Thirteenth Report of the Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities

California Legislature

1965 Members of the Committee Senator Hugh M. Burns, Chairman Senator Aaron W. Quick Senator Stephen P. Teale R. E. Combs, Counsel Published by the Senate of the State of California Lieutenant Governor Glenn M. Anderson, President of the Senate Hugh M. Burns, President pro Tempore Joseph A. Beek, Secretary

Letter of Transmittal

Senate Chamber, State Capitol
Sacramento

June 18, 1965
Honorable Glenn M. Anderson, President of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the Senate;

Senate Chamber, Sacramento, California

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Senate: Pursuant to Senate Rules Resolution No. 1, adopted July 11, 1963, under authority of Paragraph 12.5 (13) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities of the General Research Committee was created and the following Members of the Senate were appointed to said subcommittee by the Senate Committee on Rules: Senators Hugh M. Burns, Chairman, Aaron W. Quick and Stephen P. Teale.

The committee herewith submits a report of its investigation and findings.

Respectfully submitted,
Hugh M. Burns, Chairman
Aaron W. Quick

University of California

Introduction

On September 21, 1964, a student demonstration occurred on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley. Thereafter other and more serious demonstrations followed until it finally became necessary for the governor to summon officers to clear the administration building on the campus of more than 800 defiant students who had entered and staged a sit-in demonstration. Many arrests were made, the student rebellion received international publicity, and the image of a great cultural institution received irreparable damage.

It is the responsibility of this subcommittee to ascertain the causes of these disturbances and to report the extent to which they were inspired or influenced by subversive elements. We do this realizing that there is an unfortunate trend at present for the extreme right to see Communists everywhere, and for the extreme left to pretend that they no longer exist.

We have conducted investigations of subversive infiltration at the University of California and at other educational institutions throughout the state since 1941. From the inception of the most recent troubles at Berkeley we have had both overt and covert agents in the area who have provided us with a flow of information on a day-to-day basis. In addition we have obtained statements from university administrators, faculty members, Regents, and students; we have obtained all documents we believe material to the subject, we have studied the newspaper accounts, magazine articles, TV and radio programs that seemed important, and we have also obtained the publications issued by the Free Speech Movement.

For the purpose of placing the subject in its proper perspective, it will be helpful to the reader if he is provided with a chronology of events, commencing with the situation as it existed in Berkeley at the opening of the spring semester in 1964, and continuing until the time this portion of our report is being dictated, in March of 1965.

Chronology

Spring Semester, 1964—Intense pre-primary election activity by student groups creates congestion at Sather Gate.

July 22 and 29—Chancellor's office, Dean of Students, campus police and the public affairs officer conferred and decided upon a stricter interpretation of the Kerr Rules.

September 14—Katherine Towle, Dean of Students, established a new policy. Sent letter to "Presidents or Chairmen and Advisors of all Student Organizations,” officially barring all tables at Sather gate.

September 17—Dean Towle met with students representing 18 off-campus organizations to discuss her September 14 directive.

September 18—Dean Towle was presented with a petition from the 18 organizations protesting the September 14 directive.

September 21—The September 14 directive was reconsidered and a new directive issued allowing a limited number of tables at Sather gate.

September 21—Student leaders of the 18 groups walked out saying that they were not satisfied and that the modification was not sufficient.

September 21—First demonstration occurred.

September 21—Chancellor Strong issued statement through the Daily Californian to the effect that "its (university's) facilities were not to be


4
used for the mounting of the social and political actions directed to the surrounding community," citing President Kerr's Davis Charter Day Address, May 5, 1964.

September 23—A free speech vigil was held on Sproul Hall steps, 75 persons still being there on the morning of September 24.

September 24 and 25—Chancellor Strong conferred with President Clark Kerr.

September 28—Chancellor Strong presented his modified position at the university meeting, held at the Student Union Plaza. He interpreted section III of the Kerr Rules as eliminating any distinction between spoken and written expression, thus allowing free distribution of printed materials, buttons and stickers favoring political candidates in certain designated areas on the campus. The rationale of this change appeared to be that since controversial speakers were permitted on the campus, controversial literature should also be admitted.

September 28—Dean Towle's modified position allowing tables at Sather gate was officially announced.

September 29—Members of the Dean's staff took the names of 8 students who were at tables placed at Sather gate and in front of Sproul Hall, all in direct violation of university rules: that is, although the tables were placed in designated areas, no permits were obtained, which violated the university rules that were still in effect. The 8 students whose names were thus taken were Mark Bravo, Mark Fuchs, David Goines, Arthur Goldberg, Donald Hatch, Mario Savio, Elizabeth Stapleton, and Brian Turner.

September 29—From 300 to 400 students moved into Sproul Hall and remained there until 2:40 a.m. of the following day.

October 1—The eight students whose names are mentioned above were officially suspended from the university.

October 1—At 11:45 on the morning of October 1, Jack Weinberg, (non-student) was arrested in front of Sproul Hall. Thereafter 150 to 200 students entered Sproul Hall to take Dean Towle a hostage. Women employees left through the windows and over the roof, and the crowd which eventually grew to approximately 500 in number, imprisoned the police car by sitting down around it and refusing to move, thereby preventing it from taking Weinberg away. The car and its occupant were held captive through the night and the car suffered considerable damage.

October 2—10:30 a.m., the police car was still held captive by the crowd, Chanceller Strong and President Kerr conferred concerning methods to restore law and order to the university. Mario Savio addressed the crowd numerous times during the remainder of the day. At 5:00 p.m. and ad hoc negotiating committee requested a conference with university officials. At 6:00 p.m. Chancellor Strong read a statement to the crowd requesting them to dispere, and they refused. The total number of law enforcement officers summoned by the University Administration to handle the situation had reached 579 by 6 o'clock on the evening of October 7. At 7 p.m. spokesmen for the Oakland and Berkeley police departments informed Chancellor Strong that if their men were not used by 8 o'clock they would be recalled. At 7:15 a negotiating committee met with President Kerr and reached an agreement which was read by Mario Savio to the crowd, which then dispersed.

October 4 and 5—Free Movement was created from a pre-existing united front of students and non-students who were defying the university administration.


5

October 5—Chancellor Strong turned the adjudication of the case of the eight suspended students over to a faculty committee on student conduct which was commonly known as the Ira Heyman Committee.

October 5—Chancellor Strong appointed a twelve-man study committee on campus political activities, better known as the Robley Williams Committee.

October 6—FSM Steering Committee met with Chancellor Strong to protest the personnel appointed to the Robley Williams Committee. On this day a petition bearing six hundred names supporting the Free Speech Movement and including faculty members as well as students, was delivered to Chancellor Strong.

October 12—A petition bearing eighty-eight names and signed only by the members of the faculty was delivered to Chancellor Strong recommending reinstatement of the eight suspended students.

October 13—Robley Williams Committee held an open meeting at which seventy of the seventy-one speakers demanded that the committee disband itself. There had been an FSM handbill circulating all day instructing students planning to speak before the committee to demand its dissolution because of dissatisfaction with its personnel.

October 15—The leaders of the Free Speech Movement threatened mass demonstrations.

October 16—Chancellor Strong agreed to expand the Robley Williams Committee to a total of eighteen members, six from the administration, six from the faculty and six from the dissident students. Two of the student representatives were selected by Chancellor Strong and the other four were selected by the FSM.

October 18—The FSM selected Mario Savio, Bettina Aptheker, Suzanne M. Goldberg and Sydney R. Stapleton as its representatives on the Robley Williams Committee.

October 21-November 10—Robley Williams Committee met a total of eight times during this period; on October 21, 24, 28, 29, and on November 4, 5, 7, and 10, when it finally dissolved itself.

November 12—The faculty representatives on the Robley Williams Committee, Professors Cheit, Garbarino, Kadish, Rosovsky, Vermeulen and Williams, issued a report on the status of their deliberations and offered specific recommendations for a solution of the campus crisis.

November 13—President Kerr published his appeal to the university community for proposals. The Daily Californian, student paper, published the faculty report with his letter.

November 20—The next scheduled meeting of the Board of Regents of the University of California was set for this date, as stated by President Kerr in his letter which appeared in the Daily Californian on November 13, 1964, and which announced that he would submit his final recommendations to the Regents at that time.

November 20—The Regents modified existing rules to (1) permit advocacy, raising funds and recruiting members by students in designated areas on the Berkeley campus, but, (2) permission pertained only to the mounting of lawful action. The university retained the right to suspend any student who participated in unlawful on-campus or off-campus activity.

With the announcement of these rules by the Regents, between four and five thousand students demonstrated outside University Hall. Mario Savio declared to them that the students were completely dissatisfied with these rulings and would take further action.


6

November 24—Between two hundred fifty and three hundred fifty FSM supporters staged a sit-in for three hours near Dean Towle's office in Sproul Hall, following a noon rally, and a San Francisco Chronicle columnist wrote that the FSM movement was becoming more left-wing day by day.

November 25—The administration denied a request by SLATE to show a homosexual film on the university campus.

November 26—Dean Towle sent sixty mimeographed letters reprimanding students for violating the promulgated rules of the university.

November 30-December 1—Chancellor Strong announced that disciplinary action would be commenced against Mario Savio, Arthur Goldberg, Jacqueline Goldberg, and Brian Turner. Goldberg at a noon rally on the steps at Sproul Hall demanded that all charges be dropped, and Mario Savio, who was speaking at the Santa Barbara campus of the university, held a news conference and threatened a strike of teaching assistants, and massive demonstrations unless the charges were dropped.

December 2—Savio issued an ultimatum giving Chancellor Strong twenty-four hours to comply with FSM demands or face a massive sit-in demonstration. A noon rally at Sproul Plaza was held and Savio told the two thousand students who were assembled to hear him that the FSM would "bring the university to a grinding halt" unless the FSM demands were met. At 12:30 p.m. Mario Savio and Joan Baez, Carmel folk singer, led an invasion of Sproul Hall, which was occupied with military precision by more than 800 FSM supporters. Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs started arriving at 7:00 p.m. when Sproul Hall was closed, and the demonstrators remained inside. Chancellor Strong and some hastily-summoned Regents met at a San Francisco airport motel and formulated strategy to meet the situation, but before their plans could be placed in operation Governor Brown sent officers to the university campus, and the sit-in demonstrators were arrested, booked, and hauled away to Alameda County Santa Rita Prison Farm.

December 7—President Kerr was both booed and applauded when he appeared in the Greek Theater to address assembled students and faculty members. He was introduced by Robert Scalapino, Chairman of the Department of Political Science. Kerr agreed that he would take no action against any of the FSM demonstrators for violations of university rules committed prior to the massive December 2 sit-in, and made it plain that no more violations of regulations would be tolerated, and that peace must be maintained on the campus. But before the meeting adjourned Savio, flanked by several of his supporters, shouldered his way to the microphone, shoved the speaker aside, and was dragged away by police.

December 8—The Academic Senate on the Berkeley campus met and voted 824 to 115 to back the fundamental principles of the FSM, urged the administration to turn all control of student discipline over to the faculty, and suggested a five-point program to bring peace to the campus. This faculty decision was followed by a jubilant celebration on the part of FSM leaders, and on the following day Savio withdrew from the University at Berkeley for the purpose of making a national tour to spread the gospel of the FSM, stating that he would return to the campus the following semester.

December 19—The Regents directed the administration to preserve law and order; rejected the proposal of the Academic Senate to delegate Regents' authority over student discipline; agreed to review university policies regarding free speech; refused to restrict freedom of speech beyond


7
the provisions of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution; and announced that existing rules were to be enforced pending further study by the Regents of the entire Berkeley situation. Savio vowed to continue the FSM fight, and expressed complete dissatisfaction with the Regents' decision.

December 20—An item in the San Francisco Chronicle predicted that Chancellor Strong would be replaced temporarily for reasons of ill health.

December 23—The Regents announced that they had appointed two committeees, one to study rules on political activities at Berkeley, one to study the causes of the demonstrations.

December 27—President Kerr was quoted as saying that there was a hard core of demonstrators comprising as much as 40% of off-campus elements, including Communist sympathizers.

December 30—Savio spoke at the convention of The California Federation of Teachers, attacking Kerr and Jesse Unruh, Speaker of the California State Assembly, and demanding an investigation of the university Regents.

December 31—The Academic Senate Committee on Academic Freedom at Berkeley released its plan for settling troubles, the release having been made while its own executive committee was conferring with the Regents.

January 3—Chancellor Strong was temporarily relieved of his duties "because of health," and Martin Meyerson, suggested by Kerr, was appointed Acting Chancellor in his place.

January 3—Acting Chancellor Meyerson selected Neil J. Smelser, 34, Rhodes Scholar and Sociologist, as his assistant in charge of student political activities.

January 4—Acting Chancellor Meyerson was quoted as saying that "civil disobedience is only warranted when there is no recourse to reasonable deliberation." Savio declared that the rules promulgated by the Academic Senate's committee on academic freedom were totally unacceptable to the FSM.

January 5—Acting Chancellor Meyerson issued rules creating more campus areas that would be available to the students for free speech.

January 6—Arthur M. Ross, Chairman of the Academic Senate's Emergency Executive Committee, said that matters were improving, and that there was no sense in any more demonstrations. He added that student freedom of advocacy had been secured, disciplinary procedures established, and that any who wished to advocate should "get out and advocate."

History of Communism at Berkeley

A few years after the Communist Party was organized in the United States it divided the country into twenty districts, California, Arizona and Nevada originally being included in district number 13, with headquarters in San Francisco. The main office was moved from Grove Street to Haight Street and thence to 942 Market Street, and a few years ago Nevada was dropped out of the district and Hawaii substituted in its place because it occupied a greater strategic significance for Communist purposes. The important thing to bear in mind is that the headquarters for the whole of California and adjacent territory has always been situated in San Francisco. The main propaganda outlet for the Communist Party is now at 1408 Market Street, and the major Communist educational institutions have always been operated from that city.


8

District 13 is no longer a formal organizational component of the party, but the top decisions are nonetheless made in San Francisco—not in Los Angeles, and the party high command has always operated from the Bay Area.

As the Communist schools will play a prominent part in our description of infiltration at the Berkeley campus of the University of California, we should briefly set forth their history here by way of background. The first school was located at 675 Minna Street, and functioned under the name of Workers School. It continued operating at various places under this title, until for security reasons it changed its name to the Tom Mooney Labor School, and finally to the California Labor School, with branches in Oakland and Los Angeles. In the latter city the institution was eventually known as the People's Educational Center.

Changing the names of the Communist front organizations, youth organizations and Communist propaganda publications is an old Communist custom, and these changes of names and addresses for the Communist schools in San Francisco managed to fool some people of prominence who were persuaded to act as "education sponsors" under the mistaken assumption that the schools were being operated to provide an education for members of trade unions. It soon became evident, even to these credulous supporters, that the trade unions were limited to those under Communist domination such as the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union; the Marine Cooks and Stewards Union (which has since emancipated itself from Communist control), the United Office and Professional Workers of America, the State, County, and Municipal Workers of America, the United Federal Workers of America, and a host of others.

It should, of course, be obvious that a Communist school would hardly waste its time and money preaching anything other than Communism, and that even its classes in metal-working, or art, or folk dancing, or manual training, or ceramics, or virtually any other kind of a course can easily be utilized as a medium for the effective indoctrination of the students. It is equally true that no anti-Communist, or even a neutralist, would ever be allowed to teach or lecture at such a tightly-controlled institution unless he was sympathetic to the purposes for which it was created. In short, let there be no mistake about these schools being not only integral parts of the Communist apparatus, but vital and indispensable parts that were closely-watched, carefully-operated, and highly successful. For a short time even the Federal Veterans Administration was fooled by these changes in name and location and changes in the statement of purposes, and lent its support to the San Francisco Communist institution when it was operating as the California Labor School. It withdrew its assistance after this committee investigated the institution and found that it was a part of the California Communist organization. Shortly thereafter the AF of L Central Labor Council advised its members to withdraw support, having conducted its own investigation and arrived at the same conclusion. Indeed, the support by non-Communist unions was of very short duration; but from the inception of the first Communist school in San Francisco in 1932, it was consistently supported by all of the Communist-dominated unions and Communist front organizations.

In 1946 California Labor School persuaded the University of California at Berkeley to join with it and jointly sponsor an institution on the Berkeley campus known as the Institute on Labor, Education and World Peace. This was a two-day program, widely heralded and advertised through all of the Communist propaganda media in the Bay Area, and


9
by the Communist book store then being operated within a block of the Sather Gate. Here was an astounding spectacle of a great university lending its physical facilities, its dignity and its prestige to a Communist indoctrination center which was dedicated to the subversion of our country. This was one of the occurrences that led former President Sproul to establish a security officer at Berkeley whose duty it was to protect the university and its students against precisely this sort of unfortunate event, and to keep the state-wide administration currently informed about the problem of subversive infiltration in general, and also to protect innocent liberals and others against irresponsible red-baiting.

We must observe here that during the time this officer was functioning actively there were no recurrences of such incidents; the name of the university was protected; there were no massive demonstrations; there was no opening of the gates of the institution to Communist officials who will gladly utilize the campus as their forum for the spreading of their subversive propaganda. This security officer noted the changes of the Communist party line, predicted impending demonstrations; subscribed to Communist literature, developed his sources of information, was aware of the various front organizations that flourished around the perimeter of the Berkeley campus, and although he was only one man with his time thinly spread over the teeming Berkeley campus and the other eight campuses of the university as well, managed to keep the various administrations currently and accurately advised concerning local subversive problems.

While the California Labor School was being operated at 321 Divisadero Street in San Francisco it was subjected to a searching scrutiny by the Subversive Activities Control Board, which eventually cited it as a Communist organization, and the Attorney General of the United States officially listed it as subversive. Our own committee had conducted an investigation a few years previously and arrived at the same conclusion, which was published in its reports. The school then quietly ceased operating and, as we shall hereafter note, utilized other facilities for the purpose of indoctrination and recruiting—at considerably less expense to the Communist Party.

We believe it would be helpful if we include the names of the more important faculty members at these various Communist educational institutions in San Francisco, for the purpose of indicating that some of the most important party functionaries and veteran members were assigned to devote their indoctrination and recruiting skills to this type of work. It also serves to underline the fact that the party considered the schools of sufficient importance to assign some of their most able members to work in them, and it will indicate a certain interlocking system of cooperation with Communist-dominated organizations and front groups that was highly co-ordinated and skillfully administered.

Thus we find that Dorothy Ray was teaching at the school in San Francisco and was also handling the duty of Associate Director of its Social Sciences Department in 1936. We first made her acquaintance at a San Francisco hearing in 1941 when she was not only a member of the Communist apparatus but also a Deputy California Labor Commissioner, hearing cases in the field. She now heads the Southern Division of the Communist Party of California, with headquarters in Los Angeles, under the name of Dorothy Healey.

Vincente Lombardo Toledano lectured at the school in 1948. Toledano has also been mentioned in some of our previous reports as the organizer


10
and dominant figure in the Mexican Working Men's Federation, a Communist-controlled organization of enormous strength, which spread its activities throughout Latin America with the active collaboration of Constantin Oumansky, Soviet Ambassador to Mexico in the late 30's and early 40's. Toledano is still extremely active in Mexico as a Communist leader and occasionally comes into Southern California for the purpose of delivering lectures to various front organizations.

Herbert Aptheker, the father of Bettina Aptheker, who figures prominently in the Berkeley rebellion, spoke at the California Labor School in February 1951. We shall have a great deal more to say about Mr. Aptheker at a more appropriate place in this report, but it will be sufficient to point out here that for several years he was the editor-in-chief of a publication about the size of Reader's Digest, called Political Affairs. This is the monthly ideological publication of the Communist Party of the United States. Mr. Aptheker has lectured at many universities throughout the country, and in Communist circles has earned himself a reputation as a Marxian ideologist, a party theoretician, and an expert on the Negro minority in America. In 1949 he taught a course on "The American Negro Today," during the spring term of the California Labor School, which commenced on February 2, 1949. In April 1959 Mr. Aptheker broadcast regularly over station KPFA-FM in Berkeley. He spends a great deal of his time these days in Berkeley, but just before the first student demonstration, which occurred in September 1964, Mr. Aptheker was in the Soviet Union with some other Communists whose names will be given later.

George Lohr (whose true name is Ohlwerther), also lectured at the school when he was foreign news editor of the People's World, the Communist newspaper published in San Francisco. Lohr has traveled abroad many times on various assignments for the world Communist movement, was sent to San Diego several years ago to restore discipline in the party organization there, and has lately been spending much of his time in Communist East Germany.

Paul Heide, well-known East Bay Communist, also taught at the school, having lectured there in 1947. Mr. Heide, who has spent most of his life in trade union work, was connected with the War Manpower Commission of Northern California during World War II, and has been identified with a wide variety of Communist activities.

Oleta O'Connor Yates once acted as chairman of the Communist Party in San Francisco and was a lecturer at the school on several occasions. Mrs. Yates, now deceased, was once a candidate for the office of supervisor for the county of San Francisco on the Communist Party ticket, and during most of her adult life was prominent in some official Communist capacity in Northern California.

One of the most significant lecturers at the school was Irwin Elber, who was a consultant on labor matters to the War Manpower Commission in Northern California during World War II, under the direction of Sam Kagel, who himself lectured at the school on more than one occasion. Elber was also national organizer for a Communist-dominated union whose members worked in sensitive government positions. It was known as the United Federal Workers of America, and had chapters in every large city throughout the county. Elber's triple role as a trade union director for the Communist school, organizer for a nation-wide Communist-controlled union of Government employees, and consultant on labor matters to the War Manpower Commission in Northern California,


11
rendered him a formidable figure indeed. His office was located in room 302 of the Balboa Building at 593 Market Street, and his neighbors on the same floor were the International Union Council, Labor's Non-Partisan League, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, separate offices occupied by Harry Bridges and Louis Goldblatt, the King-Ramsay-Connor Defense Committee, and the State, County and Municipal Workers of America. All of these organizations were oriented toward the Communist Party, and most of them were completely controlled by it.

Richard Gladstein and Herbert Resner also lectured at the school, and so did Aubrey Grossman and his wife. Mr. Grossman joined the Young Communist League while a student on the Berkeley campus, and was largely responsible for the success of the Communist schools in the Bay Area. He also was educational director for the Communist Party of San Francisco, and he wrote a letter on its official stationery urging all Communists to attend the school and give it all possible support. Messrs. Gladstein and Resner were Communist attorneys in San Francisco and active in representing the party itself as well as its galaxy of front organizations. Others whose activities make them worthy of special note, and who lectured at the school, were Jules Carson, educational director of the Communist Party of Alameda County in 1939, and Adam Lapin, associate editor of the Communist newspaper People's World, and well known in a succession of Communist organizations and activities.

Louis Goldblatt has heretofore been mentioned as the secretary-treasurer of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union with his offices located on the same floor of the Balboa Building as those of Irwin Elber. Mr. Goldblatt has been identified as a member of the Communist Party as have Adam Lapin, Verne Smith, Jules Carson, and Wilhelmina Loughrey, who ran the Communist Book Store near Sather Gate. Mr. Goldblatt's two daughters are now attending the University of California at Berkeley and played prominent roles in the student demonstrations that started in September of last year. Goldblatt was a delegate to the Chicago Emergency Peace Mobilization in 1940 and persuaded the California State Industrial Union Council to assist in the work of that Communist front organization. He was secretary of the CIO State Council, and reliably reported to have been a member of the Communist Party since 1934, most of his activity having been in the Maritime and CIO unions. He was a member of the Trade Union Unity League in 1937 and 1938, played an important part in labor's Non-Partisan League, participated in the Institute on Labor Education and World Peace at the University of California, a program to which we have heretofore referred, and he delivered the main speech at a California Labor School banquet honoring Holland Roberts in 1947.

Another lecturer at the Communist school was John Jeffrey, head of the State, County and Municipal Workers of America. This Communist-controlled union of employees of the state and its political subdivisions, flourished during the late 30's and early 40's and was the dominant factor in the infiltration of the State Relief Administration during that period. Its members worked on a somewhat lower level in government jobs than did Elber's United Federal Workers of America—but the difference ended there. Both organizations were used to insinuate trusted party members in places of strategic importance and from these vantage points they managed to recruit, indoctrinate, and carry on the party program to the best of their ability. As we pointed out in our 1963 report, Dorothy Ray Healey is an


12
excellent example of this technique, having performed vital work in the interest of the Communist Party from her position of vantage as a Deputy State Labor Commissioner.

Of course, it was nice also to have large numbers of Communists on the public payroll so that the taxpayers would support them, not only when they performed their services for the state, or for the county or municipal governments in which they worked, but also while they were carrying on their Communist activities. The SCMWA reached the height of its activity just before or shortly after the close of World War II, and during that era it was relatively simple to determine which government office was sympathetic to Communism by walking in and taking a look on the bulletin boards and the desks of the employees and noting the propaganda material issued by the United Federal Workers of America, the State, County and Municipal Workers of America, the United Office and Professional Workers of America, (this latter organization functioned in non-governmental positions,) and also by the number of copies of the People's World that were scattered about the office.

David Adelson also lectured at the Communist School in San Francisco on occasion. He was president of Chapter 25, International Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians. This union of technical personnel was actually started in the Soviet Union, and served as an excellent cover for espionage activities, particularly at Berkeley in connection with the development of the atomic bomb. We have covered this subject in some detail in previous reports, but it will do no harm to point out that there was a strong chapter of the organization in Alameda County under Mr. Adelson's supervision, that we had an informant who served as secretary for its executive board, and minutes of the board meetings were replete with pro-Communist declarations, discussions of the best techniques to spread propaganda and secure information, and references to well-known Communists who were active in the Bay Area who served as a liaison between the party and the FAECT Chapter 25. Marcel Scherer was the national organizer for this union, spent a great deal of his time in San Francisco and Berkeley during World War II, and was in frequent conference with members of the War Manpower Commission and officials of the Berkeley campus of the university.

We have frequently discussed John Howard Lawson in connection with our description of the Communist penetration of the motion picture industry, which was largely directed by him in Hollywood and by V. J. Jerome from New York. Mr. Lawson has been a member of the Communist Party for a good many years, is a writer of motion pictures, scenarios and plays, has written several books, and frequently lectures to Communist front organizations and at Communist front groups.

Paul Radin, the noted anthropologist who was once a member of the faculty on the Berkeley campus, also lectured at the California Labor School. Mr. Radin was recruited to Communism through the efforts of an expert in this field, Norman Mini. Mr. Mini has testified before this committee, has explained his long membership in the Communist Party and also in the Socialist Workers Party, and has explained the techniques used by him to indoctrinate and recruit Dr. Radin and other members of the Berkeley faculty. We wish to make it clear at this point that Paul Radin's brother Max was a professor in the Law School at the university in Berkeley, and had no connection with the Communist Party at any time.

There were, of course, many other Communists and Communist sympathizers who taught at the party's San Francisco schools. Space will


13
not permit a more detailed treatment of these highly important institutions, but in order to have the proper perspective before considering the Berkeley rebellion in detail, one must first realize the true nature of the Communist school, and the character of the propaganda that flows in ever-growing streams from the San Francisco sources of supply. Once we realize that the Party has always operated the entire Pacific Coast and Hawaiian apparatus from San Francisco; that the major propaganda sources are situated in that city, and that the indoctrination and recruiting schools are located there—only then is one adequately equipped to begin understanding why the main force of California Communism is located in the Bay Area instead of Los Angeles.

Red Chinese Propaganda

We have mentioned in the 1963 report that there was a deep split in the American Communist Party that grew from the Sino-Soviet rift; that the Mao group in the party calls itself the Progressive Labor Movement, and follows the concept that peaceful co-existence is a betrayal of Marxist-Leninist principle, and that there must be permanent and violent conflict with the capitalist forces leading to an inevitable large-scale struggle which, they confidently believe, the Communists will win. We also pointed out that both Peking and Moscow are in perfect agreement about the necessity of subverting the class enemy by attacking the United States and rendering it weak and vulnerable, and that there must be a relentless drive for world domination, and that these two major Communist powers only disagree about which techniques can best be used to attain that objective.

