for I truly believed that the availability of inspired "propaganda" from many sides of many issues and a continuous flow of debate and dialogue, both official and unofficial, would help me to reach intelligent theories, conclusions, and committments about vital issues. The atmosphere of an intellectual open forum, such as was visible at Berkeley, seemed to embody my concept of the essence of a democracy. When I first learned of the Administration's desire to change this situation my immediate and logical conclusion was that any attempt to stifle a democratic environment was undemocratic. I believed that the spontaneous student protest to the Administration was based on legitimate grievances, and my naivete at the time lead me to believe that intelligent


2
people — students, faculty, and administrators — would be able to quickly remedy the situation through a real dialogue based on mutual respect and reasonable discussion. The situation that followed was personally very frustrating. I was repeatedly amazed and disillusioned by the fact that student protest was continuously ignored, and if not ignored it was labeled irresponsible and unworthy. It was also a difficult task to recognize that the faculty was in a state of inertia, due to either fear or apathy. Each attempt by students to use all of the existing "legal channels" was effectively thwarted. Even after months of massive student protest the Administration tried to treat the situation as if only a handful of students were concerned. The three letters, indicating future disciplinary action against three students for their involvement in the student protest, that were sent to three students during the Thanksgiving Day weekend were indicative and symbolic of the fact that the Administration refused to admit that the protest movement had broad student support and initiative. I believed that at that time, when so much else had failed, the Sproul Hall sit-in was a legitimate and concrete means of presenting our grievances in such a manner as to disallow future denial of the fact that such grievances did exist.

Consequent changes on the campus seem to indicate that our protest was morally justifiable and legitimate; and although you have found us guilty of a misdemeanor, I hope that someday such peaceful and well-meaning demonstrations will be considered by the courts as legitimate and constitutionally protected.

Respectfully Yours,

July 7, 1965

Judge Rupert Crittenden
Berkeley Municipal Court
Berkeley, California

Your Honor:

I am unsure where to cut into the time period in this explanation. Two weeks before the sit-in, I had thought that matters might be straightened out. The necessary condition for this would have been a liberal interpretation of the rulings laid down by the Regents at their November meeting. When Chancellor Strong sent out letters to four students charging them with acts committed over two months before, I reasoned that a liberal interpretation was not forthcoming.

In the light of these events, I regarded the call for a sit-in on December 2nd as an attempt to communicate with the administration when other means had failed. Despite all the technical nuances of the previous months, and the charges by both sides, I felt that there could have been such communication, but there was not

In making my decision to enter Sproul Hall, I weighed the FSM demands and the consequences of the sit-in. I had been a follower of the FSM and, whil disagreeing with the tactics of the Movement at times, never disagreed with its essential demand. I also considered the larger issue of the position of students in the modern university and the needs for educational reform, and thought the demonstration might help this.

I recognized the possibility of my being arrested for trespassing. I do not recognize this law, in itself, as an unjust one. Trespassing, however, was not the object of the demonstration; the object was to gain recognition of the FSM demands and the acceptance of them. I decided in favor of the latter.

Sincerely,

June 13, 1965

The Honorable Rupard J. Crittenton
Berkeley Municipal Court
Berkeley, California

Dear Sir:

I entered Sproul Hall on December 2 at 11:30 a.m. I remained in Sproul up until the time I was arrested and removed from the building at 12:30 p.m. December 3.

Since early in September I had followed the issue of political freedom upon the campus. I was present when Slate held their first news conference after Dean Towle announced the restrictions upon political activities at Cal. I participated in the all night vigils, the march to the Regents meeting and numerous rallies.

My state of mind as I entered Sproul Hall is a very difficult thing to describe. I believe the most important reason I entered Sproul Hall was I felt the Administration acted unjustly in handling all the issues involved. They acted much as if freedom of political advocacy was democratic only as long as they could control it. Also I felt they refused to even consider student demands, much less meet them. The students acted aggressively, not because they wanted to rebel, but only because the administration failed to acknowledge the legitimate role of a university student in a university belonging in part to him.

A secondary reason for my participation in the student protest was because I'm repulsed by living in a society in which apathy is the rule and not the exception: people who watch a woman raped and murdered and don't even try to come to her aid, people who think Proposition 14 should have been defeated and never went to the poles to vote. The list is endless. We have a conception of an ideal, the "Great Society" and it's every individual's responsibility to make that ideal a reality. Failing at this seems to be a much worse crime than taking action to revitalize and build upon anideal, even though that action is deemed illegal.

Another reason for my action was a realization that our society operates under a double standard. Free speech is all right as long as communists don't have it. Bare bosoms in San Francisco are immoral, but burning women and children with napalm bombs is moral because we're making the world safe for democracy. How much $$Word$$ can we become? Democracy cannot be safe; the seeds of its destruction are inherent in its conception. This is the chance any system which operates without oppression must take.

The preceeding paragraphs describe my "state of mind" before, during, and after the Sproul Hall sit-in. Thus I stand judged guilty, but it is a guilt I shall bear proudly.

I hereby swear that the preceeding statement is true.

Sincerely,

July 4, 1965

To: Judge Crittendon
Subject: Sproul Hall Sit-In

The most important right of free men in a free society is the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the right to be heard, the right to advocate, the right to protest — it is not the right to yell in the desert. Each right is to some degree interchangeable; each is a necessary condition for the other; all three must be guaranteed if freedom of speech is to be a legal reality. The Berkeley administration of the University of California has been engaged in a systematic and premeditated effort to abrogate these rights for its students. When a body of law becomes merely punitive; that is, when it is applied in such a way as to subject the exercise of basic rights to arbitrary and indiscriminate legal harrassment, protest must of its very nature become civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is an exemplary gesture. It is both a dramatization of moral committment and a means of submitting to judicial examination the validity of the rights exercised and the validity of the laws that impose the the condition protested. Civil disobedience is not an act of revolution or anarchy; it is not meant to justify murder, rape, arson, theft, or assualt. It is meant to justify "trespassing," failure to disperse, and the passive "resistance" of arrest.

