Free Speech Movement, UC Berkeley
Online Audio Recordings - Transcripts

Car Top Rally, October 2, 1964 (Part 1)


Jack Weinberg immediately after arrest:

"While we're waiting, can I tell you a little bit about the university. ... I want to tell you about this knowledge factory that we're all sitting here now. It seems that certain of the products are not coming out the standard specifications, and I feel the university is trying to purge these products so they can once again produce for the industry exactly what they specify. If you read Clark Kerr's books, these are his precise words. The knowledge factory takes certain assignments, they take orders from industry: they want so many of these , they want so many of these, they want so many of these. The university very willingly obliges to this. The university very willing obliges and, in fact, turns out exactly what they are ordered. These are not on-campus groups, by the way, that put these orders in; these are off-campus groups. They put in orders that they want certain kinds of product. This is mass production, no deviations from the norms are tolerated. Occasionally, a few students get together and they decide that they are human beings. Some students get together they decide that they are not willing to be products. They decide that they're not willing to be another thing produced by the university, and they protest, and the university feels obliged--and I'm sure all these gentlemen here feel very morally upset about this; they're not cruel men--but they feel purge these non-standard products. Now, this is very unfortunate. Why do we advocate social action at the university? It's very simple: we want to see social change in the world in which we live. We want to see this social change because we are human beings who have ideas; we think, we talk, we discuss. And we're doing thinking and talking and discussing. Well then things are vacuous unless we then act on the principles that we think, talk, and discuss about. This is as much a part of a university education as anything else. And let me tell you, I don't think there's anything wrong with learning to become part of an industry, or learning to a trade, or whatever else, but this can only be one part of the university. These gentlemen here are all university graduates, as I say, they are not evil men, but they are products, and they are acting like the product that was produced, they are doing the job they were made for, and I don't feel anger at them, I feel sorry for them. I am a member of campus C.O.R.E, campus C.O.R.E stands for certain principles. We of campus C.O.R.E [Congress on Racial Equality] feel there are certain things going on in this nation of ours which are totally and completely intolerable. We feel that we are human beings first and students second. We must take our stand on every vital issues which faces this nation, and in particular the vital issue of discrimination, of segregation, of poverty, of unemployment. The vital issue of people who aren't getting the decent breaks that they as individuals deserve. [Four university police move in to arrest Weinberg]

Police officer: "If you were a student and identified yourself, you would be disciplined by the Dean's Office. You're not identifying yourself, we're arresting you because you must be an outsider. ...that's trespassing."

Jamie Burton, a graduate student, that negotiations are going on in Sproul Hall with Dean Williams. Crowd needs to quiet down.

Mario Savio [climbs to top of police car]: "...Let me tell you what's going on, folks! ...In a perfectly reasonable way, this person, on his own initiative, has decided to act as a go-between between us and them. However, you know, the conditions were this, that while they were talking up there we would be reasonably quiet down here. And so, some of us had agreed that we would, you know, hold a non-noisy rally at twelve o'clock. "...[tape skip] in bad faith they would send their lackies down here to arrest somebody.

Jamie Burton: This was not something that was done directly by the Dean's Office..."

[unidentified speaker]: I have a proposal...release the guy until the end of negotiations and we'll quietly disperse.

Savio: "We're staying right here until this guy is released. ...We will let the police car through only if he is first released from arrest."

[unidentified speaker] "You're a bunch of fools! Look, you're asking too much!" Crowd chants: "Let him go! Let him go!"

Savio takes off his shoes and climbs to the top of the crowd-locked police car holding Jack Weinberg.


We were going to hold a rally here at twelve o'clock, and we were going to have to shout our lungs out to get people... I'm so grateful to the administration of this wonderful university; they've done it for us! Let's give them a hand! We must really feel very, very sorry for these poor policemen here, you know. ...Good men, they're family men, you know. They have a job to do. That's right, they have a job to do. It's very like, you know, Adolf Eichmann. He had a job to do: he fed them to the machinery. We are asking the following: We will not stop direct action against the administration of this university unless the accede to the following very simple and reasonable demands: Number one: they must immediate--and this is the Chancellor, Chancello Strong, being as he's the one who did it--must immediate say that no students have been suspended from the university. Number two: Chancellor Strong must agree to meet with representative of the off-campus political organizations to discuss with them reasonable regulations governing freedom of speech on this campus, which means, no arbitrary restrictions of any kind on freedom of speech on this campus. He must agree to such a meeting, that's demand number two. Demand number three, the final demand, is that the Chancellor must agree that no disciplinary action will be taken against anyone setting up tables or speaking here until, at very, very least, that meeting is held. And I am right now publicly serving a notice of warning, and I should say, threat to this administration they will be subject to continuous direct action by us, and it's going to be damn embarrassing for them, we're going to get foreign press, we're going to get domestic press, we're going to get all sorts of organizations against them until they accede to these legitimate demands.

Now, folks, here's what it is: a fellow that said that his own initiative, which I have reason to doubt, has been acting as a go-between between the administration and us. This fellow has now gone up to his friends in the administration. And, he told us he's going to see if he get them to drop charges against us. Now, let us suppose that does not happen, and there's a good likelihood that it won't happen. Alright, if that does not happen, I propose that everybody at this meeting, or as many as can fit, get into that damn building, get into Dean Towle's office, into Dean Arleigh William's office, into the offices, that you sit at the desks, that you sit right in the chairs, you sit on the floor, you make it absolutely impossible for them to conduct their work. [applause]

Alright. Some would like to know who I am and who appointed me, which is a reasonable request. ... My name is Mario Savio, I'm chair of University Friends of S.N.C.C. [Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee], I've been one of the people who have been meeting with the deans here to see if we can have freedom of speech at the University of California.

[Question from crowd: "Are you a student?"]

"Yes, I am--a Junior in philosophy."

[Question from crowd: "How old are you?] [Question: "Who was arrested, and why?"]


Alright, now, we can't tell who's arrested, because he refused to give his identification. I'd like to explain that, because there's really some legitimate difference of agreement as to whether the person should have given his identification. I think there's a perfectly legitimate rationale for his not having done so, and it's this: there is, on those reg cards, and by general agreement people have, you know, been acceding to the demands of the university to identify themselves. Yesterday, we did that. Over at Sather Gate, people sitting in a University Friends of S.N.C.C. table identified themselves in accordance with the demands, perhaps ill-considered and unjustified...of the administration. And you know what they did? They used that as a tool, as a weapon to take eight....[police walkie-talkie interrupts sound: "We're going to have to get somebody in. Is the chief in there?"]...and so, to protect ourselves--a simple matter of self protection--we cannot accede to this demand to identify ourselves until this administration is prepared to deal in a non-discriminatory manner. If you commit an act, you'll be punished for it in some way [police walkie-talkie interrupts sound].

Alright, now the question is, why was he arrested? Alright, we're going to answer the question in two ways, at least. The police say he was arrested for a violation of a trespass ordinance. Alright, OK, I'll tell you why he was arrested, in my opinion. He happens to be a person who has been quite outspoken in his disagreement with what the administration does. Furthermore, the people that they axed the other day were, likewise, people quite outspoken in their disagreement what the administration [police walkie-talkie interrupts sound]. There were other people, both today and yesterday, who are violating the same regulations and laws. They happened to pick upon those people who were the most outspoken. You know, there's a story told, it appears that one of the tales that Herodotus tells in his stories about the Persian Wars. He wanted to know, how can we take over a particular city or country in the most effective way? And the following parable was told: Have you ever seen [a field of wheat in which]... some stalks of wheat that stand up above the others? Very simple. Don't cut em' all down just the ones that stick up the highest and you've won. Well, that's precisely what they did. They're smart to that extent, at any rate. That's why they arrested them. [applause]

KPFA Reporter reporting on various activities on campus: 12/7/1964


Track 1

--Misc. student commentary

--Reporter reads handbill from University Student for Law and Order (USLO)

--Reports on student activist tables

--Reports on planned activities that evening

--Report by departmental chairs meetings

--Reports on bills posted on kiosks: Reads a posting entitled Machiavellianism criticizing Clark Kerr's handling of student protesters (FSM 800 students arrested in Sproul Hall sit-in in November)

Track 2

--Greek Theater (December 7, 1964)...student with placard: "Kerr, we aren't IBM cards, Don't program our minds; Mr. Moffitt, if i don't shave, can I be a communist, too?"

--Savio expresses his intent to make a statement, whether or not given permission. "You can see from the response (applause by students) that before Kerr comes down as great god and savior, these people are not fooled....I hope that he does not succeed in passing of this committee of the chairs of departments as THE faculty position, which is what they're going to attempt to do. They're going to attempt to pre-empt the Academic Senate [which voted to support the FSM] and I hope they don't succeed."

--Faculty representatives and Kerr take stage

--Scallapino and Kerr receive applause

Track 3

--Savio asked to comment on Scalapino speech: "Hypocrites"

--Some students attempt to sing We Shall Overcome...are quieted by crowd

--Kerr remarks (not captured)...closed meeting (without letting Savio talk). Some in crowd express loud disapproval
--Savio takes stage and is dragged off by police...coverage of scuffle on stage...Savio: "They're a bunch of hypocrites and bastards!"

--Professor John Leggett [UCB Sociology Dept.] "I find this behavior incredible. I do not see why Mario should not have been allowed to express his point of view...[Mario's] being held inside a building; we do not know what's going on in there, perhaps he's beaten up."

--Interview with Alex Hoffman (attorney for Savio): "I consider it an illegal arrest because he is a member of the university community with every right to be here."

Track 4

--Savio supporters question the police about his status

--Professor Joseph Tussman [Philosophy Dept.] and Prof. Robert Scalapino and [Political Science] and Hoffman attempt to speak to Savio and the police

--FSM students confront police; argue with Randy Pauley (ASUC Senator who ran on FSM ticket)...Pauly defends himself against charges of disloyalty to FSM: "Pauley, you're a rat."

--Kerr refuses to speak to reporter; crowd chants for Mario; Scalapino addresses the crowd

Track 5

--Reporter: "Dr. Kerr, was that a mistake?" Kerr: "It got me completely by surprise." Reporter: "Did you tell them to arrest him?" Kerr: "No, I didn't."

--Savio reports on what happened to him: "A scandalous occurrance!...and characteristic of what the faculty will find Scalapino is capable of doing."

--Scalapino introduces Savio.

Readings from two UCB faculty reports re FSM


Interim Report from Academic Senate Emergency Executive Committee:

This Committee has met with Regents on 12/17/64. On 12/18/64 Regents declared that "advocacy or content of speech will not be restricted beyond the purview of the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

Regents establish committee that will meet with students and faculty re matters of campus political activity, with the intent of providing "maximum freedom with responsibility."

Advice of Emergency Committee to Regents re additional steps that ought to be taken in order to fulfill intent of Faculty Senate's resolution of 12/8/64.

"The resolution is based on the premise that the primary and central tasks of the university are teaching, learning, and research, yet the full political rights possessed by members of the university can be exercised in a manner wholly compatible with its academic functions. The Senate's resolution is designed to provide a firm platform to unify in principle and practice the hitherto conflicting claims of political freedom and academic order. We believe that our university, by regulating its life as we propose, can become a community in which historic scholarly ideals are harmonized with and fortified by modern democratic rights."

Analysis of Regents actions compared with five points of Academic Senate resolution. Points discussed in the report include:

President Clark Kerr's agreement to the proposal that the university will accept ruling of courts regarding students arrested in connection with December 2-3, 1964 sit-in Sproul Hall. University will not prosecute charges against any student prior to December 2/3, but will pursue disciplinary action for any violations henceforth.

Recommendations regarding the establishment of an open political discussion area in upper Sproul Plaza.

Content of advocacy or speech should not be restricted by university.


(note some variable playback speed beginning with track 4)

Arrests of students involved in sit-in of Sproul Hall, December 2-3, 1964.

Discussion of differences between current arrest scene, conducted by Berkeley police, and earlier aggressive arrests by California Highway patrol. Police working in teams of two to make arrests. Discussion of current student attitudes and actions.

Mario Savio discusses Regents policies:

"The Regents policy on advocacy must go. There must be no restrictions on freedom of speech on this campus, nor any punishments for alleged abuses of freedom of speech beyond those already applied by the courts..."

"...The Administration cannot be the sole authority on what is proper in terms of the form of speech. Students and faculty must have equal part in finally deciding...namely where we may speak, and if microphones may be used."

"No regulations in this area of form may harass, none may be needlessly complicated...The essential criteria determining regulations upon the form of freedom of speech must be: 1) That they encourage speech 2) That the regular functions of the university not be unduly interfered with.

Report on arrests of students continues; student pictures being taken. "We Shall Overcome" sung in background. Description of police presence and actions; student passive resistance. Description of protester being carried out by police. Singing of Christmas carols in background. Demonstrators recite Pledge of Allegiance and Bill of Rights.

Track 3 (2:44) : California Highway Patrol enters crowd with drawn nightsticks, push their way through crowd. Beating of students and throwing them down stairs. Police order reporters out of the way. Reporter regarding CHP treatment of students: "It's one of the most horrible things I've ever seen. It's as though they're a bunch of football players who are marching in on it. ...A bunch of jackbooted army that's gone in and grabbed everything in sight. None of the kids I've seen have fought back in any way, whatsoever."

