The Daily Californian
Vol. 186, No. 70Wednesday, January 6, 1965 Copyright © 1965 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
- Pete Benjaminson, Night Editor
- Alice Wong, Business Manager
- John Gueldner, Advertising Manager
- Tom Zierer, Night Manager
Editorials make no claim to represent student or University opinion.
Faculty Senate Optimistic, FSM Cautious on Dispute
By Jim Watson
Members of the Academic Senate expressed optimism and hope for an approaching solution for the free speech controversy at yesterday's special meeting, which was addressed by Acting Chancellor Martin Meyerson.
The meeting was called to hear the reports of the Emergency Executive Committee and the Academic Freedom Committee. The first report was read and the committee was commended by a near-unanimous vote for its work.
The second report was accepted and filed.
The Emergency Executive Committee report, publicly available a few days earlier, was optimistic in stating the success of the committee in attempting to settle the campus controversy.
Arthur M. Ross, professor of business administration, presented this report. "This committee has performed the almost impossible task of selling out to the Regents and working for FSM, all at once," said Ross.
There was no debate on the Executive Committee report. "There's just too much detail in this report," said Ross. "The faculty should not waste time quibbling over details."
Instead, Ross said the Committee would be open for written criticisms and proposed revisions this week.
The Senate voted to accept and file the report of Business Administration Professor Joseph Garbarino's Committee on Academic Freedom, which proposed a set of regulations for campus political activity.
The reaction of Free Speech Movement leader Mario Savio was cautious.
"We're not unhappy with what happened," he said.
"We'll wait and see what the outcome is."
Late yesterday Ross issued a statement commending the actions of the Senate.
"This was affirmation that the faculty is solving the crisis over political activity... in cooperation with the Regents and the administration." It endorsed the Committee's position that additional civil disobedience against the University under present circumstances would be witless, destructive, and indefensible," he said.
"We said that freedom of advocacy is now secure.
"Those who wish to advocate should get out and advocate," he added.
During his talk to the Senate, Meyerson wished Chancellor-on-Leave Edward Strong "a rapid and full recuperation."
"I shall not say that I am happy to be in my new role," said the acting Chancellor, "but while I am in it, I shall do my best."
Although the Regents did not accept the Academic Senate proposals passed Dec. 8, Ross urged the faculty members to accept the Regents' regulations gracefully.
"We did not expect the Regents would accept every single point of the resolution word-for-word," said Ross. "What matters most is their pledge not to in-fringe upon the speech rights guaranteed in the first and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution."
"It is true that no final solution has been reached, but much of what the Regents refused to grant has been achieved through compromise," Ross said.
"Some of the Regents did not care to vote for our request that amnesty be granted the free speech demonstrators," said Ross. "But nevertheless we have President Kerr's commitment of Dec. 7 that the University will not take any action. The entire matter is being left to the courts.
"We know of no students who are being disciplined by the University for exercising their rights of speech and political action. We all may feel free to engage in political advocacy on campus," Ross added.
Ross asked the Senate not to propose any new specific rules. "We want to give Chancellor Meyerson a chance to solve the problem in his own way. We don't want to paint him into a corner," said Ross.
Meyerson, Savio Confab Possible
Arrangements are in progress for a meeting between newly appointed Acting Chancellor Martin Meyerson and FSM leader Mario Savio. The time and date are as yet undetermined, according to an FSM spokesman.
Meyerson, Senators Meet
By Bea Nyburg
A surprise appearance by Acting Chancellor Martin Meyerson and a report on a private conversation with Regent Edwin Pauley by ASUC Vice President Jerry Goldstein highlighted last night's ASUC Senate meeting.
The Senate also heard Alumni Representative Wayne Hooper ask for an investigation of the rumors that faculty members had coerced students into participating or not participating in campus political activities.
During the Chancellor's "unheard of" visit to the Senate meeting he was asked to comment on the Faculty Senate meeting yesterday afternoon.
"It seems to me the progress this afternoon was stupendous," Meyerson replied.
The new Chancellor explained he had come to the ASUC Senate to meet the student leaders and to see how things are handled by the Senate.
At one point in the meeting Meyerson said he would like to have Senate members meet with the Regents. "I'll be meeting with them soon and I'd like to suggest this to them," he added.