Since the publication of our last report Red China has opened an extensive propaganda outlet in San Francisco. It was first located at 292 Gough Street, and then moved to larger quarters at 2929 24th Street on July 1, 1964. It is known as "China Books and Periodicals," is well patronized, and is listed in Washington as an agency for a foreign government. When a united front is needed for a common cause, we see these dissident Communist factions collaborating. Thus when the Berkeley rebellion started we found a united front being formed with Trotskyites, Maoists, Socialists, and Moscow Communists joining forces with a wide variety of other groups.

The United Front

The term "united front" came into usage after the Seventh World Comintern Congress. It simply means, in the Communist sense, that members of the party will attach themselves to some popular cause for which large groups of non-Communists have manifested a willingness to take some positive action. They will then espouse the same cause, weld the groups together, trim down the leadership to the point that it can be dominated by the Communist minority, and from that time they will control the mass movement and bend it to their own objectives. The principal objective is to whittle away opposition and transform the popular cause into a class struggle.

The following excerpt from a book by the originator of the united front, entitled "United Front; The Struggle Against Fascism and War," will put the concept in focus.


14

Dimitroff is addressing the young delegates to the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International, as follows:

"On the basis of the experience you have already gained, in the decisions of the Seventh Congress of the Communist International, we expect you to find the proper ways and means of accomplishing the most important task of your movement, the task of uniting the forces of the entire non-Fascist youth, and first and foremost, of the working class youth, the task of achieving unity with the Socialist youth.

This, however, cannot be achieved if the Young Communist Leagues keep on trying, as they have done hitherto, to construct their organizations as if they were Communist Parties of the youth; nor will this be possible if they are content, as heretofore, to lead the secluded lives of sectarians, isolated from the masses.

The whole anti-Fascist youth is interested in uniting and organizing its forces. Therefore you, comrades, must find such ways, forms and methods of work as will assure the formation, in the capitalist countries, of a new type of mass youth organizations, to which no vital interest of the working youth will be alien, organizations which, without copying the party, will fight for all the interests of the youth and bring up the youth in the spirit of the class struggle in proletarian internationalism, in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism.

This requires that the Congress should very seriously check up and reappraise the work of the Young Communist Leagues, for the purpose of actually achieving their reorganization and the fearless removal of everything that obstructs the development of mass work and establishment of the united fronts and unity of the youth.

We expect the Young Communist International to build up its activity in such a manner as to weld and unite all trade unions, cultural, and educational and sports organizations of the working youth, all revolutionary, national-revolutionary, national-liberation anti-Fascist youth organizations for the struggle against fascism and war, for the rights of the young generation.

We note with great pleasure that our young comrades and friends in the United States have actually joined the mass movement of the united front of the youth which is so successfully developing, and have already achieved in this sphere successes which hold out great promises. All sections of the Young Communist International should profit by this experience of the French and American comrades."[1]

Thus each Communist front organization is actually an exemplification of the Dimitroff device; for each is composed of a majority of non-Communists united together because of a common purpose on which they can take common action; for better housing, for relief of poverty, to end racial discrimination, and the like. Occasionally the Communists will move quietly in until the infiltration has managed to capture key positions and gain control. More often they will start a new organization and use it to attract others. Then several fronts will be persuaded to join forces for the common objective, and this is the classic united front of organizations as originated by the secretary of the Third Communist International.

In previous reports we have described a formidable device used by Communists the world over and which is commonly referred to as "the diamond pattern." This operation permits a handful of dedicated Communists


15
to move into and take control of a large non-Communist organization. It was used to capture the Communist-dominated unions several years ago, including those that we have heretofore mentioned in connection with the California Labor School, and it has also been used with deadly effect among the important trade unions of Great Britain. Writing in the Saturday Evening Post for February 4, 1961, pages 33 and 68, Ernest O. Hauser described the operation through the observations of William J. Carron, President of Amalgamated Engineering Union of Great Britain, whose membership of over a million members makes it England's second largest union organization.

"`The Communists do all the homework in our branches,' Carron began his story. `There'll be a local union meeting somewhere, and half a dozen Communists will be among those present. These six fellows will wait until most of the others have gone for a cup of coffee. Then they get busy and press a resolution that goes out in the name of the entire branch—a thousand members, maybe.' No more than seven per cent of the union's rank and file, by Carron's estimate, was pro-Communist. But as the engineers were scattered through some critical sectors of Britain's industry—including shipyards, steel mills, automobile and aircraft factories, chemical and electronic plants—the Communists had long paid a special attention to this mighty union. By cleverly manipulating local and district elections, they have been able to get a disproportionate number of their men into the union's governing bodies. Thus, when the union's national committee of fifty-two met for its annual policy-making session last Easter, it included no fewer than twelve members of the Communist Party and ten known fellow-travelers. The rest was split, as a result of the Communists' homework, sixteen to fourteen in favor of unilateral disarmament."

About a year ago Reverend James H. Robinson requested permission to testify as a voluntary witness before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in Washington, D.C. He appeared before the Committee on May 5, 1964, a Pastor Emeritus of the Presbyterian Church of the Master, New York City, and director of a private organization known as "Operation Crossroads Africa, Inc.," 150 Fifth Avenue, New York City, which he created and directs. Reverend Robinson, who had been affiliated with several Communist front organizations in past years, stated that he had discovered the Communist hypocrisy, was familiar with their techniques, and appreciated the extremely critical danger of doing business with them. Since his remarks are similar to those of trade union labor leaders, who had comparable experiences, and because the techniques used there and the techniques experienced by Reverend Robinson will be pertinent to our discussion of the organizational activities of the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley, we set forth some of Reverend Robinson's testimony herewith:

"Mr. Ichord: You stated in your testimony that back when you were associated with Mr. Robinson and Ben Davis and others in several causes, that at that time you were of the mind that you would join with a Communist or anyone who was working for the objectives that you had in mind, and then later on you changed your mind. I would like you to elaborate somewhat on that.

Mr. Robinson: Well, I came to the place where you have to recognize first of all that you might do your own cause and yourself more harm if you join with people who are better organized than you are,


16
and better disciplined in a group than you are, and their greatest asset is tight discipline.

They know where they are going and what they want to do. They can play it easy or soft. They can sit in a meeting that everyone leaves and as long as there is a quorum, and they will get the votes. I saw this happen many times at first without knowing what was happening. I learned, but some people never did learn. I do not think it would be to my advantage, for example, in Operation Crossroads Africa, to let a Black Muslim come into Operation Crossroads Africa—I admit that one got in from the University of California at Berkeley, but we put him on a plane for Africa when we found out about it, and sent him home.

I would say the same thing about Communists. I would not let Communists in either. Now, would I let them co-operate with us in anything? No, I would not take that old position of co-operating any more. I would not get involved with people with uterior motives who really end up trying to use you to make capital for their ends."

Speaking about why Americans become Communists, Reverend Robinson had this observation:

"I think there are a good many people who do not like anybody or anything; who are unhappy, dislocated personalities. This gives them a feeling of importance and of power when they join a dissident movement. I think this is a very strong thing in the minds of a good many people who take the Communist ideological position.

Now in Russia or some other place there may be different reasons. But I think in this country that is so. I look back on some of these people in those days who were on these committees, who were against everything and everybody. They were the happiest, I feel, when everybody else was tearing their hair out, if I can put it that way. There are some who take it, of course, because they want to be at the top. If they can get in control they will be in the strongest group. That is, a strong group makes all the decisions for everybody else. And I think this plays a pretty important role in the minds of many people who become Communists."[2]

Use of the diamond pattern technique which enables a small group of highly-trained Communist professionals to secure control of a trade union, a front, a unit of the Parent Teachers Association, or any other organization deemed of strategic importance for Communist objectives, is an illustration of the capture of a single unit or organization. But the same device has proved equally successful throughout the world when employed to form a united front by bringing several organizations together, thus forming a broad mass base for important action. The formula is always the same: First a few Communists will unobstrusively insinuate themselves into several organizations, scrupulously concealing their Communist affiliation, and eventually working their way into positions of authority. Then an agreement will be reached on forming a united front movement behind a popular cause. This new united front movement will operate on democratic principles for awhile, and then because it proves unwieldy and inefficient, the control will be narrowed down to a steering committee or an action committee, or an executive body, so that by narrowing down the organizational structure, a few Communists can work their way into this unit and can thereby control the macrocosm as effectively as they can control a single-unit microcosm.


17

The San Francisco General Strike

It will be well to examine at this point another great united front movement that soon was taken over by a small group of Communists who managed to exercise a dominant position in the San Francisco General Strike of 1934. This was an enormous movement that tied up the entire Bay Area, resulted in the loss of lives, and provoked demonstrations of fiery violence. It was centered on the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, and soon mushroomed into radical labor ultimatums that were constantly changing, and that soon produced a deadlock which paralyzed the economic life of the Bay Area.

There has been much discussion about the San Francisco General Strike of 1934, which may seem ancient and irrelevant to include here, but which is another classic example of a united front movement that was operated in the same general manner and by the same general elements as the Free Speech Movement. The Communist Party disclaimed responsibility for actually exercising control over the strike strategy in 1934, just as the Communist Party always disclaims responsibility for a large united front movement that results in violent and revolutionary tactics. But we are fortunate in having a document, issued by the Communist Party itself, which removes any lingering doubt about the part played by Communists in the general strike of 1934. This booklet, an exceedingly rare piece of subversive literature comprising eighty pages and entitled, naturally enough, "The Great San Francisco General Strike," was prepared by William F. Dunn, and issued by Library Publishers, New York, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the United States at a meeting held on September 5-6, 1934. It asserted that the Communist Party was subjected to a vigorous attack because its "...program and influence accounted in the main for the solidarity of the mass movement and the fact that the working class was able to resist successfully the efforts of the employers and their government to smash the unions and institute the open shop all along the west coast as they had planned." (pages 3-4)

And on page 9, the booklet proclaimed that: "The strike reached its highest point in San Francisco because the influence of the Communist Party and the waterfront unions was strong enough to defeat the reactionary leadership." The most prominent of these unions was the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, and some of its officers in 1934 are still in charge of that union, and at least one of them was consulted by the University of California administration during the student rebellion of 1964-65.

Like the demonstration against the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities in San Francisco in May of 1960, and like the demonstration against the administration of the state university at Berkeley, a united front is first formed with the broad base of non-Communist membership, and then is gradually taken over by the Communist Party, as we have already stated, This is precisely what happened in 1934. There were legitimate complaints against employers then, and in 1960 there were undoubtedly many people who felt that the House Committee was too sensational in its hearings and too careless in its charges; and in 1965 both faculty and students alike at the university in Berkeley were frustrated by years of confusion, bureaucracy, and a detached and aloof attitude on the part of the administration which seemed far removed from the life of the campus and smothered in a mass of red tape. But, let us see what


18
occurred in both the 1934 General Strike and in the 1960 demonstrations against the House Committee. We shall soon see the same formula used against the Berkeley campus in 1964-1965.

Mr. Dunn, speaking for the Communist Party of the United States, put it rather well when he declared in 1934 that:

"In the San Francisco General Strike (as in other strikes dealt with) we have a classical example of the Communist thesis that, in the present period of capitalist decline, a stubborn struggle for even the smallest immediate demands for the workers inevitably develops into general class battles. Beginning in a typical economic struggle over wages and working conditions of longshoremen, there took place, step by step, a concentration of class forces in support of one and the other side which soon aligned practically the entire population into two hostile camps: Capitalist class against the working class, and all intermediate elements towards support of one or the other. It became the well-defined class struggle, a test of strength between the two basic class forces. The economic struggle was transformed into a political struggle of the first magnitude." (page 67)

And on page 8, Mr. Dunn stated that:

"...In this sense, the strike was truly the greatest revolutionary event in American labor history."

And on page 72 he makes this significant statement:

"The Communists...are fully aware of the fact that out of every class struggle the workers can gain experience that will teach them the correctness of its revolutionary policies and tactics and win their confidence and support. This our party also attempted to do in San Francisco."

Twenty-six years later, SLATE, the radical student organization at Berkeley, took a leading position in organizing the demonstrations against the House Committee on Un-American Activities. It attracted a large number of students who were certainly not Marxists, but who, for one reason or another, were persuaded that the very word "Un-American Activities Committee" denoted an extra-legal, fascist, red-baiting organization that exercised no legitimate function except to pry and snoop into the private opinions of citizens and to smear their names publicly. This attitude is the result of years of intense propaganda by the Communist Party and its sympathizers, and they have stubbornly persented this completely distorted image of the House Committee so that the very mention of its name evokes in the mind of the average liberal a reflex action of intense and blind loathing.

But after the groundwork had been done, and the efforts of SLATE and other radical student organizations had enlisted the mass support of hundreds who were not oriented toward Marxism in any way, and after the violence at the San Francisco Civic Center which disrupted the meeting of the Committee and caused police to charge into the crowd in order to disperse it and restore order, the non-Communist elements returned to their daily pursuits, while the hard core of leaders managed to milk this revolutionary incident dry of every drop of propaganda that could be extracted.

Communist techniques rarely change; some of the refinements are tailored to fit changing conditions, but basically the old ways that have been tested and found successful are left alone. It is fundamental to all serious students of practical Communism that the party will always exploit large mass demonstrations such as strikes, rallies, and rebellions and


19
endeavor to transform them into class struggles. Thereafter they will propagandize, recruit, infiltrate, and consolidate their gains. It is also an old and successful Communist device to make a bold and wholly insupportable demand, and then allow a weak and indecisive opponent to claim victory by retreating ever so slightly. Thus if student rebels boldly lay claim to complete control of a university, and demand to handle the curriculum, select the members of the administration, handle all disciplinary matters, and provide everything but the money with which to operate the institution, their demands will undoubtedly be denied. Then they will settle for only the right to select the administrators and handle discipline—thereby allowing the administration to proclaim that the matter has been arbitrated and successfully settled.

This old Communist trick of launching a propaganda campaign to begin the operation, then organizing a broad popular front, whittling down the leadership and gaining control of the movement, pressing for outlandish demands, and then yielding a little in order to settle the controversy, is a familiar pattern we have seen used in countries throughout the world. They will steal half your property, set up cannons pointing at your residence, arrogantly proclaim their perfect right to do so, and then make a condescending settlement by removing the cannons and leaving machine guns in their place. As we shall see in greater detail later, the entire controversy at the University of California which commenced in the spring of 1964, actually amounted to a simple dispute between the students and the administration concerning the right to maintain tables at the university entrance for the purpose of collecting money and recruiting people for political activities off the campus. Then, with each administration concession, the students made a new series of demands that were always more bold, more arrogant, and made under the threat of another violent demonstration. As matters now stand, the FSM has secured virtually everything it asked for, and is now planning to gain control of the entire educational program at the university.

There have been demonstrations at other universities in this country, of course, but they were handled effectively and quickly by the authorities, and none of them even approached the massive revolutionary and forceful proportions of the Berkeley rebellion that erupted in September 1964, and which is still continuing. Probably one of the most heavily-infiltrated universities was the College of the City of New York during the late 1930's. According to an authority who is probably the best in his field, the situation there was comparable to the situation at the University of California during the same period. This description, which is taken from "The Story of an American Communist," by John Gates, states:

"The student body at CCNY was in ferment. The old world had been found wanting; ideas and shibboleths of the past were examined, assailed, discarded; new, radical notions became popular. The campus was a hive of political clubs: The Liberal Club, led by Lewis Feuer and Joseph P. Lash; a Socialist Club led by Winston Davis and William Gomberg; the pro-Communist Social Problems Club, led by Max Weiss, Max Gordon, Adam Lapin, Joseph Starobin; The Catholic Newman Club; Societies of Young Democrats and Young Republicans, and many others." (page 17)

Gates joined the Social Problems Club but was relatively inactive, only listening and staying and slowly becoming indoctrinated with the Marxian viewpoint. The most prominent Communist Party member at the college during this time was Max Weiss, who was also a member of


20
the National Committee of the Young Communist League. Weiss persisted in editing an unauthorized publication of the Social Problems Club, and was expelled from school.

The Social Problems Club was by no means restricted to the campus of the College of the City of New York. It was alos the first Communist student group at the University of California at Berkeley, having been organized there on January 1, 1931, held its first meeting at Stiles Hall YMCA, and which was completely dominated by the Young Communist League, featuring such speakers as Louis Goldblatt, then secretary of the San Francisco Labor Council, and a notorious Communist; James Branche, a member of the Communist Party of Canada, and Sam Darcy, who was the organizer for District 13.

In the spring of 1934 the Social Problems Club became the Berkeley Chapter of the American Student Union, and was locally headed by Aubrey Grossman. He was an undergraduate at Berkeley at the time and later became an official of the Communist Party in San Francisco. His law firm has represented the party on a number of occasions and has always specialized in handling the legal problems for Communist-dominated unions and an array of front organizations.

From no less an authority than William Schneiderman, who for some fourteen years was the head of all Communist activities in District 13, we know that a campus unit of university faculty members existed at the University of California in Berkeley since the early 1930's.[3] This Communist organization was known as "Unit Five" and often met in the home of Professor Haakon Chevalier, professor of Romance Languages, and who was to become well known as the man who played a leading role in the Oppenheimer Security Case.[4]

As the student population of the Berkeley campus grew, so did the Communist organization there, until it managed to establish a propaganda book store within a block of Sather Gate—then, as now, the main entrance to the university, and organized the Mike Quinn Club, the Merriman Club, the Corodonices Club and other party units composed in whole or in part of students. The Merriman Club was named in honor of the late Major Robert Merriman, who came from the Economics Department at the university to become a major in the 15th International Brigade during the Spanish Revolution. He was killed fighting for the Loyalists in Spain, and is mentioned in every reliable account of the Spanish Revolution as a leader of the Communist elements in the Lincoln Battalion.[5]

By 1939 it had become evident that the University at Berkeley would soon be conducting research projects under government contracts, and as we will soon see, the Communist high command decided to plant one of its controlled scientific organizations in Alameda County and scatter its politically reliable members throughout strategic departments. This was Chapter 29 of an organization known as International Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians under the immediate direction of Marcel Scherer, a graduate of the Lenin School of Political Warfare in Moscow. We have briefly alluded to the FAECT herein, and described this organization at length in our 1951 report. Excerpts from the executive board minutes of this espionage apparatus were published verbatim, and the astounding disclosures of this grim undertaking were largely shrugged aside as "red-baiting," and "witch-hunting." In the


21
light of subsequent developments, we cannot conceive of any sane American being so naive and apathetic today. They can no longer afford such an attitude.

With the beginning of research that led to the development of the atomic bomb, and continuing through 1945, Marcel Scherer met with government officials entrusted with the operation of our war effort in the Bay Area: The War Manpower Commission, The Office of Price Administration, The Office of Wage Stabilization, and the entire War Manpower program on the Berkeley campus under the direction of Berniece May. Here, then, was a Soviet-trained director of a scientific espionage medium, consulting and planning with government officials who occupied positions of enormous importance to our war effort. Some of them were clearly pro-Communists; some were little more than opportunists who would cooperate with anyone to promote themselves; others were quite aware of what was going on but too powerless and frustrated to do much about it.

This was the era of tolerance towards Communism. Many American liberals had been lured into front organizations through sympathy for Spanish Loyalists, and because we were temporarily allied with the Soviet Union against a common enemy. Many of these people moved on through a number of Communist front groups, others joined Communist-dominated unions, and some taught in or sponsored the Communist School in San Francisco.

During the same period the Unit Five members were spreading Marxism on the campus, and the student Communists were recruiting for the Young Communist League. Norman Mini has testified about recruiting professors while he was on the campus, and other students have given testimony about some of their experiences in the Communist clubs heretofore mentioned. Nathan Gregory Silvermaster was regarded by the rank and file members of the student Communists as a comrade of no particular significance, but when one of them was ordered to leave the university and take up a party assignment in Sacramento, he mentioned the fact to Silvermaster who accompanied him to the office of District 13 in San Francisco, remonstrated with William Schneiderman, who was then organizer for the district, and the order was rescinded. Silvermaster moved on from Berkeley to take positions in various agencies of the federal government, and it was in his Washington residence that the documents were photographed that had been taken by Alger Hiss from the State Department and returned after they had been photographed in the Silvermaster cellar.

In the late 30's there was a brutal killing of the engineer on a vessel called the Point Lobos, while the vessel was moored to an Oakland pier. The murdered man, George Alberts, had a reputation as a determined anti-Communist, and four members of the Communist Party participated in his liquidation. Three of them were arrested, prosecuted by Earl Warren, who was then District Attorney of Alameda County, and sent to San Quentin penitentiary. The fourth Communist who participated in this crime escaped, and was assisted in doing so by some student Communists at the University of California at Berkeley. He thereafter is reliably reported to have escaped through Mexico and has never been heard of since. Testimony concerning this entire case, together with the role played by the young Communists at the university, was given before the Committee at hearings several years ago.

We cite these preliminary matters only for the purpose of showing that the largest university in the United States has long been a target for Communist


22
infiltration. It was conveniently located near the headquarters for District 13 in San Francisco; the first Communist unit was planted on the campus almost at the same time that the Communist Party of the United States began to solidify its nationwide organization. There is overwhelming evidence to the effect that beginning with the Social Problems Club and continuing through Unit Five of the faculty organization down through the war years and thereafter, the university has been a constant target for Communist infiltration and activity.

Demonstrations by students at Sather Gate are nothing new. What is new is the professional technique, the highly sophisticated organization, the long-range strategy, the outrageous demands, the disrespect for the entire university administration—from Regents down. New, also, is the element of viciousness and violence, and the employment of extra-legal actions at a time when legal means were available to the students for settling their differences with the university administration. The mass united front technique is also new, so far as the Berkeley campus is concerned, and whereas previous student demonstrations from the 20's to the 60's had been characterized by large numbers of milling students, speakers, and the distribution of propaganda literature, there was nothing that approached the mob violence, the hatred and bitterness, the utter lack of respect for the administration, and the generation of the class struggle concept that characterized the Berkeley rebellion of 1964-65.

The Role of SLATE

The two student organizations that played the dominant roles in the Berkeley rebellion are SLATE and the DuBois Clubs. We have already devoted considerable attention to the formation and activities of SLATE in previous reports, and we shall briefly recapitulate that material here, and bring the history of the organization up to date. The DuBois Clubs of America is, however, a relatively new organization, having been formed since the publication of our 1963 report, and we are fortunately in possession of a great many of the documents issued by the DuBois Clubs. We consider it utterly impossible for anyone to adequately understand the nature of the Berkeley rebellion without first understanding the nature of these two organizations.

During the first semester of 1957 a student organization called TASC (Toward A Better Student Community), later known as SLATE, was started by three students from Berkeley who were dissatisfied with the operation of the Associated Students organization, and who were concerned with academic freedom and civil liberties. This student political organization was designed to place its own candidates in places of responsibility through student elections, and to campaign actively for its principles. The first campaign was unsuccessful, but during the second semester the organization became stronger and attracted a considerable following. It was in October, 1957, that Rule 17 at the Berkeley campus was modified to allow off-campus organizations of students to utilize campus facilities for their programs if they secured permission a week in advance. They were not, however, to solicit members, funds, or to engage in any religious proselyting.

SLATE's organizing convention was held in the Student Union on the Berkeley campus over the weekend of February 28, 1958. Mike Miller was elected chairman and Patrick Hallinan vice-chairman. Hallinan was thereafter to head the San Francisco Youth Festival Committee for the


23
eighth meeting of the World Federation of Democratic Youth, Soviet-controlled, at Helsinki, Finland. Other SLATE officers who participated in that meeting were Kenneth Cloke, Michael Tigar, and Michael Meyerson. Patrick Hallinan's brother Terence is an organizer and officer in the DuBois Clubs of America, which will be discussed later.

After SLATE had organized and launched itself on a career of picketing, demonstrations, and pressing for civil liberties, and freedom of speech; had placed its members in student offices on the campus, and expressed its distaste for the Berkeley administration, it elected a new group of officers who were: chairman, Al Madian; vice-chairman, Dave Armour; secretary, Brenda Goodman; treasurer, Brad Cleaveland; representatives, Dick Bowen, Howard Taylor, Pete Graham, and Marvin Sternberg; Administration, Jim Payne; national student association, Marvin Sternberg; education policy, Ted Kompanetz; athletic policy, Bob Gillen; civil liberties, Mike Shutz; student welfare, Bob Orser; A.S.U.C. analysis, Ted Kompanetz; national and international, Jim Gallagher; state and local, Dick Bowen.

By the end of the 1958 school year, a SLATE publication, Cal Reporter, owned its own printing press which was formerly the property of Lawrence Steinhardt, a graduate student in Social Welfare. Financially the paper had a cash reserve of a hundred dollars remaining from the previous semester, but owed a balance of one hundred and thirty-five dollars on printing equipment. Cash donations were received from Carey McWilliams, Jr., who gave $250; Al Madian, who donated $50; David Rynin, Jr. son of Professor David T. Rynin of the Department of Speech, who not only edited the paper but donated $60; Peter Franck, who gave $100 and Pete Graham, who contributed $90.

We are quoting a great deal of this material from a portion of the section concerning SLATE which we published in our 1961 report, and we are selecting those excerpts which in our opinion characterize the defiant attitude of SLATE toward the administration at the Berkeley campus, just as the same type of defiance on a larger scale characterizes the united front activities of the students engaged in the Berkeley rebellion of 1964-65. An example of the attitude of SLATE in this direction may be seen from editorials appearing in the issue of its paper for October 4, 1958. Apparently the students were somewhat disillusioned about the attitude of President Clark Kerr, who was beginning to crack down on the activities of student groups like SLATE, which then were becoming arrogant and actually interfering with the orderly conduct of the student body of the university. The editorial took Kerr to task for decreeing that there could be no more student demonstrations outside the front gate of the university:

"Hooray for President Kerr. His experimental suspension of the rule keeping candidates for state office from speaking on campus is a step toward giving campus life some resemblance of `real' life. We only wish that the administration would not take two steps backward before they take one forward. What we are referring to is the outlawing of street speakers at Sather Gate.

Vice-Chancellor Sheriffs has graciously given speakers a chance to stand in an ivy patch the university is giving to the city anyway. We think that is mighty big of them, but we wish that the `new Spirit' didn't mean the end of one of the best `old traditions.' The Daily Cal has come out for retention of Sather Gate as a haven for


24
free speech. An Ex.Com. has sent a letter to the administration to the same effect.

So far, nothing has come of it. But judging by our own experience, we suggest that they inquire whether the administration ever `received' it at all."

In the same issue the editorial writer expressed himself concerning the administration's disinclination to take any action permitting the Cal Reporter to be distributed among the students on the campus. The editorial writer complained "it's been almost six months since the Cal Reporter applied for permission to distribute on campus, and can you guess what's happened? Nothing."

These demonstrations at Sather Gate were usually held during the noon hour when thousands of students were emerging from their classes and were compelled to go through that gate on their way to lunch. Virtually all of these meetings were of an extremely radical nature, the crowd being harangued by the speakers and handed propaganda by student organizations of one kind or another. On many prior occasions Communist Party officials had addressed the students immediately outside the entrance to the university, and about a block away there was a Communist book store which kept supplies available under the administration of Mrs. Wilhelmena Loughrey, who has appeared as a witness before us, and who has been referred to on numerous occasions in earlier reports. This book store no longer has any useful function, because the propaganda that it used to distribute to students outside the university campus is now freely circulated on the campus itself, together with a rash of the most disgusting pornographic literature and a constant deluge of political propaganda ranging all the way from the mildest form of Socialism to the most militant form of material from Red China.

