Free Speech Movement, UC Berkeley
Online Audio Recordings - Transcripts












UC Berkeley Faculty Senate debate on resolutions of Senate Academic Freedom Committee concerning free speech and political advocacy on campus, December 8, 1964

The Academic Senate convened on December 8, 1964, under the chairmanship of Professor Richard W. Jennings of the Department of Law.

Professor Joseph Garbarino, Chair of Faculty Senate Academic Freedom Committee: To give you a brief summary of the events that led up to this particular report, let me remind you that on October thirteenth, the Berkeley Division [of the Academic Senate] passed a resolution calling on the Committee on Academic Freedom "to inquire immediate into the recent university rulings on student political activity in the Bancroft/Telegraph area. The students' protests against these rulings, and the larger problem of student rights to the expression of political opinion on campus and in the living and dining halls." (That is not the complete quote of the resolution, but I think it's the operative language) Two days later, on October fifteenth, the Division took further action concerning the dispute, when a resolution which resulted in the reconstitution of the tripartite committee that was established by the October second agreement between the administration and the students was passed by this body.

With the activation of this latter group, which came to be called the Committee on Campus Political Activity, the Committee on Academic Freedom interpreted its charge to involve a basic review of the problem of student political activity, while the tripartite group concerned itself with trying to reach a settlement of the immediate controversy.

Proceeding on this basis, the Committee on Academic Freedom laid its plans for a deliberate consideration of the long-range problem of developing a coherent philosophy to serve as a guide for a policy that would encourage the responsible exercise of maximum political freedom on the Berkeley campus. The succession of events that have happened during the last three weeks, however, have given this issue an urgency which call the original plan of operation that had been adopted by the committee into question. Under the circumstances, the committee believes that it has a responsibility to present the substance of the propositions that make up the major part of its report at this time, with certain questions of elaboration and implementation to be dealt with at a later date.

With this in mind, we propose the following motion:

In order to end the present crisis, to establish the confidence and trust essential to the restoration of normal university life, and to create a campus environment that encourages students to exercise free and responsible citizenship in the university and the community at large, the Committee on Academic Freedom of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate moves the following propositions:

1. That there shall be no university disciplinary measures against members or organizations of the university community for activities prior to December 8 connected with the current controversy over political speech and activity.

2. That the time, place, and manner of conducting political activity on the campus shall be subject to reasonable regulation to prevent interference with the normal functions of the university. That the regulations now in effect for this purpose shall remain in effect provisionally, pending a future report of the Committee on Academic Freedom concerning the minimal regulations necessary.

3. That the content of speech or advocacy should not be restricted by the university. Off-campus student political activities shall not be subject to university regulation. On-campus advocacy or organization of such activities shall be subject only to such limitations that may be imposed under section 2.

4. That future disciplinary measures in the area of political activity shall be determined by a committee appointed by and responsible to the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate.

5. That the Division urge the adoption of the foregoing policies and call on all members of the university community to join with the faculty in its efforts to restore the university to its normal functions.

Before closing, let me refer back very briefly to section 2. ...The approach that is embodied in this section and in the following section 3, is viewed as one of permitting a broad range of problems connected with freedom of political activity as far as the content of activity is concerned, while regulating the "time, place, and manner" of its exercise so as not to interfere with the primary functions of the university. It is this area of problems that remains to be dealt with, and which will be the subject of a later set of recommendations.

Chairman: You've heard the motion Is there a second? Professor Tussman?

Chairman: Yes, would you rise and state your name? Yes, Professor McClosky, will you come forward so that you can be heard?

Joseph Tussman, Chair, Department of Philosophy: I'm Joseph Tussman. I am the chairman of the Department of Philosophy. ,

Chairman: Are you making a second?

Tussman: I'm making a second - and one of the working committee of five chairmen which acted recently on behalf of all the chairmen on the Berkeley campus. I wish to second the motion which the Committee on Academic Freedom has placed before us. seconds the motion.

The crisis through which we are passing involves at least three sets of problems. First, there are problems resulting from recent attempts to resolve what is essentially a moral and spiritual crisis by the use of radically inappropriate means; the attempt to deal coercively and punitively with problems of mind and spirit. In this field we may hope, I believe, that the spirit of amnesty will now prevail. Second, there are problems arising out of the quality and scope of university regulations governing speech, assembly, and political or social action by members of the academic community. And, third, there are problems arising from fundamental defects in the living constitution of the university in the relations between students, faculty, and administration in the general structure of authority. Permanent peace and health will not be easily attained, but the propositions before us are a good beginning. I think that they are all necessary. I will comment only upon point three, which provides that the content of speech or advocacy should not be restricted by the university; off-campus student political activities shall not be subject to university regulation; on-campus advocacy or organization of such activities shall be subject only to such limitations as may be imposed under section 2. This rule will obviate most of the difficulties in this sensitive area. It is a sensible rule. But I think we should regard it as more than a sensible rule, as more than a way of avoiding tough administrative problems, and even as more than a rule which protects important rights. We should regard it and support it as symbolizing the fundamental commitment of the university to its own essential nature, for it expresses the conviction that ours is an institution whose proper mode of dealing with the mind is educational, not coercive. We are not the secular arm. If we have forgotten this, we should be grateful to those who are now reminding us. I hope that the Senate will pass this motion. It is badly needed. It has been very carefully considered. It has the support of many members of the academic community. It is, I suppose, public knowledge that it is strongly supported by chairmen of departments. Nevertheless, it is a good motion. [laughter].