Daniel Visnick of United Press describes interactions between Berkeley police and CHP and CHP subsequent actions in Sproul Hall.

Several UCB students provide descriptions of police violence and actions toward students...students being "bounced down the stairs" by police.

KPFA reporter Sidney Rogers reports on news media being blocked by police from the viewing the action against students


Sproul Hall sit-in December 3, 1964

Josiah Beeman, State President of the California Young Democrats and legislative assistant to Congressman Phil Burton addresses rally. Expresses support of campus Young Democrat clubs across the state for FSM. Support for spread of FSM to every University of California campus. Predicts that proposed legislative investigation into FSM events will reveal that California Senator William F. Knowland and the Oakland Tribune are behind campus administrative actions against FSM...also resisting efforts by students, AFL, and civil rights groups to racially integrate (in Oakland). JB will challenge Governor Pat Brown to introduce legislation the will guarantee academic freedom...freedom of speech that he says he's for.

The Committee Improvisational Theater (SF) is supporting us. Gary Goodrow (member of The Committee): "I'd like to point out that what they call anarchism here in California is called 'criminal syndicalism' in Mississippi. ...This coming Monday night we would like to do a show in support of this movement, in other words, to raise bail money." ... "As a special comedy, we're inviting [California State Senator] Bill Knowland to speak on the United States Constitution."

Jack Weinberg (inside Sproul Hall): questions and answers regarding logistics of forthcoming student protests ("put your names on your belongings"...meal provisions...what to expect in terms of arrest)

Savio: clear aisles...this milling about must stop

Weinberg: take young children outside. Would like to urge people under 18 years of age to consider seriously whether they are willing to submit to arrests; would recommend not to do so.

Savio: We cannot have people standing in these aisles! No room upstairs. Those presently in aisles must go to first floor. It will be utter chaos if police come; violence will result.

Clark Kerr:

"Some people do not understand why the faculty is sympathetic to any extent with the students in this present crisis, and why it is critical to some extent of the administration... When this whole business started back in September, the starting point for the students was that certain political privileges, collecting money and collecting signature were suddenly withdrawn. After these particular privileges, not free speech, but the right to start this kind of political action were removed, in the opinion of the students and a good many of the faculty, the reasons given were not sufficient and somewhat contradictory. This is what gave rise to the tragic and unfortunate incident involving the police car on October second. After that, as you know, a settlement was negotiated, and the fact that a settlement was negotiated seems to me to indicate some admission that there was fault on more than one side, and since then, problems were intensely discussed by a tri-partite faculty/student/administration committee. These negotiations were not successful and broke down; however, the faculty contingent in that committee made certain complex recommendations for new rules regarding student political action. And another faculty group was the given the responsibility to make recommendations concerning punishments of students for actions arising out of that October crisis. The recommendations of the faculty groups were praised by spokesmen of the administration. They were to some extent and in part accepted by the Board of Regents.

In a meeting of the Academic Senate, the governing body of the faculty, shortly after that, there was considerable disagreement about the new rules, but the majority of the faculty in that meeting upheld the administration, defeated a move to take regulatory powers of this sort from the administration, and give it to the faculty. During the Thanksgiving week, it seemed to me and to many that the whole business was beginning to die out, that peace seemed to be returning, that there was a chance that we could go ahead under the new and liberalized rules. Then last Monday, the Administration announced a decision to press ...for penalties for actions taken two months before during the initial crisis. And the students at this point, rightly or wrongly, but I think very understandably, felt that they had been tricked. And it's at this point that far bigger demonstrations broke out than had ever taken place before, that very unpleasant and rough statements were made about entering Sproul Hall, and so forth. No measures were taken to prevent the students from entering Sproul Hall, and as a result they occupied it, and as a result, as you know, the Governor called the police.

William Stanton (Assemblyman, 25th Assembly District; [Santa Clara County]) addresses rally (in Sproul Plaza?): speaks of his academic connection to UCB; attending UCB during loyalty oath controversy of 1950s; talks about his relation to and feelings about Chancellor Edward Strong.

Willy Brown (California Assemblyman) addresses rally:

"The electively responsible people of this state are taking this position, that yours is not a worth cause. They're taking the position that there's nothing wrong with the University of California that some helmeted Highway Patrolman and Alameda County Sheriff's Department fellows can't handle. Well, I think the people in the state of California need to know that there's something seriously wrong with this university when 801 people are dragged bodily down stairs from the administration building of this university and arrested. Something wrong when the faculty of this university call for the ouster of Chancellor Strong. There's something wrong when some of us ask for the resignation of Clark Kerr. Obviously there's something wrong with this university that the world needs to know about."

(Professor?) John Benton (?)

Professor Henry F. May (History) at Press: "Well I think the FSM has finally succeeded in perhaps what they wanted to do, and that's the dividing of the entire campus community over the so-called Free Speech Movement, which is a catchy name for their desire to gain the right of illegal off-campus advocacy on campus. I propose that the FSM, which is a minority group, is imposing needless suffering on a majority of students on this campus..." Discusses the limited legal means for students to gain right to political advocacy.

Professor Robert Scalapino, Greek Theater [reads proposal of the Council of Department Chairmen] December 7, 1964. :

"1. The University community shall be governed by orderly and lawful procedures in the settlement of issues, and the full and free pursuit of educational activities on this campus shall be maintained. 2. The University community shall abide by the new and liberalized political action rules and await the report of the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom 3. The departmental chairmen believe that the acts of civil disobedience on December second and third were unwarranted and that they obstruct rational and fair consideration of the grievances brought forward by the students. 4. The cases of all student arrested in connection with the sit-in in Sproul Hall on December second and third are now before the courts. The University will accept the courts judgment in these cases as the full discipline for these offenses. In the light of the cases now and prospectively before the courts, the university will not prosecute charges against any students for actions prior to December second and third, but the university will invoke disciplinary actions for any violations henceforth. 5. All classes shall be conducted as scheduled."

Track 6 repeats Scalaveri speech


Report on FSM march through campus from Sproul Plaza to Regents office (University Hall?), Regent's meeting, November 20, 1964

Encounter will union picket line around University Hall (Millman's Union)

Joan Baez heard singing in background (Bob Dylan's "With God on Our Side")

[Track 2] Joan Baez sings "All My Trials" and then Phil Ochs' "There But for Fortune"

[Track 3] Announcement: FSM delegation of five has been seated in the room for the Regents meeting [Mario, Steve Weissman, Mona Hutchin, Mike Rossman and Ron Anastasi]. Joan Baez sings: "Donna Donna"

[Track 4]: [recording speed off--speeded] Baez sings "Blowing in the Wind"

[Track 5] ]: [recording speed off--speeded] Jack Weinberg introduces recent songs relating to FSM. [Singer unknown...Weinberg?] "I'm Going to Put My Name Down"; "Battle of Berkeley Talking Blues."

[Track 6] ]: [recording speed off--speeded ] Report from student delegation to Regents meeting by Steve Weissman. President Kerr recommended that the Regents set aside certain "Hyde Park" areas open to students for "advocacy of lawful action." Recommendation was accepted by Regents. "This will place Chancellor's office in a position of prior restraint--they will determine in advance those actions which they consider lawful." No oral arguments accepted at meeting.

Ron Anastasi: Reports on Kerr's address to Regents. Kerr proposes that the Regents study the many proposals received regarding FSM activities and consider them at next Regents meeting. Two immediately important issues to be addressed: Regent action on report of Heyman Committee regarding suspension of eight students [for defying campus prohibitions against political advocacy]. Kerr and Chancellor Strong recommendations: "That the sole and total penalty for the six students be suspension from September 30th to date." Anastasi reads from section of Heyman report that recommends that the six students be reinstated as of the date of their suspensions. Kerr/Strong recommend that the other two students (Mario Savio and Art Goldberg) be suspended from September 1964 to date, and placed on probation for current semester. Heyman report had recommended suspension of six weeks, beginning September 30, 1964 and reinstated without further action after that period.

Mario Savio on faculty proposal put before Regents:

gives students far weaker protection [in the matter of freedom of speech] than are guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Comments on Kerr proposal to Regents. Comments on involvement of UC General Counsel in developing these proposals. Use of the word "lawful" in the Kerr proposal regarding political advocacy. Discusses prior restraint aspects of Kerr proposal.

"I think that most people who have come out to demonstrations and have been at rallies, I think we're all awfully tired of having to spend our time defending the Constitution because the Regents are too busy deciding whether the dividends on stocks the Regents hold are coming through well enough!"

"The courts are not enough according to them [the Regents]. It's not enough that laws already exist against illegal speech. It's not enough that it's a crime to advocate crime under certain circumstances, no, worse, it's got to be, likewise against university regulations far stricter than would hold up in any court of law...they're not prepared to indict you on the crimes of solicitation to crime or criminal conspiracy, no, they'll leave that to the District Attorney, they know he's, they want something stronger. They want to decide when you've abused your freedom of speech; THEY want to decide, not the courts, not the constitution. And then when they've made the decision in their administrative hearings--and you know what that will mean: they'll probably appoint some faculty members--it's got to look respectable--who will then, you see, make recommendations to the Chancellor, just like the Heyman Committee made recommendations, which were not accepted, that's what they're going to do. Administrative hearings are going to decide when you've abused your freedom of speech, and then the university is going to decide what should be done about those abuses, what kind of disciplinary actions should be taken.

Well, now, [labor] negotiations have broken down at the Oakland Tribune. We're going to start advocating that people go down there. You know what's going to happen? Might just turn out and in somebody's opinion unlawful acts have occurred. They don't even leave it up to the courts the way the faculty does. I suppose they're going to decide whether the acts that occur there are unlawful. Let's say for example...there are sit-ins may occur. Some people may be convicted, others acquitted, hung juries may result in some cases. But the actions will be the same, and the university, and according to this has the power to decide that all were committing unlawful acts, and that whatever advocacy took place on campus was not legitimate advocacy, that it was an abuse of free speech. And then when they decide it was an abuse of free speech. Campus C.O.R.E is axed and SLATE is axed, whatever other groups took part, likewise. This is what they want to do. Well pretty soon they're going to have a chance to enforce it. And I'm serving public notice on them now, we're going to be ready for them. We're not going to take it sitting down. If they try to enforce these unconstitutional regulations they're going to suffer for it.

Mike Rossman: "I'm disappointed. I gather that you're all disappointed, too." It looks if we want to keep this up...there's going to be a long, bitter battle ahead.

AZ1382 (1 of 2) Sproul Hall Sit-in December 2-3, 1964

Student singing "Hatikva" and "Zum Gali Gali" [in celebration of Hanukkah]

Unidentified speaker (Professor Anderson? Lincoln College): discussion of what constitutes non-violence (voices indistinct); strategies for non-violent action; anticipation of police action

Student sing Israeli song "Mayim Mayim"

Chancellor Edward Strong addresses crowd in Sproul Hall [shortly after 3am on 12/3]:

"This assemblage has developed to such a point that the purpose and work of the university have been materially impaired. [loud student applause] It is clear that there have been acts of disobedience and illegality which cannot be tolerated in a responsible educational center, and would not be tolerated anywhere in our society. [Someone in crowd shouts: Except Berkeley!] The university has shown great restraint and patient in exercising its legitimate authority in order to allow every opportunity for expressing differing points of view. The university always stands ready to engage in the established and accepted procedures for resolving differences of opinion. I request that each of you cease your participation in this unlawful assembly. I urge you both individually and collectively to leave this area. I request that you immediately disperse. Failure to disperse will result in disciplinary action by the university. Please go!

Strong asked by reporter to explain what he meant by "disciplinary action." Strong does not answer.

Lt M.F. Chandler of the university police dept,:

"I direct your attention to the fact that this assembly is now in violation of the laws of the State of California, and it is my duty and responsibility as prescribed by the law to disperse it. However, before so doing, I feel that all persons within hearing should know that the assemblage has become illegal, and you are hereby so notified. ...You have five minutes to leave the building or you will be arrested." Reporter identifies time as approximately 3:15 am.

Students sing civil rights song "Oh, Freedom!" and "We Shall Overcome"

[Track 4] reporter on 2nd floor describes scene: students sitting down, police massed on Bancroft Avenue side of Sproul Hal. Various FSM leaders brief students (Savio can be heard in background)

Students sing Civil Rights song "I'm on my way", "America". Reporter describes movement of police, arrival of police.

Art Goldberg gives instructions to demonstrators: "Do not link arms!"

UCB Public Information Officer official provides instructions from police regarding placement of individuals from the press.

Students sing "We Shall Not be Moved!"

First demonstrators carried into elevator by Berkeley police and photographed.

Description of arrests and processing of students.

Same as latter tracks on AZ1379?

AZ1382 (2 of 2) Report from Sproul Hall Sit-in, December 2-3, 1964

Continuation of report of arrests and processing of students by CHP, Berkeley police, and Alameda County Sheriff. Putting of students in police van.

Art Goldberg re arrests and removal of students: "Yeah, I think this has been the best education in political science that the students at the University of California have had. ...Today they [students] found out that when the power structure is pushed, and people actually try to make changes in our society, that the only way the power structure responds is by mass eviction, mass arrests, and mass harassment."