July 8, 1965

Honorable Rupert Crittenden:

The history of the Free Speech Movement has been covered adequately in the trial proceedings and recently in the Byrne Committee Report.

My reasons for participating in the sit-in last December are similar to those presented in court. I did not believe I was acting with malice or contempt, but felt that sitting-in was the only means available to accomplish the following:

  1. to bring the free-speech issue to public attention;
  2. to open the way for a genuine redress of grievance;
  3. to set the scene for a dialogue between members of the campus community; and
  4. to dramatize the need for an effective means of communication on the Berkeley campus.

Respectfully submitted,

July 7, 1965

Judge Rupert Crittenden
2120 Grove Street
Berkeley, California

Honorable Rupert Crittenden:

Prior to December 2, 1964, I had been a student (BS,MS), a college instructor, a bank-management trainee, and a military policeman (see resume enclosed please).

I have been working full time as an economist since May 17, 1965. I am pleased with the job and feel that my employers are equally pleased with my efforts. They do not know of my arrest because the recruiting formalities took place before December 2, 1964. I intend this job to my a career.

Before my arrest in Sproul Hall, I had never been adversely involved with the law.

I was married this Spring to a Berkeley student. We are expecting a baby during the Christmas Season and we are very happy.

Subsequent to the arrest I have begun marriage, parenthood, and a career, so I am hoping that these will not be jeopardized as a result of my prior actions.

Respectfully,

July 7, 1965

Judge Rupert Crittenden
2120 Grove Street
Berkeley, California

Dear Judge Crittenden

As a practicing attorney, I hesitated in writing to you about my brother-in-law, one of the Berkeley students who will be sentenced shortly. However, I wanted you to know how much I support my brother-in-law and how concerned I am about his future.

[My brother-in-law] is intelligent. His interests are varied. He is enthusiastic about trying to learn how to communicate that enthusiasm to others.

[My brother-in-law] is courteous and sensitive especially as he plays with my small children. His desire for a peaceful, better world wherein they may enjoy a good life shines through.

[My brother-in-law] is idealistic. He practices his music constantly. He is interested in philosophy and carries thick, halfread books with him. He is 20 years old. Other than the pending proceeding, his record is without blemish.

I ask the Court to be lenient.

Very truly yours,

July 7, 1965

Judge Rupert Crittenden
2120 Grove Street
Berkeley, California

Dear Judge Crittenden:

I write to you in behalf of.

[He] attended our Religious School and was both a Bar Mitzvo and a Confirmand. His family has long been identified with our Congregation. According to our file, established an excellent scholastic record, was absent very little, and was a most frequent reader in our library. He participated actively in our student Youth organization and was highly regarded for his leadership.

Furthermore, through our college program, we have maintained steady contact with He has maintained his zeal for scholarship and enjoys a fine reputation among his contemporaries.

I have written the above with the hope that you would prayerfully take these facts into consideration.

Sincerely,

July 7, 1965

Judge Rupert Crittenden
2120 Grove Street
Berkeley, California

Dear Sir:

This letter is written in support of Mr. Martin Cohen, who is to appear before you shortly for sentencing in connection with the disorders on the Berkeley campus. I have Known Mr. Cohen for fourteen months. I was surprised when I first heard that he was involved in the campus disorders. I regard Mr. Cohen as an intelligent but rather conservative individual. I am sure that his involvement in the campus disorders must have been due largely to the influence of a minority of his peers.

During the time I have known him, he has always behaved politely and with sincerity. For example, he voluntarily assisted with the construction of a room, which I was adding to my house, and approached the task with a great deal of energy. His services were offered purely on the basis of friendship and not for monetary gain.

During various social occasions, with my family and friends, he has always made a pleasing impression. I would recommend highly any consideration for leniency that might be legally appropriate.

Very truly yours,

July 8, 1965

Your Honor,

At the time of the sit-in I was attending San Francisco State College. I had been following the controversy reading all the information on I had access to and listening to my friends' discussions, both in Berkeley and at State, attempting to remain objective. From my inquiry I evolved the opinion that my rights as a citizen and student in the California system of higher education were being violated. The University of California's denial of a right the enjoyment of which has never been questioned at San Francisco State seemed to me an infringement of my constitutional rights under the first and fourteenth amendments.

Respect for law and order has always been an integral part of my life as the daughter of an army Captain. Therefor I don't consider my arrest an act of rebellion, but a peaceful demonstration of conviction.

My father has been with the Social Security Administration for nearly two years now, and has just received a promotion and transfer to Baltimore. My mother, a native of France, is returning there for the summer before settling down in Baltimore in the fall, and I have the opportunity to make the trip with her.

Respectfully,

July 9, 1965

Honorable Judge Rupert Crittenden
Lawyer's Committee
2214 Grove Street
Berkeley, California

Honorable Sir:

I had felt that the authorities at the University were acting unfairly in their method of considering the student's position during the two to three month period proir to the sit-in at Sproul Hall. Although I felt sympathetic to the viewpoint of the students, I did not assume a position of leadership.