Chairman: Yes, would you rise and state your name? Yes, Professor McClosky, will you come forward so that you can be heard?

Professor Herbert McClosky (Political Science): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am one of the drafters and sponsors of the original resolution which was submitted to the Committee on Academic Freedom for their consideration, and which now, in slightly revised form, is before the Senate for its consideration. The co-sponsors of that resolution have asked me to second the motion, and to express to the Academic Senate their support and enthusiasm for the resolution now before the Senate. Following the spontaneous--maybe the spontaneous combustible-faculty meeting on December third, that day of grave crisis, a number of faculty members formed themselves into an ad hoc group of 200 in an effort to formulate a coherent set of resolutions that would embody the main points of the May resolution and of other resolutions so strongly supported by the faculty members who attended that meeting. ...The proposals went through several revisions prior to the version now submitted by the Academic Freedom Committee. We-and be "we" I mean those who sponsored the original motion-are satisfied that this version embodies all the principles and objectives approved by that unofficial faculty meeting, as we interpreted and presented them in our own resolution, distributed yesterday and signed by Kornhauser, Lowenthal, et al. We believe that the adoption of this resolution by the Academic Senate is crucial, not only to the solution of the present crisis, but to the survival of the university as a significant institution in American intellectual life. Perhaps other, better resolutions can be written. Perhaps some things have been omitted that should have been included, while other things have been included that might better have been omitted. We do not believe the present resolution is perfect. And every one of the original drafters could, if given the opportunity, suggest changes that might improve it. We believe, however, that the resolution comes close to being optimal, under the circumstances. We have reason to hope, for example, that we can persuade both the university administration and the overwhelming majority of the students to accept the terms of this resolution, in principle, if not in every detail. The resolution has been widely circulated and discussed. And from all indications, seems to have become the focal point around which large numbers of faculty members of different shades of opinion have rallied. Just before I came over here I was handed, for example, a petition from a group addressed to the Academic Senate originally, containing many, many signatures, indicating their widespread support for this, and I gather there are many such petitions around. This happens to be a group which was of 80 individuals from 20 university facilities on the Berkeley campus. I believe that many share my feeling that this resolution is our best, perhaps now our only, hope of settling what has been one of the most agonizing, shattering, and potentially destructive experiences that any American university has ever had to pass through. We believe that its adoption will bring us closer, perhaps safely through to a solution. No conflict of these proportions could take place without generating feelings of bitterness and disappointment, the desire to punish or to vindicate, but the time for recriminations, I think, has passed. It no longer matters where the major fault lies, who is right and who is wrong, or whether the greater sins have been comitted by the students, the administration, or the faculty. What matters now is how, by what means, we can survive. It is my hope, and I think I can speak for all those who have worked to develop this resolution in its original form, that we can now put aside our differences, and that we can all manage-students, faculty, university officials, and regents-to strike an attitude of generosity and magnanimity, so that the damage might be repaired, and so that we can all return to work. It is in this spirit, Mr. Chairman, that I wish to second the motion for the adoption of this resolution.

Chairman: I now recognize you -- (inaudible voice) -- try this microphone -- has it been connected? Will you please state your name, I don't believe they heard you.

Professor Lewis Feuer (Philosophy): My name is Feuer, Departments of Philosophy and Social Science and I am introducing an amendment and speaking in defense of this amendment. The amendment is to paragraph 3 of the proposed motion. First line of paragraph 3; to alter it as follows: "that the content of speech or advocacy on this campus, provided that it is directed to no immediate act of force or vlolence, should not be restricted by the university, " and then in the last line of paragraph 3 to alter "as may be imposed under section 2" to "as have been heretofore stated."

I should like to explain why I have moved this amendment. It does not strike at the philosophy of the Free Speech Movement, as I understand that philosophy as it has been expounded by some of its proponents. Insofar as the Free Speech Movement is sincerely committed to non-violence, it has nothing to fear from this amendment, which is aimed to keep from advocacy on university premises and grounds those who are advocating the immediate commitment of acts of force and violence. The particular resolution which we will enact will probably become a model for many of the universities from here to the East Coast, including the state of Mississippi. As this resolution stands now without an amendment, it would allow a student Ku Klux Klan chapter to organize itself on campuses, to carry on meetings at which they would advocate, plan and organize actions for defacing Jewish synagogues, Negro and Catholic churches, and they would claim the protection of the university sanctuary for these acts of speech, advocacy, and organization. Unless we have a provision, some amendment which will make it clear that we do not condone this sort of action or behavior, we are opening the way for every extremist and crackpot organization, which can then enter upon this campus, advocate its most immediate measures without fear of any action on the part of the university. And then, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other police agencies will be able to claim with some show of force that since the university is not carrying out the most minimal safeguards of democracy, that they have the right to infiltrate our premises with their agents. We will, then, truly become a police university.