We pointed out in our 1961 report how SLATE was used as a transmission belt and through it reached the student body at large. We did not then imply, nor do we wish to imply now, that all of the members of SLATE were Communists or that the organization could be accurately described as a Communist front at that time. It certainly has become Communist-dominated since our 1961 report was issued, and from the very inception of this organization it is quite obvious that its leaders were strongly oriented toward Communism. Some were enthusiastic fellow-travelers, and others were simply willing to be led by their more articulate, disciplined and energetic colleagues and by the brash and insolent activities of the movement.

The 1964-65 rebellion in Berkeley was set off over denial of permission to set up tables at the entrance to the university. This being so, it is important to understand that exactly four years earlier, SLATE had engaged in a running battle with the university administration over the same identical controversy. President Kerr prohibited demonstrations at this point, but permitted students to assemble at Dwinelle Plaza on the campus, there to distribute such literature as they wished, and to make such utterances as they desired, so long as the proceedings related to campus activities and the legitimate interests of the student body.

On October 13, 1960, a SLATE officer addressed a mass meeting of students at Dwinelle Plaza, attacked President Kerr's policies and declared to the assembled students:

"Kerr's directives reflect his training in Industrial Relations, and reveal what Kerr would do if confronted by union leadership which didn't represent union members. I'd say democratize the union.
25
Clark Kerr would say castrate (sic) the leadership. Take this philosophy over to the ASUC and dump it and you have the Kerr directive."[6]

The student who uttered these earthy and defiant statements was Mike Tigar, SLATE leader and candidate for ASUC Representative-at-large. Tigar was not only an officer of SLATE in 1960, but two years thereafter he was a member of a three-man committee that made the preparations in the United States for the Eighth World Youth Festival in Helsinki, was a delegate to that Soviet front organization of world youth, and reported on the proceedings in an article for the Communist paper in San Francisco, which was reprinted in the national Communist youth publication, New Horizons for Youth, in the October 1962 issue, page 13. This was the organ for the Youth Commission of the Communist Party, and its office was located at 799 Broadway, Room 233, New York 3, N.Y. There were eight other members of SLATE who were active participants at this World Communist Youth Festival. They were: Dave Armor, Kenneth Cloke, Michael Hallinan, Terence Hallinan, Clinton Jencks, Monica Klein, Beryl Landau, Michael Meyerson, and Michael Tigar. Three of these, Meyerson, Tigar and Cloke were immediate past presidents of SLATE at Berkeley, and we should not overlook the fact that Carl Bloice, although neither connected with the Berkeley campus nor SLATE, also attended the Helsinki Youth Festival, is presently a staff member for the Communist newspaper in San Francisco, People's World, and while at UCLA was the spark plug behind yet another early Marxist organization called the Independent Student Union. We mention Bloice because we will have occasion to refer to him hereafter in connection with the Berkeley rebellion.

Bloice is now director of publicity for the new Communist youth organization, DuBois Clubs of America, and Bettina Aptheker, one of the leading activists in the DuBois Clubs, was a SLATE candidate for Representative-at-Large of the Associated Students at the University.

From its inception this student organization was aware of the fact that during vacation periods there would be a dormancy which might result in serious loss of membership and also render SLATE so apathetic that its political energy would be seriously impaired. To overcome this condition it not only inaugurated an inter-campus exchange of correspondence with universities, colleges, state colleges, and other educational institutions throughout the country, but also inaugurated a system of summer conferences to which lecturers were invited to address delegates from student organizations.

On May 21, 1960, a SLATE "Inter-Campus Newsletter," was distributed, and read, in part, as follows:

"Due to the importance of reaching all of our contacts before the universities and colleges recess for the summer we are unable to send out as detailed and complete a report on student political parties and student political activity in general as would be desired.

However, this newsletter should communicate to you what is our most important thought—namely, that at last we are going up hill in our attempts to realize effective student political action. We in the West have witnessed in the last few months an encouraging upsurge in political awareness and involvement on the part of hitherto `silent', if not apathetic, students. The need for inter-campus communication and coordinated action is now even greater.


26

An addenda to this newsletter discusses at some length the most recent student political activity, the picketing of the House Un-American Activities Committee in San Francisco. We hope to make the abolition of this committee a national effort on the part of students. More information will be forthcoming shortly.

The SLATE Inter-Campus Coordinating Committee will continue to function through the summer. It is important that we have summer addresses as we do not want the communications network we have built up to go `on vacation' along with the schools. Send summer addresses to Irene Theodore, 2532 Regent Street, Berkeley 4, California."

This newsletter also pointed out that the new student organization at San Jose State College managed to elect two out of their five candidates to important posts in the student government at that institution, and that their members had made the trip north to help with the demonstration against the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings in San Francisco in May of 1960. The student organization at UCLA, "Platform," was reported as having won three positions in the student political government, and to have attained a high degree of activity in political influence at the Los Angeles campus. San Francisco State College was reported as having a student organization somewhat similar to SLATE in the organizational stage, and that it was growing rapidly and had "very strong faculty support!" At Sacramento State there was a new student political party, and it was reported that "having met with some of the individuals heading the organization we are sure things are cooking in Sacramento."

This SLATE communication announced a summer political party caucus which would probably be held at Big Sur State Park, and reported on the conditions at the Berkeley campus as of the summer of 1960 as follows:

"Student government at the University of California has been faced with a major crisis. The Executive Committee of the Associated Students recently challenged the Kerr Directives (which prohibit student government action on `off-campus' issues, i.e. issues of local, national and international import) by passing a resolution protesting the violation of academic freedom by the University of Illinois where they fired Professor Leo Koch for stating his views on pre-marital sex relations.

Ex-Com was told in a secret meeting called by the Chancellor, to rescind its motion. It stood fast and instead, at its next meeting, passed a resolution entitled `Scope of Student Government' in which it restated the philosophy that students themselves must decide the limits of their government. Subsequently the Chancellor voided Executive Committee resolution.

We cannot, at this time, predict the effects this administrative fiat will have on student government. As part of its summer activities SLATE will explore the means of having these Directives rescinded. If they remain in effect student government at the University of California will be nothing more than an administrative agent."

The 1962 SLATE Summer Session issued a program which proclaimed that the meetings would be held at the Student Union Building on the Berkeley campus of the University of California, commencing on Friday evening, July 27, and ending on Sunday afternoon, July 29. The conference


27
program stated that it would open on Friday evening, July 27, with a program of movies: Come Back, Africa and Walk In My Shoes.

On July 28, Saturday, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon, there was to be an introductory session exploring the historical routes and presentation of political, economic, social and psychological situations. The speakers were announced as the Reverend Charles Gillenwater, second vice-president of the San Francisco Negro Historical and Cultural Society; Robert Ward, co-chairman, Afro-American Association, and Ella Baker, Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee.

From 1 to 5 p.m. on Saturday, July 28, workshops were held, as follows: School Integration: Beverly Axelrod, a San Francisco attorney representing San Francisco chapter of the Committee on Racial Equality; Lydia Barros, Executive Secretary of the San Francisco chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. On Housing and Urban Renewal the speakers were: Frank Quinn, San Francisco Council on Civic Unity; Mike Miller, managing editor of the Liberal Democrat, and Robert Bradley, representing the Congress on Racial Equality. The panel on Employment featured James Herndon, president of the Negro American Labor Council in San Francisco, and Robert Ward, of the Afro-American Association. The workshop on Voting and Politics featured: Henry Ramsay, Americans for Democratic Action, University of California, and Willie Brown, then a candidate for the State Assembly, a position to which he was subsequently elected. The workshop on Federal Government and Civil Rights featured only one speaker, Carl Bloice, journalist for the People's World. The workshop on Community Dynamics, featured Orville Luster, Youth for Service, San Francisco; Carl Werthman, Youth for Service and a graduate student at the University of California in Berkeley, and Havier Brocks, Encampment for Citizenship, Berkeley.[7]

The period from 8 to 10 p.m. on the evening of July 28th was devoted to music, featuring jazz programs and an introductory lecture by Dewey Redman. On Saturday evening, commencing at 10 p.m. and continuing indefinitely, a house party was scheduled, and on the concluding day of the conference, Sunday, July 29, there was a panel discussion which started at 10 a.m. and ended at 1 p.m., which featured the following speakers in a general discussion of the Negro problem: Ella Baker, Student Non-Violent Co-ordinating Committee; Wilford Ussery, chairman of the San Francisco chapter of the Committee on Racial Equality; Don Warden, co-chairman of Afro-American Association; Minister John X, Black Muslim Brotherhood; Carl Bloice, Marxist journalist, and Terry Francois, chairman of San Francisco chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The speakers who concluded the session for the balance of the day included Carl Werthman, Mike Miller, Carl Bloice, Herb Mills, Robert Ward, Henry Ramsay and Lydia Barros. Those wishing to register for the conference were requested to telephone Dorothy Datz, who was then SLATE chairman, at THornwall 3-5084, or to write her at 1579 Scenic, Berkeley 8, California.

The 1963 SLATE Summer Conference was announced on July 8, 1963, with this letter from Berkeley:

"Dear Friends, this letter is to inform you of the coming SLATE Summer Conference. The topic of the conference this year will be Educational Reform. It will be held between Summer Sessions, July 27-28, at Berkeley.


28

Our purpose is to examine in depth the present condition of the educational system, alternatives to this system, and means of altering the system. We hope to crystalize our ideas and to stimulate discussion, thought, and action on the subject. Our major concern is to improve conditions at universities, since we believe they are not presently meeting the needs of mass, industrial, democratic society. By the end of the final plenary session of the conference, we hope to have defined our agreements and disagreements well enough to be able to synthesize our ideas into proposals for action.

To implement these prodigious plans, the conference will combine speeches and seminars. The speeches are intended to offer expert opinions on the present situation, alternatives to it, and methods of action. The exact speakers have not yet been established, but in order to indicate the scope and nature of the conference, we can mention several of those invited. They include Robert Hutchins, past chancellor of the University of Chicago and author of several books on education; James Dixon, president of Antioch College; Paul Goodman, author of many books on education including `Growing Up Absurd'; Clark Kerr, president of the University of California; and Nevitt Sanford, author of the comprehensive text on American higher education `The American College.' Of course, we cannot expect all of these to attend, but some are expected to come.

The seminars will cover both the present situation and methods of action (see the enclosed conference outline). We intend these to be both creative and informative. To do this we are inviting an expert in the particular subject of each seminar to be a resource person. The seminars will be opened by these people and then discussion by conference participants will attempt to clarify issues in the area of each seminar and to grapple with the problems involved. The report of each seminar will be mimeoed and brought before the conference as a whole.

We would also appreciate any working papers which you might want to submit on any of the topics to be discussed. These would preferably be by (sic) your own writing, but they may be short articles which you feel are particularly pertinent. We would appreciate it also if you could mimeograph them yourself (400 copies), but if this is impossible, send them to us as soon as you can.

The registration fee will be $3.00, to cover the cost of mailing, working papers, and other arrangements for the conference.

We enclose below a bibliography of suggested readings. This is by no means complete or comprehensive and certainly will not give any solutions for what is `bugging' us. That is for us to do at the conference. What they can do is give you a survey of the most pertinent and insightful thought in the field.

Caplow, Theodore and Reece J. McGee, `The Academic Market Place'; Hutchins, Robert Maynard, `Conflict in Education in a Democratic Society,' and `The Higher Learning in America'; Goodman, Paul, `Growing Up Absurd'; Lerner, Max, `Education and a Place'; Hutchins, Robert Maynard, `Conflict in Education in a Democratic Society,' and `The Higher Learning in America'; Lerner, Max, `Education and a Radical Humanism'; Meiklejohn, Alexander, `The Experimental College', and `Education for Freedoms'; Read, Sir Herbert, `Education for Peace,' and Taylor, Harold, `Education and Freedom.'


29

We are enclosing an outline of the conference which should give you a better idea of what we are talking about. Below is a response form to this letter. We would also appreciate your returning this form, whether you are coming or not. Also note that if you send your registration fee in advance, we can send you the working papers in advance. Finally, we would be grateful for the names of anyone else (sic) who might be interested in the conference, and we have left a space for this on the coupon. Cordially, Mike Schwartz, Conference chairman."

The returned forms giving the name of the participant, his address, telephone number, school, and organization or affiliation, were to be sent to Wanda Mallen, 2635-A Fulton Street, Berkeley 4, California.

The 1963 SLATE Summer Conference was much more ambitious than its predecessor, but far less successful. This may have been due to the bulky and involved nature of the documents distributed prior to the opening of the conference, and also to the somewhat ponderous nature of the program itself. A sheet of paper entitled "Tentative Agenda" was distributed about a week prior to the opening of the conference on July 27, and stated that Dr. Christian Bay, of San Francisco, would make the opening speech from 10 a.m. until noon, and that his subject would be "Criticism of the Multiversity."

For an hour preceding Dr. Bay's address the first plenary session of the conference was to be held, followed by announcements, welcoming speeches, an outline of the conference, and distribution of working papers. From 1 until 2:30 p.m. there would be panel discussions by a student, faculty member, administrator and legislator followed by a general discussion and questions from the audience. The topic would be "Role of the University in Society—What It is and What It Should Be."

From 2:30 until 5:30 p.m. the first day of the conference was to be devoted to seminars, and we think it well to quote this portion of the tentative agenda in full, since it illustrates the SLATE viewpoint on matters that were to become of extraordinary importance during the Berkeley rebellion a year later.

  1. "University governance (e.g., in loco parentis, character of decision-making process, student involvement in process, structure of power in the university).
  2. Curriculum and the undergraduate experience (e.g., examination of the relevance of curriculum to life, "values of the undergrad, the quality of instruction and orientation of `campus life.'
  3. Graduate education (discussion of graduate student values, academic experience, problems of adjusting professional desires to status in the institution, character of the graduate student population, graduate instruction).
  4. Faculty values.
  5. Student rights, academic freedom (e.g., student expulsions, policies on student organizations, speaker bans, behavior codes, living restrictions, hiring and firing of professors because of their political views).
  6. The university and society (e.g., what purposes the university should fulfill in education for democratic participation, what its orientation in industrial society is and should be, how it should tackle problems of conformity, mass society).
    30
  7. The university and the cold war (e.g., examination of the role the university plays in supporting the cold war (status quo attitudes)."

At 9:30 p.m. the second plenary session of the conference convened and was to continue until 10 p.m. On Sunday, July 28, from 9 o'clock a.m. until noon, seminars were held on "Channels of Action," and this comprised discussions on "student government and student political parties; independent student action (strikes, boycotts, club and other organizational involvement, etc.; counter-university (plus effectiveness of such notions as counter-orientation programs, counter-course, etc.); faculty relations and the joint student-faculty action (educational campaigns, use of community pressure on legislature, etc.)"

The concluding speech of the conference was to be made by Nevitt Sanford, from 1:30 p.m. until 2:30, and from 2:30 until 4:00 p.m. there was to be a concluding plenary session, and an evaluation of the conference. This tentative agenda was followed by the distribution of an eighty-one page mimeographed document entitled "Education in the Multiversity." On its front cover working papers were described as follows:

"1. Christian Bay: `Toward Educated Lives.' 2. Gerald Gray: "A Summary of Clark Kerr's `Godkin Lectures;' 3. Gerald Gray and David Rynin: `A Critique of Clark Kerr's Godkin Lectures;"'

The main topics to be considered at the conference were then listed as follows:

"I. The University and Society; II. University Governance; III. University and the Cold War; IV. Student Rights and Academic Freedom; V. Undergraduate Experience and Curriculum; VI. Graduate Experience; VII. Reform; Bibliography and Credits."

The material set forth in the eighty-one page document distributed at the SLATE summer conference of 1963 contained the address by Christian Bay; a piece called "The Idea of a Student" by Reginald H. Green;" "The Student and the Campus Climate," by Fred Werner; "The University in a New World," by Harold Taylor; "The Hiatus Between Education and Student Life," by Philip E. Jacob; "The Campus Viewed as Culture," by Martin Trow; "The Latin American Student Movement," by Miguel Rotblat; an article from the Michigan Daily, entitled "Ivory Tower Administrators Rule Without Feedback;" an excerpt from an article by Prof. Reece McGee, a sociology professor from the University of Texas who taught social problems at Berkeley during the first summer session of 1963, entitled "The American University as a Disorganized Organization;" a piece entitled "The University and the War Effort," which bore no signature, but which closed with the following exhortation: "Join us in the picketing of the university's charter day ceremonies, protesting the university's involvement in the arms race. Charter day, 1 p.m., Gayley Road, below the Greek Theater."

“Academic Freedom” , by Harold Taylor, was an important reference, also recommended. Its first paragraph should be quoted here because it established the theme that ran through the entire conference: namely, that the university exercised a parental attitude toward the students which was highly resented. Indeed, this concept of an authoritarian university, in loco parentis, dominated the entire conference, and was repeated and emphasized over and over again. The paragraph read as follows:

"In the absence of a precisely defined relationship between the student and the university, there exists the traditional relationship summarized in the concept in loco parentis. The theory establishes
31
the university as paternal guardian over the moral, intellectual and social activities of the student. From the tradition of in loco parentis, come these conceptions: the student need not be directly involved in the formation of the general university policies and the administration may circumscribe the perimeter of a student's interest, speech and thought, personal and group associations, and actions. Apart from the individual student, the university, operating within the framework of in loco parentis, may and does establish certain restrictions on the operation of the student government, the student press, and other student organizations."

Other sections of the eighty-one page booklet were: “Student Political Action,” by James P. Dixon; “The Wasted Classroom,” by Nathan Glazer; “Social Control in the Dorms or Loco Parent,” by Joan Roos, “The Plight of the College Professor,” by William Stanton, who is now a member of the California State Assembly, “That Wonderful Tradition,” by E. G. Williamson, “A Note on Graduate Study,” by Robin Room, “Freshman Orientation,” by Dan Johnston, “The Need for Student Political Parties,” by Carey McWilliams, Jr., together with several other articles for which no author was given.

It should be made clear that in most instances these articles were excerpts from longer pieces written for various publications, were included in the eighty-one page mimeographed booklet for study purposes, and were not delivered in person at the conference. We should make it equally clear that certain common denominators ran through the entire flavor of this booklet, urging student demonstrations of defiance against the university administration, citing student radical organizations in Latin American universities as ideal examples to be followed by students at universities in the United States, creating a spirit of dissatisfaction with any attempt on the part of university authorities to regulate the conduct of students, and the engendering of dissatisfaction with the courses being taught.

The 1963 SLATE Summer Conference was, despite elaborate preparations, top-heavy with red tape and unwieldy documents. From several persons who attended we have reliable information to the effect that there were only about sixty people present, and that most of the time was spent in agreeing with each other. None of the illustrious speakers appeared, and one informant stated that the seminars seemed to be based on deep student dissatisfaction because the university did not see fit to turn its affairs over to them. The university in loco parentis to the students was depicted as an outrage, and the concensus seemed to be that students should never be responsible for their actions to the university nor should the university have any responsibility to the Regents, the parents, the taxpayers or the State of California. There seemed to be full accord with the idea that an ideal situation would be for the university to supply the machinery for educating the students, but that all matters of social responsibility be left entirely to the liberal element of the student body.

SLATE activities immediately prior to the 1963 summer conference were interesting, and revealing. On May 13 a SLATE propaganda publication called for a "student revolution," and the organization's elder statesman, Brad Cleaveland, 30, announced in an article of snarling defiance that "the charge is simple: the faculty of this university is weak, indolent and irresponsible." He called the university a "circus," and stated that it was bogged down in bureaucracy. Members of the SLATE committee with Cleaveland at the time were Mike Schwartz, Jo Freeman,


32
Sandor Fuchs, Ken Cloke, and Steve DeCanio. The last three were arrested during the invasion of Sproul Hall on December 3, 1964. Ten thousand copies of this publication were distributed at a student rally held on the Dwinelle Hall Plaza on May 13. Cleaveland, who resided at 2151 Emerson Street, Berkeley, in 1964 earned his master's degree at Berkeley in political science, and was active both in SLATE and the student rebellion in 1964-65.

We have already referred to Ken Cloke as president of SLATE in 1962, and as a leader of the preparations for the Eighth Communist World Youth Festival which was held in Helsinki, Finland. It was in 1963 that Cloke became involved in a sordid matter which wound up with his being charged with the theft of fifteen dollars' worth of books from the California Book Company at 2310 Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley. He was fined $25.00 and placed on two years' probation by the Berkeley Municipal Court where he entered a plea of guilty. Having been a member on the SLATE ticket for the Student Senate at Berkeley, he resigned from that position shortly after his arrest. It will be noted that Cloke has also been a prominent figure in the student rebellion, and at the time it occurred he was still on two years' probation, which would expire sometime in March or April this year.

SLATE had long been agitating for the new administration under President Clark Kerr to bring pressure on the Board of Regents to modify its rule that had long prevented Communists from being provided with a free rostrum on the campus from which they could address the students. When, indeed, this manipulation succeeded and the rule was modified, and when Albert J. Lima, chairman of the Northern Division of the Communist Party of California spoke at Wheeler Auditorium on the Berkeley campus, July 19, 1963, this first Communist speaker after the rescinding of the rule was sponsored by SLATE and the W.E.B. DuBois Club of Berkeley.

During all of its existence SLATE was constantly endeavoring to infiltrate its members into influential positions throughout the structure of student government at Berkeley, and at the election during the latter part of 1964 was able to elect seven out of its eight candidates.

Communist Youth in America

Since the DuBois Clubs of America are directly descended from the Young Communist League through two organizational changes, let us first examine the nature of the young Communist movement in general and then consider its aims and techniques which have been inflexible since the movement originated in October 1918. It was a year after the revolution in Russia that the Young Communist League was started in that country with an initial membership of 22,100.[8] Commonly known as the Komsomol it now comprises about nineteen million young people between fourteen and twenty-seven years of age, and is subject to the direct control of the Communist Party.[9] On page 63 of the History of the Young Communist League, this statement appears:

"The Russian Young Communist League, which from the formation of the Young Communist International has been its leading section and an example for the international youth movement, is educating its members in the spirit of international solidarity and
33
proletarian struggle. As its leading section, the Leninist Young Communist League has always carried on an active struggle to bolshevize the Young Communist International and takes the most active part in its work, giving Bolshevik guidance, calling upon the young proletarians of all countries to fight determinedly for Communism and assisting in a Bolshevik manner the fight against all kinds of attempts to separate the struggle of the youth from that of the working class as a whole."[10]

The most important public document concerning the world Communist youth movement is the official Programme of the Young Communist International, approved by the Presidium of the Executive Committee of the Communist International. It was distributed to Young Communist Leagues throughout the world in May 1929. Our copy came from the national headquarters of the Young Communist League of America, 43 East 125th Street, New York City. On page 35 the relation of the youth apparatus to the Communist Party and the Communist International, is proclaimed as follows:

"The Y.C.L. opposes the idea of `youth syndicalism,' which considers that an independent and isolated struggle of the working youth is possible. The Y.C.L. is a part of the Communist movement as a whole. The C.P. is the leader of the Communist movement and the entire working class; there cannot be... dual leadership, or the existence of two Communist Parties. The Y.C.L., while organizationally independent, works under the direction of the C.P. and the C.I., and recognizes the programme and tactics of the C.I. and C.P. The Y.C.L. submits to instructions of the C.P. and of the C.I. as the supreme body of the world Communist movement. The nature of the Y.C.L. as a mass school of Communism for the working youth implies that not every member of the Y.C.L. is automatically a member of the C.P. The Y.C.L., however, bears the name Communist because, although it is not formally a Party organization, it is never-theless a Communist organization.

"The concrete tasks of the Y.C.L. in the work of the Parties consist in tireless agitation for the fighting aims of the Communist International, in supporting the Communist Party in its daily work and struggles, in participation in all revolutionary activities of the proletariat, in discussion and explanation of current political events and of the immediate tasks of the proletariat, and an active participation in Party discussions." (page 37)

Under the general program of defending the Soviet Union "... against the attacks of the Capitalists," the Communist youth has always been ordered to wage a ceaseless battle against compulsory military training and against military conscription in any form. Every Marxist youth organization has diligently pursued this directive, and they have been successful in eliminating such training from many large American universities. Their drive to eliminate Reserve Officers Training Corps programs on University of California campuses is already a matter of common knowledge—and the ROTC program has been discontinued.

The Programme of the Y.C.L., from which we have quoted, declared:

"The Y.C.L. combats both compulsory and voluntary forms of bourgeois military training of the youth, not in the spirit of pacifism, but from a standpoint of a class struggle." (page 47)
34

Most of us who have paid much attention to Communism in general are aware of the fact that during the period of the non-aggression pact between Russia and Germany the American Communists did everything in their power to throttle our defense effort in strict conformity with the general Communist Party line of weakening us in every way possible. In June of 1941 when the Soviet Union was invaded and Russia became involved in the war, the line changed immediately and the American Communists were ordered to assist our military preparations in conformity with the new line. As our massive economic and military aid to the Soviet Union steadily increased until it reached enormous proportions, the Communist line was changed to avoid offending the United States, and hence the name of the Communist Party itself was changed to the Communist Political Association, the name of its monthly ideological magazine was changed from The Communist to Political Affairs, and the Young Communist League was assembled at a special convention in the Mecca Temple, New York City, on October 17, 1943, and changed its name to American Youth for Democracy. The first California State Convention of this organization, which, of course, was only the Young Communist League with a new title, was held in the North Star Auditorium, 631 West Adams Blvd., Los Angeles, on May 6 and 7, 1944.

The Young Communist Leagues in the various countries were all sections of the Comintern, which had its permanent headquarters in Moscow, and through its Executive Committee issued the orders, directives, changes of party line, and other instructions to its various component sections. With the dissolution of the Comintern and the Cominform, the central organization that performed the same international service, was the World Federation of Democratic Youth, which was founded in London in November of 1945. It is a part of the Communist international solar system which includes such world Communist organizations as the Women's International Democratic Federation, World Federation of Trade Unions, and other groups comprising teachers, lawyers, scientists, and writers. One of the affiliates of the World Federation of Democratic Youth is the International Union of Students, and American Youth for Democracy was affiliated with both organizations.

It is interesting to note changes in the method of handling the administration of the State University, from time to time, and we call attention to an article that appeared in the Los Angeles Herald-Express on January 19, 1948, which explains how the University of California at Los Angeles handled the problem when American Youth for Democracy applied for campus recognition. The editorial reads as follows:

"Officials of the University of California at Los Angeles are to be commended for their action in refusing official campus standing to the American Youth for Democracy organization, successor to The Young Communist League, on the ground that it is a political organization and political organizations are barred from campus recognition.

The community will look with favor on this stand for positive Americanism and will now watch with interest to see what the university does about those faculty members who have been interested in Communism and in campus activities of the Youth for Democracy gang.

The university apparently recognizes that the un-American activities of a small but active minority have given the institution much criticism in Los Angeles, California, and throughout the United States.


35

UCLA realizes that bad publicity hurts and that a state university should so act that its actions are above reproach.

There is a growing sentiment throughout the country to throw the exposing spotlight of publicity on those individuals and those Communist-inspired groups and organizations which are spreading unrest and trouble, seeking constantly to bring about the eventual overthrow of this country's constitutional government and the American way of life. This is not a witch hunt, nor is it persecution, but is rather an honest effort to rid this country of a despicable menace. Among the subversive groups the American Youth for Democracy is one of the most offensively dangerous. Its members are without moral integrity, without social consciousness and without restraint in their desire to stir up race antagonism, create dissension and revile every good influence in this land.

Nothing good can be said for the American Youth for Democracy, those who belong to it, those who support it or those who are tolerant of it. It is evil and dangerous in every way.

UCLA has taken a commendable first step, a step which should be followed by further patriotic house-cleaning."

After the war the international Communist party line changed back to its old tough and militant program against all capitalist governments, and American Youth for Democracy was dissolved in 1948 to be replaced by another young Communist youth movement known as the Labor Youth League. This was also simply the Young Communist League under another title, with the same set of objectives, the same techniques, the same subversive program of infiltration, and was subject to the same Communist adult leadership as were its two predecessor organizations.