AG predicts response from faculty and student body AG views on next steps for FSM: "We will return to Sproul Hall and we will have a strike. We will continue to rally support from the student community throughout the country. This is a movement that cannot be quelched [sic]. This is a movement that comes from the 1960s that's based on deep root and deep feelings about social problems in our country. It will continue to grow..."

Continued report on student arrests.

Chris Garland (?), woman student, reports on various student protest activities: pickets to be set up around student union and other campus venues. Teamsters will respect picket line if more than 150 students. Student placing phone calls all over the country to muster support.--Governor Brown and congressmen, other universities.

FSM leader Brian Turner: reactions to actions so far. "I'm sad to see so many people losing so much, being arrested, perhaps losing a lot of their academic careers here at Cal. But I think it's significant that now we're past the stage of talking, we're past being put off by the administration... The reaction in the state of California, on other University of California campuses, on the state college campuses, and, most important, in the other states, is going to bring about a change in free speech and civil liberties regulations on campus, whose end we may not see...certainly while we are students."

Discussion demonstrators' legal right to council before being transported off campus by police.

[Track 6]

Capt. Beal of the Berkeley police department:

"The governor of the State of California, this morning at 12:45 am, ordered the law enforcement agencies of Alameda County to move in and take over this portion of the California campus. We have taken over the building and we will remain in the building until the last person is removed from the building, this I can assure you. The people who have been removed from this building have been arrested. They have been booked on multiple counts. They will be lodged in many jails throughout the county and in other counties, depending on the availability to hold people. We have all the time and personnel in the world to complete this task. The bail is high. The courts have assured us that the bail will stick. Now, I want to impress this upon those of you who have been badly misled. We are not playing games with you. We are dead serious. You have an opportunity to leave, and we invite you to, we hope you will."

Questions: "What are the multiple charges?" Beal: The charges will be trespassing ($75 bail)...unlawful assembly ($75 bail), resisting arrest ($100 bail)

Continuing description of arrests.


Coverage of Sproul Hall sit-in, December 2-3, 1964.

[Track 1 repeats AZ1382 (1 of 2) - Edward Strong announcement in Sproul Hall]

[Track 2] Savio announcement: if confronted by police ask "am I under arrest?" Then, if yes, "What are the charges?" If any policeman "molests" anybody, take his number. Third and fourth floors are impassibly packed.

Students sing Civil Rights song, "Where I'm Bound"

Unidentified speaker: We think that everyone here in his own way formulated his own response to that action on the part of Governor Brown [calling in State Highway Patrolmen, Berkeley Police, and Alameda Sheriff]. ...We hold him [Governor Brown] in the same high estimation that we hold the President of our University [Clark Kerr]

Students sing Civil Rights songs "Marching to the Freedom Land." (with verse: "Ain't gonna let Governor Brown turn me round") and "This Little Light of Mine"

Reporter: atmosphere in Sproul Hall is a "strange mixture. On one hand the students sitting around look and act quite calm. They sing, their voices are steady. On the other hand, not surprisingly, their every statement takes on urgency. They shout one another's names with an urgent, commanding sound. Every once in awhile one says to another, "Are you sure you want to get arrested?", then acts surprised when the other asks back, "You're sure YOU want to get arrested."

Report of police presence in Sproul (3:45 am)

Savio announcement that Bob Treuhaft, an FSM legal advisor, has been arrested without specific charges. ). Savio announcement of the first two arrests. Savio indicates that there are faculty observers of arrests. Savio discusses what to expect during and after arrest (based on his experience being arrested during Sheriton Palace (San Francisco) civil rights protest arrests). Discusses probably conditions for release from jail. Discusses attempts by FSM to raise bail for those arrested, ensuing trials.

Question: How do we get home from jail? Savio: we'll arrange for a car pool.

Students sing "America the Beautiful"


Burton White with Jerry Jenkin reporting from Sproul Hall, December 3, 1964 re emergency meeting of UCB faculty in Wheeler Hall.

The following actions were taken:

Resolution introduced by Professor Henry F. May, Chairman of the Dept. of History: "In view of the desperate situation now confronting the university, every effort must be made to restore the unity of our campus community and to end the series of provocation and reprisal which has resulted in disaster. With this purpose, the faculty members here assembled urge that the following actions be taken immediately:

1. That the new and liberalized rules for campus political action be declared in effect and enforced, pending their improvement

2. That all pending campus action against students for acts occurring before the present date be dropped.

3. That a committee selected by and responsible to the Academic Senate be established to which students may appeal decisions of the administration regarding penalties for violations relating to offenses arising from political action, and that decisions of this committee be final.

Resolutions passed overwhelmingly by the faculty members assembled.

Motion received first as telegram and subsequently passed by acclamation as a motion by the faculty meeting (also being sent to the Governor):

"The undersigned members of the University of California at Berkeley strongly condemn the presence of the State Highway Patrol at the Berkeley campus. We also protest the exclusion of faculty members, including at least one member of our Committee on Academic Freedom, from Sproul Hall at a time when the police were admitting news men and photographers. Punitive action taken against hundreds of students cannot help to solve our current problems, and will aggravate the already serious situation. Only prompt release of the arrested students offers any prospect of restoring the unity of campus life and of a return of normal academic functions."

President of campus chapter of the American Assn of University Professors announces that the Executive Cttee of the AAUP had taken put forward a statement: Present crisis cannot be solved unless: 1. there is complete amnesty for past offenses in the Free Speech controversy, 2. A new chief campus officer who will have the confidence of the Berkeley campus. Call for removal of Chancellor Strong met with loud applause from many assembled Berkeley faculty Alameda Central Labor Council has informed the local chapter of the American Federation of Teachers that they will respect student picket lines, provided that such a request is made by the Berkeley chapter of the AFT

Jerry Jenkin reports on situation in Sproul Hall. 40 students remain; 740 students removed so far.

Professor Henry Nash Smith (English Dept.) heading campaign for raising bail for arrested students. Faculty has called for motor pool to drive back arrested students from Santa Rita jail and other facilities.

[Track 2: 1:11]

Onsite recording of arrests by CHP and Alameda Sheriffs in Sproul Hall. CHP stepping over and kicking students, pushing their way up stairs. Pushing and beating CHP and throwing ("bouncing") students down stairs. Reporters told to move by CHP.

[some repeat with AZ1379]

AZ1386 Rally on Sproul Steps, c. 12:00pm, December 3, 1964

[Professor John Leggett, Sociology Dept.]:

"A lot of us have been upset by what has happened in the last 24 hours; not only the arrests themselves, the $1400 bails, but the wanton police brutality which has accompanied the arrests. None of these things can be forgiven! None of these things can be tolerated, either by the students or by the faculty. At the same time, however, I think it's possible to develop a rational explanation as to why the administration has acted the way it has in the last two months, and especially in the last 24 hours. And at the same time I believe it's possible to explain the...militant behavior of the students.

First of all, I'd like to address myself to the question, then, of how one can explain the behavior taken by the administration against the students over the last two months. What's involved, I think, is a number of high-handed measures directed against student leaders; student organizations, such as campus C.O.R.E.; students in general; and above all, the students who have participated in the sit-ins during the last 24 hours. I think it's fair to say that the administration operates on the assumption that the primary function of the multiversity is to service what Clark Kerr has called the "military-industrial Complex." In a sense, the multiversity operates as an important servicing agent to government, business, and military organizations. This is his conception of the multiversity. Servicing the military industrial complex precludes toleration of those groups which might , one, disrupt ties between the multiversity and the military-industrial complex, or, disrupt relations within either the business, government, or military community. Groups capable of upsetting these lovely ties include student civil rights organizations which engage in civil disobedience. Here I have in mind such illustrations as the demonstrations which occurred last spring at Auto Row and at the Sheraton Palace. In addition, I have in mind the militant demonstrations which have been taking place in Oakland, and directed against the Oakland Tribune. Consequently, these student civil rights groups, according to the administration, according to their ideology, must be rechannelled, if not rethrottled, no matter what the cost. Throttling student intellectuals, however, will not be an easy task, for, according to Clark Kerr, the intellectuals are a particularly volatile element, capable of extreme reactions to objective situations--more extreme than any group in society. They are by nature, according to Kerr, irresponsible, in the sense that they have no continuing commitment to any single institution or philosophical outlook, and they are not fully answerable for their consequences. They are, as a result, never fully trusted by anybody, including themselves. End of quote. Clearly Clark Kerr does not trust people who fail to accept the correct view of the world.

Now, how can one explain the militant behavior taken by students against the administration. One possible theory has been developed by Clark Kerr himself, it's his "Isolated Mass Hypothesis." Kerr's theory of conflict based upon a very extensive, competent, cross-cultural study of the inter-industry propensity to strike, indicates the conditions under which groups engage in prolonged and intensive conflict with employers. And here he's focusing mainly upon workers, such as loggers, longshoremen, and so forth. Kerr noted that the propensity to strike was greatest within industries where workmen simultaneously faced four conditions: First of all, they toiled under dangerous and rugged working conditions which afforded little economic security, such as longshore, logging, and mining. Secondly, these workers developed an isolated, working class community, one generally remote from the middle class community. Third, partially because of its isolation, a homogeneous population expressed...itself in terms of this homogeneity in terms of skill level, pay, like [?] insecurity, and so forth. And finally, they developed, as a result, affectional ties between like working class families in this working class community. It was a brilliant piece of analysis. It remains such. Kerr went on to note that such a community tends to develop a sense of relative deprivation. Their reality, their conditions, their lives clearly contradict their standards and expectations. These workers consequently involve themselves in actions which demand total commitment and total class warfare. The subsequent strike action then assume the character of revolutionary struggle, according to Kerr.

I think it's fair to note here that students at Cal find themselves in a situation quite similar to the isolated and volatile working class so brilliantly analyzed by Clark Kerr. First, the face multiple problems on freedom to express their political ideas and to obtain legal justice. Second, they are socially isolated from not only the non-university community, but the administration and the faculty itself. Third, they are strikingly homogeneous in terms of age, in terms of intelligence, in terms of ability, in terms of idealism, and so forth. They have developed as a result a rich set of ties among themselves as expressed in their political, recreational, and other groups. And here I think it's fair to note that this sub-community of students has also developed a sense of relative deprivation. Much as the standards of the bosses were not acceptable to the miners and the loggers and the longshoremen, the standards of this administration on the question of academic freedom is not acceptable to the students. [both applause and boos from audience. Reporter explains because Alameda Sheriffs have just cut a rope that student demonstrators were using to get to the second floor of Sproul Hall] The students have consequently involved themselves in actions which have demanded total commitment. We are, therefore, not surprise to find conflict between administration and students assuming the character of class warfare.

However, I think it's safe to say that long-term conflict between students and administrators does not constitute a feasible solution to the problem of who will run a university and how the university should be run. The right to run a university should be based upon competence, demonstrated competence. The administration and the governor of this state have demonstrated their incompetence. They have not met the needs of either the faculty or the students. Consequently, they have not demonstrated their right to use power. They should not have power.

As far as I'm concerned, this leaves only two groups: the students and the faculty. I believe that they, and they only should run the University of California. This is not to say that administrators can be eliminated. It is to say, however, that they, the administrators should become the servants of the faculty and the students. The university was originally created by faculty and students. Let them determine now their own destiny.

Announcements: Grad student instructors in Sociology have recognized the legitimacy of the student strike and will not teach classes on campus for the duration of the strike. All classes in Economics and English have been cancelled. Strike will be going until Tuesday. "Freedom classes" to be run by students in History Department will be held.

Charlie Powell, ASUC President, sets up his own loud speaker and addresses the crowd. His speech [indistinct] draws boos from the crowd.

[Track 5 - recording speed off for portions]

Police come out of Sproul Hall door; push their way through crowds in front of Sproul Hall. Six faculty members confront police. Police demand that loud speakers be removed from Sproul steps.

Statement from provisional leadership of FSM (Savio is in solitary confinement along with an FSM lawyer): "The demands which we are making in this strike are the same demands that were made by those people who were sitting-in. Those demands are: First, that the university withdraw charges against the organizations and against those students, Mario Savio, Arthur Goldberg, Mr. Goldberg's sister [Jackie], and Brian Turner. Secondly, that there be no further charges by the university for the actions of October 8th and 9th, or for any of the political protests that are made until the free speech controversy is ended. And we are asking that there be no restriction of free expression on this campus, other than is necessary because of traffic and because of the running of classes and other of the university's business. This means the maximum free speech possible.

There are several new issues which President Kerr and Governor Brown have forced us to include in our platform and in our set of demands. We demand an immediate investigation of police brutality. We demand the removal of all police from this campus, now and forever! And the next is a very serious demand: We do not believe the university should single out Art and Mario and attempt to make them scapegoats because the...administration will not admit that it was wrong on October 1st and 2nd. We do not feel that Chancellor Strong should be made the scapegoat for errors, mistakes, and policies that came from a higher level. We demand at this time from the people of the state of California and with the help of our faculty the removal of Clark Kerr as president of this university.

Announcement that San Francisco State College have instituted pick line outside of Clark Kerr's office.

