The changes proposed by the faculty members of the former committee on Campus Political Activity are a first stop towards liberalization of present University regulations. Buttthey do not provide for full freedom of speech on campus. We should like to indicate briefly why certain sections of the proposal are unacceptable. The other differences between this proposal and our platform are, we think, self-explanatory.

SECTION III: It is not clear whether the faculty proposal gives the Administration the power to decide that student conduct on campus has resulted in illegal acts off campus before the courts have decided, by formal trial, that the off campus acts in question were illegal. This is, of course, unacceptable. Even if the faculty pro posal does not grant this prior jurisdiction, we cannot accept the double jeopardy which would result from the exercise of this power.

We are shocked that the faculty proposal unquestionably gives the Administration the power to punish students for acts of advocacy whether or not these acts are in violation of the law. The Administration would thus usurp the prorogatives of the courts in determining whether an act of advocacy (rather than an act advocated) is illegal. This is blatantly unconstitutional.

Though the faculty proposal purports to establish "safe-guards" protecting the students from the Administration's exercise of this power, we note that (1) the Administration is to appoint the faculty committee which holds hearings and (2) the recommendations of the committee are advisory only. Such "safe-guards" against unconstitutional powers are useless.

SECTION II: The faculty proposal makes no provision for student-sponsored "off-campus" speakers to use facilities other than the Hyde Park Areas. For example, they cannot speak at meetings held in the new student office building. This is unfortunate, since most speakers sponsored by student groups generally require some other place to speak than outdoors.

Their proposal for registration of "off-campus" speakers in the Hyde Park Areas makes it impossible to give adequate advance publicity to speakers who, on short notice, are found to be available or who need to speak on issues which suddenly arise.

The faculty proposal institutes the unprecedented requirement that the Chancellor be empowered to require tenured faculty moderators at Hyde Park speeches. These moderators are often impossible to find, and this amounts to censorship. The purpose of the Hyde Park Areas is to provide a place for spontaneous speeches and rallies. The faculty proposals for registration, the 72-hour rule, and the faculty moderator requirement all defeat that purpose. SECTION V: For the reasons sketched in our platform, temporary non-students should not be barred from membership in student groups. SECTION VIII: From past history, clearly the appointment by the Chancellor of a student group to advise him on the interpretation only of rules cannot be said to provide fair wight to the needs and views of the students. An auto nomous body of student advisors is necessary, and they must be part of a body which has the power to make regulations and to interpret them. We suggest that the legitimacy of regulations depends on consent of those they govern, and that governed should have some effective voice in the formulation of regulations. The faculty proposal does not even hint at this. SECTION X: The use of Sproul Hall steps and the adjacent upper plaza as a Hyde Park Area should continue, since this is the only campus area large enough and convenient enough to accomodate major rallys. No reason ahs been given for discontinuing its use.

Statement of Association of California State College Professors

"In the press of Oct. 3, 1964, it was reported that the administration of the University of California at Berkeley has prohibited its students from `collecting funds of campus for political purposes, from recruiting for political groups, and from organizing off-campus demonstrations.'

"It was evident from the report that some student organizations which are not affilated with political parties, but are generally dedicated to various types of social action, have been prohibited under these rules, from fund-raising, recruiting, and organizing activities on the campus.

"The California State Colleges and the University of California have a mutual interest in academic freedom for students and faculty, and in freedom of speech in general. The Exec. Com. of the ASCP believe that student participation in social action is consistent with our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and contributes to the educational process. Therefore, whether it is political or non-political, it ought not only to be permitted, but to be actively encouraged, s.o long as it does not interfere with the regular instructional program, even if it involves persons from offcampus who are invited to participate by students and faculty members.

"Consequently, the Exec. Com. of the ACSP supports all University of California students and student groups, whatever their social or political commitments in their efforts to bring a bout the repeal of these rules against political action.

"The ACSP is in complete accord with the eloquent words of University President Clark Kerr, who has declared, "...When freedom of thought and expression has died on a university campus, it will be dead everywhere..."

About this text
Title: Some Comments on the Faculty Proposal
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.