By May 1949, plans for the new organization had been formulated, and the first organizational meeting was scheduled to be held in Chicago on May 28 and 29, 1949. National headquarters was established at 799 Broadway, Room 314, New York City, and chapters planted in various key cities throughout the United States, largely built on the old organizational structure of American Youth for Democracy. All adult Communists and all party organizations throughout the country were urged by the Communist National Committee to give every assistance to the Labor Youth League. The Northern California operation was handled through the normal Communist Party apparatus in San Francisco, and in Los Angeles the organization opened an office at 232 South Hill Street, Room 205, Los Angeles 12. It later established its permanent headquarters at 233 South Broadway, Room 207.

During the past few years, however, the activities of the Labor Youth League were made exceedingly difficult because there was a proliferation of Marxist-oriented groups such as SLATE, Independent Student Union, Young People's Socialist League, and various radical student organizations at state colleges and universities that provided competition for the LYL. When the Sino-Soviet dispute began to splinter the various Communist organizations in the summer of 1960, the Labor Youth League faded out of existence, and the young Communist movement was represented by these diverse student organizations that sent their delegates to the youth festivals, maintained their organizational contacts with the World Federation of Democratic Youth, carried out the general Communist line and program, but were not welded together in any central organization.


36

The DuBois Clubs of America

This brings us to the formation of the DuBois Clubs of America, the new national Communist youth organization that is the lineal descendant of the Young Communist League, American Youth for Democracy, and the Labor Youth League. It is accorded recognition as a student organization on the University of California campus in Berkeley, and its national headquarters is situated across the bay in San Francisco. As a matter of fact, as we shall see, the idea for the National DuBois Clubs was conceived in Berkeley and San Francisco, and developed from three meetings: the first was the Progressive Youth Organizing Committee that met in New York in June 1963; next was a Conference of Socialist Youth in San Francisco in April 1964, and finally there was the turbulent convention in San Francisco in June 1964. As we describe these preparatory gatherings of radical youth, the reader will understand how a handful of leaders managed to capture all important positions, and how they manipulated the meetings to solidify their control. The same names occur with monotonous regularity, as the same people move from one strategic office to another.

The San Francisco DuBois Club was established in March 1963, when its constitution was approved and adopted. Article II of that document provided that a close working relationship should be maintained with the Berkeley DuBois Club, and Article III stated that "the purpose of this organization is to study Scientific Socialism, and to apply its theories to social, cultural, educational and political activities."[8] Article IV of the constitution provided that membership should be open to "persons between the ages of sixteen and thirty-five, who subscribe to the organization's statement of principles, who attend a minimum of two consecutive general membership meetings, and who pay a membership fee fee of $1.00."

The name for the DuBois Club of San Francisco was adopted in honor of the late William Edward Burghardt DuBois, a Negro educator who was born on February 23, 1868, and died on August 27, 1963.[8] Dr. DuBois was one of the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), was a leader in the struggle for Negro rights, and made a dramatic announcement of his conversion to Communism in the December 1961 issue of Political Affairs, page 9. He had been an ardent fellow traveler and member of many Communist front groups for years before he became a formal member of the Communist Party, and his affiliation was hailed with great enthusiasm by Herbert Aptheker on page 13 of the same issue of the magazine.

Several years before his death Dr. DuBois renounced his American citizenship and became a citizen of Ghana, where the pro-Communist government was greatly influenced by both Dr. DuBois, who tutored the Ghanian president, and his wife, Shirley Graham, who acted as an unofficial counselor to the regime.

The San Francisco DuBois Club became active immediately after it was organized. It met with similar clubs in the Bay Area, participated in civil rights demonstrations such as trespassing on the premises of the Sheraton-Palace Hotel and the Cadillac agency in San Francisco. It also sponsored such Communist speakers as Frank Wilkinson, who spoke on April 10, 1964, and J. P. Morray, who was billed as "a noted Marxist scholar." At


37
the same time a solid liaison was being established with other radical youth groups throughout the country. In California the counterpart to the San Francisco DuBois Club was the Youth Action Union in Los Angeles, which, as we shall describe at some length, grew from the old Independent Student Union. The YAU provided such hard-working leaders as Marvin Treiger, Tobey and Michael Bye, Ruth Greenbaum, Victor Oliver, Alan Zak, Frank Alexander, Dan Bessie, John Haag and August Maymudes.

We are devoting considerable attention to the formation of the DuBois Clubs, because they are now the actual organization of Communist youth, and more particularly because they provided the driving power for the Berkeley Rebellion, and they constituted the hard core of the so-called Free Speech Movement at Berkeley. This is the first detailed account of the DuBois Clubs, and unless one understands how the movement originated, what it proposes to accomplish, and how it functions, he cannot understand the defiant eruptions at Berkeley. Since the DuBois Clubs certainly were the most significant element in the united front that mobilized the students to rebellion, and SLATE probably came next in importance, it is essential that we know something about these organizations.

Progressive Youth Organizing Committee

There is always a period of behind-the-scenes preparation for any Communist program of major significance. Caucuses are invariably held before a Communist minority attempts to jam a party line resolution through a non-Communist organization; plans are made before a new front organization is launched in order to make sure that the real control remains in proper hands, and that this control is carefully concealed from the membership. These, of course, are some of the tactics through which a dedicated, disciplined minority can accomplish results far out of proportion to its numerical strength.

More than a year before the San Francisco convention of June, 1964, some carefully selected people from California attended meetings of the Progressive Youth Organizing Committee, 80 Clinton St., New York 2, N.Y. A school of instruction was held from June 25 to 30, at a cost of $30.00 per student. The Marxist character of this enterprise may readily be seen from the invitation to attend the P.Y.O. School, which read as follows:

"Outlined below is the tentative context of the P.Y.O.C. school to be held June 25-30. As it appears that there will be a substantial number of youth new to P.Y.O.C. type organizations and who have not attended classes before, we are suggesting two separate courses. One will be for them and one for those who have had classes before.

For those who have had classes the content will be centered on those questions which will give greater clarity to the major ideological questions in the left and progressive youth movement and facilitate the building and growth of P.Y.O.C. type groups. The major emphasis will be what is a working class approach as opposed to a petty bourgeois radicalism in these areas;

  1. The youth question and strategic goals of youth.
  2. The Kennedy Administration, the ultra-right and electoral policy.
  3. The fight for full equality for the Negro people and the role of progressive youth.
    38
  4. Working class youth, discussing their interests, level of organization and level of understanding.
  5. P.Y.O.C., its role today and pressures to alter its outlook and character.

The classes for newer youth and those who have not attended classes before will be: Is Marxism True? An introductory course covering these topics:

  1. Capitalism or Socialism: which can do a better job for man?
  2. Is Socialism inevitable?
  3. Does Marxism point the way to win daily improvements and Socialism?
  4. Does Marxism enable one to scientifically discover truth in every field of human activity and in nature?
  5. Criticisms of Marxism.
  6. Does Marxism point the way to be happy?

Please advise us of your thinking and suggested changes on the tentative content.

The school will be held at a camp, with a swimming pool and full athletic facilities. The cost for the six days is $30.00 for food, room and all other expenses. A limited amount of money is available for scholarships to the school. Please do not apply for a partial or full scholarship unless there is absolutely no way to raise the money locally. The June P.Y.O.C. activities are already running around two thousand dollars in direct costs to the national office and will leave us substantially in the red."

One of the ubiquitous Hallinan boys, Matthew (Dynamite), went to New York and participated in the school. There were other delegates from San Francisco and Los Angeles, and it was here that much of the basic strategy was perfected for the new nationwide Communist youth movement that was to emerge from the convention held in San Francisco over the week end of July 19-21, 1964. As this convention got under way, the advance preparation became evident when it was disclosed that a device had been perfected through which votes would be allocated in such a manner that a solid Eastern bloc could team up with the San Francisco DuBois Clubs and control the convention in the event of a crisis. The formula gave San Francisco delegates one vote each; other California delegates two votes each, and those from out of the state three votes each. There were twelve delegates from New York, with a total of 36 votes—and at the convention (this not being deemed enough), it was voted to give the New York delegates a total of 72 votes. These, cast invariably in a bloc on all vital matters, enabled the hard core to dominate the convention, which it did completely and ruthlessly.

One of the most crucial votes was on the adoption of the constitution, a draft of which had been prepared by a student from the University of Michigan. There was much dissension about the adoption of portions of this document providing for organizational structure and authority. The final vote for adopting the proposed sections was 284 to 233, with 24 abstentions. Here was an instance where a minority of those present was able to exercise control. At this point an estimated 30% of the delegates walked out in disgust, but this left the hard core solidly in power, and the convention proceeded about its business. We will later discuss this June 19 convention in detail.

This is not the appropriate place to set forth in depth the constitution of the new Communist youth movement, the working papers and reports


39
that were discussed at length, nor the details of its organizational structure. It is, nonetheless, essential that we know something of the component parts of the new organization if we are to know anything about the Communist element in the Berkeley rebellion that occurred about three months after the convention adjourned. As we progress to a detailed examination of the rebellion itself, the names of the leaders of the DuBois Clubs of America will become increasingly familiar. At the convention, as we have indicated, were Trotskyites, members of the Young People's Socialist League, representatives from the Youth Action Union in Southern California, members of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, a handful of other and less important radical youth organizations, and, of course, those adherents of the Moscow Communist line who were in firm control of the proceedings from their inception to their conclusion with the emergence of the new Communist youth organization in the form of the DuBois Clubs of America.

We have no intention of describing each of these organizations in depth, but it is indispensable to know something about the Youth Action Union of Southern California because of its proximity to U.C.L.A., its decidedly Communist orientation, and its importance as one of the more influential participating groups at the San Francisco convention of June, 1964.

Virtually all of these radical youth organizations with a Marxist or firm Communist orientation had their own publications that appeared from time to time, carried the current Communist Party line, gave notice of lectures, schools, meetings, and civil rights demonstrations, and served the usual propaganda purposes of the organizations they represented. The Youth Action Union also had such a publication, as did the DuBois Club of San Francisco, but the official organ for the Young Communist movement in the United States was a little magazine published under the name of New Horizons for Youth. Its office was located at 1426 Bristol Street, Philadelphia 40, Pennsylvania. Its editor was Lionel Libson, and members of its editorial council came from San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. In September, 1964, Arlene Schupak wrote the following letter, which is self-explanatory, and shows how most of the local organizations of radical youth discontinued their publications, and in many cases discontinued operating under the old names, and simply became DuBois Clubs. This was the case with Youth Action Union of Los Angeles. The letter to which we refer read as follows:

September 8, 1964

Youth Publications, Inc.
1426 Bristol St.
Phila., Pa. 19140

Dear Subscriber:

Due to many editorial and financial difficulties which could not be resolved by the publishers of New Horizons for Youth, it has become impossible to continue publishing. Many of you responded to our recent subscription drive and thus have paid for totally or partially unused subscriptions. We feel it only fair that we offer your money back on the unused sub, if so desired.

However, we have been happy to hear that a publication similar in form and content to New Horizons will be forthcoming from the


40
W.E.B. DuBois Clubs of America—a nationwide Socialist-oriented action organization recently formed in San Francisco. Many of the writers and supporters of New Horizons, including this correspondent, were active in the formation of this exciting new youth organization.

The forthcoming publication will be popular in format and will be designed to appeal to those active in the progressive movements of today as well as those masses of youth we are trying to involve in action.

At the request of the publishers of New Horizons, the editors of the new publication—yet to be named—have agreed to honor the unused subs of NHY, if this is agreeable to the subscriber. Since we do not expect there will be too many objections to this procedure, we have decided to go ahead with the transfer, unless we hear from you to the contrary. In other words, if you wish your money back, write; if not, then you should expect to receive the DuBois Club publication. For information on the DuBois Clubs, write: 1007 McAllister, San Francisco, Calif."

We mentioned the Independent Student Union in our 1963 report at page 133. This Marxist organization was started late in 1959, and was kept alive largely through the driving force of Carl Bloice and Althea Sims. After Bloice left for San Francisco, however, the organization began to slowly wilt and it eventually expired in 1962. Some of its members carried on under the name of Students for Peace and Freedom, and then this organization evolved into the Youth Action Union, in which we are now interested.

Among those on the YAU mailing list in 1964, immediately before the San Francisco convention, were Jim Berland, Downey; Dan Bessie, Reseda; Michael and Tobey Bye, Los Angeles; Ruth Greenbaum, Westwood; Dorothy Healey, Los Angeles; Joan Kramer, Los Angeles; Tamara Losnick, Los Angeles; LaRue McCormick, Los Angeles; August Maymudes, Los Angeles; Gene Partlow, Los Angeles; July Rinaldo, Los Angeles; Jeff and Tony Wilkinson, Los Angeles.

In 1963 meetings were held at 4402 Melrose Avenue, Los Angeles, where classes in Marxism were given to interested members. These classes were conducted by Dan Bessie, Hugh DeLacy and Marvin Treiger, who was then president of the organization. Even at this early date there was considerable propaganda concerning United States foreign policy, and at the meeting held on August 13, 1963, at which there were approximately 40 people, average age about 23 years, a letter was read from the Viet Nam Youth Federation stating that thousands of people in Viet Nam had been killed because of bacteriological warfare waged by the United States.

Meetings of the YAU were also held at 4302 Melrose, and occasionally at the homes of some of the members. The organization has never been successful from a financial standpoint, and was compelled to move its headquarters from one location to another during the entire period of its existence. Immediately before the June 19th conference in San Francisco, Tobey Bye was elected chairman, and Alan Zak was elected organizational secretary for YAU. They had participated, to some extent, in preparation for this conference and when official notification of the time and place was received from San Francisco, much of the enthusiasm among YAU members in Los Angeles was generated by the activities of the new president and organizational secretary. These notices contained questionnaires which were to be filled out and be sent to Bettina Aptheker, 635 51st Street, Oakland, California, telephone OLympic 4-5668, and


41
added that additional information might be received from Matthew Hallinan, 2414 Dwight Way, Berkeley.

The first Youth Action News to be published after the San Francisco convention appeared in July 1964, announced the acquisition of new offices at 1104 N. Mariposa Street and carried the following statement concerning the launching of the new Communist youth organization:

"The Phoenix is a legendary bird which is repeatedly destroyed by fire, yet is reborn, and emerges whole from the ashes.

There is a Phoenix liberated in the land. Out of the debris of the old left, reduced by the cold war, McCarthyism, the nuclear threat of annihilation, and `the silent generation,' there is a new voice of the militant youth in the United States, rising `from the ashes'—the W.E.B. DuBois Clubs of America.

In an historic convention held in San Francisco last month, delegates from all parts of the United States formed a new Socialist youth group, intended to deal with the new problems in a new way. The convention was not without its problems, even heartbreak, but on the other hand, moments of inspiration. The result was a nation-wide organization of youth seeking answers to the great problems of our time—peace, jobs, and freedom, and willing to work for their solution.

As difficult as the creation of the DuBois Clubs of America has been, the hard part is coming. It is one thing to declare the existence of a group, and quite another to translate it into a viable instrumentality for meaningful action. Our paramount problem is organization.

Here in the Southwest region, headway is being made in that direction. There are, in the Los Angeles sector, 1.5 DuBois Clubs now in existence (the YAU will not formally affiliate with the DC of A until the regional conference in August), and there are two more coming. The planning committee is already thinking in terms of specific issues and actions.

The future of the DuBois Clubs cannot be foreseen, at this time. At worst, it may be premature, subject to disinterest on the left and harassment on the right. At best, it may serve to form the nucleus of a mass organization of those youth beginning to understand that the only solution to the ills of society is in the transformation of the society itself." (Committee's italics)

San Francisco Socialist Youth Conference

Over the week end of March 21 and 22, 1964, a Socialist Youth Conference had been held at the YMCA building, 1530 Buchanan Street in San Francisco. This meeting was sponsored by the DuBois Clubs in San Francisco, Berkeley, San Francisco State College and Los Angeles, and the Youth Action Union. Those in the Los Angeles area who desired to attend the conference were to contact Anne Levine, a UCLA student, and sets of working papers were then distributed by mail. For some reason that we cannot explain, most of these papers were prepared in Los Angeles and were the result of work done principally by Stephen Solomita, Anne Levine, Paul Rosenstein, Victor Oliver, Alan Zak, Marvin Treiger and John Titus.

The invitation for the conference reads as follows:

"Dear Friend, on the weekend of March 21-22, there is going to be a conference in San Francisco, at the YMCA 1530 Buchanan (Geary and Buchanan), sponsored by a number of Socialist Youth Organizations.


42
We hope to bring together a broad spectrum of young people who are interested in examining the possibility of a Socialist alternative to contemporary social problems.

Today there is a growing number among our generation who refuse to accept poverty, unemployment, bigotry and war as somehow beyond the rational control of man. We feel that this conference will provide a much needed arena in which these people can exchange ideas and experience. We have too often been prone to discuss rather than act upon their ideas. We hope that this conference will be able to produce some form of program, or at least point to a direction, by which young people can begin to actively deal with today's pressing social problems. We invite all who would be interested in such a conference to meet with us in San Francisco. (Signed) San Francisco DuBois Club, Berkeley DuBois Club, San Francisco State DuBois Club, West Los Angeles DuBois Club, Youth Action Union."

The working papers were entitled: 1. General Background, by Stephen Solamita; 2. Beginning Years, by Anne Levine; 3. Free by '63?, by Paul Rosenstein; 4. The Black Muslims, by Victor Oliver; 5. Local Civil Rights Organizations, by Alan Zak; 6. Roll (sic) of the Left and Present Stages of the Struggle, by Marvin Treiger; 7. The Glass Menagerie in the Bracero Movement, by John Titus.

The agenda provided that on March 20th, 8:00 p.m., there would be check-in and registration, followed by an informal gathering at the San Francisco headquarters of the W.E.B. DuBois Club, 1007 McAllister Street. After lunch on Saturday, the 21st, there was an address from 1 to 1:30 p.m. by the keynote speaker, who was originally announced as Louis Goldblatt, secretary-treasurer of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, but he was unable to appear for some reason and the substitute speaker was Dr. Carlton Goodlett, of San Francisco. The keynote speech was followed by area reports, being brief summaries of local conditions and activities prevailing in the three major areas represented at the conference, to-wit: the Pacific Northwest, San Francisco and Bay Area, and Los Angeles. From 2:15 to 4:00 p.m. there were workshop discussion groups which were aimed at discussing contemporary social problems, comparing experiences in the various areas represented, and developing better co-ordination among groups on the West Coast.

The workshops considered the following topics: 1. Automation and American Labor, by Kayo Hallinan; 2. The Southern Civil Rights Movement, by Carl Bloice; 3. The Northern Civil Rights Movement, disussed by the delegates from Southern California; 4. The Ultra Right, discussed by Robert Kaufman; 5. Peace and Disarmament, discussed by the representatives from Seattle, Washington; 6. Civil Liberties, discussed by representatives from the Portland, Oregon, area, and Bettina Aptheker. From 4:15 to 5:30 p.m. at the plenary session of the conference, there were reports from each workshop, brief summaries about conclusions reached during afternoon discussions and suggestions concerning the role of Socialist youth in solving current problems. At 8:30 p.m. there were art movies at the W.E.B. DuBois Club in San Francisco, followed by a reception.

On March 21st there were discussions about the building of a nationwide Socialist-oriented youth organization, the opening speech having been made by the chairman for the day, Mike Meyerson, a member of the Bay Area National Organizing Committee. On Sunday afternoon the


43
discussion revolved around the formation and functions of a national youth organization and the concensus resolution on the West Coast position concerning the formation of such a movement was concluded shortly before adjournment at 4:30 p.m. on Sunday, the 21st.

Obviously the documents that were distributed to persons attending this conference are far too long to be included here, and, indeed, would hardly be relevant to this portion of our report. There was, however, a paper on "The Question of Orientation: Campus and Community," which is extremely pertinent, and which we therefore reproduce:

"This paper grew out of a discovery of certain weaknesses in the approach used by Students for a Democratic Society in outlining policy for student participation in community activity. SDS had frequently taken the position that the role of youth is to work almost exclusively among the poor and the unemployed while not actively persuing (sic) policies among their peer groups on campus. The result has been a lack of organization of youth on educational issues and the development of a `social worker' outlook towards the working class community. SDS has sent its members into the community to foster change irregardless of the objective capability of the working class community at the time to accept college youth. In certain instances similar problems have arisen in the Berkeley DuBois Club.

The purpose of this paper is not to deny that youth can successfully work among working-class people. Rather we wish to emphasize the positive aspects of political organization on campus around issues such as in loco parentis and democratic education which are relevant to the development of political consciousness and academic freedom among student youth.

In organizing the national group, or for that matter any group, one matter of primary importance is the area in which the group will function. We must look at those persons or groups who are to be members of this organization, and attempt to determine where and in what issues these people would be most effective.

This conference is the best proof of the growing political sophistication of American youth. We have grown from the 1960 Civil Liberties demonstration against HUAC, and have suffered our birth pains in innumerable single-issue organizations. For many of us the initial commitment was a moral one: We grouped separately issues such as peace, abolition of capital punishment, civil liberties and civil rights. However, the same multi-issue orientation, which as students led us to participate in these various activities, soon caused us to search further for the basic causes of what were seemingly separate evils. It gradually became apparent that these issues were closely related. Eventually some of us, particularly those here today, became convinced that the problems stemmed from the basic nature of our economic structure. The DuBois Clubs grew from this realization and were established to give Socialist youth the opportunity to discuss the inter-relationship of problems and to propose solutions to them.

In charting the course of the NYO (National Youth Organization) we must carefully analyze our past experiences, particularly in terms of the movements from which we have sprung. As all of us who participate and know, these were student demonstrations with little or no response from the outside community, particularly from non-student youth. Only recently have working youth demonstrated an


44
interest in political activity, and this only in the areas which directly affected them. The past year has seen the slow development of Youth For Jobs type organizations. The thousands of youth who leave school every year must first and foremost be concerned with the search for jobs. Thus, their political orientation is in the area of unemployment. With increasing experience in this field an awareness of the inter-relationship between racial discrimination and unemployment among minority groups is developing. However, as the DuBois Clubs know through their participation in the recent demonstrations at the Sheraton-Palace Hotel in San Francisco, even the participation of Youth For Jobs members, is not yet of majority proportion. It is apparent that working youth and the Negro community are only beginning to involve themselves in militant action, and that this is predominantly single-issue oriented. It would be a great mistake to assume that the NYO can develop a higher theoretical understanding of the inter-relationship of societal (sic) problems among groups who have not yet fully committed themselves to participation in single-issue movements. Our contention is that a person is most effective when working with those type (sic) of people with whom he is most familiar; in other words, those people with whom he can best communicate due to a similarity of living conditions, a similarity of daily life problems, or membership in the same class. Of course, in the struggle forward Socialism, many groups which are now distinct in our society will have to merge in a unified struggle, but this will not take place until these various groups have achieved a certain level of consciousness which they do not have today. Eventually ties will be developed between them by interest in the same issues, and, more important, through social exposure to each other. Meanwhile, these groups will progress at different rates and in different ways. They will come to an understanding of the need for Socialism through the solution of their day-to-day problems. These problems, based on economic situations, are of course, different in the different classes; and thus, the understanding of these problems is different in the separate classes. Intellectually one can understand the problems of another, but until one has actually felt these problems and their ramifications, he cannot effectively deal with them. To identify with the problems of one class does not necessarily presuppose the ability to most effectively work within or contribute to the aspirations of that class. For instance, the major problem facing working class people today is job-security. This can be understood in academic terms by those who are not members of the working class, but as they have never really been affected by the problem, i.e., have never been laid off because of automation, have never had to worry about how their children are going to be fed and clothed, and have never had to be dependent on state aid such as unemployment compensation, workmen's compensation or welfare; their approach lacking this experience cannot be the most effective. In the same vein, the problem of academic freedom can easily be understood by working class people but it does not affect them and therefore has no concrete importance for them, whereas for the intellectual it does.

The stated purpose of the NYO is to provide socialist alternatives to problems current on the American political scene. In so doing, we must first determine from what segment of society our base will be drawn. Organizational policies and objectives must be based on


45
the abilities of this segment to communicate with our Americans. We must not over-extend ourselves by simply relying on the premise that the working class is the only revolutionary element of society. We must honestly evaluate our resources and try to discover, in terms of the analysis of the situation discussed in the preceding portions of this paper, whether in fact we have roots in the working class. If we find that we do not, or that these roots are minimal, we must then attempt to deal with that portion of society with whom we can most immediately communicate, not forgetting, of course, that in the long run we cannot be really successful without establishing close relations with the masses of people.

We propose that our main area of concentration at this time should be among campus youth. It would be incorrect to fail to develop a higher political consciousness among that segment of America which has consistently demonstrated an ability to understand the inter-relationships between socio-economic issues, simply because the most revolutionary elements of society have not yet reached a similar level of political consciousness. Further, we are best prepared as students to deal with our fellows on campus. Similarities of educational experience make communications easier and increase our ability to develop real political consciousness. We urge that the NYO take the form of National DuBois Clubs. (Committee's italics) We must participate most actively in developing from our socialist viewpoint an understanding among college youth of the basic problem of a capitalist economy. We must not attempt to convert single-issue organizations of the nature of Youth For Jobs into multiple-issue groups, because to do so would dissipate their still weak forces and strip them of their potency in the areas of their primary concern. We should concentrate our off-campus activities in those areas in which we have historically proved most effective: Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, Peace, and Political Campaigning. Rather than posing socialist alternatives to groups which already exist in these fields, we should aid them in the attempt to consolidate support in the community. We should assist in furthering full understanding of these single issues among the non-committed portions of the working class population, both white and non-white.

We feel that our program must recognize the predominate characteristic of an American political organization today: Its one-issue orientation. Although a few advanced groups such as SNCC (Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee) in the area of minority relations, and the Women's Strike for Peace in the area of international tensions, have begun to demonstrate an understanding of the relationship of capitalist interest as a whole to specific problem areas, a comprehension of the inter-relationship between capitalism-peace-integration is virtually absent from the political scene. Further, the vast majority of Americans are only beginning to realize that any ONE of these issues exist. Homeowners confronted by the Rumford Fair Housing Act come awake to the existence of a crisis in race relations, while communities threatened with economic bankruptcy by the closure of military establishments realize that peace is also an issue.

The nature of the problems facing working people and members of racial minorities in this country dictate that these groups be basically single-issue oriented. The working man, faced with the


46
necessity to support a family, naturally is preoccupied with the problems of automation, similarly the Negro faced with the constant denial of his basic human rights engages in a grass roots struggle for his human dignity. Both of these issues are vital to the survival of the concerned group. (This artificial dichotomy between `working class' and `Negro' disappears when the minority discovers that human rights are virtually meaningless without the material means to enjoy them. Thus, the struggle for equality quickly merges into the greater single issue of employment.)

When a class or racial minority is confronted with what is more or less a life and death struggle, it has little time to devote to other issues which do not directly involve him.

Today the segment of American society which is in the best position to come to grips with the multi-issue platform is the student community. The presence of the individual in the classroom forces upon him a consciousness of the existence of certain problems. Although classroom discussion is frequently superficial and does not necessarily provoke further thought it does create a frame of reference. Through the academic approach, the student is forced to deal in terms of inter-relationships rather than with ideas in isolation. Over the past four years the student community has demonstrated an increasing awareness of the relation of academia to real life, as detailed in the introductory portion of this paper, and its academic multi-issue orientation has made it capable of discovering relationships between economic and political issues which other elements of society more directly involved in the material struggle for existence cannot pause to consider.

Thus we see that a multi-issue socialist organization, founded at this moment in history will have to appeal to the student community for its main source of support in order to be successful. This does not mean a total and prolonged isolation of the `intelligentsia' from the working class. It rather enunciates a starting point. The evolution of these two groups in the overall struggle for Socialism will naturally be convergent."