Now, it seems to me that if this resolution as it stands now were to be enacted, we would be embarking upon the kind of situation which helped destroy freedom and democracy in the universities of Central Europe during the 30s. And many of us recall those days. At that time, Nazi students organized their attacks on the outside community, on Jews, on liberals, on democrats, on socialists, and they claimed immunity, they claimed immunity from the university authorities, which could do nothing, and at the same time they claimed immunity from the police. And this very type of resolution became an instrument, not for the safeguarding of democracy, as Professors Tussman and McClosky suggest, but for its destruction. It seems to me, then, to safeguard the future of the university, its autonomy as its own self-governing institution, and democracy here, such an amendment as I have presented should be passed.

Professor Nathan Glazer (Sociology): My name is Nathan Glazer, Professor of Sociology. I rise to second Professor Feuer's amendment. I will make only two points in support of the amendment. The first point is that it has been suggested that any restriction on speech or advocacy or organization that is allowed on this campus by the administration will inevitably mean the policing and perhaps the prior consorship of all such speech and advocacy and perhaps the prior restriction of all such organization. I would like to point out that in my understanding these are principles that govern the situation, they do not require--and if we pass Part Four of this resolution--regulations can be made, it is unnecessary to regulate speech or advocacy or to govern organization in any pre-existent way, but the University still retains the right to act under circumstances that are outrageous and detrimental to free speech and democracy. I think this reservation by the University, I feel is essential, though the reservation can certainly be used most sparingly and only under very limited circumstances. My second point, is that it seems to me particularly necessary in view of the fact that, or as I read the resolution as originally presented, organizations of such activity--organization would also be subject only to the limitations of in effect [Section two?], and that is traffic control. I think it is not too difficult to envisage a situation where, without trying to raise anybody's hair, force and violence is directly organized on the campus, and the Campus has, and the administration or the student committee governing this has no recourse at all in such a situation either in terms of forbidding such activity or in terms of disciplining anyone involved in it. Thank you. seconds the proposal for amendment. Discussion of the amendment and the resolution

Chairman: Professor tenBroek.

Professor Jacobus tenBroek (Political Science): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the Committee on Academic Freedom, I should like to express our opposition to this proposed amendment. The framework of the resolutions which we have presented, is carefully designed to do a simple thing: Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; and render unto the University that which belongs to the University. The framework of the resolutions we have presented is carefully designed to do a simply thing: render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto the university that which belongs to the university. As to content, as to the substance of what men say, this place should be absolutely free. So far as the university is concerned, this is an educational institution. We are engaged in the business of education. That function carries us into lots of areas of thought and even some areas of activity. We are concerned with knowing ourselves, with discovering knowledge, with spreading knowledge, with developing among our students some sense of morality and some capacity for self-government in a democracy. All of this requires that we adhere to standards which will permit people to say what is on their minds. We should not forbid them to say anything.

On the other hand, this is an educational institution. We've got to conduct our business, and, consequently, it is necessary to have regulations which will deal with the time, place, and manner of what is said. It is necessary to prevent the use of loud speakers which will interrupt classes; it's necessary to see to it that people can use the paths which lead to the library and even occasionally that lead to classrooms, where students sometimes want to go. It's necessary to take care that the procedures and the mechanics of conducting political activity and operating a system of free speech be so regulated, so reasonably regulated, as to enable this institution to continue to carry on its major function.

Now, if you're going to talk about limiting the content of speech and advocacy, then it seems to me the very minimum that you should do is to use the language which, after many years of experience, the Supreme Court has developed in this field-and I'm not sure that even then they're talking about the content of speech and advocacy. You have here an expression which is that the content of speech may be limited if it is directed to an immediate act of a certain kind. Well, what speech is directed to an immediate act of violence? Suppose a person advocates violence. Then suppose he does it in a context in which there's not the slightest danger that that will come about. Is there any reason you should stop that, even if your concern is violence? Now, our concern is not violence. This is the concern of the civil community. This is the concern of the FBI. And if Professor Feuer thinks that the FBI does not now have a right to come on this campus, he better think again. They have a right to come on this campus. They are on this campus very frequently. Other police are on this campus. Our own police force is an adjunct to the police force of Berkeley. We should leave all these matters of restriction of content to the civil society where constitutional restraints will be imposed on those who act to invade freedom of speech. We should be concerned with the intellectual and spiritual task of running a university where anybody can say whatever is on his mind, and other people can listen to him, and think about it, and make up their minds whether they agree or not. This resolution is not just a declaration of principle-this proposal that Dr. Feuer is making. It opens up to university regulation what we are here saying should not be regulated by the university in any manner, shape, or form. What other people do by way of regulation belongs to their jurisdiction and not to ours. So, the Committee on Academic Freedom is opposed to this amendment to our resolutions.

Professor Proskauer (Botany): Clarification of resolution sought. What are the rights of an individual student? What rights does it lie in the power of the Regents to give or to take away? Opinion from UCB law school sought re these issues.

Chairman: I am going to recognize Professor Carl Landauer. Professor Landauer.