[Recording speed off]

Paul Jacobs:

It seems to me that this is probably the saddest day anyone could experience here at the University of California. It's particularly sad for me. Clark Kerr is a friend of mine and has been a friend for many years. So, too, is [Governor] Pat Brown. Pat Brown and I have been friends for a long time. In the past, Clark Kerr and Pat Brown and I have disagreed about many questions. But I think that my most profound disagreement with both Kerr and Brown must be based on what happened inside Sproul Hall last night. I have not, in the past, been an ardent supporter of the FSM movement. I have believed, in the past, that FSM has made errors. I think, too, that the university administration has made even more serious mistakes in the way it has attempted to deal with this problem. And so what we confront now on this campus is an almost utter state of chaos, with classes not being conducted, with tempers running high, with the police seemingly intent on some kind of provocative action. And I want to caution you students, that so far as the police are concerned, they are acting in the way they understand that police have to act. And the way they behave, while it may seem to you an attempt to slam you down into the ground, is nothing more nor less than the way in which police always behave. And you must respond to the police, not in the way in which those people who want to smash this movement want you to respond. Do not be provoked by the police. Do not be provoked by any actions which your leaders do not wish you to respond to. Keep your discipline, so that the charge cannot be made against you, that you provoked the police into doing something that you don't want them to do to any of the students. It is a great tragedy of our time that the people who ought to be learning non-violence, the people who ought to be practicing non-violence are the people in the uniforms, and they are the ones who are not yet ready to accept this as a notion of how to resolve disputes. Now I want to take just a moment more to tell you that your enthusiasm, and your spirit, and your interest in participating in this demonstration are laudable, are praiseworthy, and, it is to be hoped, will receive some support from among the faculty, and I am not an official member of the faculty. But I want to tell you that enthusiasm, and good will, and interest may not be enough in the period that is before you. You face an enormously difficult task, made even more complicated now by the fact that the police were introduced into the situation last night in a way that was not befitting the university administration or the governor of this state. But somehow, in the days and in the weeks to come, this dispute will have to be settled. This university will have to stop being a rallying ground and become again a university. But remember, to do this you will have to demonstrate just as much good will, just as much patience, just as much tolerance as you expect, rightfully, [from] the university administration to exercise with you. Finally, you have come a long way. The only way in which this problem will be disposed of is if you maintain your strength, your organization, and above all, your discipline. If you keep that up, and you don't allow yourselves to be provoked, to panic, to get frightened, to run, and above all, if you maintain your humor, the humor that has marked this movement, you will, in the end, win a victory, not just for the FSM, but far more important, you will win a victory for the entire student body of every university where the issue of free speech and free political advocacy must be confronted as much as it must be confronted here.

Mike Miller, Bay Area Friends of SNCC reads message from John Lewis, National Chairman of SNCC: "We wish to express our support for our brothers and sisters at the University of California in their fight for full free speech on the university campus. University administration attempts to curtail the activities of the University Friends of The Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee are an attack on the civil rights movement in the Deep South. We are shocked at the brutality used by police against the students who sat in in the university's administration building. Police brutality in the south is nothing new to us, but what is happening in the so-called liberal community of Berkeley...[?] Students have the right to participate in political activity on and off the campus. We know well the attempts by administrators on the campuses of Southern Negro colleges to break the Civil Right Movement by not allowing students to meet and advocate ideas on the campus. Now university administrators in the North are borrowing these same tactics. Such denial of student rights, North or South, is an affront to the ideals of American democracy."

[Track 8] Wheeler Hall - Emergency Faculty Meeting

Meeting reported on also by KPFA reporter Burton White AZ1384

[Unidentified] faculty member: "This meeting, I feel, should not be a meeting of support for the student, or as a meeting...that supports the administration. I will tell you that, for myself, having dealt with both groups, I find it difficulty to know which side I have found more inept, obstinate, impossible to bring to reason. [applause]

This is not an official meeting of the faculty. "This is a meeting of all those faculty who wish to come together to discuss what has happened; to hear announcements; to present resolutions, which are obviously only resolutions of this meeting; and to sign resolutions; and to hear what some people propose in the way of action."

Q: Are you willing to put this to a written vote of the entire UCB faculty

A: "I have no mechanism for that at present." Suggests possibility of presenting resolutions or calls for action at forthcoming Academic Senate meeting.

Professor Robert Scalapino (Chair of Political Science Dept.): announces that he had called meeting of social science department chairs to solicit input re actions being taken in various departments. Expresses "reservations" about some of the student actions. My presence and my position is not premised on my support for this strike, but rather on concern for the university community as a whole and for our capacity to serve as a citadel of both learning and truth." Expresses opinion that under circumstances it would be difficult to take "any meaningful vote" at the present meeting "because the faculty is so entangled with the student body at the moment."

Announcement by Professor Leo Lowenthal (Vice-chair, Sociology Dept.) re decisions made at social science Chairs meeting: recommend cancellation of classes during strike.

Professor Henry May (Chair, Dept. of History): expresses criticism of campus administration's retroactive enforcement of regulations and disciplinary actions against students. "It seems to me that this retroactive action...was, to put it mildly, extremely unwise, and I would go further say that it was calculated to produce about the results it has." [applause] Presents draft resolution designed to "wipe the slate clean." "Not designed to be perfect; designed to be passed." [laughter] Reads amended resolution:

"In view of the desperate situation now confronting the university, every effort must be made to restore the unity of our campus community and to end the series of provocations and reprisals which has resulted in disaster. With this purpose, the faculty members here assembled urge that the following actions be taken immediately. One, that the new and liberalized rules for political action be declared in effect and enforced, pending their improvement. Two, that all pending action against students for acts occurring before the present date be dropped. Three, that a committee selected by and responsible to the Academic Senate be established, to which the students may appeal decisions of the administration regarding penalties for offenses arising from political action., and that the decisions of this committee be final."

[Track 12]

FSM Press conference, Student Union: Nina Spitzer, FSM press representative: Discussion of events in Sproul Hall December, particular police tactics. Discussion of strike, cancellation of campus, mood and support of faculty and student body. Arrests of sit-in participants. Interim leadership of FSM. Strike activities. Lack of communications with campus administration. Demands of FSM, including dropping of charges against arrested demonstrators; statement by administration that outside police "will never again be used on this campus; investigation of possible police brutality during clearing of Sproul Hall."

AZ1387 Press Conference (12/4/64) (Steve Weissman, Mary Savio, Marty Roysher, Hal Draper, John Leggett, Nina Spitzer)

Steve Weissman: reports on pickets at State capitol and delegation of FSM representatives and others (who were not received by governor). Protests at UC Davis in support of FSM. Demands that Governor Brown not press charges against arrested demonstrators

Professor John Leggett: (assistant professor, Sociology) Reads telegram from James Farmer, national chair of C.O.R.E.: "The recent demonstrations by students at the University of California at Berkeley involve fundamental issues of the rights of free speech and peaceful protest. They have been arbitrarily and brutally repressed by both the university and state administrations. The University of California at Berkeley has seen fit to disenfranchise its student body of many of their rights in regard to political and civil rights activities. The behavior of police state government and the administration, plus excessive bail serve no purpose other than the escalation of demonstration and the further loss of campus freedom. The civil liberties issues involved here are of deep concern to C.O.R.E., and I urge the immediate granting of student and faculty demands for a fair and free political atmosphere at the university, and an immediate end to repressive police activity. It is also imperative that current charges against students be immediately dismissed. The repressive acts of the University of California are clearly an attempt to halt the student activity in civil rights, both locally and nationally, and C.O.R.E. can view that actions of the university as no less ominous than the actions of certain Southern sheriffs."

Leggett reads message from George Hardy, Secretary of California State Council of Building Service Employees:

"An institution claiming to be one of the great universities of the world has committed a shameful act. Supposedly dedicated to the search for truth and the development of ideas, it has blundered on a path which has now lead to a brutal stifling of free speech. The California State Council of Building Service Employees, representing 57,000 trade unionists in this state, expresses its deep shock and resentment over this latest episode. We express our full support for the courageous young people who are standing up and fighting for the cause in which they believe. The Building Service Employees unions are indignant over the arrest and jailing of a reported 800 university students. These youngsters are being fingerprinted and branded with a criminal record that could follow and harass them for a lifetime. Who are they? They are not kooks or beats, as they have been labeled by some so-called respectable elements of the community who are frightened when anyone does not conform to their own upper class notions of proper dress and behavior. These are our brightest kids, boys and girls, who had to have A and B grades even to gain admission to the University of California. They are tomorrow's leaders, serious students concerned with their own dignity as human beings. And what about the University of California? We in the labor movement know something about its policies. The university was just recently picketed by the carpenters union for buying non-union products. For years it has acted like the worst employers of the nation in defeating legitimate efforts of its own employees to form unions and bargain collectively. The Board of Regents is completely out of touch with reality. Many of them do not even take the time to attend meetings. When they speak, they speak with the voice of Big Business. President Clark Kerr, who should know better, has acted like a corporation executive, determined to stifle the aspirations of its personnel. Our gravest concern centers on the point that this great university seems bent upon forcing its students to fit some preconceived stereotype. On our part, we cheer these youngsters with ideas of their own, who are not willing to conform to a pattern that will please Dr. Kerr and the absentee Regents. As Secretary of California State Council of Building Service Employees, I urge all AFL-CIO unions and central labor bodies to support the following points: 1. Demand that Governor Brown immediately rescind his order to arrest the university students. 2. Call for a shake-up in the Board of Regents and the appointment of persons with understanding, who will take an active part in the development of liberal policies. 3. Support in all possible ways the aspirations of the students for the free expression of ideas. 4. Clear the record of these students from any criminal charges. 5. Insist on a complete house cleaning at the University of California that will bring about fair policies, both toward the students, the faculty, and the employees."

Hal Draper: describes actions taken by campus local of the American Federation of Teachers.

Martin Roysher (?): reads telegram from Bayard Rustin [chief organizer of the 1963 civil rights March on Washingon]: "I am appalled by the denial of basic rights to students at the University of California at Berkeley. I further deplore the use of Oakland police, highway patrol, and strong-arm methods to curb legitimate student protest. We cannot complacently support Southern Negroes who risk their lives fighting for democracy while denying students of all colors the rights of a democratic society. I urge you to remove police from campus immediately and to begin negotiations with the student leaders.

Roysher reads telegram from John Lewis, National Chairman of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee: "Students have the right to participate in political activity on and off the campus. We know well the attempts by administrators on the campuses of Southern Negro colleges to break the Civil Right Movement by not allowing students to meet and advocate ideas on the campus. Now university administrators in the North are borrowing these same tactics. Such denial of student rights, North or South, is an affront to the ideals of American democracy." [Same statement read on AZ1386]

[unidentified] reads short statement support from "members of the Interfaith community" (the Inter-faith Council Staff) for recent faculty action.

Mario Savio describes certain police actions during the sit-in arrests. Savio recounts attempts to meet with chief of campus police regarding meeting with FSM lawyer (Alex Hoffman) . Stalled by Berkeley police until arrests had begun. Police refuse to permit Hoffman from entering building; Trap Savio in basement and arrest him.

Savio recounts Santa Rita conditions. Six hours to book him. Crowding and heat in cells. Savio and Jack Weinberg attempt to talk to police doctor regarding these conditions. Savio put in isolation chamber, then maximum security. "This event is symbolic of the incompetence and brutality which have characterized the conduct of the Alameda County police during this entire series of incidents. And it takes its place along side of students kicked, pulled down stair , students being punched, arms being twisted, hands being pushed student I saw, his chin was bleeding, another, his neck had been so mauled that he could hardly talk when I spoke with him. I really think that some effort should be made to get this story out. That we have here in Alameda County organized violence, and that is what was turned loose upon the students by Governor Brown. So far from the anarchy being ours, the State of California is a state of official anarchy."

Further discussion of student treatment by police. Police reaction to student strikers.

Robert Truehaft, FSM lawyer, describes his actions during Sproul sit-in, his arrest. Violent treatment of students by police witnessed during the sit-in. "Deliberate violation of constitutional rights from beginning to end, not only in the physical sense, but in the moral and constitutional sense." Treatment in Santa Rita jail. R.T. Isolated for asking to make phone call. "Trickery in the handling of this business." Processing center established in the basement of Sproul Hall--those arrested not actually booked. Not allowed a call when arrested. Forbidden to seek counsel.

Questions regarding rumors of faculty threats to resign.

Steven Weissman: FSM urges faculty to remain on campus in order to fight.. "It would be a shame if the faculty were to leave the university when they are just beginning to learn from the students that it is possible to win in a struggle with the administration. During the loyalty oath fight of the early 1950s, the faculty constantly compromised their position, reduced their strength, and finally...seventeen members of the faculty did resign [this number is corrected by others present]...We would hope that no member of the faculty would leave, but rather that they would stay "

Graduate Coordinating Committee to consider a resolution stating that the administration has proved its incompetence in handling the affairs of the university, and faculty should declare itself in control of university policy making authority.

Discussion of threats against teaching assistants who go out on strike.

Discussion of strike impact on classes. Johan Searle (Philosophy asks Weissman to summarize immediate plans of FSM. Strike to continue until following Tuesday. (Academic Senate to meet on that day). Urge classes to be taught off-campus or outdoors. "Free University of California" classes: informal interdisciplinary discussions of current events. Discussion of plans for a third sit-in. No other plans announced.