The foregoing paper was submitted by Robert Mandel, Portland Friends of SNCC (Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee); Donna Haber, Berkeley Community DuBois Club; Phyllis Glick, Berkeley Community DuBois Club.

It is interesting to note that the delegates from Portland submitted a paper which set forth the status of radical youth activities in that state. It explains how FOCUS, a student radical group similar to SLATE at Berkeley, was an outgrowth of youth movements which had supported the Progressive Party, and which existed on the campus of Reed College through the academic year 1961. Then other radical groups took over the operation of left political activities at Reed College and engineered "the unusual victory for academic freedom that came with the Gus Hall tour of 1962." (Gus Hall was then and is now the national head of the Communist Party of the United States.) From that point forward a large membership in the radical left student movement was built up around the Cuban Blockade protest, the Defeat of Civil Defense, a Trade with China Resolution and the Pacific Northwest Peace Conference. At Portland State College a radical student organization, much like SLATE at Berkeley, elected eight members to the community senate in its first political activity and concentrated its propaganda on the issues of in


47
loco parentis. The report concluded by stating that "it will be easy to organize a group at Reed that will be Socialist oriented."

Among the more active participants at the San Francisco Socialist Youth Conference were: Lee Goldblatt, Beverly Radcliff, Harold Supriano, Toby Bye, Matthew Hallinan, Mike Meyerson, Guy Sandler, Marvin Treiger, Rodney Larson, Carl Bloice, Terence Hallinan, William North, Alan Zak, Michael Bye, Bettina Aptheker, Carol Perry, Leslie Brooks, James Berland and Kenneth King. Lee Goldblatt is the daughter of Louis Goldblatt, who was originally scheduled to deliver the keynote address at the conference; Matthew and Terence Hallinan are the sons of Vincent Hallinan, a professed Marxist and candidate for the Presidency of the United States on the Independent Progressive Party ticket several years ago; Marvin Treiger is presently attending Los Angeles City College and is active in Marxist politics; Alan Zak is chairman of the Los Angeles DuBois Club; Michael and Toby Bye are young Marxian activists from Los Angeles; Bettina Aptheker is the daughter of Herbert Aptheker, as we have heretofore explained; Carl Bloice is the former spark plug for the Independent Student Union, Marxist-oriented youth group in Los Angeles, is a writer for the Communist newspaper in San Francisco, and is an active member of the San Francisco DuBois Club; Supriano was an employee of the State of California, and has been connected with several radical organizations; Kenneth King is a member of the San Francisco DuBois Club who made a trip to Cuba in defiance of the State Department regulation against such travel.

The New National Organization of Communist Youth

After the Conference of Socialist Youth in March, it was decided to hold the next convention in Chicago, and there form the new national youth organization. The Coordinating Committee determined to switch the meeting place to San Francisco, however, and to hold it on June 19 through 21, 1964. We have heretofore mentioned the reasons for selecting the Bay Area as most suitable for the seat of Communist power on the West Coast. The leaders of the new youth movement apparently agreed as they stated in their pre-convention publication that the west coast area had a "more favorable political climate."[13]

Copies of The Convener, position papers, schedules of activities, copies of agenda and other materials, were widely circulated prior to the meeting, and attendance from all parts of the country was anticipated. Carl Bloice edited The Convener, assisted by Mike Meyerson, Terence Hallinan, Eugene Alexander, Hugh Fowler, Keith and Phyllis Glick, Gerrit van der Hoogt, Kathy Olson, Tom Waite, Luria Castell, Stephan Argent and Sue Miller.

Pre-Convention regional meetings were held in Wisconsin, Philadelphia, Chicago, and New York. Propaganda materials were distributed, generally echoing the current party line about getting out of Viet Nam, changing our government to a Socialist system, resisting the draft, and participating in all civil rights movements. There were some who preferred to hold the new youth organization somewhat aloof from other Left groups, but it soon became apparent that this attitude was impracticable. The National Coordinating Committee was expanded to thirty people, and they actually made all preparations for the San Francisco


48
meeting. Through the columns of The Convener they set the general tone of the convention, and through the issuance of position papers the program was planned well in advance. It is to be noted that one of the omni-present brothers Hallinan wrote an "Editorial Expressing the Views of the Staff of the Convener," describing the United States action in Viet Nam as an "effort to crush the revolutionary desire and upsurge of the Vietnamese people..." and referring to our use of "napalm bombs, torture, concentration camps and other forms of extreme terror."[14]

Members of the San Francisco DuBois Club proudly claimed that they led the demonstrations in San Francisco that resulted in a total of 395 arrests and pointed out that there were "... several new and important features to these demonstrations. One was the audacity and determination of the participants. Another was the widespread popular support that they obviously had and the positive results they were able to bring about. The most significant is that they were led by a Socialist youth group, the W.E.B. DuBois Club."[15]

Those who signed the call for this June 1964 convention, as set forth on page 15 of The Convener No. 4, were: Eugene Alexander, Student Legislature, S.F. State College; David Bacon, Berkeley High School Socialist Club; Robert Baum, Minneapolis CORE; Diane Beeson, San Francisco W.E.B. DuBois Club; Bruce Benner, Research Worker, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, San Francisco; James Berland, Community Senate, Reed College, Portland, Oregon; Mike Berry, SLATE, Berkeley; Don Bluestone, Associate Editor of Sanity, Madison, Wisconsin; Leslie Brooks, Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee to End Discrimination, Los Angeles; Roberta Bruce, Board Member, Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights; Karol Burkett, Representative-at-Large, Student Legislature, San Francisco State College; Toby Bye, Youth Action Union, Los Angeles; Edward Campbell, Vice Chairman, CORE, Bridgeport, Connecticut; Norman Chastain, Co-Chairman, Citizens Committee for Disarmament, San Francisco; Frank Ciociorka, Executive Officer, TASC San Jose State College; Ken Cloke, former president of SLATE and member of the Student Senate at the Berkeley campus of the University of California; Ted Cohen, President, Berkeley Young Democrats; Dave Cunningham, Editor, Iowa Defender, Iowa City; Bill Dady, Economic Research and Action Project, Students for a Democratic Society, Louisville, Kentucky; Roberta de la Torre, Demonstration Chairman, Madison, Wisconsin region, Madison CORE; Stewart Dowdy, former National Student Association Coordinator, Illinois-Wisconsin Region; Rick Drobner, Commercial Artist, Los Angeles; Barbara Easton, Executive Officer of TOCSIN, a peace group not to be confused with the anti-Communist publication by the same name, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Michael Eisenscher, president, University of Wisconsin Employees Association, Madison, Wisconsin; Charles Fisher, President, Student Peace Union, College of the City of New York; Steve Frankel, Bridgeport Union of Socialist Youth, Bridgeport, Connecticut; Dan Friedlander, Grinnell College, Iowa; Lester Galt, former President, North Dakota Young Democrats; Mickey Gillmore, President, Harvard-Radcliffe Socialist Club; Art Goldberg, Chairman of SLATE, Berkeley; Gene Gordon, Trade Unionist, Bridgeport, Connecticut; Ruth Greenbaum, Chairman West Los Angeles DuBois Club; Beverly Gudbrandson, Shop Worker, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Matthew Hallinan,


49
Executive Committee, Berkeley DuBois Club; Don Hammerquist, Teamster, Portland, Oregon; John Handy, Jazz Musician, San Francisco; Gail Kaliss, President, Chicago Call for Youth; Brian Keleher, Michigan State University Young Socialists, East Lansing, Michigan; James A. Kennedy, Associate Editor, Studies on the Left, Chicago; Joseph Kransdorf, Activist, SPU, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Revel Liebert, former Chairman Columbia University CORE, New York; Arnold Lockshin, University of Wisconsin Student Government; Vincent Lynch, the Sun-Reporter, San Francisco; Art McEwan, former Student Body President, University of Chicago, Illinois; Kim Maxwell, Chairman SPU, San Jose State College; Kip Montgomery, Local 10, ILWU, San Francisco; James Moore, President of the University of Wisconsin Socialist Club; Mike Meyerson, Ad Hoc Committee to End Discrimination, San Francisco; Leslie Olson, Bergern, North Dakota; James Peake, Jr., former NAACP Youth Field Secretary, East St. Louis, Illinois; Nancy Ann Penick, Civil Rights Activist, Louisville, Kentucky; Carole Powell, Chairman, San Francisco DuBois Club; James R. Prickett, Regional Director, California Federation of Young Democrats; Paul Richards, Chairman, Berkeley DuBois Club; Thomas Rossen, Community Senate, Reed College, Portland, Oregon; Guy Sandler, San Francisco State College DuBois Club; Jim Soliz Sager, Los Angeles CORE, the Mexican-American Committee, Los Angeles; Robert Scales, Shop Steward, St. Louis, Missouri; Thomas Scatina, Oakland Youth for Jobs; Richard Schaefer, Local 10, ILWU, San Francisco; Ronnie Schmidt, Tolna, North Dakota; Michael Schneider, California Democratic Clubs, San Francisco; Jeff Segal, Student Body President, Roosevelt University, Illinois; Judy Shub, Bruin CORE, UCLA, Los Angeles; Arlene Shupak, Business Manager, New Horizons for Youth, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Albert E. Silverstone, Chairman, Portland Students for Peace, Portland, Oregon; Tracy Sims, Ad Hoc Committee to End Discrimination, San Francisco; Charles Smith, University Socialist Club, Austin, Texas; Steve Solimita, Action Chairman, YAU, Los Angeles; Marvin Steinbrecker, President, Socialist Discussion Club, Iowa City, Iowa; Ed Spannus, Friends of SNICC (Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee), Iowa City, Iowa; Bernice Taylor, High School Discussion Group, New Haven, Connecticut; Frank Thompson, Local 17, ILWU, Sacramento; Mike Tigar, former officer of SLATE, Berkeley; John Tillotson, SPU, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Marvin Trieger, Chairman, YAU, Los Angeles; Joseph Uris, Student Council, Portland State College, Portland, Oregon; Rita Vatter, Students for Integration, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Arno Vosk, Chairman, Action, Columbia University, New York; Douglas Wanger, Trade Unionist, Chicago; Thomas Waite, Chairman, Youth for Progressive Action, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Richard Weston, Chairman, TASC, Santa Rosa Junior College; James Williams, former editor, New South Review, Louisville, Kentucky.

Marvin Treiger presided at the opening session of the convention, outlined the procedure and general program, and the group then divided itself into sections on organization, civil rights, Puerto Rico, Negro problems, unemployment, Bracero farm workers, peace, civil liberties, education & culture, political action, Viet Nam, and Socialist youth unity. Terence Hallinan's statement entitled "We Must Now Begin to Speak," was widely distributed and served to establish the general tone of the convention, being a five-page document which set forth the history and accomplishments of the W.E.B. DuBois Club of San Francisco and pointed out


50
that there were five clubs in the general area and three in process of formation. He declared:

"San Francisco, it is true, has long had a reputation as a progressive town. But, there are still the same problems here as in any major city. When we first started, none of the mass organizations would have anything to do with us. When the United San Francisco Freedom Movement, for example, was launched a year and a half ago, we tried to participate. There was such an uproar that we were forced to withdraw our application and were not even permitted to attend meetings. Today we have a situation where the same CORE leader who led the campaign against us declares to the press that if Khrushchev wants to come walk on their picket lines, he is welcome, and the secretary of the San Francisco DuBois Club is a member of the executive board of the San Francisco United Freedom Movement.

This position we now enjoy has not come to us easily. We have it only because we were willing to fight for it. Conditions today are such that we have been able to mobilize a great number of young people and to show the mass organizations that any repercussions they might suffer from working with a socialist youth organization would be more than compensated for by the help our club could provide. It is the firm belief of those of us in the Bay Area that the conditions for a Socialist youth organization on the order of the DuBois Clubs exists in every major city and campus in the country."

The various sections then convened at the ILWU Building; at 60 Leavenworth Street, Apartment 22; at 918 Buchanan Street, 1007 McAllister Street (San Francisco DuBois Club headquarters), and at the office of the American-Russian Institute, 90 McAllister Street. This latter organization is an old Communist front, headed by Holland Roberts, former Stanford University professor, and for many years head of the Communist School in San Francisco.

These various workshops continued through Friday and Saturday, June 19 and 20, and reported to the general meeting. Treiger caused the first of a series of angry outbursts and disagreements when he stated that minority reports could not be read, but would be ruled out of order because there was too much to be done and too little time. A compromise was finally effected when it was declared that the majority report would be read in its entirety, and that there could be one opposition speaker who had three minutes to present his views. There could only be three suggestions for amendments. Immediately after lunch on Saturday, the majority adopted the tactic of presenting two or three amendments, and leaving no chance for any substantial change of the original report. Minority reports were never permitted to be presented. The chair also adopted the practice of recognizing only the most unpopular delegates for opposition remarks, so that there was actually little danger of the majority faction losing its iron grip on the convention.

There were wide varieties of radicalism represented: the Maoists, the Trotskyites, the Socialists, the Anarchists, the independents, the various autonomous local groups, and the usual scattering of existentialist non-conformists who appeared to be opposed to almost every suggestion. There was much acrimony, much shouting; and it soon became clear that a slowly-mounting anger and resentment was developing as it became ever more evident that a small faction was in control and would brook no challenge to its power. And this was the Moscow line Communist group, consisting of the leadership in the DuBois and Youth Action Union


51
organizations. They had dominated the National Organizing Committee, then the National Coordinating Committee that set up the San Francisco Convention, and the Socialist Youth Conference in March.

Principle was sacrificed for expediency when a proposal was made that no one be supported who had voted in Congress for the Smith or McCarran Acts. The proposal was defeated, but only because some 490 members of Congress who voted for these measures that are so hated by the Left establishment could not then be supported—and some of them might be needed for other matters.

The resolution on peace provided that no member of the youth organization should serve in the armed forces assigned to fight in Viet Nam. But this was defeated because all members would be liable to prosecution as draft dodgers instead of conscientious objectors.

During discussions of the proposed constitution, Robert Kauffman suggested that as Article III specified no person should be eligible for membership who opposed the principles and policies of the new organization, then no member of another national Socialist youth group should be entitled to vote or hold office. This was aimed at the Young Socialist Alliance and Progressive Labor Movement, and precipitated much argument. Carl Bloice declared that no effort was being made to unite the Left, and that no member subscribing to other ideologies would be allowed to influence policy decisions. At that point another Negro delegate said that he came for the purpose of welding together a broad movement of Socialist youth—not to form a rigid organization preoccupied with expelling anyone daring to disagree with its program.

Allan Sharp, a delegate from the national committee of another nationwide youth organization, then declared that the invitations to the San Francisco convention had been a hoax; that there was never any real intention of forming a broad youth group, and that neither he nor his followers would be able to participate under the provisions then being adopted.

At that point, Sharp started walking out of the meeting, and was followed by others until approximately one-third of the delegates had permanently deserted the convention. Those who remained were the faithful members of the DuBois Clubs, Youth Action Union, and a few other of the more radical and Communist organizations. Even the San Jose State College unit of the DuBois Club announced that it had no intention of affiliating with the new national movement.

After the mass exodus, the convention settled down to a semblance of order, but there were still some dissident voices to be heard. Finally, there was the matter of selecting a name for the new organization, and an unidentified delegate arose and said that he implored the leadership not to use the word "Socialist" in the title, because he held that word sacred. With considerable emphasis he stated that after what had occurred any use of the name would be utter hypocrisy. Then he walked out of the hall, accompanied by a round of applause and still more disillusioned delegates.

About 139 people remained, and it was now apparent to them that they had gone too far, and that their rigging of the meeting to concentrate power and warp the membership to the radical ideological views of the small core of leaders had provoked too much resentment. They then rescinded the proposal about exclusion of other Socialist groups. As one observer remarked, this was the inevitable penalty that plagues a group that first puts itself together as a small, tight little center of control and then seeks to hold a rubber-stamp convention. But this is the way with


52
Communist organizations the world over; as we have explained in previous reports, Communist organizations operate on the principle of what they term "democratic centralism." In theory this consists in the decisions being made by the broad membership and transmitted toward the apex of the organizational triangle for action. In practice, however, the few at the top make the decisions, and they are rubber-stamped by the membership. Those who oppose this practice are condemned as disrupters of the class struggle, opponents and enemies of the world revolutionary movement, and are suspended or expelled.

At present there are five DuBois Clubs operating in Southern California. DuBois Central is comprised mostly of Mexican-American members, and is headed by Alan Zak and Sue Green. DuBois South, a small unit with about seven to ten members who attend with any regularity, is headed by Victor Oliver and Frank Alexander. DuBois West, which devotes itself almost exclusively to the UCLA campus, is headed by Ruth Greenbaum, and is the most active of the five. Marvin Treiger is busily organizing new units, and DuBois East is small and not especially active as this report is being prepared. There are also skeleton clubs, one of which operates in the Santa Monica-Venice area. In the Bay Area, however, the activity is on a much more sophisticated plane and far more effective for reasons that we have mentioned: in short, because the center of Communist power and the most mass following and tolerance exists in that part of the state.

J. Edgar Hoover has described the DuBois Clubs of America as a Communist youth organization, and the Clubs have made no effort to conceal that fact. Several years ago the officials at the University of California would have been aghast at any suggestion that such a group be extended an official welcome to function on the Berkeley campus, but under the present administration such recognition was extended and the DuBois Clubs were given campus status in 1963.[16] It was, therefore, made easy for the DuBois Clubs to collaborate in propagandizing other students, recruiting more members, spreading dissension against the university authorities, and eventually providing driving power for the united front that triggered the first demonstration on the Berkeley campus in the fall of 1964, and terrorized the very administration that allowed them to function officially on the campus. It seems strange that despite the Regent's policy of not tolerating Communists as employees of the University, the administration welcomes Communist organizations, throws the portals open to Communist speakers, and exhibits an easy tolerance of Communist activists that defies all reason.

At the present time there is being formed a new national organization of Communist adults. These are the tough followers of the Red Chinese line of permanent revolution; the most militant of the Communists who scorn any concept of peaceful coexistence and demand a permanent war against our way of life. It will be interesting to see whether the university administration will also succeed in charming the Regents into extending official campus recognition to this organization. Any demonstrations that follow should indeed be spectacular. It makes very little sense to us that the administration at Berkeley should expel SLATE when that organization defied the rules and called Clark Kerr some unpleasant names a few years ago, and then recognize the DuBois Clubs. Perhaps there is a difference without much distinction, as SLATE managed to capture seven out


53
of the eight positions in student government at Berkeley in the 1964 elections, so its proscription didn't cramp its operation to any serious degree.

Notice should be taken that the formation of the DuBois Clubs of America was concluded on June 21, 1964. The announcement was mailed from the newly-established national headquarters in San Francisco, a series of regional conferences were scheduled for the late summer, and plans were made for the building of a network of local chapters. Funds were solicited for the support of the temporary national office at 1007 McAllister Street, San Francisco, and plans were made for publication of newsletters both from the Bay Area and Southern California organizations. This was accomplished in the south with the issuance of The Correlator, and in the north with the appearance of Insurgent, in the spring of 1965. Carl Bloice edits this publication, and the first issue contained material presented under the joint efforts of the staff and contributors. They included Celia Rosebury, managing editor; Karol Burkett Supriano, art editor, and former secretary of the Marxist School of Social Science in San Francisco; Howard Harawitz; David Castro; Michael Folsom; Steve Murdock, from the People's World, and John Haag, owner of a Venice West restaurant, and a leader of the Southern Calfornia West DuBois Club. The national office of the DuBois Clubs of America is now situated at 1853.5 McAllister Street, San Francisco. The first issue of Insurgent leveled its propaganda guns in the general direction of the Regents of the university as the villains representing Big Business in the class struggle, as against the Progressive Element of the faculty and administrators and the student rebels as the heroes. This is the customary theme of all Communist propaganda; the rich, privileged class of exploiters against the poor, underprivileged masses of exploited people—the bourgeoisie against the proletariat, in Marxian terms.

Background for Revolt

The first phase of events leading to the Berkeley Rebellion falls now into its proper place. We have seen how the Communist Party originally established its headquarters on the Pacific Coast in San Francisco, developed its indoctrination and educational system in that city, established its faculty and student units at the Berkeley campus of the University of California and steadily built a strong base of operations in the Bay Area of California and particularly at the principal campus of the nation's largest university. We have also traced the growth of various radical student organizations there—especially SLATE, and we have seen how this organization and other groups united to form a new Communist youth organization, the DuBois Clubs of America, with its national headquarters also situated is San Francisco.

It now remains to examine phase two of the Berkeley Rebellion, and we move a step closer to the outbreak of actual demonstrations in September, 1964. This second phase consists in examining the international Communist situation immediately preceding the eruption of the rebellion and a determination of what the international party line was for Communist youth at that time. We shall reserve until later a discussion of the reasons that moved the Communist elements of the rebellion to select Berkeley as its most vulnerable target, the general attitude toward Communism on the Berkeley campus having been demonstrated by the erosion of its security measures, the opening of the campus to Communist


54
propaganda speakers, and the easy tolerance of pro-Communist faculty members who made little effort to conceal their profound Marxian bias either from students or administration.

It is significant to note that there was a meeting in Moscow, September 16-24, 1964, of "A World Forum for Solidarity of Youth and Students..." This convention was sponsored by the Committee of Youth Organizations of the USSR, the International Union of Students and the World Federation of Democratic Youth. We have already alluded to the two latter organizations as being the most important of the international Communist youth fronts, and at this particular meeting there were representatives from more than one hundred nations. The delegates from the United States consisted of four representatives from the DuBois Clubs and some students from the University of Wisconsin.

The United States National Student Association refused to participate in this Communist conclave, and the non-Communist Student Peace Union "... was flatly told that it could send no more than one delegate and would receive no financial assistance."[17]

The main topic of the conference was an international drive to accelerate the recruiting of students, the unleashing of student demonstrations, and the establishment of an International Solidarity Fund to channel Soviet and other financial aid to national liberation movements and to provide technical and financial assistance to new nations. A "liberation movement" in Communist terms, means the subversive strategy used to accomplish the destruction of non-Communist institutions.

It is also significant to note that three prominent California activists were in the Soviet Union in September, 1964. They were Herbert Aptheker, Carl Bloice, and Dr. Carlton Goodlett Aptheker, is the father of Bettina Aptheker, who played a prominent role in both the DuBois Clubs and the student rebellion at Berkeley, and whose descriptions of the events of the past six months have been printed in several Communist publications. Mr. Aptheker was for several years the editor-in-chief of Political Affairs, the monthly organ of the National Committee of the Communist Party of the United States. He has appeared on the Berkeley campus as a lecturer on several occasions, and is one of the most important Communists in the country. Carl Bloice attended the Moscow meeting as a delegate from the DuBois Club of San Francisco, and Dr. Carlton Goodlett will be remembered as the keynote speaker at the DuBois Club Convention in San Francisco. He also happened to be in Moscow in September of that year.[18]

We may note in passing that Herbert Aptheker was scheduled to speak under the sponsorship of Youth for Peace and Socialism, Forerunner of the Youth Action Union, at Park Manor, 607 S. Western Avenue, Los Angeles, on May 3, 1962. He was, according to the handbill issued by the sponsoring organization, to speak on the Negro question, and he was accompanied at the meeting by Dorothy Healey, chairman of the Southern Division of the Communist Party of California.

The September meeting of the World Forum for Solidarity of Youth and Students had been preceded by a "preparatory meeting" in Moscow in April of that year. Consequently, at the April meeting a permanent secretariat of the World Youth Forum was established, and this secretariat


55
was, of course, rigidly dominated by delegates from the World Federation of Democratic Youth and the International Union of Students.[19]

The December report of the American Security Council, issued from Washington, reported on the establishment of the International Solidarity Fund, and described this international center for the financing of subversion throughout the world on the part of radical youth organizations as "A Fund for the Revolution."[20] The Washington Report read as follows:

Moscow... decided to establish an unlimited global `solidarity fund' to finance Communist-led student agitations throughout the world. For 1965, one hundred million dollars of this fund have been earmarked for Latin America, including our Eastern Atlantic ocean bastion that also faces the Caribbean—Puerto Rico.

The first announced monies from this fund were employed in South Viet Nam in the month of November, 1964. Fifty thousand dollars were intended to produce the instability of the Saigon government and to promote the Viet Cong cause of `national liberation.'

Money was liberally poured into capitals throughout the Asian-African bloc and into the iron curtain countries to promote `hate America' riots because of the air-borne rescue operation in the Congo. That Communist maneuver proved successful because the air-borne forces were withdrawn, under the bombardment of the Moscow-Peking propaganda before all the hostages were rescued.

The outbreak of student agitation and lawlessness on the campus of the University of California was not isolated from this global Kremlin plan. It followed the identical pattern of similar student agitation that has been the rule rather than the exception under Communist Party and Communist front direction in Latin America. Defiance of authority and demands for independent `political' activity on the campus, have characterized Communist-inspired disorder there.

The first public announcement of the establishment of this `solidarity fund' came to my attention in a dispatch published on November 13, 1964, in the official Communist Party daily El Siglo of Santiago, Chile. The dispatch was datelined from Moscow the previous day. It carried the by-line of Joaquin Gutierrez, a Costa Rican Communist who is married to a Chilean Communist. Gutierrez was listed in El Siglo as its correspondent in Moscow.

The El Siglo dispatch quoted Vladimir Yarovoy, vice-president of the Komsomol (Russia's Young Communist League), as the authority for the announcement of this `solidarity fund.' It was significant that Yarovoy chose November 12 to anounce the existence of this fund and used the vehicle of the official organ of the Communist Party in Chile for the purpose. It was the nineteenth anniversary of the founding of another arm of the International Communist apparatus, the World Federation of Democratic Youth.

The fund is to be employed to stimulate anti-American propaganda, organize demonstrations and riots against American embassies, consulates, United States information offices and libraries, and to attempt to undermine constituted authority wherever and when-every necessary. The plan, it has been learned, calls for the organizers to provoke the police to employ what the Communists charge is `brutality' to suppress the riots and to compel the military to employ


56
identical tactics. This is designed to blacken the image of, and arouse sentiment against, the only forces that are equipped to forestall a Communist takeover.

The decision to earmark the vast sum of money for Latin America to emphasize the role of youth was made in Moscow after a thorough critique of the setbacks suffered by the Communists this year in their never-discarded master plan to capture Latin America.

The new plan met with the gleeful approval of the Chinese Communist delegates who attended a secret high level planning meeting for that purpose during their visit to Moscow for the forty-seventh anniversary observance of the Russian Revolution. Although it is true that the Moscow line has appeared to look `softer' than the Peking line, both converge for the avowed identical objective to promote agitation and subversion through the use of violence by high school and university students. Despite the apparent cleavage in the Communist camp, this unity of purpose and cohesion in the youth movement is still visible in Latin America.

The thrust for the re-invigorated student offensive in Latin America will come from Communist Cuba, but dollar-starved Fidel Castro will not be given control of the expenditure of the `solidarity fund.' He will only receive an allotment to cover expenses for the modern college of Communist subversion which he established in 1960 and which he has since spread across the island with at least six model red campuses. An estimated eight thousand youths from other Latin American countries have already undergone indoctrination and training in Communist subversion, including guerilla warfare since late 1959. That the study of Marxism-Leninism has become a mass phenomenon in Cuba was reported on November 26, 1964, by Leonel Soto, national director of the official Party schools, at a national meeting in Havana of schools for revolutionary education. He reported that more than `one hundred and nine thousand revolutionaries have studied Marxism-Leninism in these schools.'

On November 30, 1964, a crack force of two hundred fifty Spanish-speaking Komsomol `technicians' arrived in Havana. According to the Cuban radio they were brought in to train the Cuban campesinos (peasants) in the operation of sugar cane combines and lifts which Russia persuaded Castro to buy in order to speed up the harvest.

This in itself is most contradictory. The Russian sugar crop comes from beets. Besides, Fidel Castro announced that all able-bodied Cubans, male and female, will have to cut cane—on a voluntary basis—in the current harvest. There are unofficial estimates that this year's crop will reach five million tons, an increase of one million two hundred thousand over that of last year.