On December 2, 1964 when the sit-in occurred I had been working at my regular job at Campus Music Shop, 2506 Haste Street, Berkeley, California. When I left work at 6:00 p.m. and returned to the campus, I saw that the student protest was going on and went into Sproul Hall to find out more about it. When I talked to the students there and saw that over a thousand students were protesting, I felt that I should join them. I went along with the group in what occurred and stayed with my friends and fellow students throughout the proceedings since I had felt that the refusal of the authorities to be fair with the students and to consider their point of view was something that should be brought forcibly to the attention of the administration of the college.

I am a firm believer in the principles of American democracy and our constitutional form of government. I believed, at the time I joined the protest at Sproul Hall, that we were defending those principles in protesting what we felt were violations of them. I regret any discredit that the demonstration might have reflected upon the University of California. I feel deeply indebted to the school for the educational opportunities it affords me and I have no desire to do it or my home state of California any harm. If I acted too rashly it was done on the spur of the moment and as part of a mass movement by the students.

Respectfully yours,

TO: Judge Rupert Crittenden

I was in Sproul Hall to protest, and if possible to rectify, what I regarded as an intolerable situation. The administration, acting unfairly and arbitrarily, was not only refusing to negotiate with the students but was also attempting to break the student movement by bringing disciplinary charges against leaders of the Free Speech Movement concerning matters that had occurred two months before. I felt that I must try to prevent so gross and palpable an injustice. I also felt that if the administration achieved its aims, the situation on the campus would deteriorete to the point that I would no longer be able to remain a student at the University.

July 12, 1965

Judge Rupert Crittenden
Berkeley-Albany Municipal Court
2120 Grove St.
Berkeley, Calif.
Re: Statement of defendant Richard H. Colby

Dear Judge Crittenden:

I entered Sproul Hall on December 2, 1964 mainly as a reaction to the initiation, during the previous weekend of new disciplinery charges against the leaders of the Free Speech Movement. During the Fall semester I had acquired great respect for many of the FSM's leaders, and I was firmly convinced that the battle we had fought for student political activities on campus had been justified in light of the University administration's unreasonableness and even vindictiveness: the closing of the Bancroft area (for obstruction of traffic, originally), the passing of responsibility from one official to another, the refusal of the Chancellor to meet with students, the unfair appointment procedures adopted by the Chancellor for the staffing of the two committees mentioned in the Pact of October 2, the disregard of the Heyman Committee report by the Chancellor and by the President, the position taken by the administration in the CCPA, and, as the straw that broke my back, the new charges that were leveled during the Thanksgiving weekend. All this contributed to my state of mind as I pondered whether or not I should join the sit-in during that long overcast afternoon of December 2.

I had never participated in a sit-in before; nor had I been arrested. During the Fall I had campaigned actively against Proposition 14, and for the Democratic candidates. I belonged to no campus organizations, but I could see that my activities for the Democratic Party were hindered by the University's ban on advocacy, recruitment of members, etc.

On December 2 I felt that ordinary channels of protest left the students powerless before the administration which could invoke suspensions and other punishment arbitrarily (or so it seemed), but that the situation required some kind of response involving power. To me, the sit-in comprised the most dramatic non-violent power-play at our disposal. Perhaps I was naive to think that if the public saw 800 students risking prison records, then they might think that something was seriously wrong at the University. To me the sit-in symbolized the failure of human means for resolving the dispute, since it implied the breakdown of verbal communication. The mute piling up of bodies as stones seemed as symbolically crude and unsophisticated a human endeavour as was possible. And to me, incidentally, going limp was an inherent part of our role as stones. (In effect, we had gone limp long before the police arrived.) It was only my fear of being injured that prompted me to stand when my turn came to be arrested.

There was another reason for entering Sproul Hall that I, in my blindness cannot honestly claim. It was only after the sit-in that I realized that the battle for freedom of speech had still been raging on December 2. The principle that the Fourteenth amendment protects the content of political advocacy even on the campus had not yet been understood by me. And I still feel that it may never have been understood by the faculty and the administration but for the awakening shock of the arrests and the following strike. In reviewing the proceedings of the Academic Senate meetings of October, November and December I saw the incredible changes in faculty opinions that were wrought in the early part of December. I understood what Profs. Selznick and Chamberlain meant when they said that the faculty had been educated by the students.

I am sorry to have to sound so unrepentant about my actions. I understand that I broke the letter of the law, but somehow the law seemed, and still seems, irrelevant to our being in Sproul Hall. Under similar circumstances, I think I would repeat what I did. Although I stand ready and willing to accept the legal consequences, I don't feel guilty in my soul.

I have some final observations that may be appropriate for your consideration. As a student of the writings of Lincoln Steffens, I was particularly impressed with his description of the McNamarra case — resulting from the bombing of the Los Angeles Times Building in 1910, as I remember. The fact that the Steelworkers Union had paid the McNamarras and their accomplises to dynamite the building could never come out in court. As with the Berkeley students, their crime was political as distinguished from social — it was directed to the political structure of our society (the way power is distriouted), as distinguished from individuals or "the people." But the court was unable to consider this fact. It had to abide by its fixed rules designed for other types of crimes. Steffens describes clearly how the District Attorney and the Judge were influenced by individuals, by the "power structure," and by public opinion. (And as with the Berkeley students, the people of California were uninformed as to the politics of the situation. Do you know that Max Rafferty and even Clark Kerr still say in public that whatever else they were about, the Free Speech demonstrations had nothing to do with free speech?) Steffens didn't blame them for it; our society was so structured that it had to be that way. And so, I suppose, with the Berkeley students.