Carl Landauer (Economics): Carl Landauer, Economics. I would like to support the Feuer amendment. I fully agree with what has been said about the necessity of an amnesty. Mistakes have been made from all sides and the only conclusion we can draw is no further penalties. But as far as the number three is concerned, I think Professor tenBroek is wrong when he says that the resolution of the Academic Freedom Committee gives Caesar that which is Caesar's. Support for Feuer amendment. Supports amnesty. I'm not so much worried about Caesar's well-being as I'm worried about the likelihood that Caesar will take that which is his if we don't give it to him. The position that we can commit the organization of any lawless action on the campus-that is, the campus organization of any lawless action in the community-is, in my opinion, tenable only if, at the same time, we recognize the moral right, I'm not talking about legal rights, but the moral right of the police to come to our campus and suppress this activity. This moral right I'm not willing to concede to the general law enforcement agencies. I cannot prevent them from coming to our campus in certain contingencies, but I want to minimize these contingencies, and, consequently, I must draw the conclusion that we ourselves must have a possibility in outrageous cases of lawlessness which are advocated or organized on the campus to interfere with our own academic means. Nobody wants to regulate the content of speeches or other expressions when it is a matter of non-violence. Any philosophy can be advocated by students, by faculty, by anybody. We have made great progress in this respect as far as outside speakers are concerned. We are now much freer than we used to be. But, members of the Academic Senate, I have...some experience in fighting interferences with academic freedom. The people of my age and who are here will remember the [loyalty] oath question. In the oath question we were not fully successful, by any means. We had at the very best a quarter victory. But we had a quarter victory only because our position was fully defensible. And that was finally recognized by a number of groups or institutions, including courts, which were of decisive importance for the outcome. I would not hesitate to fight the Regents, as we probably will have to when this resolution is adopted, to fight the Regents on a defensible cause. We have done that before, we shall, in all probability have to do it again. But I do not want the Academic Senate to put itself into a position in which the fight cannot be conducted from a basis which is inherently not defensible.

Chairman: Professor Rynin had his hand up first. Would you please stand instead of holding up your hand. Remember that the debate is on Professor Feuer's amendment to the main motion presented by Professor Garbarino. Professor David Rynin, Speech Department ?

Professor David Rynin: Philosophy. (Laughter)

Chairman: After this I'll ask each person to state his name and rank. Professor David Rynin (Philosophy Dept.): I find it very regrettable that we're putting ourselves in the position where we have to declare ourselves against force and violence. No one here is in favor of force and violence. But if we adopt this amendment, which I'm very sorry to see my friend Lewis Feuer saw fit to introduce, we should remember that we're not simply taking a position on force and violence, we are, in fact, I think, making a major contribution to the continuation of force and violence, if such it be, as has characterized this campus for some time. This is not a mere academic issue in which we can discuss this matter in some ideal realm as to what would be desirable, absolutely. We are gathered here because the university is in perhaps the gravest in its career. A supreme effort has been made to save the university. We have a measure here which will go a long way, we have reason to think, to save the university. If we begin debating this matter and pass this resolution, this will mean one thing to the people who have been most active in this struggle, people whom I honor and respect, despite their short-comings, and who have, I think, done a great service to the university, this Free Speech Movement. They will understand this in only one way, namely, that this vague language about advocating action directed toward force and violence, or how ever it stated, as once again putting them in the position in which, if they prepare boycotts or sit-ins or picketing against the outside community in the name of civil liberties, and preserving and safeguarding the rights of minorities, that they are again subject to the same kind of punitive threats and actualities as has led to this miserable situation in the first place. I think that we should not forget what we are here for and what we have to do. The philosophic issues, if such it be, as has been raised here seems to me to call for a quite different audience and situation.

Chairman: Professor Chamberlain.

Professor [Owen] Chamberlain (Physics)(?): Mister Chairman, I wish to speak against the amendment. I have a feeling that there are some things that the students have been trying to tell us that are relevant to this question. In particular, I want to try to distinguish between these two things that are discussed: one the one hand, force; on the other hand, violence. There are strange happenings on our campus these days. There are meanings to be read from them, I think the students have attempted to be articulate in explaining them to us. I think they have had real difficulty.

On the matter of non-violent civil disobedience: the students are quite proud of their use of the method called civil disobedience. They have used it under some of the most trying conditions, particularly in the South. They are proud of its feature of putting high value on the human lives of others, and, at the same time, low value on the rules of man, which seem, at times, rather arbitrary, especially to the young people. In commenting on civil disobedience from my own point of view, I want to say that I tend to disagree with the students. I feel that I have a great investment in the continued existence of an orderly society. In fact, I could not feed myself or my family except as I have the cooperation inherent in an orderly society. But, if we are to convince the students that they, too, have a vested interest in preserving order, we probably must convince them that they have at their disposal other tools, tools that are more suitable for all, but fully effective.

On the right of social action: the students are not well-impressed by the world as they see it. They see much is wrong, and I'm sure many of us do. They feel that their privilege, indeed, their responsibility to take steps to make change in an undesirable pattern. The necessity of being heard: the students, particularly those most active politically, feel the necessity of having their views heard, yet feel that within the spectrum of methods their elders would recommend to them, there is little that would allow them the effectiveness that they feel their conviction warrants. It is all very well for a committee of the faculty to say that the recent disorders have hindered the consideration of student proposals, yet I, for one, do not believe it. The students feel that they have had no legitimate channel open.

On the matter of paternalism: while it is the claim of this university that it exists for the purpose of helping young people become skilled and responsible citizens, the administration and faculty have very often taken a rather paternalistic attitude toward the students. The students may rightly say that there can be no sudden transition the day the receive their last academic degree, from dependent child to independent adult. They're insisting they are young adults. They're insisting they do carry responsibility. They are showing us that even such a simple matter as law and order on our campus depends upon them. They are asking that we recognize their views, not just as the view of youth, but also the view of adulthood.