University Student for Law and Order (USLO) - an anti-FSM group Rally 12/7/64

"As an organization, USLO does not pretend to know solutions to the varied and complex which presently confront us as students. But one fact is undeniably clear: That unless we are willing to express ourselves as a responsible body, we have no right to expect the continued financial support of the community at large As a course of action, USLO urges the students to support the legally constituted administration of this campus on all issues, until such a time as the civil judicial system dictates otherwise We therefor request that you express your moral support of our viewpoint by signing the petition which is being circulated now, and by disassociating yourself from the FSM.

Bob Mackray (or Macrae?): "University Students for Law and Order do have the constitutionally guaranteed laws on their side. This is perhaps the most important tool that we have to work with."... "What we object to is the methods they [FSM] are using to express their grievances." "They have their textbooks, which is Thoreau, perhaps, and I think that we need a textbook, too. And probably the best textbook for understanding this type of activity, the emotional appeal of something as nebulous as free speech, is "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. What we can best do, as University Students for Law and Order, to implement our position and to show them our beliefs, and to show the State of California and the to obey this law and order, and to talk to these people rationally about the issues, to try and come to an understanding. The ones I have talked to, I've been surprise at how close our agreements are on most issues. It's basically an agreement of philosophy, and many of these people, when the emotional appeal is robbed and you appeal to the rational, can, I think, be brought over to realize that the United States is based on a constitutionally apportioned method of operation, and that to achieve anything in this society, it's best to follow this method."

[unidentified speaker]: "The FSM demands have ceased to have any clarity in terms of specific issues. What they're challenging is not a restriction, or it's not a specific issue, but is, in fact, the structure of the university. They want to take control of the university... They want anarchy, and this is what they've got right now. Now, what do we do in this situation?...We don't go out and try to smash them down. ...You don't fight anarchy by reverting to anarchy. You fight anarchy by listening, by thinking, and then by acting in a positive way." We would ask you this. The campus is tremendously emotional. Please don't fall to this emotionalism. Think about these issues. We're not asking you to just accept a dogma, we're asking you to think about the issues. Then we're asking you...if you believe order should be restored to campus, to go back to your classes, go back to your classes and engage in the process for which you came to the university."

Robert Dussault, Coordinating Chairman for USLO: USLO Organized previous Saturday by Dussault and Jim Peter. Goal of "returning the university to normalcy so that its primary affairs may be conducted." "With the support students, the USLO will be able to present an image to public of our university, not as a hotbed of rebellion, but rather as a responsible educational institution.

Interviewer: What about the issues that FSM claim that they are fighting for?

Dussault: The issues almost by point...have been given to them. The various rights involved, except, it is my understanding, on one point: that unless the courts decide otherwise, are not at this time allowed to organize on campus, advocate support, and then go off campus and commit and illegal act--illegal in the eyes of the civil authorities. This the administration cannot and will not submit to.

Interviewer: How do you feel about the idea that court should determine whether this is acceptable on the university campus or not.

Dussault: Yes, I think that it is a primary function, at this point especially, for the courts to intervene, if they consider civil rights to be actually at stake, the civil rights of the students involved. But until that time...the administration, I think...deserves our full support, nothing more, nothing less.

Interviewer: How would you suggest that a court case be gotten up

Dussault: Well, I think that there is basis at this time for a court case, as a result of what has happened in the past weeks. Beyond this I can't comment...

Interviewer: Can you tell me how much support you have gotten for this organization

Dussault: Yes, I would say as an estimate, by number, we had about 2000 students here today. This, of course, is not comparable to what FSM has gathered as a listening group.

Interviewer: I'm not speaking specifically about the group that was listening. I'm asking about the people who were in on the formation of the group, and the kind of support you have gotten from groups, living groups, and things of this sort.

Dussault: As far as living groups and dormitories, fraternities and sororities are concerned, I think that the overwhelming feeling was that FSM had exceeded the limits of acceptable protest; that, in fact, another rallying point should be submitted to the students that were desirous of law and order on campus. That is why our group was implemented.

Discussion of constituency and motive for forming group.

[unidentified dept. chair...Joseph Tussman, Philosophy?] reporting on departmental chair meeting: discussion re repercussions for TAs who have gone out on strike. Discussing rumors re faculty resignation (someone in the crowd mentions Professor Dell Hymes, Anthropology Dept.). Discussions re minimum attendance requirements for holding class. No department-wide shut-downs.

From Santa Rita Jail, Livermore, CA (KPFA reporter Bruce Hensdale):

Refused permission to enter as reporter. Crowd of 50 or so waiting outside jail.

Interview with Robert Middle, a person with $310 for bail for 3 individuals; refused entrance to post bail.

Interview with arrested sit-in participant (Susan Trupin), subsequently released from Santa Rita on bail--reports on arrest process, conditions in jail ("complete chaos"); reports on four women placed in solitary confinement (including, Suzanne Goldberg , "mostly because they think she's Jackie Goldberg and Art Goldberg's sister"). Reports on $5.00 stolen from purse. Reports on rough her handling by Alameda and Oakland police in Sproul Hall (unlike Berkeley police who were generally very polite). Witnessed incidents of police brutality ("A girl being pulled all the way a hall by her hair." "A boy being taken down by his ears")

Report re 1 am of crowd outside of Santa Rita--about 60, including UCB faculty.

Interview woman, about being placed in solitary confinement


[Tracks 1 & 2) University Students for Law and Order rally; interview with Robert Dussault (same as AZ1390)

[Track 3: 0:23-Track 4]: Unidentified faculty chair reporting on meeting of departmental chairs (same as AZ1390)

[Track 4-Track 6] Report from outside Santa Rita jail (same as AZ1390)

[Track 7] Greek Theater, UCB, 12/7/1964: Mario Savio briefly interviewed after having being removed from stage by police; report on attempts to speak, handling by police.

Noon Rallies following Greek Theater, December 7, 1964

Bob Dussalt address regarding University Students for Law and Order ("a group on campus which is recognized with the Dean of Students") (in background, furious argument: Savio, FSM members and USLO members)

Bob Draper (USLO): re why rally was called. "...this issue started off with very clear and defined objectives, but I think everybody on both sides of the question will now agree that some of the objectives are not so clearly defined, and the atmosphere around the campus is not one of cool rationality, but is quite obviously one of emotionality and reactions rather than actions."

Professor Robley Williams (Chair, Dept. of Molecular Biology): "Makes case for smaller student/faculty group discussions of issues ("I'm an anti-rally rally speaker at the moment"). "What I feel has been done today, owing to the activity and planning of the chairmen of all departments should be clearly understood . What has not been done today in any sense is to effect a final solution...respecting the grievances of those many students who certainly had very legitimate grievances with respect to political activity, particularly on this campus. But a solution to these was not intended today. Today was intended as an operation which would allow us, in chemical terms, to decrease entropy our entropy. Entropy is a measure of chaos."

Robley explains that revised, liberalized campus regulations, does not represent end of modifications. Rules will be enforced pending report of Senate Committee on Academic Freedom. "...two main problems still facing all of us: can the representation of the students, both undergraduate and graduate, be woven into the university's structure such that in all areas affecting the welfare of students, the students may have an important voice. ... The other big does the university have any authority with respect to campus discipline in any area of political activity held on the campus or off the campus. And I'm frank to say that I don't know the answer. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a judge, it's never come up for a court case, I wouldn't have the foggiest idea of whether it does or whether it doesn't. But the point is that at any moment of time, you have to be doing what you're doing. At the present moment of time, the answer of the university is that does have the authority. It may well turn out that it doesn't. But you don't settle this by mass action, this is not the tradition of the United States. You'll recall that we have a Supreme Court in the United States, which once in awhile makes rather important decisions. These are not done by fifteen-thousand people gathering around the Supreme Court and insisting that it follow a certain line of action. [applause] ... I would plead with all students--this may be such an old-fashioned expression that it's too old-fashioned--but I would plead with all students to "keep your shirts on. Wait. Don't get in such a terrible rush."

Professor Henry May, Chair, Dept. of History:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I'd like to start with a word of personal explanation, not apology. The other day, I spoke on television and radio as a spokesman of the faculty. I was not authorized to be a spokesman of the faculty, though I have been authorized to speak by the group of department chairmen. What I said did not necessarily represent their views, nor did it purport to. What I said for myself as an individual is that I thought that mistakes by the administration had done a good deal to bring on this trouble, that actions by the FSM had also, and that we should proceed under the new rules, and not take reprisals for the past. That's essentially been my position, and I'm not ashamed of it. However, I do not, and have never at any time supported the sort of action that has taken place on the part of some students on our campus this morning, and regret deeply that the fracas this morning ended what might have been an important meeting. [applause] As for the responsibility for this settlement, this was undertaken by the group of department chairmen, not because department chairmen are wiser than their colleagues or students, but because there seemed to be nobody else to undertake it. I should like, for whatever this is worth, to associate myself completely with that settlement, to urge everybody to regard it as the immediate charter. It is impossible in such a settlement, negotiated in these ways, to cover the extremely complex matters of student political behavior, which have been of legitimate concern. This is an interim settlement, and certainly, in my opinion, the very best that could have possibly been arranged. As for the unfortunate meeting at the Greek Theater, like nearly everything in this controversy, it will be subject for discussion for a long, long time. It's my opinion here, with Mr. Scalapino, that it is the right of a group to reserve an auditorium or a theater, establish its agenda, and conduct a meeting, and that persons who are not on that agenda in advance need not necessarily be heard, and that no such person has any more right to be heard than anybody else. [applause] One thing more I would like to say...a brief statement by Mr. Savio at the Greek Theater, it was asked if any of the department chairmen had the guts to speak at the Free Speech rally. One of them has been speaking, I'm glad to see--the chairman of the Speech Department [Robert Beloof]. I went to the leaders of that rally, said I would be at the fountain and available if they wanted me to speak. Since I came down here, they may have looked for me and not found me. I would like to say that offer stands.

Professor Milton Chernin, Dean, School of Social Welfare:

[talks about not being able to hear speeches of his faculty colleagues because of a faulty PA system...apologizes for possibly repeating points made earlier] " I want to make about three or four points, none of them which will be new to you, but it seems to me, after having met with out faculty for two hours, all of us need to bear them in mind, because I found that for two hours of discussion this morning in the faculty of the School of Social Welfare, we were enlightening each other on some of these points.

What is the first point? One of the points I would like to emphasize is that a great deal of progress has been made in this area of social action and the regulations thereof since the semester started. Why do I say that to you? Because in discussions with students, in discussions with faculty, in discussion with people off campus, I find that there great areas of lack of recognition of the changes that have been made in the rules that regulated our conduct on campus. Very few people seem to have studied carefully the new regulations adopted by the Regents and the President, and the announcement by Chancellor Strong which was published in full in the Daily Californian as an advertisement---and you know the date of it--on the 24th of November. Now I must say this, that I have been clipping the Daily Californian and some of the papers because I intend to give this problem of writing the history of this thing to some bright student interested in it, and I wanted to help them out. And I must say that I missed the original advertisement and had to have it pointed out to me, actually, the next by Professor Williams, who said, "Didn't you see it?", and I said, "No", and he said it was in the Daily Cal, and I said, "Robley, I think you're wrong," at which time he promptly pointed out that he was right by showing it to me. But there are...these new rules have been put there, and the point about it is they have dealt with a great many of the points that were at issue. Now, all of you know that today, in the announcement of the agreement between the departmental chairmen and President Kerr, another great step has taken in solving some of the problems that divided us. There is going to be no university discipline for anything that happened between September 30th and today. This was an item about which there was no agreement last week, and about which opinion was divided. Now that has been resolved, and another big step forward has been taken.

The second point that I want to make is that everyone knows that not all of the issues have been resolved. One of the very basic issues that deeply divides the student body, that divides the faculty at the present time--and I can't speak for the administration as how they view this thing--but we do know that there is a very strong conviction, and people differ strongly on the one rule that the university at the present time insists on, and that is that it is going to take disciplinary actions for social and political actions planned on campus which are illegal off campus. Now, I recognize, and everyone does, that this is an issue about which we have not yet reached a decision. And I don't look for an early decision on this one, ladies and gentlemen, either among the faculty, or among the students, or among the other parts of this university. Why do I say that? Because this is an issue which deeply divides the American people. The issue of civil disobedience, if when, if ever, is it right to do illegal things to accomplish ends to which you are passionately and morally and ethically devoted is an issue which is part of the great dialogue of America, right now. And much as I respect the caliber of discourse and of intelligence and perception in a university community, I cannot think that we will reach a consensus on this in short order. But this is something that we're all going to have to try to decide in an orderly manner.

Now, I know there are a couple of other issues that I know are pending, but I think these can be solved. For example, our sub-committee of the Political Behavior Committee never did get a chance to report that we couldn't agree what all of the free speech areas on this campus ought to be, but we agreed on several of them, and the one big one up there is still to be resolved. But some how or other, we will reach a resolution of that issue. Another issue has come up, arising out of this dispute, and that is an issue on whether the university faculty government needs some revision. And we are discussing in the Senate...some questions about whether members of the Senate...want to suggest, both to themselves in the organization of the Senate where they have the final say, and to the administration, where it has, at the present time and the legal authority to decide, changes in the constitutional structure of faculty government on this campus. My understanding of this issue, for example, is that some Senate members want final jurisdiction in disciplinary action on student behavior in the social and political arena to rest in the Senate. At the present time, under the rules of the Regents, it rests in the administration. Now, if the Senate should decide that it wants to ask the Regents to give them this authority, my understanding the rules are that it would be the Regents that would have to decide this, and that the Senate itself could not give itself this final authority over student discipline in this area. ...