Yours respectfully,

July 7, 1965

Hon. Rupert Crittenden
2120 Grove Street
Berkeley, California

Dear Judge Crittenden:

As the Fall semester of 1964 was my first semester at Berkeley, I was cautious about becoming involved in activities of organizations and people I did not know. I went to rallies on the campus, read leaflets and the Daily Californian. I did not join in any demonstration until the December 2nd sit-in, Although I was aware of the students sitting around the police car. I did not join in their action becaue I did not believe that it was a proper means of protest and I did not want to commit myself to that type of demonstration.

At that time, I would have preferred a test case in the courts to determine whether students had the right to advocate causes and actions involving off-campus activities. I joined the December 2nd sit-in, however, because it seemed to me that the university in taking action against organizations and students previously involved in protests, was showing bad faith and was exerting excessive authority which would ultimately lead to the cancellation of the liberties granted to that date.

I had avoided previous demonstrations, but I believed it necessary to take action at that time. On December 2nd, I went to my 11:00 a.m. and 12 Noon classes and after the 12:00 o'clock class, discussed the lesson with my instructor. At about 1:30 p.m., I saw that there was a sit-in in Sproul Hall. I entered the building and visited all of the floors. I recognized that many of the were not at all disreputable. I left the building, I attended my 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. classes, re-visited the building at 4:00 p.m., and then went home and ate supper and returned finally shortly before 7:00 p.m.

I did not leave the building either when the police asked me to or after they told me I was under arrest, because I was acting in protest both against the university and against the presence of police on the campus.

Sincerely yours,

Judge Rupert Crittenden:

I entered Sproul Hall on December 2, 1964 and remained there until I was arrested and dragged out by the police the following morning. This was only the latest of a long series of actions in which I have engaged since September, 1964 in attempting to combat the arbitrary and restrictive policies of the University administration towards student political and civil rights activities.

I have signed innumerable petitions, gone to lengthy committee meetings, sat at tables, picketed, stood at demonstrations and sat in. Throughout the events of the fall, the university has treated us insultingly and high-handedly. It has ignored our petitions, granted us hearings before non-existent committees, carried out lengthy "negotiations" in which their policy was merely reaffirmed as it had been in advance. President Kerr has slandered us with the label of "Communism"; ex-Chancellor Strong has arrogantly refused to talk with us and treacherously attempted to pick off a few individuals for punishment in an attempt to frighten the rest into acquiesing to his threats.

Throughout the entire controversy, the University has reserved the right to take disciplinary action against students engaging in off-campus civil rights activities. It appears that this was the main point of the administration policy from the outset; although they have been forced to give up many other harassing policies during the controversy, they have retained this major provision. As a participant in civil rights activities during the summer, I was aware that powerful forces in the East Bay, notably William Knowland, whose newspaper was being picketed for its discriminatory hiring policies, were attempting to destroy the local civil rights movement; the link between these forces and the University's sudden ban on tables in early September became clear when Edward Strong, at a reception for new students early in the semester, admitted that he had been called by Knowland on the matter of on-campus recruitment for demonstrations (in this case, referring to the anti-Goldwater demonstrations at the Republican convention), and that he agreed to put a stop to this. Since that time, despite its pious pretensions, the administration has never given up its claim to discipline students for off-campus political activity.

It was in this struggle that I entered Sproul Hall on December 2. The end was to defend the existence of the student branch of the local civil rights movement, as well as to expose the hypocrisy of the men who mouthed libertarian principles while helping the bigots of the out-side community destroy those students who have tried to make those principles a reality. The means to that end, non-violent civil disobedience, were eminently appropriate. In fact, non-violent passive resistance and non-cooperation are appropriate means for settling any dispute; the world would be greatly improved if this means were followed by all parties, on all occasions. I have no apologies to offer. I regard my participation in the Free Speech Movement as the most worth-while activity I have ever engaged in; talking about principles of freedom and human dignity means nothing unless one is prepared to act on them, and I am glad to have found an opportunity to act so near at hand.

[July, 1965]

To the Honorable Rupert Crittenden:

I sat in at Sproul Hall to preserve for the students at Berkeley the constitutional rights of advocacy and organization for political and social causes, subject only to the limits of the law as interpreted by the courts. If we had lost, the opponents of civil rights and freedom of thought would have won a major victory in the Bay Area. My belief that these were important and moral causes, and that the law, not private power groups, should regulate activity in their support, convinced me that our action in Sproul Hall was not too extreme a measure to take in defense of these rights. I am not a congenital anarchist; I should have preferred to gain these ends by other means. But the long process of negotiation had succeeded only in securing the most partial recognition of these rights. Justice is indivisible, and not the object of compromise. Because I believed this, I felt justified in submitting to the charge of trespass in order to assert the priority of constitutional law in regulating my conduct.

My decision was a very individual one, the result of long and hard thought. I believe today as I did then that it was the right decision, that I met, rather than avoided, my duty.

July 10, 1965

Judge Rupert Crittenden
Berkeley Municipal Court

Dear Judge Crittenden:

As a student at UCB in the fall of 1964, I became aware of conflict in regard to student political activity on campus. I did not then understand the details of the conflict, such as the determining of whether the Bancroft Telegraph area was public or University property; I did not immediately know the history of University regulation regarding political activity on campus; I did not know which rules were made when and which rules were enforced.