Intellectual integrity on both sides: Many of us have noticed the distortions in the FSM literature; I take it I do not have to comment on that. Yet all has not been well on our side. We insist on demeaning the students by reference to "the new, liberalized rules." I grant that, in the technical sense, the rules have been liberalized. I think a person who reads the old rules and the news rules would agree. But this should not obscure the fact that the meaning of a rule is inexorably tied to its customary interpretation. In terms of the interpretation of old rules during the last academic year, I believe the logical interpretation of the new rules is that they are more restrictive. I urge that we do not too often refer to the new rules as "liberalized".

Mr. Chairman, I feel that many of the actions that our students would be most proud of might run into difficulty with the Feuer amendment. I regard the occupation of Sproul Hall as a use of force, but not a use of violence. I suggest the amendment is not proper as formulated. I suggest that we reject it.

Chairman: I'm going to recognize Dr. Diamond. He was the first on the floor.

Professor Bernard Diamond (Criminology and Law): I wish to speak against the proposed amendment. It is not the proper function of the Academic Senate or of the university administration to extend itself into the field of criminal law. If an act of force and violence is advocated and implemented on the campus of the University of California, such an individual is adequately covered by the laws which exist for all individuals within the state of California and the United States. There now exists adequate means, courts for administration and interpretation of the law, without the committees of the university-the Senate or the administration-invading a territory which does not properly belong to them. The definition of "force" and "violence" in relationship to civil disobedience is an exceedingly complex one. We as agents or part of a university organization do not, and will never have, the necessary machinery for the implementation and interpretation of the individual acts which may be relevant to this. And I urge you to stay out of the field of criminal law, to allow the government of the state of California and of the United States to deal with such issues, and we should restrict ourselves to the spirit of the principle of free speech.

Chairman: Professor Lepawsky.

Professor Albert Lepawsky (Political Science): Professor Chamberlain used what I think is the important phrase that should concern us here this afternoon. We are going to enter into a long debate on amendments and legal details and the like. But I frankly can't see how we can evade a major issue which is much greater than that. Professor Chamberlain spoke of "non-violent civil disobedience." I submit that we have seen and continue to see here on this campus during this crisis period is violent uncivil disobedience. And if we do not face up to the question of whether we will bow, in one form or another, to this kind of pressure, we are not meeting our main obligation here this afternoon. I am not myself concerned about many of the details we are going to get into this afternoon, but I do hope, Mr. Chairman, we will get a good expression of opinion on what I think is our basic question, and not these technical questions of how to phrase regulations.

The students have obviously found a good thing. They have discovered a means of not only debating but achieving some consequences resulting from that debate, which in my judgment are enormous. The implications are great, not only for this University or for the university systems of this country or abroad. Speaking of abroad, I always used to be proud of the fact that when I went to Latin American universities that we didn't have such things, and I am afraid that we are going into a period of our history, unless we put our foot down on this major issue here this afternoon, and not ask the courts to enforce some minor regulations, or to engage in some major Constitutional thinking on this question. This is our responsibility; indeed, this is the final opportunity for the University, and the faculty has the honor of facing up to that opportunity directly. That it has refused to face up to, indeed, it has capitulated to forces which destroy that responsibility up to this point. The main reason that I would at least favor the amendment, but certainly not adopt the provision as it is now suggested, is that a new constitutional system, or system for constituting policy-making and decision-making efforts, is being imposed upon us by not non-violent civil disobedience, but, as I have said, by an uncivil disobedience. The young man who grasped that microphone yesterday after the president had laid down rules for orderly conduct is a man of great capacity. He and his colleagues I hereby give the grade of A-plus to in how to administer certain things, and I won't mention those things. And if we are going to condone in any manner whatsoever by our action here this afternoon the kind of behavior that that final act of defiance on the part of brilliant Mr. Savio yesterday, we are not merely passing judgment on a minor aspect of a student movement; we are enacting a new system for making decisions and arriving at policies at a major American institution. Indeed, it may affect our democracy as a whole.

I will tell you one final anecdote about my own life, and then leave the podium, Mr. Chairman. I came from a University in the South. I must say I was very proud of my graduate students there. They were all, if I may use that term in a way in which you'll understand it, liberals to the core. They were not the typical Southerners that you think about or hear about when you hear about Southern colleges or universities. I was proud of them, but I was not proud of our president. Because our president, Mr. Gallilee, at one time ordered the police on the campus to use violence upon the students in the following form. He said, "Don't shoot them too high: shoot them in the legs! " And we called him, "Shoot-'em-in-the-legs Gallilee." I do not want the University of California, which I have the greatest respect for, and which is an institution that is having an effect upon world affairs as well as scientific and educational affairs of great moment, I don't want this institution to remind me of my experience with "Shoot-'em-in-the-legs Gallile", and if I am not crude, Mr. Chairman, I want to end my remarks by saying I do not want to substitute for "Shoot-'em-in-the-legs Gallilee," "Bite-'em-in- the-legs Savio."

Chairman: It has been suggested that we suggest that two more speakers from each side be recognized. I recognize Professor Selznick.