Meyerson left the meeting on a high note, after staying a half hour. He asked the senators how they thought the administration and students could better communicate.
Their reply—"just like this."
Jerry Goldstein then reported on his two-day trip to Los Angeles for the Regents' meetings December 18th and 19th. He said he had spoken privately with State Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh, Superintendent of Public Instruction Max Rafferty, and Regent Pauley.
"I think the results of the Regents' committee studies on the free speech issue will be very excellent and the kind that the students want," Goldstein concluded.
Earlier in the meeting Alumni Rep Wayne Hooper told the Senate he had heard rumors faculty members had threatened students with lower grades and other detrimental action regarding their campus activities.
Hooper suggested that the Senate begin an investigation on this matter which would determine whether students had been coerced into participating or not participating in political activities.
In other business, the Senate passed the following proposals:
- A plan to poll graduate students to see if they wish to re-enter the ASUC.
- A change in election rules providing certain limits on the amount of money a candidate can spend on his campaign materials and specifying certain methods of passing out such materials.
Old Associates Praise New Chancellor
By Peter Benjaminson
High praises for administrative skill and executive determination were heaped on Acting Chancellor Martin Meyerson by two of his former associates yesterday.
In exclusive interviews with the Daily Californian, Associate Professor W. W. Nash of Harvard University and Associate Professor Charles W. Moore painted a flattering picture of the 42-year-old administrator.
"Meyerson's stay here reminded me of the early Kennedy years," said Moore, chairman of the architecture department here. "Everyone had a sense of moving ahead, of striving and accomplishment."
"He has perfected a scheme for making acceptable decisions in the face of controversy," said Nash.
Nash has been an associate of Meyerson's since 1954, most recently as a research associate in the Harvard-MIT Joint Center for Urban Studies, which Meyerson directed. He is now Chairman of the City and Regional Planning Department at Harvard.
Nash worked under Meyerson as a student, a researcher, an instructor, and a business associate.
Moore, as chairman of the department of architecture in the College of Environmental Design here, served under Meyerson during the eighteen months in which Meyerson was dean of the college.
A "characteristic example" of the new Chancellor's abilities was cited by Nash:
"I was in Indonesia, trying to set up a city and regional planning school for the UN in Bandung. It appeared to me that the plans laid out by the UN were unsuitable."
"After I submitted my recommendations, Meyerson, who was advising the UN on the project, was sent to Indonesia. A dead-lock had developed among Indonesian and UN officials.
"Meyerson was silent for ten minutes after he heard both sides. On the spur of the moment, he laid out a complete plan for the project, including budgetary changes and personnel assignments. It was acceptable to all."
According to Moore, "all sorts of bitter disputes arose within the college while Meyerson was dean, over methods and directions, and goals."
"But Meyerson was always building a consensus among the factions and pushing us forward. And he never lost his position of authority."
"He's the best man in the country for the job," said Moore.
Nash claimed one of Meyerson's most valuable skills is his ability "to get things off the table and on the way to resolution."
Meyerson's position as Director of the Harvard-MIT Center for Urban Studies could be characterized as that of an "entrepreneur of research," according to Nash.
"He was constantly bringing scholars and foundations together. He was both a critic and a catalyst," Nash claimed.
"In all his positions he has held," Nash said, "Meyerson has had to integrate divergent series of activities undertaken by strong-minded persons, and overcome dissatisfaction and misunderstanding."
"All this he has done successfully."
Both men emphasized Meyerson's ability to open lines of communication in any situation. The new Chancellor seems to be making this achievement his first task in the present "free speech" controversy.
New McCarthy Era?
Some of our State senators, it seems, want to handle business which is none of their business.
State senators Jack Shrade and John McCarthy recently proposed that the State legislature take steps to discipline or initiate discipline of the 800 students arrested in last month's Sproul Hall sit-in.
Schrade's resolution asks the University to expel the students. McCarthy indicated he is looking into the possibility of suspending State scholarships awarded to any of the arrested students.
That the State legislature may have a direct hand in the fate of 800 students is a horrifying prospect.
McCarthy said his decision is based on the premise that "if students violate the laws of the State of California they should not have the benefit of a State scholarship."
Schrade's arguments seem to be similarly based.