Now, the last point that I want to make is recognizing that changes and improvements in the rules that govern our lives have been made, and secondly, recognizing that serious issues remain to be resolved, some of which are of such fundamental importance that I don't think we're going to resolve them quickly, here or elsewhere. The third question that I want to discuss with you briefly is how best, as a university community, do we go about reaching these decisions, getting on with developing a better set of rules that we now have to live on. Now, you know that all of the chairmen on this campus unanimously decided yesterday that the best of achieving this would be for us to go back to our classes; to pursue the normal work that we're here for; both students and faculty, and staff ; to allow the Senate and the students... [tape ends]


University Students for Law and Order (USLO) press conference, 12/7/64

Robert Dussault (Coordinating chairman, USLO): Discusses constituency of USLO. Steering Committee consists of 8 members. No links with other groups. Charles Flynn, student attempting to organize protest movement in opposition to FSM, became part of USLO. At present time "we have approximately 2000 signatures on our petition" (which had been circulated to living groups and fraternities and sororities) and 2000 students attending first noon rally (held in cooperation with ASUC).

Petition: "We, the undersigned responsible students of the University of California, interested primarily in obtaining an education, consider the disruptive tactics of the FSM to be totally unwarranted for the attainment of their original goals. We desire the university to return to a state of normalcy. We therefore request that all parties take immediate steps to reestablish classroom procedure, and we support the stand, in principle, taken by the ASUC Senate in their resolution of December 5, '64. We urge the maintenance of law and order."

Dussault: "In our view, the issue is who will control the university. Our opposition to the FSM, as stated by their leader--supposed leader--Mario Savio...spokesman, that'd be the word...his statement of last week to the effect that he will bring the university to a grinding halt. This, in our view, is not the statement of a reasonable man. He has suggested that the students should administer their own affairs, should, in effect, control the university. But, to our way of thinking, this means only that Mario Savio and his small group shall control the university.

Dussault discusses his view on the kind of support the FSM has on campus. Past lack of student representation on campus, lack of student identity; students mistakenly identifying with FSM because of this.

"Many responsible students...many students who, I think, would not have supported FSM, at that time rallied to their cry of 'free spooch'--free, pardon me, speech. (Oops, that's a bad slip. But once again, if you'll bear with us, please; no sleep causes this.) In other words, this was a chance to identify themselves personally. As a result, the movement from its hard core of two months ago has grown all out of proportion. They have a following of several thousands...I have no way of estimating, really. They come up with a different statement of support every week, which seems to be continually growing, almost to the extent that soon they'll have more support than there are students on campus. But the problem now is...will we support what he [Savio] advocates. And to our mind, what he advocates is either his demands as an individual and the demands of his group be met, or he will bring complete chaos to this campus." Dussault expresses his views on the "differences between education and political advocacy." "You can't do both, in the strict sense of the words, at the same time. You can't be in the classroom and, at the same time be on the steps of Sproul Hall advocating one form of political action or another."

Discusses continued support of FSM. Future plans of USLO; ineffectiveness of ASUC.

Views on role of Academic Senate (at first confuses ASUC Senate with Academic Senate: "they are part of the legally constituted administration on this campus and must function as such")--"what they (Academic Senate) decide should be a consensus with what the administration, as such, needs in order to preserve law and order on campus."

Dussault fumbles around for his prepared text...

Dussault asks uninvited students to leave the room.

"The reason that I became upset for a moment [at not being able to find his prepared speech] is because it could very well be in the hands of FSM, I have no doubts. [weak laughter]. They're so highly organized that, really, it belittles [sic] us at this point."

Reporter: would you be willing to stand with President Clark Kerr's decision regardless of Academic Senate decisions.

Dussault reads from prepared statement: "As a course of action, USLO urges the students to support the legally constituted administration of this campus on all issues, until such a time as the civil judicial system dictates otherwise." [as delivered at noon rally - AZ1390]

Reporter: question re personal views on Student Body President, Charlie Powell. Dussault refuses to comment.

Reporter: Should students have any part in determining these controversial rules and regulations? And, if so, in what form should students be consulted?

Dussault: "Students should be allowed to provide their views through "a responsible representative body or group." Reporter suggests ASUC. Dussault: "Yes, I would suggest the ASUC in this regard, because they are, in fact, the only legally constituted group." "I also feel as an individual that a group such as FSM, if they are willing to accept the responsibility that goes along with being a student on this campus and attempt to speak for a large number of these students, that they do so, but in a responsible manner. And we consider that their tactics up till now have not...gone along with I just said."

Discusses forthcoming ASUC elections and possible USLO representation; FSM and SLATE write in campaigns.

Discusses breakdown in negotiations between Clark Kerr and FSM. Discusses the concessions granted by campus administration; new FSM demands.

Dussault reads USLO statement of policy originally delivered at noon rally [SEE AZ1390].

Discusses charge brought against USLO by Professor Edward Sampson, Psychology Dept., re phone threat from representative USLO regarding his work with departmental chairs. Dussault denies knowledge; accuses FSM follower of having made the call. "This is typical of the tactics employed in the past by FSM."

Discusses USLO plans surrounding Academic Senate meeting the following day.

Accuses Brian Turner (FSM) of accusing USLO of advocating violence against FSM.

[Track 7] in French, not pertaining to FSM. Symphonic/choral music. Also tracks 8 and 9

AZ1393 (chronologically follows AZ1394) Noon Rally, Sproul Hall rally after Greek Theater meeting, 12/7/64.

Brief fragment of Savio

[Professor Joseph Tussman, Chair, Philosophy Dept.]:

"For a philosopher, Bertrand Russell is always a very hard act to follow. I'm here only because I happen to be one of the chairmen who participated in the activity which you have some views about. I don't want to try to convince you of the virtues of the proposal. I think, at this point, the university is in your hands, and we have to trust to your judgment, as you consider what ought to be done. And if your intelligence is inadequate, or ours is inadequate, it's a failure that lies at the hands of the faculty. So I leave the future of the university, which I assure you is now in your hands, in those hands with confidence that you care about the university, and that you will think about what you do, and do what you think is right. [applause].

Now, look, I want to clear up one thing, I just want to inform you about some of the facts, which you can accept or not, and it will involve just whether or not you think I am either an innocent dupe, or a liar, or something of this sort. I want to tell you about some of the timing on the chairmen movement and its relation to the academic senate. Last Thursday, there was an announcement that there would be a strike... [on] Friday [December 4]. The Senate, which is the natural institution through which the faculty, including chairmen, operate...did not have a meeting until Tuesday. You will find, as a matter of fact, when you investigate the ease with which an emergency meeting can be called, that it was utterly impossible to call a meeting before Tuesday. And that, as a matter of fact, the Thursday meeting that occurred in Wheeler was a spontaneous indication of the deep concern of the faculty, acting outside of its normal channels.

The immediate problem confronting us as we met gropingly Thursday [December 3] as chairmen, was could we do something to protect the university against the unpredictable effects of a strike on Friday [December 4]. The action we took then was to decide as chairmen, without any authority whatsoever, but simply on the authority that we were...assuming that we would ignore the strike for purposes of all punitive action by techniques of confusion. That left a number of problems still to be decided. I'm pointing out the time on this because I think it has been stated by the speaker just before me that somehow the chairmen came into sinister operation 24 hours before the meeting of the Senate. This committee of five of which I was a member was instructed by the main body of the chairmen to draw up some possible proposal that would solve the immediate crisis for us and allow us to deal with the more fundamental issues of the rules which ought to govern political activity in a rational manner. We tried. We came up with a proposal which is essentially the proposal which is before you, which I myself think is an adequate basis for a temporary, but not a permanent, way out of our immediate impasse. But as I said, I'm not going to defend that here in any detail. We then engaged in negotiations, worn (?) through as a result of a great deal of difficulty--in a completely unauthorized way, I repeat--an agreement, has always been the intention of the chairmen to submit to the Senate on Tuesday [December 8] for ratification.

We are as worried as anyone about the integrity and power of the Senate. And I would take second place to no one in the concern for strengthening the faculty's role in the government of the university through the Academic Senate. [applause] Now let me tell you about this delicate situation this morning. We took--and I say we, I mean the five chairmen, amateurs without a command of group dynamics that is obviously...[laughter]--we took a gamble, an innocent decision to have a big meeting after a morning devoted to discussion, in which we thought that a simple presentation of this by one speaker...incidentally, this was a faculty meeting; it was called not by the administration, there was no way of calling the meeting which did occur, and in some sense it doesn't exist. We just said, the faculty chairmen call a meeting, and we suspended all exercises this morning, by what authority, I don't know, but we did it, because we felt that at long last the time had come to make an effort, risky as it was, to face the student body and to say, we're concerned together with the problems before us, and this is a suggestion that we commend. If it is accepted, we think that in the immediate future, starting today, starting tomorrow, we can begin to solve our fundamental problems. We decided to have this.

There was a great deal of confusion in developing an agenda. We decided...formally that there would be only two speakers. It was the decision of the five of us. And I take full responsibility for that. And for all of the other chairmen, that there would be no attempt to do the obvious thing : get all sorts of people in, you know, get Mario in, get Mario's enemies in, get all sorts of... We decided that the problem was too complicated. We would just have...departmental chairmen group, the president of the university, there would be two speeches, we would say, "Thank you", and we would go away and think about what was called for from all of us, in order to save the university. That was it, and it may have been innocent.

Mario has a way of posing problems. In my opinion...look, why were the police there? There are always police everywhere. [crowd rumbles agreement] Now wait a minute, I don't regard that as unreasonable. Let me just assure you, one thing: As far as the five chairmen are concerned, as far as I am concerned, the policy question of what would arrive if somebody we didn't schedule wanted to speak never came up. We didn't think of it, stupid as we are. [crowd laughter. someone says, "hear, hear!"] I am firmly convinced, absolutely firmly convinced that the unfortunate episode at the microphone [Savio at the Greek Theater] was the result of a natural reflex action in a confused situation when none of us knew what to do, and is not a part of a deliberate or sinister move to keep students from having their voice. [applause. Someone in background says: "You don't know Scalapino well enough"] So far as I was able, after that episode I made an attempt to...arrange for Mr. Savio to make his announcement, he told me he wanted to make some announcements, in that situation, I took his word for it, he kept his word, and as far as I'm concerned, that which exhausts our relationships has all been on a perfectly honorable level.

I want to say one thing in closing. Again, I am not going to plead for the acceptance of the chairmen's proposal; I leave that in full confidence to your judgment. But I want to say again, for me, that the characterization of student activity in this entire movement has been inadequately made. (Ah! what a sentence!) Let me try again. I want to express directly my high appreciation for the moral quality and the integrity of students who have been involved in this whole controversy.

[Tussman?] We realize that 800 of our fellows are not here because they are under arraignment. [Shouts from crowd: "We're here! We're here!" ] OK! Let me tell you what was involved. The faculty was very anxious not to have a university meeting without them present. But we were confused about the time. ...And we tried to get the arraignment changed, the time, so that there could be a meeting at which they could be present. The changes of time confused us. In the end, regretfully, we scheduled a meeting and we made efforts...were they successful? Were you all at the meeting? [crowd confirms that arrested students were at meeting] ... I want to welcome all those who are under charges, including my son. [applause]

[unidentified speaker] addressing events at Greek Theater. Mentions alternative proposal by Professor Hirsch [presumably Morris W. Hirsch, Dept. of Mathematics?] to be presented to Academic Senate.

Hirsch: "What I have here is really a motion which, it's true, 200 faculty members agreed on last night unanimously, to present to the Academic Senate. Now, after it's presented, we still don't know what will happen...I don't want you to have false hopes about this.

Hirsch reads resolution:

Resolution Approved Unanimously at a Meeting of Approximately 200 Faculty Members on December 7 [1964] For Presentation at a Meeting of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate on December 9

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 in the community at large, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate resolves:

1. That there should be no University disciplinary measures against members of the University community for past acts in connection with the current controversy over political speech and activity, and that the university refrain from pressing charges against members of the university community arrested on December 3.
2. That there should be reasonable regulation to prevent interference with the normal functions of the University, but, that the content of speech or advocacy should not be regulated, and that the existing regulations should not be viewed as final until the Division's Committee on Academic Freedom has reported concerning the minimal regulations necessary for this purpose.
3. That university rules be revised so as to exempt from university regulation both off-campus student political activities and the on-campus advocacy or organization of such activities.
4. That future disciplinary measures in the area of political activity be determined by a committee appointed by and responsible to the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. The decisions of this committee to be final except that students on whom the committee imposes penalties should be permitted to appeal to the Chancellor.
5. That the Division pledges unremitting effort of the foregoing policies and calls on all members of the University community to join with the faculty in its efforts to restore the University to its normal functions.