Professor Philip Selznick: Philip Selznik, Professor of Sociology. I should like to address myself to a couple of the comments that Professor Lepawsky--who is, by the way, not Professor McClosky--some of the comments that he made. I think that if we look carefully at the motion proposed by the Committee on Academic Freedom it will be clear that acts of civil disobedience on this campus are, indeed, to be regulated. These fall within the purview of the provision that the time, place, and manner of speech shall be subject to University regulation. We are not in the business here of regulating speech; that is to say, the content of speech. Our problem is to find a policy that is tenable, that can be defended, that can be implemented, that can find its way into a series of regulations and governing provisions that we can all live with and that are proper to a university. The University has all the resources it needs to deal with disorderly behavior on this campus. It can deal with disorderly behavior by invoking its own rules. It can deal with disorderly behavior by invoking the rules of the civil authority. It retains the right to file charges against anyone who breaks the law. Our problem is not the control of acts, but of speech. And, we are moving here, I sincerely hope we shall conclude here, a movement toward a policy that protects the content of speech, and that assumes the risks of that protection.

I am not unmindful of the grave issues and problems raised by Professors Feuer and Glazer. I know that political abomination has existed in the modern world and may yet be with us again. How shall we deal with political abominations in an educational institution? It is not a tenable policy, it is not a defensible policy, it is not a workable policy to deal with such abominations by attempting to introduce the sorts of restraints envisioned by the amendment. This amendment is unworkable as Professor tenBroek has suggested. This amendment is not consistent with the basic spirit and aims of a university. We want to invoke the new policy, the policy we should have had all along, the policy we are adopting not out of concession to pressure, not out of submission to outside forces, but because, I think, at long last we are ready to adopt a policy that should have been with us through all these times. We adopt this policy, not only because it is consistent with the Constitution of the United States. We adopt this policy because it is the most fitting policy for a great university. I sincerely hope that we will vote down the Feuer amendment and give our full support to the Committee on Academic Freedom.

Chairman: I recognize Professor Arnon.

Professor Daniel Arnon: Arnon, Cell Physiology. I'm going to speak in favor of this amendment. I, first of all, would like to address myself to the remarks of Professor Rynin. The remarks of Professor Rynin were addressed not to principles, but to expediency. We are told that the mob is waiting outside. We are told that unless we do as we heard yesterday, those of us who were at the rally--unless we vote right--we will never solve this problem. Now it seems to me that an appeal to this body on such grounds is inappropriate no matter what the emergency. We are in effect being confronted with this situation. We have students who are determined to fight for their principles no matter what, no matter whether they destroy the University, no matter whether they bring destruction on themselves and on the University. From this they will not budge. But we the faculty, we must vote, not according to our principles, but according to the danger which these students present. I submit that this is not an honorable alternative choice for this faculty, no matter what the issue and no matter how grave. I think we ought to discuss the issue on its merits, and I think that threats, outside this room or inside this room, have no place in a great university. Now, as to some of the remarks of Professor Selznick. He has told us that the University has great resources for enforcing its regulations, that the University can always call on the civil authorities to help them. I ask you all in this room: Is this a flight from reality, or is this reality? Have we seen during the last week that this very point which he invoked has any semblance of reality? I submit it has not.

But I believe that neither of these arguments are the real ones. I am very --completely--in agreement, and I think that all of us in this room are in agreement--with giving the students complete freedom, complete freedom, in their political rights under the First and the Fourteenth Amendment, everything compatible with free speech. But I submit this to you. If the University becomes the place which receives the greatest protection in our community for positions for advocacy leading, in the phrase of the amendment, "to immediate acts of force and violence", are we not becoming, by ipso facto, the place from which such attacks may be launched and mounted? Moreover, I have heard no assurances yet that all this is restricted to the University community. Suppose, as we have heard at the rally yesterday--in fact, I believe from the lips of one of our own members--that certain outside groups (I believe he invoked the name of outside agencies, president of or chairman of a very prominent civil rights group and others who he mentioned) are coming here. Where is here? On the campus at Berkeley? What will you do if tomorrow, let us say, the students say that in order to become an effective...in order to implement these principles, they will stage a rally, not only for students, but they will invite, let us say, all others who do not belong to the University community, and since we have spacious grounds, they'll use these grounds for that. I submit that we would then have no leg to stand on. I believe that the students are entitled to their rights, and I believe that this resolution of the Committee on Academic Freedom, with the amendment, does not detract from their rights; it protects them adequately, and I believe regardless of whether we can convince all the students, I believe we will convince the majority of them who understand the issues and who can see what is involved here at stake. And above all I submit that this body must, at this moment which is of tremendous importance to this University and all universities in the country, vote on principle, but not under duress. Chairman: We have now been debating for about an hour and ten minutes. I would like to suggest that the chairman of the Academic Freedom Committee select a speaker to close the debate, and that Professor Feuer, either himself or he selects a speaker on the amendment as the closing. Professor Stampp is s peaking as a member of the Academic Freedom Committee.