The Komsomols got the V.I.P. treatment on arrival at Havana aboard the Russian ship Mikhail Kalinin on the night of November 30. At the dock to welcome them were Aleksander Alexseyev, the Soviet Ambassador; Carlos Rafael Rodriques, minister-president of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform, officers of the Union de Jovenes Communistas (Cuba's Young Communist League), and officers of the Federation of Students of the University of Havana.

Rodriques welcomed them in the name of the official party, which is now called the Partido Unido de la Revolucion Socialista (PURS), and in the name of the government. It was significant, too, that Havana radio reported that he told the Komsomols: `This is the first


57
time we will have had the opportunity to work in an experimental way with these machines.'

The Komsomol leader who thanked Rodriques for the welcome declared that they had been trained in the combine factories in Moscow and Rostov and that their stay in Cuba will be six months.

The Komsomol, as is known, claims nearly twenty million members between the ages of 14 and 26. The mission of the organization, as stated in official Soviet publications and in its own newspaper, Komsomolskaya Pravda, is to train Soviet youth in the theory and practice of Communism and in military indoctrination and training. Never before has a force of Komsomol established a beachhead in a Latin American country.

Spearheading the intensification of subversion in Latin America will be the young people who have undergone intensive indoctrination and training courses at the general headquarters of the Communist International apparatus in Czechoslovakia, Russia, Communist China and Cuba.

The unlimited `solidarity fund' is reported to have received its blessing from Premier Chou En-lai when he was in Russia for the forty-seventh anniversary observance of the Russian Revolution.

Our two defense outposts in the Caribbean, Panama and Puerto Rico, are high on the target list for `solidarity fund' aid during 1965. The same is true of Venezuela, whose sea of oil and mountains of rich iron ore as well as the totality of more than four billion dollars of United States industrial development the Communists would like to control. Castro continues to furnish at least known moral support to the uncontained guerilla warfare in Venezuela. He has boasted over the Havana radio that `every victory of the F.A.L.N. is a victory for Cuba.'

The contingent of Komsomols who arrived in Cuba might soon fan out, with Cuban passports, to Latin American countries, although most governments would deny them visas, to organize and command the student demonstrations and riots. They could also enter certain countries surreptiously to perform their missions.

The `solidarity fund' has a great amount of spare Soviet dollars to disburse, thanks in part to the fact that the Russians have been able to buy wheat, and are being offered other products from the United States on handsome terms of credit. Coming events in 1965 will prove, through the accent given to youth through that unlimited fund, the wisdom or the foolishness of accepting this type of co-existence."[21]

In previous reports we have given the names of those students at the University of California, as well as other Communist youth leaders in the San Francisco Bay Area, who have defied the ban placed on travel to Cuba by the United States Department of State, and who since became leaders of the Berkeley Rebellion. Until the assassination of President Kennedy the student Communist front organizations that were propagandizing in favor of Fidel Castro and his regime were exceedingly active. But when it became evident that Lee Harvey Oswald was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and that this organization was completely controlled by the Communist Party, it quietly ceased overt operations, but the travel from the United States to Cuba by Communist student leaders has continued.


58

The next International Communist Youth meeting of any significance was the convening of the Eighth Congress of the International Youth Union of students at Sofia, Bulgaria, on November 28, 1964. This affair, noted in Communist Affairs, September-October, 1964, p. 9, continued with the devising of strategy for youth demonstrations throughout the world, and served as an implementation of the Moscow meeting held during the preceding month. It should also be pointed out that on December 16, 17 and 18, 1964, a preparatory committee meeting was held in Algiers for the purpose of laying the foundation for the Ninth Communist World Youth Festival which is scheduled to open in Algiers on August 9th of this year. It will be preceded by a World Conference of Teachers, which is also a Communist front, scheduled to convene in Algiers on April 4, 1965.[22]

Leon Wofsy

Commencing on page 19 of our 1951 report was a section on the Labor Youth League, explaining how this Communist movement was formed in Chicago in May 1949, under the direction of Leon Wofsy. Since Mr. Wofsy is now employed by the University of California, and moved from its San Diego campus to Berkeley at about the time the student rebellion started, and since he unquestionably is the top expert in the field of organizing Communist youth movements, it is appropriate to examine his background here in more detail.

Leon Wofsy was born at Stamford, Connecticut, on November 23, 1921. He finished high school at New Haven, then attended City College of New York in 1942. While he was a high school student in New Haven he was also active in the American Student Union, a Communist-dominated organization, and at New York City College in 1941 he was president of the Marxian Cultural Society, a section of the Young Communist League, and in 1942 he was an officer of American Youth for Democracy in New York.

Having majored in science, Wofsy worked as a chemist for about a year and a half after leaving college, and then became a full-time Communist functionary, specializing in its youth division. From 1937, certainly through the next eighteen years, he was one of the most active and important Communist officials in the United States. In April 1946, the Communist Party summoned a number of its more important members to hear their leaders speak in New York, and Wofsy was one of the speakers.[23] Two months later he addressed the Second National Convention of American Youth for Democracy, and by 1947 was its executive secretary in the state of New York. He became national educational director for AYD in 1948, and applied for a passport to attend a meeting of the World Federation of Democratic Youth, but the government considered him a subversive leader and determined that he should not be permitted to go abroad for the purpose of equipping himself to return to this country and assist in its destruction, and his application was therefore denied.

The government was obviously accurate in its appraisal of Wofsy's role, as he was one of eight Communist leaders from New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and California who went to Chicago for the purpose of planning a new Communist youth organization in 1949.[24] This was the


59
Labor Youth League which was created at a meeting at the People's Auditorium, Chicago, May 28 and 29, 1949. Wofsy publicly declared that the Labor Youth League was an adjunct to the Communist Party, and proudly declared that he was a Communist.

In a report to the National Committee, Communist Party of the United States, delivered on January 24, 1949, Wofsy said:

"The fight for repeal of the Draft and the defeat of Universal Military Training legislation is vital to a genuine program for young workers, as well as to the whole struggle for peace."

"Our concentration policy requires that a major political and educational campaign now be organized for all party youth...."

"There are many additional aspects to the job of mobilizing the Party's youth. Our work among students will be examined, so that every student club views as its basic permanent task the winning of the widest possible section of the students as allies of the working class and within the framework, knows exactly its duties to the industrial concentration work of the Party. The opening up of systematic work among national groups youth must figure seriously in our plans."[25]

This acknowledged expert in organizing Communist youth made another report to the National Committee of the Communist Party of the United States in 1950, in which he said:

"While we cannot here take the time to document these beginnings, the important thing is that these very elementary movements toward unity, especially on the peace question, can be expanded and unfolded quantitatively and qualitatively, into an important democratic upsurge among large sections of youth in 1950.

This is the major question that confronts our Party among the youth; one which, among other things, points up the importance of the leading role of the League (as an advanced youth organization with a Marxian content) in actively rallying and stimulating the broadest movements of youth everywhere—in all the youth organizations, in the unemployment lines, on the campuses.

In the period between now and the First National Convention of the League, the job of vastly enhancing the League's capacity for leading and influencing youth on a mass scale in the great struggle ahead must receive the constant attention, the dynamic and imaginative leadership, of every Communist and advanced worker."[26]

There was no person during the entire history of the American Communist Party who played a more significant and successful role in organizing Communist youth throughout the country than Leon Wofsy. The first concerted effort to organize American students and indoctrinate them with Communism was made in 1931, according to Gilbert Green, who was then the national secretary of the Young Communist League.[27]

As we have seen, the Young Communist League dissolved itself in October 1943 and reformed as American Youth for Democracy, a movement in which Mr. Wofsy played a vital role as national educational director. So successful had he become by this time, that he was made the


60
organizer of the Labor Youth League, which was simply a continuation of American Youth for Democracy under another name, and it proliferated until the splits and schisms in the American Communist movement and the Sino-Soviet dispute broke it up into a number of Communist youth organizations that existed independently of each other. The next Communist youth organization had its origin in San Francisco, the DuBois Clubs of America.

Leon Wofsy made many trips to California in connection with his duties as national director for the young Communist movement in the United States. He lectured at Communist schools, to groups of important party members, to youth leaders, and the usual array of Communist front organizations. He has been a resident of California continuously since September of 1961, when he was employed as assistant research biologist at the University of California in San Diego at a salary of $9,500 a year. Wofsy continued to work at the San Diego campus of the university until July of 1964, when he applied for a position on the Berkeley campus as an Associate Professor of Biology at a salary of $10,600 per year. He arrived at Berkeley in September of 1964, just in time for the commencement of the demonstrations. Also working at the La Jolla campus of the university, at the Scripps Research Institute, was another scientist whose name will be familiar to the readers of these reports. He was Martin Kamen, the man who was an assistant to Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer at Berkeley during the research that led to the development of the atomic bomb, and who was followed by government agents and photographed passing classified information to a Soviet Vice-Consul in a San Francisco restaurant.

In connection with making the change from San Diego to Berkeley, and, indeed, in connection with his original employment by the university, it was necessary for Mr. Wofsy to file what the university terms a form 1501, which is permanently filed in the President's office, department of administrative records, 681 University Hall, Berkeley 4, California. Wofsy's form 1501 was filed on March 24, 1964, gave his home address as 3110 Denver Street, San Diego, listed him as an associate professor in the department of bacteriology, and showed his previous employment as follows: from November, 1942, to January, 1943: a chemist for the May Chemical Company, Newark, New Jersey, at a salary of $200.00 per month; from January, 1943, to September, 1943: United States Army; from September, 1943, to May, 1944: Pyridium Corporation, Nepera Park, New York, a chemist at $225.00 per month; from May, 1944, to May, 1949: American Youth for Democracy. New York City, an executive at $250.00 per month; from May, 1949, to May, 1956: Labor Youth League, New York City, New York, an executive at $250.00 per month; from May, 1956, to July, 1956: unemployed; from August, 1956, to August, 1957: Armstrong Rubber Company, West Haven, Connecticut, a chemist at $470.00 per month; from September, 1957, to January, 1958, North Branford, Jr. High School, Connecticut: a teacher at $300.00 per month; from January, 1958, to August, 1958: Sterling Chemical Laboratories, Yale University, a laboratory assistant at $300.00 per month; from September, 1958, to May, 1961: Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, graduate student; from June, 1961, to August, 1961: Yale University, post doctoral chemist at $1,000 for the period from September, 1961, to June, 1964: University of California, San Diego: assistant research biologist (I) at $9,500.00 per year; from July, 1964, to September,


61
1964, and until the present time: University of California at Berkeley: assistant research biologist (III), at $10,600.00 per year.

It is of parenthetical interest to note that as this portion of the report is being dictated early in April, 1965, an old comrade of Mr. Wofsy's in the Labor Youth League at New York, and who also was its state director, has an application pending to teach as an associate professor of law in the department of law on the Los Angeles campus of the University of California. It is also a coincidence that he, too, has stated that he became disenchanted with Communism and left the Communist movement in 1956. This is precisely the same thing that Mr. Wofsy declared when he secured his position with the state university.

We wish to make it unmistakably clear that we do not believe that any particular retribution should be made against people who in good faith left the Communist Party. It is tragically simple to slip into an attitude of easy tolerance toward an international organization that has never swerved one iota from its determination to weaken our country by subversive methods, render us vulnerable and then to destroy our way of life, take away our cherished freedoms, and make us a section of the world Communist government. It is difficult for Americans to realize that every dedicated member of the Communist movement in this country must work to achieve that very end; that the burden of proof lies upon the individual former Communist member to convince others that his disenchantment is sincere, and that he has actually left the Communist Party. We are aware that many liberals who have been lured into Communist front organizations, and who then discovered the concealed Communist control, have become resentful and frankly related their experiences. We are also mindful of the fact that most of these people have preferred to slink away and snarl at those who would remind them of their unfortunate experience.

It may not be inappropriate at this point to remind our readers that we have conducted entire hearings for the purpose of affording an opportunity to individuals who were unwittingly lured into front organizations to come forward and testify concerning their experiences, and thus afford them an opportunity to set the record straight. We are happy to report that our confidence has not been betrayed by a single one of these individuals, and that many of them who were suffering because of their public records as having been associated with Communist front organizations, thereafter had no difficulty in securing work, and our files contain letters of appreciation from them.

We are aware that one of the major upheavals of the interntional Communist line occurred in February, 1956, when Khrushchev delivered his famous speech at the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, blasting Stalin and his regime, repeating in more emphatic terms the charges that the rest of the free world had been making for many years. Those members of the Communist Party who had closed their eyes to the truth, and who had lived in an atmosphere that excluded everything except Communist propaganda and Communist activities, received a staggering blow when the report by the Central Intelligence Agency of Khrushchev's speech was fully corroborated as accurate by the Soviet Union. Many former Communists left the organization after this period, and it is quite possible that Leon Wofsy, after a period of intensive devotion to Communist activity since he was a teenager in high school, was one of those who left the party. If their break was really sincere, and if their party activities were of such importance that


62
their statements would be of value to their government, most of these former members went voluntarily to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and gave frank and complete statements concerning the real nature of the Communist apparatus that is seeking to destroy us. Many went before legislative committees, such as the House Committee on Un-American Activities or the Senate Internal Security Sub-Committee. Our own files contain many statements by such persons, and we have invariably respected their wishes not to betray some of their former comrades who may still be in the party.

Such top Communist leaders as Ben Gitlow, Earl Browder, John Gates, Howard Fast, Hede Massing, Elizabeth Bentley, Dr. Bella V. Dodd, Whittaker Chambers, Paul Crouch, John Lautner, Frank S. Meyer, and many others, have gone to government agencies and offered such assistance as was desired; some testified before legislative committees in open hearings, thereby facing a lifetime of the most vicious abuse and attacks by the Communist apparatus in an effort to destroy their credibility; some have written books about their experiences that have been valuable sources of reliable information concerning the Communist subversion that has been gnawing away at the vitals of our society since 1919.

It is possible that the officials of the state university who assumed the responsibility of employing this former director of Communist youth activities throughout the entire country, and whose whole life from the time he was a high school student until he was a mature man was devoted to the Communist cause, had some confidential information that his statement about becoming disenchanted with Communism and breaking away from the movement was sincere and truthful. It is, of course, common knowledge that in many instances such statements are made to naive persons for the purpose of securing a well-paying job as an undercover subversive agent so that subversive activities may be pursued at taxpayers' expense. If, indeed, Mr. Wofsy and his former colleague who is now an applicant for a position at UCLA, did go to any government agency and if they co-operated fully in at least making some effort toward atonement for their former actions to wreck our government, we have been unable to discover that fact. Until we do, we consider it our obligation to the students, the faculty, the taxpayers, the legislature and the people of the State of California to make this type of information available.

Mr. Wofsy has only been on the Berkeley campus a short period of time, but he has nonetheless aligned himself with a group of colleagues some of whom have exhibited considerable sympathy for the Free Speech Movement in general and its radical leadership in particular.

We do not know, either, whether Mr. Wofsy saw fit to explain to those university officials who assumed the responsibility of accepting his story and giving him a job, that there was a great deal more to his Communist background than simply the work he did for American Youth for Democracy and the Labor Youth League as set forth in his form number 1501. If he made a full disclosure to these officials, and a full disclosure to the appropriate agency of our government, we will be most happy to make that fact as public as we have made public Mr. Wofsy's Communist back-ground in the foregoing account. Until that time it is perfectly plain that we have nothing more than his simple statement to the effect that he became disenchanted with Communism and left the movement in 1956.

For approximately twenty years Leon Wofsy played a role of everincreasing importance in the American Communist Party, until he was making reports directly to its National Executive Committee and was


63
considered sufficiently reliable and indoctrinated to be placed in charge of its National Youth Movement. We know that he made an involuntary appearance before a legislative committee in Washington in 1955, and on that occasion when he was interrogated about his experiences in the Communist Party, he responded by seeking refuge behind the Fifth Amendment.[28]

Target Berkeley

At this point we have completed explaining how the concentration of Communist strength was developed in the Bay Area. We must now consider the next phase of the Berkeley Rebellion, which will be an examination of the reasons why the Berkeley Campus was selected as a target for the mass demonstrations that started in September 1964.

It should be apparent by this time that the move against the Berkeley campus was not spontaneous. The position of the university in loco parentis to the students had been the central theme of the three major meetings described above: the National Organizing Conference in New York in 1963, the Socialist Convention in San Francisco in March 1964, and finally the June 1964 convention in San Francisco which gave birth to the DuBois Clubs of America. All that remained to trigger the demonstrations was some incident—almost any incident would have served the purpose. That incident was provided on September 14, 1964, when Dean of Students Katherine A. Towle wrote the letter that set the entire Berkeley Rebellion in motion. It soon gathered momentum, formed a united front mass movement of protesting students and faculty members, intimidated the administration to the degree where it retreated to a point of no return and conceded virtually every major demand made by the students, produced a condition of anarchy on the Berkeley campus, and then proceeded to consolidate its position.

As we have heretofore indicated, most of the students who originally went along with the united front movement discovered that the real direction of the rebellion was in the hands of SLATE and the DuBois Clubs, and quietly dropped out of the movement.

Since it was Dean Towle's letter that precipitated the difficulty, we should point out that the letter was distributed only after preliminary conferences between the Chancellor of the university, the Dean of Students, the Campus Police and the Public Affairs Office on July 22 and 29, 1964, and their agreement that a strict interpretation of the rules promulgated by President Clark Kerr was necessary. The important letter written by Dean Towle on September 14, 1964, read as follows:

"To: presidents or chairmen and advisors of all student organizations. Beginning September 21, 1964, provisions of the policy of The Regents concerning `use of university facilities' will be strictly enforced in all areas designated as property of The Regents of the University of California, including a twenty-six-foot strip of brick walkway at the campus entrance on Bancroft Way and Telegraph Avenue between the concrete posts and the indented copper plaques on Bancroft Way which reads `property of The Regents, University of California. Permission to enter or pass over is revocable at any time.'

Specifically, section III of the policy referred to above prohibits the use of University facilities `for the purpose of soliciting party


64
membership or supporting or opposing particular candidates or propositions in local, state or national elections,' except that Chief Campus Officers `shall establish rules under which candidates for public office (or their designated representatives) may be afforded like opportunity to speak upon the campuses at meetings where the audience is limited to the campus community.' Similarly Chief Campus Officers `shall establish rules under which persons supporting or opposing propositions in state or local elections may be afforded like opportunity to speak upon the campuses at meetings where audience is limited to the campus community.'

Now that the so-called `speaker ban' is gone and the open forum is a reality, student organizations have ample opportunity to present to campus audiences on a `special event' basis an unlimited number of speakers on a variety of subjects, provided the few basic rules concerning notification and sponsorship are observed. These are outlined in detail in the booklet, `Information for Student Organizations,' distributed to all organizations and their advisors. The `Hyde Park' area in the Student Union Plaza is also available for impromptu, unscheduled speeches by students and staff.

It should be noted also that this area on Bancroft Way described above has now been added to the list of designated areas for the distribution of handbills, circulars, or pamphlets by university students and staff in accordance with Berkeley Campus policy. Posters, easels, and card tables will not be permitted in this area because of interference with the flow of traffic. University facilities may not, of course, be used to support or advocate off-campus political or social action. (Committee's italics)

We ask for the cooperation of every student and student organization in observing the full implementation of these policies. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to come to the office of the Dean of Students, 201 Sproul Hall. Signed: Katherine A. Towle, Dean of Students."

Students representing eighteen off-campus organizations took advantage of her invitation and visited her on September 17th. On the following day she was presented with a petition from these organizations protesting her directive, and on September 21st the directive was reconsidered and a new one announced, which allowed a limited number of tables at the main entrance to the university. This, however, was not satisfactory to the students and they held the first defiant demonstration on September 21, 1964.

The university had long banned Communists from its campuses, either as speakers or as employees. It was obvious that in the political science department there were professors who were capable of teaching about Communism objectively, and there was, therefore, no necessity for throwing the gates of the institution open to Communist propagandists who would use the facilities provided at taxpayers' expense for spreading their message of subversion. It was also obvious that if students actually wanted to listen to such speakers and had the time to do so, there were innumerable facilities near the campuses where they might go and enjoy that opportunity. The YMCA at Berkeley is situated directly across the street from the campus and has been welcoming Communist speakers for years, and there would be no inconvenience to those students who


65
wished to go there and see what a Communist official would have to say. Indeed, the students have been doing precisely that for the past twenty years. In addition there has always been an abundance of Communist meetings and Communist front organizations in the vicinity of the campus ever since the first Communist unit was planted there thirty years ago.

When the present university administration took over, however, these restrictions were eased. The Regents were persuaded to rescind their long-standing prohibition against Communist lecturers on the university premises; radical student organizations were given official university recognition; the university's security officer was suddenly burdened with the handling of insurance matters as well as his security duties, and an atmosphere of easy tolerance of left-wing radical activities pervaded the campus at Berkeley. Other campuses of the university remained relatively stable under their local administration, but the concentration of Communist power in the Bay Area and the new liberal administration there made it an inviting target. Furthermore, the concentration of university power and authority lies at Berkeley, the President of the statewide institution has his office there, the statewide administration building is located in Berkeley, and there the decisions are made that affect the operation of the entire institution, the largest educational complex in the United States.

The Role of Clark Kerr

Clark Kerr became Chancellor of the Berkeley campus of the university in July of 1952, and President of the university exactly six years thereafter. Since the changes we have mentioned above occurred during his administration, it is essential that we examine his background, his associations, his experience and his temperament in order to understand the reason for the liberalizing of the rules, the granting of almost unlimited freedoms to the students and faculty, and the assumption, at least by some of the students, that they could get away with virtually anything at Berkeley.

It should hardly be necessary for us to indicate at this point that we do not make the slightest implication of any subversive affiliation or activity on the part of Dr. Kerr by reason of anything contained in this portion of the report. He is the chief executive officer of the university, he made the decisions which were approved by The Regents and led the way to the new liberalizing influence at Berkeley, and it was President Kerr whose decisions resulted in the appointment of Dr. Edward Strong as Chancellor of the Berkeleley Campus, in his summary removal, and in the appointment of Martin Meyerson as his successor. In endeavoring to make a determination of how the Berkeley Campus became vulnerable to student rebels, and how a minority of Communist leaders managed to bring this great educational institution to its knees, it is indispensable that we know something of the background of the man who was in command when the rebellion occurred.

Clark Kerr was born at Reading, Pennsylvania, on May 17, 1911. He was a teaching assistant at the Berkeley campus from 1937 to 1939 and then became a professor at Stanford University. From 1940 to 1945 he was a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle, then returned to Berkeley, where he taught until 1952. He became Chancellor in July of that year, as we have stated, and has been President of the institution from July, 1958, to date.


66

While maintaining his status at the University of California and the University of Washington, Dr. Kerr engaged in a great many extracurricular activities. He was appointed to a committee which investigated the San Joaquin Cotton Strike of 1933. This strike was one of the most violent in the labor history of the state, although not long in duration. The strikers were led by Pat Chambers, Caroline Decker, Lillian Monroe, and other well-known Communists. The governor was compelled to send forces of highway patrolmen into the San Joaquin Valley for the purpose of preventing angry mobs from taking control of local government facilities. Bales of cotton and farm buildings were burned at night, two strikers were shot and killed, and a subsequent investigation disclosed that the union which precipitated the strike was a Communist-dominated organization known as the United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America, with headquarters in San Francisco.

From May, 1934, until January, 1935, Dr. Kerr functioned as a field advisor for the State Relief Administration's Division of Self-Help Cooperatives. This was the period when the Communist infiltration of the State Relief Administration was gathering considerable momentum. The infiltration had become so pronounced by 1941 that the Speaker of the California State Assembly appointed a committee to investigate the situation. This committee, of which Assemblyman Sam Yorty, now mayor of the City of Los Angeles, was chairman, conducted a series of open and executive hearings in most of the large cities of the state. It filed its report with the State Assembly, and submitted thousands of pages of sworn testimony and exhibits. It found that the State, County and Municipal Workers of America was a Communist-controlled union whose headquarters were also in San Francisco, with a regional office in the Wilcox Building in Los Angeles. It collaborated with yet another Communistdominated organization known as the Workers Alliance, whose members comprised people who were on relief or unemployed. The headquarters for this latter union was in San Francisco, and it was headed by Alexander Noral, a registered member of the Communist Party.

Kerr served with several government agencies during and immediately after the war: in 1942 he was a senior analyst with the War Manpower Commission; he worked for the Office of Price Administration in Seattle, Washington, in 1942; he was a consultant for the Hawaiian Territorial War Labor Board during 1943-1945, and also served with the Twelfth Regional War Labor Board. During 1945-1946, he was with the Office of Wage Stabilization in San Francisco, and also did much of his work for the War Manpower Commission in that city. It was inevitable that he was brought into close contact with the many Communists who were also working in these agencies—and as we were then allies of the Soviet Union, many people thought little of such associations. We make no implication that there was any guilt by association, but we do make clear that many of Kerr's most intimate colleagues during these years were at the same time teaching at the Communist school and participating in a wide variety of pro-Communist activities. Some of them came to work at the Berkeley campus after Kerr became its Chancellor, and some found places with the Institute of Industrial Relations, which he headed.

We are fully aware that some readers will criticize us for what they consider to be red-baiting and witch-hunting, and implying all sorts of dark motives by bringing this background into the open—but it is, we believe, an indispensable part of this report, and has a direct and pertinent bearing on the innovations that characterized Kerr's administration, both


67
as Chancellor at Berkeley and later as President of the University. The tolerance of the radical student groups, the opening of the campus to Communist officials, the reluctance to curb the activities of the most brash and defiant student rebels, and the obvious distaste for adequate security precautions, speak for themselves.

No one can seriously doubt that there were swarms of Communists throughout our wartime agencies. There was an unparalleled opportunity for infiltration, and the Communist apparatus seized it with alacrity. American employees in these agencies were concerned with winning the war. Communists were concerned not only with winning the war, but primarily with using the opportunity to further the interests of the Soviet Union and to promote the world revolution. The sordid story of Soviet espionage and Communist infiltration of our wartime agencies has been told by authorities too eminent to be disregarded or disbelieved. Thus the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency wrote in 1963:

"... the Soviets had over forty high-level agents in various departments and agencies in Washington during World War II. At least this number was uncovered; we do not know how many remained protected. Almost all of them, like the atomic spies, were persons of pro-Communist inclinations at the time. Many have since recanted."[29]

During the trial of Joseph Weinberg for perjury in connection with espionage activities at the University of California, U.S. District Judge Alexander Holtzoff stated, in March 1953, that the testimony in the case disclosed "... an amazing and shocking situation existing in the crucial years 1939-1940 on the campus of a great university in which a large and active Communist underground was in operation." Judge Holtzoff was referring to the Berkeley Campus of the University of California.[30]

There were tough, experienced Communists in the War Production Board, the Office of Price Administration, the Works Progress Administration, the War Manpower Commission, and many other of our federal agencies during this critical period. We listed many of them who were employed in sensitive positions in our 1959 report, page 171, et seq. During this era it was uncommon to find any of these offices in San Francisco devoid of propaganda materials distributed by party members, front organizations and fellow travelers. Many of these employees were regimented in the United Federal Workers of America and the United Public Workers of America, each of these Communist-controlled unions being headed by a party member.

Yet another authoritative writer has stated that:

... Even of those who now take their refuge in the plea of selfincrimination, some, I am sure, are not consciously disloyal, much less out and out traitors. But their personal motives do not in this case change the historical reality. Insofar as they aided the web, knowingly or unknowingly, they were advancing the cause of the Soviet Union and the World Communist conspiracy. And by their silence today, however it may be motivated, they continue to advance that cause.[31]
68

It was inevitable that those who were subjected daily for a long period of time to a relentless, highly-slanted barrage of Communist propaganda, and who were in daily association with dedicated party members, would either come to detest Communism or to accept it as a way of life with an attitude of easy accommodation. Very few people managed to preserve a detached neutrality under such circumstances. Many who were unquestionably loyal to their country and who were certainly proficient and sincere in working for it during the period of World War II, established friendships and social relations with other employees they knew or had good reason to suspect were members of the Communist Party. Some of these other employees taught in the Communist school, some were students at that institution, others were members of Communist front organizations, some were active in the Communist-controlled unions of state or federal employees, and a few were subsequently unmasked as Soviet espionage agents.