The senators, however, have forgotten their Constitution. A legislature, by its very definition, drafts laws—it does not enforce them.
The senators also seem to have forgotten the issue which is the focal point in the University controversy: that student discipline for violating State law belongs in the court, not in the hands of the University administration or in the hands of any other body which is not legally authorized to prescribe enforcement. The question now is where the University fits precisely in the State law.
The senators base their proposals on a direct relationship—a student who violates State law has no right to continue in the University despite his academic merit. Accordingly, it could be reasonably argued that violation of any state law—including traffic violations—could be included under the same categories which Schrade and McCarthy have contrived.
And again by extension, should not the legislature discipline its own members for violating State laws—including traffic violations—State laws which the legislature itself has made?
These extensions, admittedly, are absurd. But so are the proposals of Schrade and McCarthy.
So let's consider something a bit more practical. If the legislature were to calmly sit down and consider the entire University controversy, they could not, with responsibility, arbitrarily pick out the 800 students for attack without attacking the University administration.
The State legislature, we feel, has no right disciplining 800 citizens whose violation of State law has yet to be determined.
The two State senators have no right dipping their fingers in a policy conflict which they apparently don't understand.
We hope the attitude of Senators Schrade and McCarthy is short-lived and not contagious.
All we need now is another McCarthy era.
Letters to the Ice Box
To the Ice Box:
The events that have taken place on this campus in the last few months are considered by a great many to have been wrong. Even if they were wrong, it is amazing how many good results they have caused.
No one on this campus can fail to notice the critical self-examination and improved outlook on the part of faculty, students, and administration here at Berkeley, but this is not all:
Throughout the state many people connected with higher education are stopping to see if the conditions protested here exist elsewhere.
USC is initiating an extensive humanizing program. A Pasadena junior college is investigating ways to improve intra-campus communications. Events such as these are occurring on many campuses.
We should all be very thankful that at least some people in this state see as their duty not to devise methods of chastising the students here, but to work at improving the shortcomings of modern higher education.
To the Ice Box:
Madelon Berkowilz's letter to the Ice Box of Dec. 16 concerning the power vested in the Regents indicates a severe lack of understanding of the basic philosophies by which our system of government operates.
The University is governed by the Regents for the same reason a jury is composed of laymen: "The people shall rule."
Sixteen of the twenty-four Regents are merely citizens of the State of California in hopes that still another basic philosophy shall be carried out: "that education shall be separate from State control."
These Regents are appointed by the Governor for sixteen year terms. A Governor can only appoint four Regents in any one term of office.
As for the possibility of lack of interest, it is hard to imagine a person accepting a Regent-ship without having an interest in the University.
For sixteen years a regent must devote considerable time and toil, without pay, to the University. Corruption is always possible in any form of government. The Regents, however, are no more susceptible to this than any other governing body.
That a group composed mainly of citizens should be responsible for the government of the University is the best form of government.
Any other form would be biased, either toward legislative controls, or toward the use of the University purely for its faculty and students.
And it cannot be biased, for the University must serve the needs of the people as well as those of the faculty and students.
—Scott B. Cornelius
Three-Week Delay for Trials Of Arrested Sproul Sit-ins
A three-week delay was ordered yesterday in the court pleas of 768 demonstrators arrested in the Dec. 2-3 sit-in occupation of Sproul Hall.
Municipal Judge Rupert Crittenden granted a defense requested postponement until Jan. 26 on entering pleas to charges of disturbing the peace, refusing to disperse, and resisting arrest.
Only one student—Winton Cooley, a Stockton sophomore—showed up for the hearing at which a group of 50 had been scheduled to declare their pleas—innocent or guilty.
Malcolm Bernstein. speaking for about 80 defense attorneys. asked for the delay. He said each accused demonstrator now has an attorney. But he said the attorneys must talk individually with the accused to determine the plea.
David Dutton, assistant district attorney, formally objected to delay but did not resist the defense move with argument.
Judge Crittenden said he would hear the pleas of the first group of 50 at 9 a.m. and a second group at 2:30 p.m. Jan. 26.
Two groups of 50 will appear each day until all pleadings are completed Feb. 5.
Title: The Daily Californian: Vol. 186, no. 70
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.