Professor Stampp: I'm Kenneth Stampp of the History Department, and I'd like to say first that the propositions of the Committee on Academic Freedom were not addressed to expediency, but to high principles. I agree that the Feuer amendment sounds reasonable enough because, as has been said before, none of us believes in force and violence. But I also believe that the proposed Feuer amendment would change the whole nature of the propositions that have been submitted to this body today by the Committee on Academic Freedom. It would to a considerable extent put the University once again in the business of regulating speech and advocacy, and I think it would get us back to where we were before this meeting today. Now the question has been raised, what rights can the Board of Regents delegate to our students and what rights do our students have? I don't think the Board of Regents can delegate any rights to our students. These rights they have under the Constitution of the United States, and under the Constitution of the state of California. The Regents neither delegate these rights nor are empowered, I think, to take them away. Now the propositions that we introduced today may prove in practice to have weaknesses and shortcomings, but these propositions can be amended by this body when it deems appropriate to do so. But we still hold, as a general proposition, that while our students are accountable to civil authorities for violations of the laws of the state and of the community, and responsible to the faculty of this university for the violation of regulations concerning the time and place and manner of speech and advocacy, our students can properly expect of the university that it will respect their Constitutional rights, and will protect them in their exercise. Thank you.

Chairman: Professor Feuer yields to Professor Petersen to make the closing argument on the amendment to the motion presented by the Committee on Academic Freedom. Let me say while Professor Petersen is coming up here that I greatly appreciate your attention, and also the very high level in which this very crucial debate has been carried on.

Professor Petersen: My name is William Petersen, I'm a professor of Sociology, and I speak for Professor Feuer's amendment. I want to suggest that a considerable part of the responsibility for the events on campus lies with the faculty. I think that we have neglected our responsibility in trying to influence, not, indeed, those true believers who have a final solution to every question, but the very large portion who have been influenced by that core. We have failed to exert our influence on even the most fundamental questions. Let me remind you of the meeting of this body some weeks back, when there was a motion on the floor to support the maximum political freedom for organization on campus. An amendment was offered to that motion: "the maximum political freedom within the law," and that amendment was voted down. Perhaps the amendment was poorly worded. Then it was paraphrased in various versions. One of my colleagues, Professor Skolnick, offered another version: "that students shall have all of the rights on campus that citizens off the campus have, and no more." This amendment was tabled by the advocates of free speech. Eventually, it became somewhat scandalous that the Academic Senate could not support what should be a platitude of human conduct on a university campus. And it was necessary to spend a day in a telephone campaign and get some of you who are rather infrequent members of this body--in attendance at any rate--to come, and finally, a motion was passed condemning the use of force and violence in the so-called settlement of political disputes.

We have moved somewhat from that day. We are no longer speaking of "within the law," we are now speaking of a condemnation of force and violence, and apparently this, now, has become an issue. Phrases that would be edited out of any campaign speech as too platitudinous to include are an issue in this body. I really feel that Professor Rynin pointed to precisely the issue. We are threatened by a group which has found a mode of behavior that permits a group of irresponsible true believers to dictate what they want, and the solution that is offered by the opponents of this amendment is that this group is so powerful that if we offer even platitudinous opposition to their force and violence that we must expect, as a result, force and violence. I submit that this is blackmail, that it would be undignified to submit to. And I ask you further, where does this stop? If we submit to this, then what? I think that I can point to one example. The TA's on the campus wanted to strike; unfortunately, there is a law that if you strike against the state government, you are by that act dismissed. In a number of departments the TA's presented this dilemma to the faculty. In a number of departments, the faculty and the TA's conspired on how to break the state law without the TA's incurring any inconvenience from this fact. I submit that this is no function for a true teacher. If there is a bad law-- and this may be a bad law--and if there is someone with the courage to break it and test it in court, if I agree with his moral position I will support him. But I will not support a faculty which refuses to come out for the law in general against force and violence in general, and moves from this position under the pressure of a bunch of rowdies into conspiring with the students to break other laws as well.

Chairman: I hear the call for question. We are ready to vote on the amendment to the main motion presented by--the amendment is presented by Professor Feuer. All in favor of the amendment, will you please indicate by saying "Aye." (AYE'S HEARD.) Contrary, "no." (NO'S HEARD. Is there a call for a division? A call for a division? I ask that all-- I heard a call for a division--I ask that all those in favor of the amendment to the main motion please stand. Those people now standing in the back of the room, will you hold up your hands. Is the count complete? The count is complete. I now ask for all those who are opposed to the amendment to the main motion, please stand. Those people in the back... The amendment is lost. All right. We have a count on the division. I ask the secretary to announce the vote.

Secretary: Mr. Chairman, the vote on the amendment is 284 aye, 737 nay.

Chairman: I declare the amendment to the motion as lost. Are you ready for the question on the main motion? All right, I recognize this gentlemen here. I think he has a right to speak. Do you care to go to the... This is still debatable. We are now directed to the question on the main motion presented by the Committee on Academic Freedom.