As Mr. Dulles pointed out in his book, The Craft of Intelligence, many of the individuals who collaborated with Communists in these governmental agencies from 1941 through 1945, and even for several years thereafter, realized their mistake. Even people who were members of the Communist Party at that time and who have since withdrawn from the Party, nevertheless were imbued with a tolerance for Communists and Communist organizations that is extremely difficult to extinguish.

We have stated time and again in these reports that no former Communist should be forever barred from employment in a government position or educational institution merely because he once made a mistake. But we insist that the burden of proof that the individual has made a full and clean break from his subversive affiliations lies with him, and too often this free-wheeling tolerance toward Communism in general will impel a complete amateur in the field of intelligence to simply accept the statement—under oath or otherwise—of a former Communist to the effect that he has become disenchanted with the movement and is now pure. If such an individual refuses to cooperate with the F.B.I., and invokes the Fifth Amendment when asked to discuss his experiences in the Communist Party under oath, and who instead launches into a diatribe about redbaiting and invasion of his constitutional right of free political association, such an attitude should at least raise some doubt about the sincerity of his reformation. It is ridiculously simple, of course, for a person to informally state that he is through with Communism, secure a job in a strategic position, sign a loyalty oath, and refuse to cooperate with any official agency whick seeks to establish the truth or falsity of his disassociation with the Communist movement. Communist cards and membership books have not been issued for years, and ex-Communists who have really become disillusioned with the party can hardly expect to be hired in a government job or at an educational institution solely upon their self-serving declaration that they are no longer connected with the Communist Party, and particularly when they defiantly refuse to cooperate when the employer endeavors to determine the truth or falsity of such a declaration and when they deliberately withhold vital information about subversive affiliations or activities.

Chairman of the War Manpower Commission of Northern California, the main office of which was situated in San Francisco, was Sam Kagel. Consultants to this commission, in addition to Kerr, included Irwin Elber, Paul Heide, a Communist, Carl Brandt, also a member of the Communist Party, and Paul Schnur, secretary of the Communist School. Kagel was


69
born in San Francisco on January 24, 1909, attended high school at Oakland, graduated from the University of California at Berkeley and did graduate work there in the department of economics from 1929 to 1931. For about a year he was a reading assistant in a course taught by Professor Charles A. Gulick, Jr., who many years afterward became a faculty sponsor for SLATE. Kagel then obtained employment with the State Department of Industrial Relations from December 1931 until 1933; during the next ten year period he was employed by the Pacific Coast Labor Bureau as an economist doing counseling and advisory work with trade unions in the San Francisco vicinity, and from 1943 to 1945 was with the Manpower Commission in San Francisco. From 1945 to 1948 he attended Bolt Hall of Law at the Berkeley campus, served as an arbitrator in labor disputes, and taught techniques of collective bargaining under the auspices of the Institute of Industrial Relations and the Extension Division of the university. From January 1949 until August 1952, Kagel was selfemployed as an attorney and was also doing some arbitration of labor disputes.

In 1952, Kagel became an employee of the University of California at Berkeley and in 1953 he was lecturing in the department of law at Berkeley and served on a committee appointed by Chancellor Kerr for the purpose of drafting appeals procedure for non-academic employees. In August, 1954, Chancellor Kerr appointed him as Kerr's personal representative in grievance procedures on non-academic employees, and in July, 1958, Kagel was promoted from a lecturer to a professor of law. He has held this position from 1958 until the present time. We wish to make it very clear that we are not inferring that Mr. Kagel was guilty of any subversive affiliation, but we also believe it helpful to know that he was, in effect, Kerr's superior for at least a period of several months during World War II, that during that period and afterwards the two were in frequent association in connection with their governmental duties, and that Kagel was not only teaching courses at the Communist School at the time, but was actually directing one of the programs of the school in the field of industrial relations, a department that was headed by one of his appointees, the Communist Party member, Irwin Elber.

In his original biography, Form 1501, which he filed with the university on August 14, 1952, and through all of the successive annual supplements thereto, Kagel listed his teaching experience, the lectures he had given before and after being employed by the university and listed the institutions with which he had served. This recital commenced with his work for Professor Charles A. Gulick, Jr. in August 1929, and continued thereafter, listing a total of forty lectures, panels, moderating activities, seminars, workshops and forums. But Mr. Kagel refrained from disclosing that while he was a member of the War Manpower Commission he also lectured at the Communist School in San Francisco. He conducted a course during the winter and spring terms of 1944 at the Tom Mooney Labor School, 678 Turk Street, San Francisco, on Tuesday evenings from 7:00 until 9:30 p.m.; he had conducted a course at the Communist School in 1943, fall term, on Monday evenings at 8:00 p.m. in collaboration with Paul Chown, who had been identified under oath as a member of the Communist Party, and who also was connected with the War Labor Board in San Francisco. Collaborating in the same general course, under the heading of Trade Union Leadership II, was Paul Pinsky, C.I.O. research director, who has also been identified as a member of the Communist Party. Mr. Kagel taught a course at the Communist School during


70
the spring term of 1945 which was listed in the school's catalogue as "Full Employment—The Road to Security." Being chairman of this course, Mr. Kagel invited others to participate in the lectures on Tuesdays from 8:50 to 10:20 p.m., and these lecturers included the Deputy Director of the War Production Board and also the Director of the Communist School at that time, Mr. David Jenkins, who was affiliated with the Marine Cooks and Stewards Union in San Francisco, and has repeatedly been identified as a member of the Communist Party.[32]

Mr. Kagel also neglected to list in his biography filed with the university, and in the subsequent supplements thereto, the fact that he participated in the Institute on Labor Education and World Peace, which was jointly sponsored by the Communist School and the university at the Berkeley campus on May 3 and 4, 1946; that he was the principal speaker at the Hotel Bellvue in San Francisco on April 22, 1942, at a meeting of the State, County and Municipal Workers of America, or that he had been appointed as Pacific Coast Negotiator by the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, a fact which was, however, dutifully noted by the Communist newspaper on December 21, 1948.

During the period of the war Mr. Kagel was in frequent conferences with Marcel Scherer, a member of the Communist Party from New York, and a graduate from the Lenin School of Political Warfare in Moscow and heretofore mentioned.

It is clear that during the period of the war, when the United States was collaborating against a common enemy with the U.S.S.R., it was no more than natural that there should be occasional contacts between our own official agencies and those of the Soviet Union. Thus Dr. Louis Bloch, a member of the War Manpower Commission under Kagel, was in frequent contact with Gregory Kheifitz, Soviet vice-consul and espionage expert in San Francisco; that the chairman of the War Manpower Commission should be in frequent contact with Marcel Scherer, the head of a union that comprised scientists doing important research work. This was the era when the American Communists were masquerading as American patriots, and just as they had taken advantage of the opportunity to infiltrate and exert a powerful influence in the California State Relief Administration during the critical depression years of the late 30's and early 40's, so did they seize advantage of the opportunity to infiltrate and exercise all possible influence in our war agencies during World War II, and so did they take advantage of any critical situation for the purpose of serving the interests of World Communism, and everything else will be subordinated to that cardinal objective.

We have already discussed the Communist School in San Francisco at considerable length. By this time there should be no doubt about the fact that every course in these schools, under whatever name it functioned, was under the complete control of the Communist Party. To believe for an instant that any such institution, created and operated by the Communist organization, would be permitted to function in any manner that would not promote Communism, is ridiculous. The institution was attended by the members of Communist-dominated unions, such as the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, the Marine Cooks and Stewards Union, the State, County and Municipal Workers of America, the United Cannery, Packing and Allied Workers of America, the United Office and Professional Workers of America, the United Federal Workers of America, members of the


71
ultra-liberal element of the American Newspaper Guild, and a host of other similar unions in the Bay Area. A glance at the faculty of these schools and an analysis of the roster of sponsors and board of directors who served for any considerable period of time will remove any possible doubt about the true nature of these institutions. There were, of course, large blocs of members in all of these trade union organizations, and in all of the front organizations, who were not only non-Communist, but many of them were anti-Communist. We point out that if it was deemed necessary for officials of our wartime agencies to contact large groups of trade union members, it could have been accomplished by going directly to the unions themselves, and not waiting until the most "progressive" elements had been concentrated in a Communist school with an extremely limited student body for the purpose of making that contact.

Virginia Marie Taylor worked both in the Institute of Industrial Relations at the Berkeley campus of the university, in the Chancellor's office, and in the office of the President, where she is now employed.

Miss Taylor was born in Seattle, Washington, and attended the University of Washington in that city from August 1940 until May of 1945, majoring in journalism and political science. Her scholastic record was extraordinary, because she was elected to several honorary societies, including Phi Beta Kappa, in 1943. From July, 1944, to May, 1945, she was employed by the Office of Price Administration in the City of Seattle; from May, 1945, to October, 1945, she was employed by the War Labor Board in Honolulu; from November, 1945, to June, 1946, she studied painting at the San Francisco School of Fine Arts; from 1946 to June, 1952, she worked for Dr. Clark Kerr, who was then Director of the Institute of Industrial Relations, doing research and administrative assistance work.

When Miss Taylor first came to work for the university in June, 1946, she had no access to classified information and hence was not required to file a personnel security questionnaire. Her duties were with the Institute of Industrial Relations, which was established on the Berkeley campus in 1945.

During July through September, 1948, Miss Taylor traveled in Mexico, and toured Europe during the period from July, 1949, to July, 1950. She then resumed her work under Dr. Kerr at the Institute of Industrial Relations, and became his senior administrative assistant when he was elevated to the position of Chancellor at Berkeley in July, 1952. At present she holds a position technically described as "administrative analyst IV" in President Kerr's office at Berkeley.

When Miss Taylor secured her position in the Chancellor's office she did have access to classified material for the first time, and was required to submit a Personnel Security Questionnaire. On it she set forth her scholastic record, the social organizations to which she had belonged at the University of Washington, the various trips she had made and the institutions she had attended. She added, as an addendum to this questionnaire, a statement to the effect that she had attended the Communist School in San Francisco during the year 1948. She took lessons in ceramics for two terms at the school, and stated that she did so because there were no comparable courses available in the area. There were many courses in ceramics being taught in 1948, and they varied, as one might expect, from the very excellent to the very poor. Certainly none of the others were taught at a Communist school.


72

The Personnel Questionnaire also disclosed that in the summer of 1942 Miss Taylor went as a delegate to Campobello, New Brunswick, Canada, to an International Student Service Conference. This organization was composed of American young people and was a component part of the Communist-controlled American Youth Congress, having been connected with that movement since 1939.

Miss Taylor did not disclose on the questionnaire that she had acted as secretary to the University Academic Senate in 1950, a fact reported by the Communist newspaper in November of that year. She also refrained from disclosing that while a student at the University of Washington in Seattle she had been a member of the national Communist youth organization, then known as American Youth for Democracy. We do not infer that Miss Taylor was a Communist or when she filed her Personnel Security Questionnaire in 1953 she was subversive, but it is abundantly evident that she followed a pattern of activity that had been indulged in by other employees of the university in deliberately omitting from an official document concerning her qualifications for employment, extremely vital and pertinent security information. Whether or not she would have received a security clearance, which she did receive, if the information about her membership in the national Communist youth organization had been included in the questionnaire, we are unable to state. That she was indiscreet and perpetrated a fraud on the university by deliberately omitting such pertinent information is too obvious to merit further discussion.

Miss Clara Ontell was also employed in Chancellor Kerr's office on the Berkeley campus contemporaneously with Miss Taylor. She also was required to file a Personnel Security Questionnaire for the first time in April 1953.

Miss Ontell was born in New York, graduated from high school at Los Angeles in 1943 and attended Los Angeles City College from 1943 to 1945. She was a good scholar, very popular socially, was politically active and became student body president of the college. From 1947 to 1950 she attended the university at Berkeley and worked for Harold Norton during the summer of 1947 in the State Department of Social Welfare. From February, 1947, to September of that year she worked in the Student Cooperative Organization at U.C.L.A., and from 1947 until 1950 she was manager of Student Housing Cooperatives in Berkeley. During 1949 until 1950 she acted as historian for the California Alumni Association at Berkeley, and from September, 1950, until July, 1952, she worked as a part-time senior clerk in the Chancellor's office at Berkeley under the direct supervision of Virginia Taylor, and thereafter until March 31, 1953, was principal clerk in Chancellor Kerr's Berkeley office.

As of April 1, 1953, when her Personnel Security Questionnaire had to be filed, it was shown to be "in preparation," and thereafter was marked "clearance pending." The clearance was refused, however, and Miss Ontell resigned from the university on September 19, 1957.

Institute of Industrial Relations

Since some of the alumni from the Communist School in San Francisco thereafter came to work for the University of California at Berkeley, and some found positions in the Institute of Industrial Relations, headed by Dr. Kerr, it is appropriate that we consider briefly the origin and


73
operation of this department at the Berkeley campus. We quote from a booklet issued in September of 1946 by the university as follows:
"Few areas in the domestic social life of the nation are vested currently with greater public concern than the field of industrial relations. The development of better relationships between organized labor and organized employers, and the integration of these relationships with the interests of the individual citizen and the nation as a whole, constitute one of the most serious problems facing our economic and social system today.

The Legislature of the State of California expressed its desire to contribute to the solution of this problem when, in 1945, it established an Institute of Industrial Relations at the University of California. The general objective of the Institute is to facilitate a better understanding between labor and management throughout the state, and to equip persons desiring to enter the administrative field of industrial relations with the highest possible standard of qualifications.

The Institute has two headquarters, one located on the Los Angeles Campus and the other located on the Berkeley Campus. Each headquarters has its own director and its own program, but activities of the two sections are closely integrated through a Coordinating Committee. In addition, each section has a local Faculty Advisory Committee, to assist it in its relations to the University; and a Community Advisory Committee composed of representatives of labor, industry, and the general public, to advise the Institute on how it may best serve the community.

This program is not directed toward the special interests of either labor or management, but rather toward the public interest. It is divided into two main activities; investigation of the facts and problems in the field of industrial relations, which includes an active research program in the collection of materials for a research and reference library; and general education on industrial relations, which includes regular University instruction for students and extension courses and conferences for the community."

There follow four pages of additional material grouped under the following headings: Studying the Problems, Assembling the Facts, Educating the Student, Educating the Community, Graduate Assistantships, and Information. Additional information, says the pamphlet, can be obtained by writing to the director or secretary of the Institute's office, which was located at 214 California Hall, University of California, Berkeley 4, and at 101 Library Building, University of California, Los Angeles 24. It is interesting to note that when the Communist School in San Francisco ceased its activity after having been subjected to a series of investigations and public hearings by this committee, and certified as subversive and Communist-controlled by the Attorney General of the United States and the Federal Subversive Activities Control Board, it has been replaced by other Communist educational institutions, and sent its catalogues and other vital papers to the library of the Institute of Industrial Relations at Berkeley.

Since one of the basic objectives of the Institute of Industrial Relations is to inquire into the economic and social forces which give rise to labor problems, and as it deals with the recurring conflict between management and labor, it is natural that the Institute should attract sociologists,


74
political scientists, economists, and those interested in the general problems of labor dispute arbitration, trade union organization and matters generally involved in the administration of research problems financed by the United States government. Many of these are being handled on facilities owned or controlled by the University of California. In order to accomplish these objectives, the training of undergraduates by the Institute drew upon other departments of the university, such as economics, business administration, psychology, political science, history and engineering. And those undergraduate students who wished to pursue this type of study could select several fields on which to concentrate their attention, while the graduate student was offered a curriculum of study leading to the degree of doctor of philosophy in economics.

There were community advisory committees established to lend a wide base of support to the Institute for Industrial Relations, both at the Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses. The Northern Division included, in 1946, Lincoln Fairley, research director for the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union; Sam Kagel, listed as then being an arbitrator for the San Francisco Garment Industry; Jack Maltester, and Paul Pinsky, research director for the California C.I.O. Council. There were, of course, other members of the Advisory Committee for the Northern Division of the Institute of Industrial Relations, but the records of those just listed will give some idea of the atmosphere that pervaded the Advisory Committee and that served to continue the association between teachers in the Communist School and supporters of Communist enterprises that had existed during the period of the war.

Lincoln Fairley, national research director for the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, was an instructor at the California Labor School during the spring term of 1947. He is also listed in the catalogues issued by the institution as a director, a member of its faculty and a lecturer in 1948, 1949, 1951, 1952, and 1953.

Mr. Fairley also participated in the activities of a Communist-controlled organization known as the Statewide Legislative Conference in 1947, and delivered a lecture on the "Contributions of Marxism" at the Communist School in 1948. In September, 1952, Mr. Fairley, with three others, posted a bond in the sum of twenty thousand dollars to secure the release of Ben Dobbs, a fulltime official of the Communist Party of California, who had been prosecuted under the provisions of the Smith Act.

Jack Maltester, a member of Local 362 of the Printing Specialties Union, was listed in the official catalogue of the Communist School as a member of its board of directors in 1946.

Paul Pinsky started teaching in the San Francisco Communist School as early as 1942. He was Pacific Coast Organizer in 1938 for the Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians, heretofore mentioned; was listed as a sponsor of the Communist School in 1942; and was a member of its faculty in 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1950, 1951, 1952, and 1953. Mr. Pinsky has been identified under oath as a member of the Communist Party, having been affiliated with scientific and technical units of the Communist Party in the late 30's.

During the latter part of 1952 a responsible federal agency made evidence available to a member of the administrative staff at the Berkeley campus, who layed the dossier on Kerr's desk. It provided proof of the Communist Party membership of Carl Campbell, a graduate research economist with the Institute of Industrial Relations, and who was discharged from that position by Kerr.


75

In this report, where we are compelled to devote so much space to the Berkeley Rebellion in general, it is impossible to trace the personnel of the Institute of Industrial Relations from its inception in 1945 to date. The foregoing description of some of its supporters and members in 1946, when it was just getting under way, will indicate the pervasive accommodation with some of the alumni of the Communist School on the Berkeley campus. We conclude by pointing out that an identified member of the Communist Party is now employed by the Institute of Industrial Relations on the Berkeley campus. She is Margaret Gelders Frantz, the wife of Laurent Frantz, and she is the daughter of the late Joseph S. Gelders, who was also a member of the Communist Party. Laurent Frantz moved to Berkeley from Knoxville, Tennessee, in 1951, and was a delegate to the founding convention of the Civil Rights Congress, a Communist-front organization which served as a source of assistance to those members of the party and its fellow travelers who were arrested or were about to be deported from this country. Both Margaret Gelders Frantz and her husband were identified as members of the Communist Party by the testimony of Ralph Vernon Long, on November 30, 1954. Mrs. Frantz also served as Alameda County Director of the Independent Progressive Party, also Communist-controlled, during the 1950's.

Prediction

Four years ago we printed the following statement in our report:

"Quick to take advantage of the slightest opportunity, the Communist Party in California is now solidifying its position so far as the indoctrination and recruitment of youth is concerned. From sources that we consider eminently reliable, we have learned that the United Front movement we described in our 1959 report will be employed in this effort to manipulate the numerous radical organizations on the various campuses of our state university, at private institutions and in our state and junior colleges, into collaboration with Communist fronts and other groups that are in sympathy with the general Communist line. Most of the Party's brass consider that a great mistake was made when the last Communist youth movement (Labor Youth League) was liquidated."[33]

At the Seventeenth National Convention of the Communist Party of the United States, its leader, Gus Hall, stressed the necessity for the party to regiment youth on American campuses. He referred to growing indications of rebellion, to demonstrations, and the task of organizing the radical student groups in some broad action movement that the Communists could bend to their own advantage. This was the official signal from the top American Communist for a new national organization of Communist youth, and an order for attention to be thenceforth focused on the universities and other educational institutions throughout the country.

We also made some statements about the Berkeley campus of the university in our 1961 report that will bear repeating in the light of what occurred since. On pages 97-98 we said:

"There is no question that President Clark Kerr acted quickly and decisively in reversing the resolution adopted by the Academic Senate of Northern California which provided that faculty members
76
no longer would cooperate with the F.B.I. This resolution, however, was so patently illegal from its inception and a usurpation of the authority of the Regents of the institution that there was in fact no other course to take. The legal decision that the resolution was void and ineffective actually came from Counsel Cunningham for the university Regents, and the medium through which the decision was transmitted to the liberal gentleman who precipitated the resolution was President Kerr. But the Kerr Directive that precipitated a great deal of controversy from both right and left on the campus, and which originally forbade the discussion of off-campus issues by students, has been amended three times and watered down to the extent that it no longer provides any restraint whatever. The gates have been thrown open to Communists, faculty members, students, and anyone else who cares to utilize the university property as a brawling ground for political controversy. Now that the gates have been swung wider and written propaganda has been accorded free access to the university and students, it takes very little imagination to determine what disciplined, dedicated, organized subversive group will be delighted to take advantage of the opportunity. If this is the only way that absolute freedom of speech and freedom of expression can be assured to the state university and its faculty and its students, we wonder how it is that there have been so many successful, well-oriented, unhampered graduates of this institution during the years of its existence when it functioned as a great educational institution and its facilities were not thrown open to this type of controversial and radical agitation. The condition that unless members of subersive groups are permitted to address students on the campus, and unless faculty members are allowed to accomplish the same kind of thing on university property, and unless any kind of subversive literature can be freely circulated, that freedom of speech and expression are being smothered, is to us merely an excuse to substitute license for freedom."

Cogobierno

In connection with President Kerr's remark during the first stages of the rebellion that he was convinced there were followers of the Castro-Mao Communist line deep in the hard core of the Free Speech Movement, we wish to set forth a comparison between student revolutions in certain Latin American universities and the rebellion at the University of California. As we shall explain later, a vital part of the FSM program was the establishment of a so-called "Free University." This would consist in direct participation by the students in running the university, determining the courses to be offered, handling disciplinary problems, and generally edging into the entire administrative control of the institution. It would be an astounding coincidence if this program were not consciously patterned after the same program pursued by Communist student groups at colleges and universities throughout the world. In the Latin American countries there is a special word for this sort of activity, Cogobierno. This simply means student participation in university government, and there are seven public universities in Bolivia alone which all operate on the Cogobierno system, with an over-all coordinating confederation which is affiliated with the International Union of Students. It will be remembered that this is the international Communist youth organization to which Carl Bloice was a delegate from the DuBois Clubs in San Francisco.


77
The vice-president for Latin American affairs of the International Union of Students is a former Bolivian University student named Oscar Zamora who distributes travel and study grants from the I.U.S. among students in all of Bolivia's seven universities, thus maintaining firm ties between them and the International Communist Youth movement. A special study of student rebellions and long range strategy in Latin American universities was made in December last year by an important subcommittee of the United States Senate. We quote from it as follows:

"The students' inability to cope with injustices in their society frustrates them and causes them to look for a panacea. The appeal of Communist ideas to Latin American students can often be explained as the appeal of a universal panacea to a relatively unsophisticated group."

"... Communists are finding a fertile field among the youth entering universities, many of whom have already been well indoctrinated in Marxist thought by Communist speakers in secondary schools... One constant feature of the reform movement which began in Argentina in 1918 and spread across the continent, was the democratization of the university, which meant direct participation by the students in the university administration. The students wanted to elect one or more of their own to voting status on the directive council of each faculty or college, and thus help determine university policy. Student representation on university councils provides a position of authority from which student-elected representatives can attack what they consider to be entrenched interests both in and outside of the university. Today, with few exceptions, students have their delegates in governing bodies of Latin American universities...

"Cogobierno and university autonomy, along with political apathy on the part of the student majority, have contributed to a favorable climate for Communist entree to the universities. The Communist tactic is to develop among the students an intelligent, active, highly motivated leadership which can devote all or most of its time to the attaining of office, and consequently of power. To permit this dedication to student and university politics for national and international political ends, Communist students are subsidized. This gives them considerable advantage over non-subsidized students in allowing them the time required for organizational and propaganda activity."

The report points out that in five of the seven universities in Bolivia Communist strength is on the wane, but despite this fact Marxist professors and administrators are numerous in all except at the University of San Andreas, in La Paz. Even in that institution a well-known professor in the department of economics uses a Communist text for his five-year course with apparent impunity. The university in Cochabamba, where the university voted its first non-Communist rector in ten years in 1960, has witnessed a bitter struggle for control. Because of a deadlock between the opposing forces in the 1963 election, the rectorship was in doubt for more than a year, and during this time the interim director—in his younger days one of the Marxist founders of the Student Communist Confederation at the university—managed to pack the faculties with pro-Communist professors.

Once they have attained a position of power the Communists entrench themselves by the employment of a variety of devices. Each university grants free scholarships each year to deserving students and the policy


78
at universities where the Communist influence is pronounced is to grant such favors only to those who are willing to align themselves with the Communist movement. Those students, of course, who are courageous enough to express anti-Communist sentiments are punished by receiving poor grades.

All attempts by the Bolivian government to control this situation have only provoked long student demonstrations, strikes and violent uprisings. The government has found it impossible to interfere with the autonomy of a state university.

In Venezuela the Communists solidly entrenched themselves throughout the public school system by 1939. "Communist professors," says the report, "tend to turn the schools or chairs they direct into centers of Marxist indoctrination. Under the system of university autonomy, the government has been powerless to dislodge them."

In Honduras, as in the other Latin American countries, there was a long period of infiltrating Marxists throughout the educational system at all levels. National University is the only one in Honduras, and here the infiltration produced the "... clearly observable phenomenon that has been the Communist tactic of achieving chaos and disorder, lack of respect, and lack of discipline in the various classes.[34]

Since Fidel Castro won his revolution and Communized Cuba, that country has been the training center for the guerilla warfare tactics and the infiltration of terrorists throughout Latin American countries, and for generally exporting Communist warfare. Through the Communist front organization, Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which vanished quietly when President Kennedy's killer was disclosed as not being of the extreme right, but on the contrary a former activist in this front organization, American students were sent to Cuba for training. After the Fair Play for Cuba Committee passed out of existence, students from this country continued their pilgrimages to Cuba despite the ban placed on such trips by the United States Department of State. These defiant young radicals included many students who thereafter took part in the Berkeley Rebellion. In passing, and in connection with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, it is interesting to note that Burton Wolfe, former publisher of a little paper called The Californian was subsidized by one of the early leaders of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New York, one Lyle Stuart. Mr. Wolfe devoted considerable space in his little paper to some vicious, and inaccurate, attacks against Senator Burns and the counsel for this Sub-Committee.[35]

Fifty-nine American students arrived in Cuba in violation of the Department of State regulation on June 30, 1963. They went by a circuitous route through Czechoslavakia, the round trip fare via Europe being more than five times the amount paid by these students. Levi Laub, a student at Columbia University in New York, was the organizer for this trip and also one of the organizers for the Progressive Labor Movement, most militant of the American Communist organizations. The head of press relations for this delegation, and a former editor of the publications of the Progressive Labor Movement, was one Phillip Abbott Luce. He has recently become disillusioned with the organization and has written a most important expose of its activities.


79

On August 14, 1964, eighty-four students, having recently returned from their illegal trip to Cuba, stated through their spokesman, Charles Berrard, that there were eleven Negroes who made the tour and had banded themselves together in the new movement which they called the Black Liberation Front. This statement carried no particular significance when it was made, but it packed a sensational meaning on February 16, 1965, when members of the Black Liberation Front were arrested by F.B.I. agents for plotting to blow up the Statue of Liberty and the Washington Monument.