I attended rallies, read the Daily Cal, discussed the conflict with friends. As I learned, I was struck by certain facts that I could not ignore. In certain areas I felt a less capable judge. I was sure about my feelings in regard to the regulation of the content of speech, certainly a difficult area even for courts to deal with. I remembered a particular junior high discussion on the relationship of an independent individual's freedom of speech, and the responsibilities of that individual toward the group of which he is a part. We argued in class, and as it was such an important relationship the best conclusion we could reach was that constant discussion and the resulting flexibility was the safest approximation of an answer. When something more definite than an abstract discussion must be done, when a formal judgment must be made, it must be made in accordance with the law, in a court of law. Of all this, I felt sure. The rules as to time and place, the conflict over the 72 hour notification for speakers, here I knew less and so was less able to be definite.

Individuals were cited for violating University rules. Many who agreed that the rules needed discussion and revision wanted to be likewise held responsible for the violation. I interpreted this as an eagerness to bring attention to the issue in order to bring about its discussion and also as an unwillingness to allow a few to be punished for something that far greater numbers believed in. In demanding equal punishment, one hopes that the issue and punishment will be more seriously contemplated, and this is of the utmost importance to any individual's protest, or to any group of protesting individuals. These were my feelings towards those who took action late in September. These were my feelings as I entered Sproul Hall on December 2.

I was alarmed that the necessary discussion of details could take precedent over the quite clear and elementary issue of free speech. I had learned of great difficulty in communication between Administration and students and knew that such communication takes much time and discussion. I simultaneously felt that the issue of free speech on campus was quite clear, that one could be definite in regard to the court's responsibility in judging, not the University's.

After Thanksgiving, I learned of new disciplinary actions taken by the University against students who had allegedly committed certain acts two months earlier. I discussed this with friends and began to feel that the Administration was either not understanding or not responsive to the student's demands. At any rate, in early December, I was beginning to feel the immediacy of the conflict.

In writing this letter to the Court in an attempt to explain why I entered Sproul Hall; of interest to the Court because of my subsequent arrest; I have tried to describe the areas in which I felt qualified to make judgments, as well as the areas in which I knew that my knowledge was not broad enough to warrant definite decisions. My desire to separate these two areas becomes greatest as I describe my specific feelings as I entered and remained in Sproul Hall.

I wondered how people arrested in Civil Rights demonstrations, for example, felt. I wondered if one reached a point where there was no wavering: one was positive of the correctness and inevitability of one's actions, so total a feeling thatone no longer weighed the significance or consequences of a possible arrest. As I saw people enter Sproul Hall before me on December2, I was admittedly torn. I weighed what I knew of the conflicts that fall, trying to see if all alternatives really had been attempted prior to the sit-in. Combined with my feelings that there are certain rights that by their nature cannot afford to to temporarily immobilized in order to facilitate objective discussion, combined with my disturbance with the University for thinking that students would allow a few individuals whose feelings were shared by many to be thus singled out for punishment I felt that in conscience I had no choice but to enter Sproul Hall to bring attention to the unavoidable issue of free speech and to protect my fellow students who had been singled out for punishment perhaps by making the number larger to protect those who had alresdy determined to protect the few.

I finally had an idea of how it felt to do an act that might be found illegal. I saw that one thought, felt, weighed issues and consequences until there was one moment, one aspect of an issue, large or small that haunts one with its definiteness. I did not feel that all my questions were resolved, that I was suddenly and totally directed, rather I felt that there was one question that once and for all was demanding attention. That one definite feeling was my motivation to enter Sproul Hall, to remain even in the possibility of arrest. As my feeling was great enough to keep me in Sproul Hall even when asked to leave, so it followed that when later asked to walk out upon my arrest, I felt it logical to remain seated. Simply because I had not forgotten the possibility of arrest does not mean that I felt the "sit-in" any less of a part of a dialogue between administrati on and students. I considered my sitting in a part of that dialogue and felt that I would have less clearly expressed my willingness to be a part of that dialogue if I had been willing to walk out of it.

Respectfully yours,

[July, 1965]

My entrance into Sproul Hall on December 2 was, in my opinion, neither illegal nor criminal, but a legitimate protest directed to the Administration of the Berkeley campus. I had watched the progress of the controversy from September but did not participate until the march to University Hall where the Regents were meeting. As I had come to know more of the issues involved, during this period of time, my sympathy had grown with the activists. I was particularly agreed in the right of the students to be active politically and so cially regardless of age or status. Citizenship is not defined by age or status, how could one then prohibit exercise of citizen rights. This would seem especially true on state property.

After the Regents' decision in November, I was willing to accept their decision as a viable compromise. However, when the Administration cited the four students for activities of two months prior date, it became apparent to me that the Administration had neither understood the issues involved nor accepted the decision of the Regents. I entered Sproul Hall not with the idea of defiance or of getting arrested but to protest to the Administration that they might survey the situation and realizing its illogicality alter the course of arbitrariness it had apparently chosen.

I consider this experience to have been an invaluable lesson. I have gained insight into what a confrontation with law enforcement agencies means. It is an experience that is worth the sacrifice I may have to sustain as a result of it.

July 13, 1965

The Honorable Judge Rupert Crittenden
Berkeley Municipal Court
Berkeley, California

Dear Judge Crittenden:

I entered Sproul Hall on December 2, 1964, in order to be a part of a necessarily aggressive protest demonstration against the administration of the University. I felt then, as I still feel now, that the unrealistic, irresponsible and unjustifiable attitude and policies of the administration toward arbitrarily selected politically oriented student activities on campus should be resisted. That prior attempts to resolve differences over the matter more peaceably and conventially were unsuccessful is a matter of record. The failures, I believe, can be accurately ascribed, for the most part, to the very aspects of the administration that were the objects of protest.