Note: The meeting also approved a resolution for the election of an emergency executive committee to act for the Berkeley Division in dealing with the present crisis. Signed: Professors [William] Kornhauser [Sociology]; [Leo] Lowenthal [Sociology]; [Herbert] McClosky [Political Science]; [Charles] Muscatine [English]; Neiman (?); [John] Schaar [Political Science ?]; [Howard] Schachman [Molecular and Cell Biology]; [John] Searle (Philosophy); Sellers; [Philip] Selznik [Sociology]; H.[enry] N.[ash] Smith [English]; and [Sheldon] Wollin [Political Science]

[Note: Final wording of proposal submitted to the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate on December 8, 1964 is posted at:

Steve Weissman [FSM]:

"I hope you understand the significance of the presentation you have just heard. It incorporates at least these principles: that the advocacy and organization and planning of off-campus action be left to the jurisdiction of the courts. Secondly, that the faculty have final jurisdiction, not advisory power, but final jurisdiction over all other political controversy on this campus. We hope in the Academic Senate meeting tomorrow, these issues will be discussed.

When we students have complained in the past--and by complain I mean a broad spectrum of complaints and actions such as sit-ins and strikes--the university administration has not asked, What are you complaining about? But they've asked, How can we stop you from complaining? Now it's very important to understand that there is more than one way to suppress democratic discussion and decision-making. We have seen how the police can be used. We have seen how they, in the past, have attempted to rush our microphones, attack our leaders, tear students out of a peaceful protest that was breaking only the most minor of laws. We have seen how police can be used. And President Kerr's words of today cannot make us forget the sights of last Thursday. President Kerr is a gifted and eloquent man, but he cannot make me forget, and should not make you forget that there were 500 policemen on this campus last week. And for this reason, the strike must continue today.

President Kerr has stated that we agree on ends, but are divided on means. This is a lie. It is a bold, simple lie. The university administration does not find it in its interest to have us advocating off-campus political and social action. And this we must not forget. But as to means, why must the Academic Senate be forced to consider a proposal which states that the sit-in was unwarranted and that it obstructs rational discussion. This at best is academic oatmeal, as professor [Thomas ]Nagel [Philosophy Dept.] has pointed out on past occasions. But at worst--and I have pointed this out to a member of that select committee of five--the statement is untrue. As to whether or not the sit-in was warranted, this is a value judgment. But as to whether or not it obstructed rational discussion, the discussions of the last 72-hours have indicated that the sit-in did not obstruct, but cause the first rational discussion that's been on this campus. [applause]

We are going to see Governor Brown today, for we feel that if anything was unwarranted, it was the brutality with which our student body was treated in an attempt to make its claims known to the society. There have been universities--and I give you as an example the University of Chicago--which have let student demonstrators sit in its halls for three weeks. There was no reason to treat a free speech protest as a simple problem of disobedience. But more important, Governor Brown made his decision with information supplied by that chief information-giver Clark Kerr. We sincerely hope that Governor Brown is sorry for that decision. For, at best, it was stupid, and at worst...I'll let you decide for yourself. But when we go to see him today, we are going to demand an immediate investigation of police brutality in Alameda County. [applause] And we are going to request that he use his good offices to see that those 801 students who brought clarity to this issue, who brought about rational discussion, are not dragged through the courts of this county. [applause] There is another way of suppressing free speech. And as an introduction to this method, I would suggest any of a number of books by President Kerr. And what this way of suppressing free speech includes is, one, the monopolization of all information. Channeling pieces of information out to various departments. Second, it includes leaving only small channels for advisory opinion. Thirdly, and most important, it means closed-door meetings, telephone calls, keeping the issues out of the arena of public discussion. It is extremely important to realize that this method of reaching consensus that we saw over the past weekend, this method of reaching consensus between the Regents and the Governor and his administrative assistant Mr. Moscowitz, and the departmental chairmen, limited in advance what could be gotten out of the Regents. What we need is a firm stand by the faculty which demands of the Regents the policies which you have heard enunciated here today. [applause] For if this is the greatest state university in the country, I do not think that the Board of Regents can afford to obstruct the decision of the greatest faculty in America. [applause]

I would turn now to some of the gentlemen you see here now, the departmental chairmen. We do not criticize them for their concern, but for the way in which they were manipulated, the way in which they allowed themselves to keep the issues behind closed doors. The only way in which democracy can work is to have the issues in the open. For eight weeks we debated advocacy with the administration, and they could give us but one answer against our position: We must be aware of Bill Knowland [California Senator William F. Knowland]. These gentlemen are concerned. And we hope that they turn their concern now toward an effective discussion of the issues of free speech in tomorrow's Academic Senate meeting. [applause] But, we must make it clear to them and to ourselves that we are not asking them to fight our battle, but their own battle, and that we will continue fight our battle and in a most impressive way.

This morning, prior to President Kerr's announcement, Mario Savio and I announced to the press that the strike would be suspended at twelve midnight until a meeting of the Graduate Coordinating Committee at 8:00 PM tomorrow evening. I suggest that tomorrow this campus should be extremely quiet, the quiet that befits the deliberations of our faculty over the issues of free speech. And I suggest that we make our presence felt in the classroom tomorrow. But remember, if we must return from the classroom, we shall. [applause] And we ask that the faculty, in discussing the issues of free speech, rather than which committee shall discuss the issues of free speech, that the agreements that be reached must be reached in consultation with the student body; that there be real discussion in that meeting and not merely a giving-way a fait accompli arranged over the weekend. And lastly, and most important, we ask that they address themselves, not to the sit-in, but to the brutality of the Alameda County police. In this way, they can show their concern. We do not need a new beginning. We need a resolution of the conflict, and that will come about only when the issues of free speech are debated in tomorrow afternoon's meeting of the Academic Senate.

Professor Harlan Jones (Chair of Biophysics Group): "I am not a captive up here, I am a guest, I am not a part of this movement. The thing I have to say to you today has nothing to do with intricacies and tricky events that I have seen. I simply want to call your attention to judgments that must be made by all people who are assembled here; by all my colleagues in the Academic Senate; by all my colleagues who are residents of California, that they must judge about human behavior, as well as about free speech. Free speech is not this issue. Who can possibly believe that free speech...the fact that I am here, in this group, that the group is here, that they have done the things they have done in the past few days is a clear indication that we HAVE free speech in an extraordinary degree. [jeers from crowd] Please, please, keep order; we're not going to riot. The trouble is that the other attributes of behavior are not up to what we have in free speech. And for heaven's sakes [sic], realize that we are a society that depends upon order, on orderly procedures, and not the usurpation of platform, not the usurpation of privileges. We have to have some behavior in this world to go along with our heritage of free speech. We have to learn to create our behavior, too. We've got a lot to learn about that behavior, and no one is going to impose it on your and me, we're going to have to work it out in various ways. Thank you, very much. Remember what I have said. [scattered applause and boos)

Professor James Leggett (Sociology) is introduced to strong applause. Announcements. "I think it's quite clear that our struggle has just begun! And that perhaps Clark Kerr has just begun to fight. In any even, we are a long way from settling this dispute in our own favor." Offers opinion that arrest of 800 students is a threat to "the civil rights movement." "In a way, the crucial question is civil liberties, but I think the big issue is civil rights." "Think that the radical right and the democratic senators trying to crush it [civil rights movement] and it's our job to defend it." Leggett indicates that James Farmer (Chair of the Congress on Racial Equality [C.O.R.E.]) is going to fly to Bay Area to address a mass rally at UC Berkeley.

Two resolutions by campus AFT: a warning to campus not to take punitive action against teaching assistants. Secondly, in protest against violence against demonstrators, urge faculty to cancel classes for the duration of the strike.


FSM Walkie-talkie conversations recorded immediately after Greek Theater meeting, 12/7/64. ["Is Lattimer Hall in operation?...Have the pickets been disbanded? "] before FSM rally in Sproul Plaza [See AZ1393]. Reporter asks unidentified individual [Bruce?] about FSM communication system around campus.

Noon Rally, Sproul Plaza immediately after Greek Theater meeting, December 7, 1964

Bettina Aptheker : "I want every person here to know and understand fully what just occurred when the president of this university finished speaking . I was with Mario... [Mario Savio appears and Aptheker asks him if he wishes to speak] Mario went backstage before the meeting began and spoke with the chairman of the meeting, Professor Scalapino, and requested to be permitted to speak to the students gathered at the Greek Theater. His main purpose was to announce the fact that there was going to be a rally on the steps of Sproul Hall for the FSM response to the President's statement. He did not want to make a long and involved speech. It must be understood that no equitable solution can be reached to the dispute which has wracked this campus for 2 months unless the proposals which the FSM...which President Kerr proposed were accepted by the Free Speech Movement. That was Mario's request. When President Kerr concluded his speech, Mario left his seat in the front of the Greek Theater and walked quietly and with dignity, and I was with him, up upon the stage, through the seated faculty. And again I say, he walked, and he walked calmly and with dignity, with the dignity of a man who has represented the Free Speech Movement for 2 months in bitter struggle. [applause] And he walked with full knowledge that the people, that the students, that members of the faculty seated at the Greek Theater wanted to hear what Mario had to say, and they had indicated that before by their applause when he appeared at the Greek Theater stage. [applause] When Mario approached the microphone, never was given even the opportunity to say anything, but was seized by the police and brought back stage. After great response from the audience, he was allowed to make the announcement he wanted to make. He was released by the police and he is here now.

Professor Robert L. Beloof (Chair, Speech Department):

"Good afternoon. ...I haven't got much saliva, I've been talking for about four or five days in more or less continuous sessions. I would like to say first, for my own conscience, that the refusal to hear Mr. Savio...that I was not asked, and I want to be very accurate since I think we've come to a point where, unless we make very accurate distinctions, we're going to do very foolish things. That that doesn't mean necessarily that other chairmen were not consulted. It is my opinion, my feeling, that they were not. Now, again, I don't know whether that was because the request was made at such a time that we could not be reached. ...Had I personally been asked, I would have said, "Of course." [applause] Furthermore, had I been asked, I would not have said "of course" to an announcement, have said "of course" to anything he wished to say. [loud applause] Whether it is legally permissible or not is ridiculous at this point. [loud applause] I'm sorry, I have spent sixteen years, and that doesn't sound like very long to my elderly colleagues, it may impress you...I've spent sixteen years of my life at this university, I've put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, and I'm hoping that something can be salvaged. Now, I believe basically that the trouble that's happened here, while the principle of free speech--that is to say, let's define "free speech", let's try for the moment to get away from slogans--what we mean by "free speech" is the right in limited areas of the campus and areas that are meaningful to say what we want to say, to collect funds, to solicit, to, in short, practice implementing the ideas that we learn in the classroom. [applause] I believe that that is a real issue.

...I am a person who shuns and abhors publicity, but I will attempt to tell you a little of my life, to try to establish a bona fide, and I'll tell you now the reason why I'm going to do that: because it is my belief that the basic issue here is not free speech...the basic issue is the loss of contact, and, consequently, the loss of faith and trust among members of the academic community on this campus, vertically and laterally. [applause] Now, I'm going to tell you a little about myself. As I say, I hate this, and if any of you talk to me after this, I'm going to kick you in the seat of your pants. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth, let me put it that way. I won't describe the neighborhood I was raised in. Let me tell you at an early age I was acquainted with prostitutes, pimps, and bootleggers--you wouldn't know about bootleggers. At the age of 16, I became a Convinced Friend, that is to say, a Quaker, and as a result of this, I was a conscientious objector [Beloof is handed a glass of water. Crowd applauds] in World War II. I know personally what it is to face a hostile environment, I suspect, in ways and in depths that very few of you, except those of you who penetrated the deep South, know, unless you happen to be colored. I participated in one of the first successful C.O.R.E. activities ever to be conducted, on a leave from the concentration camp I was in during the second World War, in my home town, in which we successfully changed the local custom that negroes had to sit in the balcony. I learned many things along the way. I've done many things. Among the things I've done was that at a certain time in my life, to start writing poetry, and Shakespeare hasn't been scared since, but I decided that I preferred this life, which is essentially a very lonely life, to a life of some kind of activity.

Now, this much I will tell you of my life. I am sure that you understand what I am doing here. I suspect that my family will be besieged, because I suspect this is going over news media . But I hate telephone calls and all the rest. This is a serious thing for me. Now, I'm going to talk to you, and I'm not going to do as your own brochure, which I have seen, says. I'm not going to do a selling job, except in this sense: I'm going to try to tell you how it looks to me. You're perfectly free--and I'm sure you will all disagree with me at the end of it... [Someone tells Beloof to "make it quick") Let me say this, I can't make it quick. If I've got to make it quick, you can have this God damn microphone! [applause] You're my kids. I've had some of you in class. You think this is easy for any of us. Think again! Now, let me talk to the problem as I see it. As I see it. That's all I can say. I can't give you a party line. Now, I sat in that committee of chairmen, and I'm a man who obeys his word, and I can't tell you what happened. They were secret meetings, that was part of the agreement prior. [microphone problems] Among the other things that has caused my exhaustion, I was down at the City Hall from about 8:00 to about 1:00 the other night. [applause] Now, the one thing I ask you all to do, you've got a great deal of power, you know? And you know it. And other people are very slowly getting the message. [applause] Now, what I ask you to do is to use that power wisely, as other people may not have used their power wisely. [applause] Let me put it this way, what essentially happened, I have read and I have listened to your speakers--I have earnestly listened. I have not listened with a closed mind. I understand that you feel that this agreement which was read to you... [searches for a document in folder]...that this agreement which the chairmen won...and let me tell you this, that it was...we did win it...I mean to say, we were not a bunch of cool cats, sitting up there making a deal. We won something. Now, this str...I'm not going to call it a strike because I don't want to be inflammatory, you know?...this movement began, as I understand it, upon the institution of new charges against your leaders. I may be wrong about that, but I think that's what blew the steam on the kettle again... In any case, that was certainly instrumental. Now, in the powers that be, there are a lot of men who have convictions, too, you know. I mean and conscientious ones. And they are conscientiously convinced that these students who sit in ought to be further punished. Now, it's no use hissing at me, you know, because I say that. That's a fact. That's life. It's in the world. It exists. These are the men we were dealing with. In many areas of their lives--and I ask for human understanding--they are honorable Brutus said. [loud applause] Nonetheless, you must understand also that these men live in their world as you live in yours. You are surrounded by people who support you. They are surrounded by people who support them. Their rescinding of that action, I want you to understand, as a really human step.