Professor Zemach: Charles Zemach, Physics. Mr. Chairman, we have heard in the last few days that the action of the Committee of Chairmen was an interim measure. We may wish to believe that the motion before us is a final word on some of the subjects it treats. I suggest that this motion is an interim measure. This motion is as interim as anything else. Look, for example, at point four. This says that "discipline on political activity is to be done by a Senate committee." I hope the Senate has enough imagination to realize what the potentialities are. Let us suppose that under new enlightened rules a discipline case comes up. The committee members may be told by the people whom they are considering the discipline of that they are breaking the rules, that they are violating an agreement, that they are betrayers. They may be confronted with massive sit-ins at their meetings. They may be confronted with massive sit-ins in their classrooms, in Sproul Hall, or anywhere else. They may be asked to share their heavy responsibilities with student representatives, because this is what a University is supposed to be--to have faculty and students working together towards truth. They should not be surprised to hear the loudspeakers of Sproul Hall blare forth that they are trying to crush the civil rights movement, or that they are creatures of a scheming president, or that they are honest and sincere, but need student support to withstand the pressures of the Oakland Tribune and right-wing businessmen, or that they are power-mad, or that their wives have long been intriguing for their increase in power. These are all phrases I have heard from FSM leaders in the last two days, either in public speeches or in serious negotiations. The bit about somebody's wife was by a FSM leader in serious negotiations.

To those of you who do not like to hear these things on loudspeakers or read them in the newspapers, I suggest you keep off that committee. I might even say that those of you who don't enjoy that sort of conflict the way the FSM leaders enjoy that sort of conflict, you might keep off that committee. Let no one believe that questions of law and order and discipline are being solved by the motion before us. We are changing the battlefield. The terrain of the new battlefield will also be difficult. Now then, there is something very fine and noble about a community like this going forth to take on responsibilities. Not haggling over whether one is forced to do so, or whether the responsibilities might be left on someone else. There will also be something comforting about being able to look back on one's work and being able to say, "I did my duty, I did my best." This is particularly true if you reach one of these situations where there is nothing else to be comfortable about. Finally, there is the hope--and much depends on this--that students who love the University will be able to find something final about this measure. And I'll say that again. There is the hope that--and much depends on this--and everything depends on this--that students who love this University will find something final about this measure. In the spirit of these sentiments, I shall vote wholeheartedly for this motion, but let's not kid ourselves that the future is all peaches and cream. Thank you.

Chairman: I've heard the call for the question, but if there is debate, under the rules, I think I must insist upon it. This gentleman stood first. Will you please approach the microphone if you care to speak on the main motion. I take it that you're speaking on the main motion?

Professor O'Konski: My name is Chester O'Konski. I'm a professor in the Department of Chemistry. I would like to speak generally in favor of the entire motion which has been drawn up by the Committee on Academic Freedom. However, I reserve the right to suggest the change of merely one word. This change is not a trivial change in my opinion, but one which is concerned very intimately with the question of the machinery of the Academic Senate and the working of the administration of the University. I believe that unfortunately certain things are implied in the wording of part number four which would be impractical to administer under existing machinery of the Academic Senate and the existing administration of the University. The change which I'd like to suggest is the fourth word of number four. I would like to substitute the word "policy" for "measures." As I understand it, we are a policy-making organization, and we may recommend to the administration and to the Regents the adoption of any policies which we see fit in the administration of education in this University. However, I believe the word "measures" suggests that we would set up a committee which would in some way police political activity on the part of the students. I am opposed to setting up a committee of the Academic Senate which would police such activity, and that, furthermore, it would be necessary to have many committees to hear and judge the results of these infractions which would be found by the first committee, and that this would lead us into a morass of administration for which professors were never intended and probably would not do very well.

Chairman: You have heard the amendment to the main motion. The amendment is that in statement four the fourth word "measures" be stricken out and there be added the word "policies." Is there a second to the motion? There is a second to the motion. Professor, will you please stand if you want recognition? Professor Stampp. Please don't hold up your hands--will you stand and take the [.....] if you wish to be recognized. I would like--this is a rather narrow technical question--I would like to have you resolving this question so we get very quickly to a vote.

Professor Stampp: I'll be as narrow and technical as I can in answering this. In another one of the propositions, proposition two, it seems to me that policy--that is, narrowly-confined policy, about time, place, and manner--is already provided for. It seems to me that in proposition three the term policy more broadly construed is already provided for. And that in proposition four what we want is exactly what we asked for here: that is, the right to have the disciplinary measures determined by a committee of the Academic Senate.

(There follows a rather complicated series of questions and explanations concerning the parliamentary operation of "moving the question," during which the above amendment was defeated. -- Editor)

Chairman: I would like to say that there is some unhappiness by people who feel that there should be an opportunity to vote on the main motion, and I'm going now to put that main motion so that anyone can, without any question, know that a vote was taken on it. That is, the motion which is now unamended, presented by Professor Garbarino, chairman of the Academic Freedom Committee. I ask that those all in favor of the motion please indicate by saying "aye." (AYES HEARD.) Contrary, "no." (NO'S HEARD.) The motion is carried. If there is a call for a division, we will have a count. All right, we have heard the call. Will the secretary please announce the vote.

Secretary: Mr. Chairman, the vote is 824 aye, 115 nay.

Transcript: Gary Handman, Media Resources Center (based on earlier transcripts by Michael Rossman posted at http://www.fsm-a.org/stacks/AP_files/ACSenate.html

Return to FSM Home

Copyright (C) 1996 by the Library, University of California, Berkeley. All rights reserved.
Document maintained on server: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ by
Gary Handman, Head, Media Resources Center.
Last update 04/07/11 [gh]

MRC web graphics by Mary Scott, Graphics Office, The Teaching Library