I had come to consider the politically and socially oriented activity at the campus' main entrance to be one of the most important assets to the university. As a first year student, I was impressed by the openly active concern for our society and world shown by the participating students, though I often disagreed with many of their various positions. An exposure to them and their ideas is a valuable, practical education, and I was shocked when the administration began its campaign against them. It was too difficult to remain aloof of what I considered an unjust presecution of a worthy university institution, and I participated in the sit-in fully aware of the possibilities of academic, social and legal consequences.

I remain proud of the small role I played in the protest, in spite of the fact that I jeapordized my academic standing, my state scholarship, my standing in my home community, and my hitherto clear criminal record, and in spite of the fact that I have not subscribed to all that has been advocated by the F. S. M. leadership. I sincerely intend to continue to do what I feel I should, even if faced again with the possibility of arrest.

Respectfully,

July 9, 1965

Hon. Judge R. Crittenden
2120 Grove Street
Berkeley, California

Dear Sir:

We returned home yesterday from a vacation in the east and found a letter notifying our son, that he is to appear for sentencing on July 22.

Alan graduated from the University of California in June and is now in the east for orientation and may already be on his way to Venezuela, to participate in a community development program. He has signed up for eighteen months and during this time will be involved with this program.

I am afraid that it will be impossible to contact him before the July 22 date, thus I am writing this letter to you to respectfully request that he be sentenced in absentia.

Respectfully yours,

July 10, 1965

To the Honorable Rupert Crittenden, Berkeley-Albany Municipal Court:

With the thousands of pages of evidence accumulated at the trial, another full account of the events leading up to thesit-in of December 2 hardly seems necessary. I will therefore confine my remarks to the manner in which my own particular background and concern for civil liberties was related to my participation in the Sproul Hall demonstration.

Because I am several years older than most of the other demonstrators, the period of repression and hysteria now known as the McCarthy Era was for me a living reality, not merely an unfortunate period of recent history. My concern for civil liberties goes back at least to my high school days fifteen years ago when I first learned about the House Un-American Activities Committee and its investigations of the film industry. Since 1960, when I first came to Berkeley, I have been a member in more or less good standing of the Americal Civil Liberties Union, and have followed the trials and tribulations of the First Amendment from the days of the Hollywood Ten to the recent Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Lamont v. Postmaster General and Fixa v. Heilberg where, for the first time, a law passed by Congress was declared unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Last summer I was recruited by the Students for Fair Housing, from a table at the Bancroft-Telegraph area, to participate in a voter registration campaign in North and West Oakland. For this reason I felt very sympathetic with those who protested the restrictions imposed by the campus administration at the beginning of the fall semester.

My own knowledge of its history told me that from a legal point of view the First Amendment has been one of the most controversial sections of the Constitution, and that the legal philosophy of its interpretation was still evolving. It therefore seemed arrogant and outrageous for the University Administration to wish to reserve to itself the authority to decide the very kind of cases which have for years given great difficulty to the courts, including the Supreme Court, particularly when the administration's own rhetoric in defense of its position indicated in itself a lack of sensitivity over the constitutional issues involved.

Nevertheless, the Regents adopted on November 20, without any discussion or consultation with the persons and groups who would be most affected, the Administration's position on advocacy, and authorized the hiring of additional personnel to deal with the disciplining of students. It was difficult for me to see this latter proposal as anything other than a threat to destroy the Free Speech Movement — that is, the group whose activities, however unpleasant they may have seemed to some, were largely responsible for whatever liberalization of rules had thus far been brought about on campus — to impose, as it were, a "final solution" to the free speech controversy. I was not totally willing to believe however, that such a threat would actually be carried out, since hundreds of students, including many outstanding graduate students, teaching assistants, and readers, had either been directly involved in violations of rules they considered unjust, or had affirmed their complicity in such violations without having actually committed them. The very willingness of these students, including myself, to be implicated in violations which they did not, in fact, commit, should have been a clear indication of student solidarity.

Like many other graduate students, I had no clear idea of how we could respond to the Regents' position on advocacy; the issue seemed too technical to generate widespread support for direct action. The disciplinary letters sent by the Chancellor during the Thanksgiving vacation were another matter altogether. I had thought that the very presence of the FSM on campus would have prevented any outrageous acts by the Administration. In the midst of the controversy I had learned something new about civil liberties: mere documents could not protect them, however revered such documents might be; that they could only be defended by their constant exercise and by the presence of people ready and willing to defend them. These lines of defense were now being directly threatened and we had to respond. When plans were announced for the sit-in I immediately decided that I had to take part, and went to the campus on December 2 for that sole purpose.

July 9, 1965

Judge Rupert Crittenden
2120 Grove Street
Berkeley, California

Dear Judge Crittenden:

[This defendant] who was found guilty of trespassing in Sproul Hall during last year's students sit-in at the University of California at Berkeley, is requesting that I write a brief evaluation of his character in hope that it may help you evaluate his caae when he comes up for sentencing on July 23. His request comes in answer to an offer which I made him before leaving Berkeley for five weeks in Colorade, and I am delighted to accede to it.

I have known [him] for a little over a year, during which period I have acted as his academic adviser and have had ample opportunity to watch his perfermance as a student and as a human being: on both counts — and insofar as I have been able to observe — he has proved proved impeccable. As a student, his outstanding performance in a difficult graduate program last fall semester (I had no opportunity to examine his spring grades before leaving Berkeley) simply suggests that he must have devoted his time to the proper business of studies. As a human beings, he has proved unexceptionally dignified, honest, and trustworthy in his relationship with me. Something of his reputation may be inferred from the fact that he was offered a Teaching Assistantship in Comparative Literature upon the recommendation of a faculty committee of four and despite extremely rigorous competition. Naturally I know nothing of [his] life away from the campus, but I am happy to testify that he has proved absolutely impeccable in all our transactions.