I've talked too long, I'm sorry. [crowd shouts their support and approval for his speech] ...Now, I want finally to say that I think there is a substantial thing here. The faculty will meet tomorrow afternoon. I ask you not to lose sight of that fact in your deliberations. [applause] One other thing...[crowd yells: "Read that resolution!"]

Jack Weinberg (FSM):

"I'd like to say a few words. I think in this statement I'm representing the entire steering committee of the Free Speech Movement. In the civil rights movement there's a song...and one of the choruses is "Keep your eyes on the prize." And I think throughout this great and glorious movement, that's the one thing we have to do. [prolonged applause, standing ovation] We have to keep our eyes... (reporter comments on Tussman being escorted out "after having succumbed to his emotions.").

I'd like to begin again, please. The statement is "keep your eyes on the prize", and the prize means what are we and what has the Free Speech Movement been fighting for all these long and hard months, and I think that you all know it's been very long and very hard on many of us. We've had our issues very much out in the front for a long time. They refer to the question of advocacy, they refer to the question of the form of political expression, and they also refer to the statement that we sincerely and deeply want a campus where the faculty and the students have a voice. [applause] Now, I don't know how many of you read the leaflet this morning, it may have sounded a bit conspiratorial, that we were a little bit paranoiac. I know that I was sitting in steering committee meetings which were in continuous session all weekend, and we had reports coming back time and time and time again from the various meetings that were going on, by the various people, and what they were doing, and where their deliberations were at various times, and we had a pretty good idea, almost all weekend, of what was going on. ...And I'll say this, that really, I was very surprised today and very shocked, it's something quite different, I believe, from what everybody else was shocked and surprised about. I really expected, that even though I didn't like the way they did it, I really expected that we were going to get something today and we didn't. The only thing that they granted to us, was that the people who sat in will only be prosecuted in the courts and not on campus. We sat in, and all we got was partial amnesty for the sit-in. I mean, that's all we got. There were 800 students that today were arraigned, they face...possibly very long sentences, and all we got for that...they want us to stop now, and they want us to stop because now they're not going to press this on campus because they can take care of us off campus, that's all they're giving to us.

...I really believe, very sincerely I do believe, that departmental chairmen are, by and large, sincere--most of them, and certainly the on who spoke before us today [Beloof]...[applause]. But we must, and we have to, keep our eyes on the prize. What happened, essentially, was this--this is our intelligence and this has been very well worked out: a small group of departmental chairmen and a few others met with Clark Kerr, convened the meeting of the departmental chairmen, had representatives, such as Professor Scalapino, in consultation with Governor Brown, and they decided...unless they came up with a package, some sort of package today, that some horrible thing would happen. And Clark Kerr told them that the university would stop receiving funds, the legislature would take over the university, and men like the gentlemen who spoke before me, put a lot of their life into this, and, frankly, they were very frightened; they were really frightened that the great university they put so much of their life into building was destroyed, or was being destroyed, and they were willing to try anything to save it. And that's the reason they supported the proposals. But the FSM sent out some of our people, among others we talked to congressman George Miller, who is the Senate Majority Leader, who is the chairman of the three finance committee in the senate, who is also the ranking member of the Senate Education Committee, the man in the senate most relevant to the issues. Now, I don't know if you know this, faculty members are not allowed to talk to legislators, but we could. And when we talked to Miller, he was mad. And he mad at the things Clark Kerr was telling the faculty. He said that he resented the implications that the legislature would act or react to the political activities on or off campus in cutting off funds. And he knew very well that this was the weapon and this was the force through which departmental chairmen conceded to make this report. So they did it because they thought that's what would save the university. I feel that they were sadly mistaken. I think that we, the dedicated student body, can now save the university and we are the ones who must save the university. [applause] But we're not going to save the university by capitulating, because what happened and what has happened in the past is that the faculty has tried repeatedly to life its voice as an independent body, and that's what we want also. We want the faculty, the proud faculty of the University of California, to life its voice as a powerful and an independent body. And the reason why the body of faculty chairmen was convened one day before the Academic Senate meeting when they were prepared to life their voice, was to undercut them, because...[applause]...the faculty have also been meeting, we've been talking to them, and they have some good ideas, and they want to take a part in running this university. And there's one thing I believe that many of the members of the administration fear more than the student body united, they fear the faculty united...[loud applause]...they fear that the faculty will no longer be manipulated as they were with the loyalty oath, and the same thing that the legislature would take over if they took a stand. They fear this. And the Free Speech Movement, although we must maintain our own integrity, we want to put the trust that we can into the Academic Senate, but not an Academic Senate that's been castrated, a real Academic Senate that can move freely. For that reason, Clark Kerr asked or demanded that the strike end at the end of that meeting. Now, we can't do that, but there's an Academic Senate meeting tomorrow, and, as a sign, as a symbol with which we present our case to Academic Senate, at midnight tonight...we will at least temporarily cease our strike, and we will await on the Academic Senate, and we wait and see if they can emerge as an independent force. [prolonged applause]

Couple of other things; things maybe the departmental chairmen didn't know about. Let me give some items of fact, of issues. For instance, you know we always complain that there have not been channels open to us. There's one channel that's always been open, and that was the channel when the administration want to leak a rumor to us, they can leak it to us. Well, we got one of these rumors leaked to us that essentially went like this: as soon as the trouble on campus subsides, that is, if the FSM agreed to capitulate to what was said, as soon as this occurs, Kerr and Brown would get together and see to it that the charges against the students were dropped, but if they didn't subside they wouldn't be dropped and they'd start prosecuting. That's blackmail. That's absolutely blackmail, blackmail on the lives and careers and futures of 800 students, and I'll tell you this...those faculty members who were upset when the police came on campus to arrest should be triply upset at this kind of blackmail. Now, I don't mean that Clark Kerr has the power to drop the charges, and he doesn't. ... [someone in crowd shouts, "hearsay!"] ... Let us remember what we're fighting for, and what the kids got arrested for: we're fighting for the right to say what we want on this campus. We're fighting for no restrictive measures on the forms of political expression. And we're fighting for the right of the students and the faculty to have a say in the running of this university so it can truly become the world's greatest university.

[unidentified speaker reads telegram]: The following message sent to Governor Brown: "Urgently appeal to you to halt university and police oppression of students at Berkeley campus. Appalling restrictions upon their civil liberties. All who value individual liberty are supporting their cause. [signed] Bertrand Russell.

[note: this recording chronologically precedes AZ1393]


Noon Rally after Greek Theater, Sproul Plaza, 12/7/64

Art Goldberg reports on events at Greek Theater. Claims to have prevented Savio from being taken away (arrested) by intervening with Clark Kerr. "The only reason that we are where we are is because you are sitting down there, and because they realized that they couldn't pick off one leader at a time, one by one." Reports on activities and claims of Charlie Powell (ASUC President) ; ASUC elections (another way to "stand up and discredit the entire apparatus on campus, from Clark Kerr to Charlie Powell")

Mario Savio: statement regarding what free speech issues are:

"That proposal that Professor Hirsch read, damn good proposal. [SEE AZ1393] Really is. ...unfortunately, I've been told that my endorsement of it weakens its chances. Really is a good proposal, but they're faced with the following kinds of problems, which is why we are so opposed to the setting up of this other committee--department chairmen--because what's going to happen in that meeting, all the prestige of the department chairmen and Clark Kerr all together, descent will have occurred from Mount Olympus, and a fait accompli will have been presented to the Senate, and then these other members, who are interested not in discussing what committee should resolve the problem, but in discussing the problem, discussing the issue, they will have a tremendous obstacle get where they can start talking. Really essential that we stick with them, that we give them tomorrow one day of real quiet and peace and hope they can pull it through.

Now, the important points...the three we've maintained all along...are the following: The university have [sic] no right to regulate the content of speech; that that be entirely up to the properly constituted civil authorities. Content of speech be completely unregulated by any authority except the courts. That's in the proposal--very good. Second, that regulations governing the form of speech, not be designed to harass, but rather two things: be designed, one, to encourage free expression; two, to assure that free expression not interfere with the regular academic functions of the university. We've always said that; it's in our platform. We hope they'll be able to get this through. And, third, that some...the form we put it in was a tripartite body of students, faculty, and administrators; the form they put it in...a committee appointed by the Academic Senate responsible only to the Academic Senate, making final decisions. That this resolve the disputes concerning, you know, violations of the form. ... [tape skips] The Heyman Committee is a responsible body. Alright, they're presenting this. Unfortunately, Clark Kerr and the people he's convinced are presenting a proposal which only in its second point even hints at the issues. The whole thing is about law and order. Only in its second point, just in point two, does it even hint at the issues, and what it says is, we'll go along with the regulations we have until--and possibly after that, also, of course--until proposal of the Academic Freedom Committee of the Academic Senate is made. These other faculty members are tired of discussing what committee is going to do it. They want tomorrow to discuss the issues. Let's hope, let's really hope that they can do it! This is the first...real chance that we have for members of the university community other than those hand-picked by the administration, to have a real say in consultation, open deliberation on what should be the regulations governing political activity on this campus. Let's really hope that they not be bludgeoned by the show you saw put on today. Let's really hope that all this business about law and order not clog up the proceedings interminably, but rather, that they discuss the issues. I hope even at this...particular meeting doesn't have anything to concern with police brutality. Later...later. Right now, free speech, that's what we want! [applause]

Just two things: One, after this meeting, picket lines are going on. We have to protest what occurred in there [i.e. Sproul Hall]. Picket lines are going on, but they end midnight tonight. And I would urge people here to take part in that protest. Secondly, as soon after this meeting as is physically possible, Jack [Weinberg] and I are going to see the Governor. [applause] So long!

Jack Weinberg exhorts crowds to join picket lines.

Professor Aaron Wildavsky (Political Science) (in discussion with group of students?): "We must have reasonable discipline around here, and not have these millions of idiotic incidents about kick, push, bang, slam, or otherwise did something because we can't deal with the issue that way. Once the advocacy thing is passed, if it is passed, then the faculty must be ready to support, and it will be ready to support discipline against those who violate it. If the advocacy thing is not settled, it will be a running sore, and there will be no end to this controversy, whatsoever.

Q: If the agreement on advocacy is passed [by the Academic Senate] , what guarantee that the administration will deal solely with the issue of advocacy?

Wildavsky: "You have no guarantees, either that the faculty will pass it or the administration will do it. If the faculty passes the Kornhauser resolutions on advocacy, which are very good resolutions, indeed, then it's up to the Regents and the administration in a reasonable period of time to give an answer. If they agree substantially, then we're all in very good shape, and all this should die down because there's no reason for it anymore. If they do not adopt this, then it's up to the faculty, where I think it should be, to decide what kind of actions we will undertake, whether it will be resignations or any other kind of thing. But I tell you again, from the point of view of the students, this business of resignations is not a good thing. Faculty are in very good position; they can move all sorts of places; they are not in dire economic straits, for the most part. It is the teaching assistants and the other students who stand to lose, both for the loss of distinguished faculty, and the fact that there'll be fewer people around interested in protecting them. Nobody wants the university to collapse in this way. It should not be allowed to happen. One of the good things that Kerr said was that this is truly the great public university in the United States, and perhaps among those in the world. So I don't see how anyone is served by continuing incidents, and by grabbing mikes, or doing anything like that which deflects attention from the one issue which has to be solved here, the political advocacy issue. And the Kornhauser resolutions on that are very good, because they make the essential point that the university, which will soon have a couple of hundred-thousand students, cannot follow each and every one of them off the campus, and worry about what it is they're doing or not doing over there. We have a judicial system, we have a police system for that. If they get into trouble, tough luck. And meanwhile, we can have reasonable regulations to deal with situations where loud speakers are too loud or interfere with classes, or where people bother each other. And beyond that, the university ought to keep its head out of matter of political or religious or other kinds of advocacy on the campus. And if we get that settled, then I think we can get all the other matters settled.

Return to FSM Home

Copyright (C) 1996 by the Library, University of California, Berkeley. All rights reserved.
Document maintained on server: by
Gary Handman, Head, Media Resources Center.
Last update 04/26/11 [gh]

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