I wish to make it clear that my letter is not a protest against the verdict of the court. I have been much too busy with academic matters to follow the course of the trial, and I am simply assuming that the court has lived up to its reputation for justice and rendered such verdict as seemed appropriate under the law. I also assure however, that the necessity of a mass verdict will in turn make it advisable to consider the character and general behavior of each defendant before pronouneing individual sentences, since only thus may the spirit as well as the letter of the law be observed. I have accordingly offered to write letters for such defendants as have hitherto impressed me as especially trustworthy, and I very much hope that my doing so may be as helpful to you as to them. I am fully aware of your devotion to justice, and I should not otherwise take the liberty of imposing upon yourat this time.

At [his] request, I am mailing a copy of this letter to the defense lawyers.

Very respectfully yours,

[July, 1965]

TO: The Honorable Rupert Crittenden
RE: why I sat in at Sproul Hall

I sat in Sproul Hall for several reasons, all of them interacting. First, it became obvious to me that the channels open to me as a student were so limited and ineffective as to render democratic procedure for redress of grievances. impossible. The sit-in became for me a legitimate form of civil disobedience. Second, I was outraged at the arbitrary actions threatened by the University of California administration against several of our members. These actions indicated that the Administration neither understood nor, coming so late in the semester, had ever really tried to understand our protest. Third, I sat in as a personal protest against the social injustices of our society. I did not consider my actions disconnected from the peace and civil rights movements.

From:

July 18, 1965

The Hon. Rupert Crittenden
Berkeley Municipal Court
Berkeley, California

Sir:

Since the beginning of the fall semester the legitimacy of the demands of the FSM, as I understood them, had seemed evident; that any person has the right to advocate whatever he wishes, political or not, and that this right, except for reasonable limitations concerning time and place, should not be resricted on the campus of a public university. I joined the sit-in at Sproul Hall on December 2, because it seemed clear to me at that time, after I had heard of the letters sent to four students requiring them to appear at a hearing concerned with charges of illegal activities in the beginning of October, that the administration was more interested in controlling or stopping the demonstrations than they were in examining the reasons behind them-they seemed habitually to adopt the attitude that it was the existence of the FSM, rather than the issue of political advocacy, that was the real problem. The sit-in took place as a last resort attempt, when other channels of effective communication had been blocked, to force the administration to actually face the issue, to make them realize that the students were serious about it, and to stop them from continuing to treat the episode as an annoyance which could be gotten rid of by punishing a few of the FSM leaders.

Sincerely yours,

July 1, 1965

The Honorable Rupert P. Crittenden
Berkeley-Alameda Municipal Court District
Berkeley, California

Sir:

Many things concerned me as I listened to the noon rally on December 2. The Regents had "liberalized" the rules concerning political activity on campus at their November 20 meeting, but, then again, they had not really seen the student viewpoint, nor did they seem willing to listen, and their failure to explain the phrase "lawful off-campus action" spoke to me personally. Before the election I had worked with California Youth Against Proposition 14 and had advocated illegal action (i.e., hanging of "No on 14" poster boards on fences and old buildings, especially where other posters were plastered over a humble POST NO BILLS sign). Would the Regents ruling have affected me? The way the statute stood, I could have been disciplined by school officials for this minor act. This example seems quite trivial, but it pointed out to me the overwhelming dominance of regential power over the students at a public university, and the lack of any adequate means for the students to have a voice in the ruling of their campus.

Then, with the calling of the four for disciplinary action, I was aroused to recommit myself to the FSM cause — my cause —, seeing that I had to speak up again, not only in the form of letter, petition, and peaceful picket, but in some way by which I would definitely be heard and get a response. The sit-in, no matter how odious-sounding to me previously, I finally felt was the best method at the time to achieve this goal.

I was fully aware of some of the possible consequences for me — arrest, conviction; loss of chance for the Peace Corps, teaching credential, future jobs, etc.; censor by relatives and friends; and since it was my first year away from home my parents still had a very protective manner and, although they would know I had acted out of conviction, they have felt I had `gone too far.' With these things and many others on my mind, I entered Sproul Hall on December 2. I was willing to risk many of these security images in order to give us students a voice on our own campus and let advocacy be under the jurisdiction of city authorities without another, second jurisdiction of the school officials.

Now, my parents feel proud; the Peace Corps has shown a renewed interest in me as a Volunteer; I have a new self-respect, and so does Cal.

Most sincerely,

July 15, 1965

Lawyer's Committee
2214 Grove St.
Berkeley 4, Calif.
Dear Sirs: An original of the following letter was sent to Judge Orittenden July 15, on behalf of [the defendant] July 21, 9 a.m.)

Dear Judge Crittenden:

I have known since she first registered as a freshman at our high school, have watched her become as creatively involved in the world as any young woman I've ever had in a class. Whenever we have needed someone to befriend a newcomer, vitalmze a committee, smooth out a situation, we could call on and get results.

Her many scholarships and honors testify to her love of learning and to her ability to blend her creative zeal with existing institutions. The girl reads voraciously, responds to criticism maturely.

She gets such a wallop out of life, from friends, family, projects, etc. that she feels compelled to reform society right now, so that everyone may share such values. The last two summers she has worked at Cabrillo College, given many evenings to helping underprivileged children in Watsonville area. She has assisted with Quaker-type work camps in Mexico and elsewhere, where the clientele are carefully screened.

The fact that she is about 6 ft. tall, with somewhat "rawboned" features has contributed to her crusading zeal, probably. I've talked with her about her FSM commitment. She admits to real concern over flouting of "due process", yet feels still the FSM has been the salvation of free speech for students everywhere. She is, however, not a typical "to hell with the Regents and the bad guys" beatnik. She loves people, wants desperately not to be destructive. Impulsive sometimes she is, destructive never consciously.

She tells me she realizes there must be no flouting of due process without consequences and this does not embitter her.

My heart goes out to a judge who has to deal with this enormously complex and crucial situation.

Sincerely,

July 13, 1965

Judge Rupert Crittenden
2120 Grove Street
Berkeley, California

Dear Judge Crittenden,

I am writing on behalf of one of the defendents in the FSM trial. During the last three years I have become closely acquainted with — as a student and as worker in many projects in our college and throughout the community. For two years she was my secretary-reader at the College.

My opinion of her is unique among the students I have had at this institution over the last five years. She is an excellent student, with great natural ability and the will and drive to do the job as a student — her academic record speaks for her here. In addition, I have never worked with a person more conscientious and responsible than [she]. Any task she has been given will be done without any doubt or qualifications, and if it is a question of real importance, she can be relied upon to go beyond any requirements to make certain that it is done satisfacterily. She adds a humaneness and sense of humer to everything she does, and is excellent both as a leader and follower.

That she has a social conscience and has been deeply involved in a wide range of social projects should show in her records, but let me point out that in addition to the special school work in Mayward and the Cabrille Music Festival, she has done yeeman service this summer in a College-Community school project in Watsenville called "Operation Follow Up." Here again, when the tough, independent jobs had to be done, she was the one to do it. Some of us actually feel a bit guilty because of the amount of this work she assumed, but the excellence and good cheer with which she gives of herself leads one into temptation.

One must ask oneself how, in the face of the above emphasis on responsibility, she ends up before the court. Leaving aside the moral and legal rights and wrongs of the State's case, I merely wish to emphasize that after knowing her and talking with her about the affair, she made a weighted and considered decision amidst the multiple rights and wrongs with which our society abounds. It may have been the wrong one, but it was, characteristically, a serious decision of conscience.

Sincerely,

July 8, 1965

The Hon. Rupert Crittenden
The Municipal Court of the Berkeley-Albany
Judicial District.
Berkeley, California.

Dear Sir:

The following is a brief explanation of my motivation for sitting in at Sproul Hall on December 2, 1964.

The immediate provocation for the sit-in was the opening of University discipline for acts committed almost two months before by students who had since become FSM leaders. I believed that the administration was acting unjustly in making these charges for the first time when the acts in question occured so much earlier. I felt that the charges were designed, as were most examples of University discipline in political and quasi-political cases, as terrorism to frighten the many by hurting a few. I had just seen a case go through University discipline in which the Regents and President ultimately ignored the recomendations of the Heyman Committee which had actually investigated the case. Everthing, it seems, had to go the Regents. No student requests nor ideas could be accepted by anyone lesser nor, when we got that far, could the Regents listen to the representatives of a "small minority" of students from only one campus.

I had been reading A.S. Neil's Summerhill and I remember demanding passionately of my frinds how there could be a simple school in England which was governed by all the members of its academic community — students, teachers and headmaster — when we students of one of the world's great universities were docily to accept our administrator's hand-me-downs and wonder if the University motto indeed was, "Let there be Fiat."

The University seemed to me bent on supressing on campus the rights of all men, but especially students, to expression, inquiry, and involvement in the whole of life. She seemed bent on covering her failures by pressing on in the name of discipline to maintain respect for her authority. She seemed to consider the fear imposed by the lash more important than the respect produced by seeking right together.

These things were in my background as I stood outside Sproul Hall on December 2, trying to decide whether or not to go in. I was dubious about practical civil disobedience, intellectually admirable though it may be, and I had not been involved with it before. I had not liked bands of people marching into the Palace or Cadillac showrooms. Personally I hoped to show the University how deeply upset I was with the way she was proceeding. I hoped that the past would not be the future and that of this confrontation, the most grave yet, could come understanding and, of course, acceptance which had not been before.

I did not consider that I had a quarrel with the People of California. My quarrel was with the University of California, my university.

Respectfully,

July 12, 1965

Judge Rupert Crittenden
Municipal Court of Berkeley
Berkeley, California

Dear Judge Crittenden:

Although I have been found guilty of trespassing and resisting arrest, I do not feel that I have betrayed myself. Two of the ressons I sat in was to gain favourable public opinion and to endeavor to make the University hear my protest, along with that of the others who sat-in.

Although I think these are perfectly legitimate motives, I had another, more personal, reason for being there. I felt it was my duty as a citizen to express my right to petition for redress of grievances and to get my protest which I felt the University Administration was depriving me of. I was aware that there was a danger of being arrested or expelled from school; however, I could not risk losing rights which I considered mine, and still consider mine, even in the face of this threat.

I realize that, now, in the eyes of the law, I am guilty of the charges on which I was convicted, but, in my own eyes, this seems a little price to pay for all that I have gained by my action. I have had a greater respect for myself since the sit-in, not because I was arrested and an now convicted, but because I was able to express my rights as a citizen.

Sincerely,

[July, 1965]

To Judge Rupert Crittenden;

Last December second and third I participated in the Sproul Mall sit-ins as I believed, and still believe that anyone should have the right to speak on any University campus. Concommitant with this I feel that solicitation of funds, members etc., should also be allowed. I base these statements on a belief in the freedom of education; education not being limited to the classroom, and in the freedom of the individual to express him opinion.

About this text
Title: Defendants' Letters -- C
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.