Charles Berrard was mentioned in our 1963 report on pages 159, 160 and 182. He received his early Marxist indoctrination as a member of the executive board of the Independent Student Union, the Los Angeles organization once headed by Carl Bloice. Bloice and Berrard were closely associated in Southern California, and the latter headed the Students Strike for Peace Committee, and was a delegate to the Eighth World Youth Festival at Helsinki in 1962. Here is the case of a young man who received his early Marxist orientation in the Independent Student Union, progressed through the world gathering of Communist youth at its Eighth Festival, visited Cuba in admiration of Castro with a group that hatched these terrorist Communist movements in our own country, the Progressive Labor Movement and the Black Liberation Front.

An entire volume could—and should—be written about the effect of Castro Communism on the youth of America. President Kerr recognized the impact, very late, when he declared these highly indoctrinated Castroites to be at the heart of the Berkeley Rebellion. We also find that a former professor from the Berkeley Speech Department, Joseph P. Morray, was on hand in Cuba supporting the Castro regime during its early period, and returned to California in 1962 for the purpose of assisting in the direction of the Marxist school in San Francisco. His wife teaches in the Speech Department on the Berkeley Campus. She is Mrs. Marjorie K. Morray.

Even the so-called filthy speech incident at Berkeley had its Castroite in the person of Edward Rosenfeld, who returned from Cuba in 1964, and participated in the invasion of Sproul Hall on December 2 and 3 of that year. He was born in Illinois, was twenty-eight years old in 1964, and resided at 2400 Durant Avenue, Berkeley, at the time of his arrest. Among others who made the trip to Cuba were Stephen Driggs, a student at San Jose State College and the son of Hal and Margaret Driggs. The father was on the staff of the Progressive Labor Movement paper in San Francisco and the mother was San Francisco representative for yet another pro-Communist publication, the National Guardian.

We referred to Helen Travis, the Communist who worked diligently in the Constitutional Liberties Information Center in Los Angeles, described in our 1963 report. She was convicted on May 14, 1964, for making illegal trips to Cuba. Richard Thorne made his visit to Cuba in 1963, and there conferred with Robert Williams, the propaganda expert for Castro who delivered a vicious speech against the United States in Peking in 1963. John Thomas, a contributor to the Progressive Labor Movement Quarterly, declared that most of the students who go to Cuba receive such an intensive indoctrination that they return to the United States as confirmed revolutionaries. This observation was fully confirmed by Phillip Luce, as we shall see. Jerry Rubin was a sociology student at Berkeley when he made the pilgrimage to Cuba in 1964, and Bernardo Garcia, former graduate student at the Berkeley campus, made his pilgrimage in


80
1960. His wife went the following year. Both were active in the student rebellion at Berkeley in the fall of 1964 and in the early part of 1965.[36]

Phillip Abbott Luce was an undergraduate at Mississippi State University, where he battled against segregation and became identified as one of the radical leaders on the campus. He then went to Ohio State University where he did graduate work in political science, and led a demonstration against the State Capitol Building during the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961. He then moved to New York in 1962, became interested in radical movements and went to Cuba with fifty-eight other students and young people. It is necessary that we understand something of the fanaticism and dedication that motivates the Castroite Marxists who participated in the Berkeley demonstrations, and here for the first time we have the public declarations of a member of this group. We therefore quote from Mr. Luce's recent observations. He said:

"For me and my contemporaries, Cuba had the same revolutionary appeal that Russia did for young radicals in the 20's and 30's. When Fidel was still in the mountains and I was still a student at Mississippi, I eagerly identified with him, and after the revolution I endorsed the Cuban form of Communism. Fairly certain before I went to Cuba that Fidel Castrol and his government represented the future for the Americas, I was convinced by the time I returned; and although I have rethought much of my earlier uncritical support, I still feel drawn to the romantic image of Fidel and the Cuban Revolution. After I had thumbed my nose at the American State Department, seen the Revolution at first hand and become filled with new enthusiasm, there was no doubt that when I got back to the States I would formally join a revolutionary group."

Luce continued his narrative by saying that he found the PLM, which he joined upon returning from Cuba, stimulating and attractive. It believed in direct action, it worshiped Castro, and generally followed the Peking line of the Communist movement. It scorned the inactivity of the regular American Communist Party, regarded it as stagnated, and Luce found that his new existence in the PLM entailed an entirely new way of life, a life of excitement, risk, action, common goals, and a deep sense of solidarity. He described the May Second Movement (M-2-M) which commenced with an initial violent demonstration on that date in 1964. Luce describes the organization as follows:

"We decided last January (1965) that M-2-M, although set up as a radical peace organization specifically concerning Viet Nam, should also join in other campus protests, such as the one that led to the riot at the University of California at Berkeley. Although emphasis is still laid on the need for American withdrawal from Viet Nam, the organizers of M-2-M are bitterly trying to stir up student grievances on various campuses including Brooklyn College, Adelphi, Harvard, the University of Cincinnati and City College of New York. The agitators claim that since college administrations are the logical extension of the `power structure' (the Government), every student grievance should be the cause for a student demonstration a la Berkeley. Progressive Labor speakers advocate student strikes, rallies, sit-ins in the administration building and picketing as ways to get the students in a mood in which they can be led into a campus riot. Any issue, they insist, must be used to stir up trouble.


81

The philosophy behind all this action among students—and actually the P.L.'s basis tactic—is to involve students in a direct confrontation with the power structure upon any and all levels. Progressive Labor contends that any young person can be made into a revolutionary if he is led into a fracas with some authority symbol, especially the police. If he is arrested, or better still, beaten and jailed, the chances are then good that he will begin to hate the police and the court system. The members of the P.L. are constantly told that all police are the same and that all police are enemies."

In this connection our 1961 report, describing the demonstrations in San Francisco that occurred in May 1960 against the House Committee on Un-American Activities, stated:

"It is quite true that few of the students who participated in the May 1960 riots were members of the Communist Party. A minority of them had affiliated with SLATE at the University of California, some with the Young Socialist League, or with some of the Marxist-oriented youth groups that have been flourishing in American universities since the dissolution of the Labor Youth League, which was the youth apparatus of the Communist Party. Many more were simply hoodwinked by the propaganda campaign and aroused to animosity against the committee, and still more were merely curious participants who were motivated by no particular political bias. But when the incidents of violence were provoked by the adult Communist leaders, and these non-Communist students were hit with streams of water from high pressure hoses and given a taste of police authority when the milling crowds refused to disperse, they quickly became antagonistic toward all sorts of authority, the House Committee, the Fire Department, and the Police Department. This precise reaction had been anticipated by the Communist strategists who planned the entire undertaking, and they were quick to follow up their advantage."[37]

When Luce discovered that the Progressive Labor Movement was storing up secret supplies of arms and ammunition, that elite members were being trained in karate, and that an undercover "sleeper" apparatus was being formed—he decided it was time to break away from the movement. He said:

"... in December I was invited to join a small number of members —about ten—who would train to `go underground'—that is, to shed their present identities, leave home and family, and take on totally new identities. The people chosen for this project were to receive extensive training in disguise techniques, karate and the forging of papers, and some were told that they would be sent abroad to complete their training before they would take up their new lives."

Here the Progressive Labor Movement borrowed a page from the old Communist book of standard operating procedures, because immediately after World War II many members of the American Communist Party were ordered to leave their families and assume new identities and disappear into the Communist underground where they would be of more value to the party. We described this technique in previous reports and it is interesting to see that this new and more violently active Communist organization is pursuing precisely the same sort of activity.


82

Mr. Luce concluded his revelations as follows:

"I ultimately decided to do the obvious. Although P.L. seems to be frank and open, I concluded part of it is secretly planning sedition. It was not, however, until late January that I took out time from the frenetic life led by all P.L. members to stand back and consider all the facts. Actual membership in this organization keeps you busy day and night with meetings, demonstrations, picketing, etc. And it is not until you put the pieces together that you see the picture as a whole. After I put all of the evidence together I decided that I had to leave the organization, that I should try to warn unsuspecting members—and other young people who might consider joining Progressive Labor—about what is really involved. A month or so after I left, the P.L. leaders heard that I intended to write a magazine article. Furious, they decided to expel me (even though I had already quit; I was the first P.L. member ever to be expelled) and issued a press release accusing me of a variety of improbable sins.

I still consider myself a political rebel, and I still support the development of a democratic left wing in the United States. Moreover, I think that people who share these beliefs have a right to make these views known by public, peaceful demonstrations, among other ways.

But membership in a group such as Progressive Labor can only jeopardize the life, the reputation and the effectiveness of an honest leftist in a democracy. No government and no individual should tolerate an organization some of whose members secretly plan to launch a reign of terror."[39]

We have explained the origin and operation of the Progressive Labor Movement for the purpose of showing how this very vital element in the united front that eventually became the Free Speech Movement was committed to the use of force and violence, and created incidents through which there would be a direct confrontation between students and the symbols of power and authority. At Berkeley these symbols were the administrative personnel of the University of California and the peace officers who were called upon to prevent the students from taking over the entire institution.

A great deal of nonsense has been written about these demonstrations, leaving the impression that all of the members of the Free Speech Movement were interested in freedom of speech; that there was no hard core of Communist leadership; and that there had been no real freedom of speech on the Berkeley campus. We have spent considerable space for the purpose of giving the background of the elements that united to form the Free Speech Movement, and we have taken pains to point out that there were hundreds of students who were originally attracted to the student demonstrations and protests prior to December 2, 1964, who were in no sense subversive but who had what they considered to be a perfectly logical and natural complaint against an inept administration, its confusion of rules and regulations, and the general atmosphere of administrative and political weakness that pervaded the Berkeley campus. We also pointed out how the Youth Action Union, the DuBois Clubs, the Young Socialist Alliance, SLATE, the Socialists and Trotskyites, the Progressive Labor Movement, and other radical youth groups combined for the purpose of forming the original united front, and that after the Sproul Hall sit-in of December 2, 1964, a great many original adherents of the movement


83
dropped away from it, leaving a highly-disciplined group of Communists and radicals in firm command.

Many accounts have been written concerning the chronology of events that composed the Free Speech Movement and its demonstrations. These accounts of what happened have been set forth in the press, in a number of magazine articles, in the Sunday magazine sections of newspapers all over the United States, in the California Alumni Monthly, and in an endless series of articles being written for a variety of magazines by university professors, some militantly opposed to the Free Speech Movement, and others who militantly support it. These accounts of the demonstrations vary in some details, but basically they are in agreement. We have set forth our own chronology at the opening of this report, merely for the purpose of giving the readers some general idea of what occurred before we examined the rebellion in detail. We have now reached the point where we have established the background of the various organizations that united to form the Free Speech Movement, and we have explained the militant nature of its leadership.

It will now be our purpose to take each of the major incidents on the Berkeley campus since September, 1964, setting forth some circumstances that attended them which have not been explained in the press or in the various magazine articles referred to above.

The Demonstration of September 21, 1964

There has been a great deal of speculation, both in the press and by members of the FSM, concerning the spark that ignited the first demonstration on September 21, 1964. There have been many reports to the effect that former Senator William F. Knowland, editor and assistant publisher of the Oakland Tribune, contacted the Berkeley administration and requested that student political activity on the Berkeley campus be banned. The student newspaper carried a statement attributed to Knowland to the effect that he made no such request of anyone in authority at the university. In order to settle the matter for ourselves we requested a statement from Mr. Knowland, and on March 4, 1965, received a letter which read, in part, as follows:

"I am familiar with the fact that several statements were made by members of the FSM at the Berkeley campus that I had contacted the President, the Chancellor or The Regents, urging certain action upon them. There is no basis of fact for any such charge. At no time did I, or anyone of authority to speak for me, contact the President, the Chancellor, or The Regents, urging any course of action. Any such statements are false."

This statement was signed by Mr. Knowland, and settles the matter so far as we are concerned.

There is no question about the confusion and controversy that attended the maintenance of tables at the main entrance to the university campus which led to the letter we have already set forth, signed by Katherine A. Towle, Dean of Students, and dated September 14, 1964. This letter was issued after a conference between the Dean of Students and other officials of the Berkeley campus, and simply stated that no posters, easels, or tables would be permitted in the area at the main entrance to the university because of interference with the flow of traffic.

Dean Towle's letter was sent to the presidents, chairmen, and advisers of all student organizations, calling attention to violations of university


84
regulations on the twenty-six feet of brick walkway beside the Bancroft-Telegraph Avenue entrance.

The recipients of the letter requested a meeting for the purpose of discussing the situation and a meeting was accordingly arranged on September 17, attended by representatives of eighteen "off-campus" student organizations: SLATE, Campus CORE, (Committee on Racial Equality), University Society of Individualists, DuBois Club, Young Peoples Socialist League, University Young Republicans, University Young Democrats, Young Socialist Alliance, Campus Women for Peace, Youth for Goldwater, Student Committee for Travel to Cuba, Student Committee for "NO on Proposition 14," University Friends of SNCC (Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee), Students for a Democratic Society, College Young Republicans, Students for Independent Political Action, Youth Committee Against Proposition 14, and the Independent Socialist Club. A petition or statement was formulated at this meeting, for presentation to Dean Towle, and was in fact presented to her on September 18, requesting that:

"The intersection at Bancroft and Telegraph represents the most frequently traveled area near the campus. And because each of us takes seriously this obligation to be informed participants in our society—and not arm chair intellectuals—we feel that this location alone guarantees not only our right to speak, but to be heard! It is a valueless right to have free speech if our corresponding rights to reach people with our ideas and to advocate action on them are not protected.

All of us subscribe to Chancellor Strong's statement that `the university is no ivory tower shut away from the world, and from the needs and problems of society.' To eliminate the use of Bancroft and Telegraph is to shut this university up in an ivory tower. It is to limit the freedom of our ideas which is necessary to produce truly educated citizens of a democratic society.

We believe that the continued use of the Bancroft and Telegraph privileges will cause Chancellor Strong's goal of `exposure to critical questions and search for knowledge' to be furthered.

And, therefore, we respectfully submit for consideration as policy the following: 1. Tables for the student organizations at Bancroft and Telegraph will be manned at all times. 2. The organizations shall provide their own tables and chairs; no university property shall be borrowed. 3. There shall be no more than one table in front of each pillar and one at each side of the entrance way. No tables shall be placed in front of the entrance posts. 4. No posters shall be attached to posts or pillars. Posters shall be attached to tables only. We shall make every effort to see that the provisions 1-4 are carried out and shall publish such rules and distribute them to the various student organizations. 6. The tables at Bancroft and Telegraph may be used to distribute literature advocating action on current issues with the understanding that the student organizations do not represent the University of California—thus these organizations will not use the name of the university and will disassociate themselves from the university as an institution. 7. Donations may be accepted at the tables."

This statement, signed by the organizations listed above, was presented to Dean Towle on September 18, and she conferred with university officials


85
on September 21. She then issued a new and modified directive stating that approval would be granted for use on university property of a restricted number of tables for which permits would be required as in other authorized areas. It also permitted the distribution of materials "presenting points of view for or against a proposition, a candidate, or with respect to a social or political issue," and it established "on an experimental basis" a second and more central "Hyde Park" area at the main entrance to Sproul Hall, noting that speakers should be ready to identify themselves as students or members of the staff of the university, that there would be no interference with traffic or the conduct of university business, and that voice amplifiers could not be used because of the disturbance of work in Sproul Hall. (Committee's italics) This directive continued to forbid, however, the distribution of material "to urge a specific vote, called for direct social or political action, or to seek to recruit individuals for such action," and to forbid collection of funds "to aid projects not directly connected with some authorized activity of the university."

It will be noted that by this action Dean Towle was put in the humiliating position of having issued a firm and specific directive to eighteen student organizations after consultation with the appropriate authorities at the university; seven days later, as a result of capitulation to a student demand, Dean Towle was forced to issue a modified directive to the student leaders at a meeting on the campus, after which they politely thanked her, stated that they were not satisfied even with the modified directive, staged the first of a series of demonstrations on Sproul steps, and thereafter began deliberate violation of the regulations.

The account of the Chancellor to the Academic Senate, issued on October 26, 1964, stated that on September 22 he had issued a statement which was published in the student newspaper to the effect that "the open forum policy of the university is being fully maintained, but that its facilities were not to be used for the mounting of social and political actions directed to the surrounding community." In that connection he cited President Kerr's Charter Day address of May 5, 1964, wherein he stated that: "Just as the university cannot and should not follow the student into his... activities as a citizen off the campus, so also the students, individually or collectively, should not and cannot take the name of the university with them as they move into religious or political or other non-university activities; nor should they or can they use university facilities in connection "with such affairs." (Committee's italics)

On the night of September 23, a demonstration was held on the Sproul Hall steps, about seventy-five students remaining there until the following morning. On the next day further discussions were held with President Kerr, as a result of which there was a further modification of the directives, it now having been decided that permission to distribute non-commercial literature on the campus should be permitted and that henceforth the regulations would be understood to allow distribution in designated places on the campus of printed advocative materials that might urge a specific vote on a proposition or a candidate.

This new and modified directive was presented to the students at a meeting on Monday, September 28, but even while the Chancellor was announcing these revised rules, the meeting was invaded by pickets who marched down the aisles carrying signs of protest. These pickets, according to the Chancellor's report, were organized at an unauthorized free speech rally at the Oak Tree in Dwinelle Plaza under the direction of Mario Savio and Arthur Goldberg. The Dean of Men informed these students that


86
although the Berkeley administration supported their right to engage in picketing which did not interfere with university activities, they were in violation of regulations for holding a meeting at the time of a university meeting, and without the permit required for that area, and that discilinary action would therefore be instituted against them.

On the morning of September 29, students were manning tables at the prohibited area, but all appeared cooperative and willing to either desist or secure the required permits except Sandor Fuchs, who was presiding at a SLATE table at Sather Gate. He was told to make an appointment with the Dean of Men for 4:00 p.m. to discuss disciplinary action against him, but did not appear to keep the appointment.

On the afternoon of September 29 Mario Savio deliberately violated the regulations by establishing a table for the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee at Sather Gate. On Wednesday morning tables were being maintained by the Young Socialist Alliance and Campus CORE, and the students who presided at them were cooperative with the university officials; but a table maintained by Student Non-Violent Cooperative Committee was operating without a permit and the two students guilty of the violation, Brian Turner and Donald Hatch, were subjected to disciplinary action. The same ultimatum was delivered to David L. Goines, who was at a SLATE table, Elizabeth Gardner Stapleton, at a Young Socialist Alliance table, and Mark Bravo at a Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee table. Each of these students was instructed to report to the Dean of Students' office that afternoon.

But at 3 o'clock from three to four hundred students moved into the second floor of Sproul Hall, where Mario Savio announced that all of them acknowledged having violated the university regulations in exactly the same manner as those students who had been instructed to make appointments with the Dean of Students, and each of them wanted a similar appointment. The Dean of Men stated that he was concerned only with the violations that had already been specified, and requested the crowd to disperse. Savio responded that the group would not leave unless they were guaranteed that the same disciplinary action would be meted out to all present. The specified students who were cited did not appear for interviews, and the crowd remained in Sproul Hall until about 2:40 a.m. on Thursday morning.

Chancellor Strong described the ensuing events in his report by pointing out that when the students persisted in refusing to discuss their cases the Chancellor determined, on the night of September 30, to exercise his authority directly. The students had therefore been given the privilege of appearing before the faculty committee on student conduct, but on the basis of written reports from the Dean of Men, and after conferring with President Kerr (Committee's italics), the Chancellor suspended the eight students who had been observed in violation of the university regulations, who had been warned but refused to desist from their violations, and who had been informed that this disciplinary action would be instituted against them.

On Thursday morning, October 1, mimeographed statements were distributed on the campus soliciting student and faculty support for the suspended students and announcing a "free speech rally" at noon on the Sproul Hall steps where tables began to appear in deliberate violation of the regulations. The Chancellor's report stated that at approximately 11:45 a.m., Deans Murphy and Van Houten and Police Lieutenant Chandler spoke to a man who was soliciting funds at a Campus CORE


87
(Committee on Racial Equality) table and who refused to identify himself or to leave the table. Chandler informed the individual (later identified as Jack Weinberg, a former student) that he was under arrest and went for assistance and a police car. The car was thereupon surrounded by demonstrators and mounted by Savio, who urged that students immobilize the car by sitting around it, and that the demonstrators invade the Dean of Students' office. On persuasion of the President of the Associated Students, Charles Powell, Savio left the gathering to meet with the Chancellor. He demanded that Weinberg be released and the suspended students reinstated. The Chancellor refused to accede to these demands, replying that he must enforce the regulations of the university. In San Francisco, Governor Brown was declaring, "This is not a matter of freedom of speech on the campuses" but "purely and simply an attempt on the part of the students to use the campuses of the university unlawfully by soliciting funds and recruiting students for off-campus activities. This will not be tolerated. We must have—and continue to have—law and order on our campuses."

Savio returned to the crowd surrounding the police car and described his conversation with the Chancellor. One hundred and fifty to two hundred students then entered Sproul Hall and announced their plan to hold Deans Towle and Williams hostage. Women employees left through windows, over the roof. When officers attempted to close the front doors of Sproul Hall at about 6:30 p.m., demonstrators interfered and one policeman went down, had his shoes removed and was bitten by Savio. The police car was held captive through the night. Students who disapproved of the methods of the demonstrators began to gather; the Dean of Men approached individual students and Assistant Dean Rice made an appeal to the crowd in an effort to head off the possibility of open conflict. Demonstrators who had immobilized the police car containing Mr. Weinberg, the arrested man, informed campus police officers that they held the officers responsible for providing protection against student counter-action in maintaining law and order on the campus.

On Friday morning, October 2, only authorized persons were admitted to Sproul Hall. Then another mimeographed sheet appeared setting forth the demonstrators' demands, and black arm bands were sold at Sather Gate to sympathizers with the Free Speech Movement. The California Students for Goldwater and the University Young Republicans, announced at this point that they did not "condone the disorderly means of protest that are now being used." The student newspaper published a statement of the Chancellor, dated October 1, emphasizing that "the university's policy prohibiting planning and recruiting on the campus for off-campus political and social action, and prohibiting also the solicitation or receipt of funds for such purpose is now, and has always been, the unchanged policy of the university," and that "the university has not restricted or curtailed freedom of speech of students on campus by any change of its open-forum policy." President Kerr, speaking at a San Francisco meeting of the American Council of Education said, "There is no freedom of speech issue at Berkeley... the rules in question are the historic policy of the University of California and they are as follows:

  1. Solicitation of political funds on campus is not permitted. The law of the State of California does not permit such solicitation on state property.
  2. Recruitment of pickets on university property is prohibited.
  3. We do not permit meeting on campus for planning social and political action against the surrounding community."


88

Omitted from the Chancellor's report are the colorful details of events following Weinberg's arrest. We now quote from the official University of California alumni magazine, California Monthly, for February 1965, p. 10, where the events are described as follows:

"... Just before noon a university police car drove to the front of Sproul Hall—Weinberg stepped into the car and immediately approximately two hundred irate individuals surrounded it and sat down. The move was neither calculated, nor in any sense riotous—simply a spontaneous capture.

For the next thirty-two hours, student protest leaders—among them Mario Savio and Art Goldberg, a graduate student and former chairman of SLATE—periodically stood upon the car, a symbol of power and bargaining, decrying the growing `machine of the multiversity,' and exhorting students to fight for the right of free speech on campus according to the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. They demanded release of Weinberg and lifting of suspensions. From the top of the police car student leaders argued that the administration had picked on the eight arbitrarily, that if they were going to suspend anyone they should suspend all the students who were at the card tables Wednesday. A number of students had signed a petition attesting that they had also manned tables contra regulations. Inveighing against what they interpreted as an attempt by the administration to divide and to conquer, leaders said that these four hundred students had demanded the same treatment from the Dean's Office that was meted out to the eight. But the Dean's Office just wanted a few. The police car in front of Sproul Hall continued to be surrounded by a growing crowd of students. The plaza in front of Sproul is central to the campus dining area and the Telegraph Avenue concourse, hence a natural spot for such a crowd to form.

Thursday night, October 1, about three hundred students carried the protest to Dean Towle's office in Sproul Hall. They sat down; a few stayed through the night. Gradually, these students left and concentrated again on the police car.

On Friday, October 2, Sproul Hall closed down, (offices were operating) and speculation swept the campus that the students would be arrested en masse. Control over the police car had placed the administration in a defensive posture, one that demanded action either through arbitration or force. The car had become a symbol not only for the dissident students, but for the administration, the public and the law as well. Toward the evening hours that Friday, Mario Savio and others began to instruct students who were sitting down to take off their watches, loosen their ties, and prepare for expected `police brutality."'

From members of the FSM movement, interested observers, university officials, and from our own independent sources of information we learned that although the demonstration started as a spontaneous movement, it quickly became evident that Savio, Art Goldberg, Dick Roman, Bettina Aptheker, and others, were fully prepared to assume leadership. As the students climbed on top of the police car, in which Weinberg was sitting with an officer, the top became dented, the fenders smashed, and the crowd continued to grow as tensions mounted. The demonstration had commenced on Wednesday, September 30, when the card tables were set up


89
in front of Sather Gate in plain defiance of campus regulations, with the suspension of the eight students who were members of radical political organizations, the invasion of Sproul Hall by approximately three hundred students who demanded to see the Dean of Men and to be suspended with their eight colleagues, the arrest of Weinberg, the invasion of Dean Towle's office on October 3 by about three hundred students, some of whom stayed through the night, and the October 2 immobilization of the police car by a mob of students.

During the vigil through the first night, a group of fraternity men appeared and threw eggs at the demonstrators, and a group of off-campus Latin American men then retaliated with deadly aim, saying that they were old hands at this sort of thing. People were now sleeping around the car, and on Friday night mentors were fanning through the crowd instructing them to make no resistance if the police came, but to go limp. They acted with far too much precision, speed and unity not to have been appointed ahead of time. The police arrived in large numbers at about 6:00 p.m., and tensions continued to mount. The officers formed a line across the plaza, and then Mario Savio and Dick Roman went to confer with President Kerr. Runners kept the crowd informed about the progress of the conference, and suddenly a loud roar was heard which turned out to be the motor police returning to Oakland. Savio said that Kerr had agreed to conciliate. The crowd immediately dispersed. It had reached a total of about six thousand students by Friday evening. Some of the students studied, some sang, some displayed placards bearing sarcastic remarks about President Kerr and the administration. Large numbers of the extreme left-wing element of the mob were highly emotionalized and angry. By the time the officers arrived the riot potential was very acute, and there were six hundred and forty-three officers from the Berkeley and Oakland police departments, the sheriff's office in Alameda County and the California Highway Patrol, fully armed, provided with riot equipment, and capable of caring for any situation that might arise. Zero hour had been set at 6:00 p.m. on October 2, at which time the police were to disperse the mob by any necessary means, restore order to the campus and take the prisoner to jail. But shortly before that time the police officers in charge of their forces were told that negotiations were in progress, that they should stand by, and that a few minutes after 7:00 p.m. an accommodation was effected between President Kerr and Savio, and the police left the campus.

Kerr had been giving a speech in San Francisco, returned to the campus and conferred with eight of the student leaders, with Savio doing most of the talking, at University Hall. The compromise provided, in effect, that the demonstrations would cease, there would be no further deliberate violations of university regulations, and that the university would refrain from pressing charges against Jack Weinberg, whose arrest had been effected by the University of California police department.

It was also agreed that a committee should be established representing students, faculty and administration and which would be empowered to conduct an investigation into all aspects of on-campus political activity, and that another committee should be established which would decide the matter of discipline in connection with the eight suspended students. At this point the article in the California alumni magazine pointed out that "in the final agreement, the latter committee was called the " `Student Conduct Committee of the Academic Senate.' In fact, no such committee existed. The agreement, at that point, contained a misnomerwhich carried


90
the implication that the students' cases would be referred to a committee of faculty members appointed by the Academic Senate."[38]

Even under the excitement and strain that provided the background against which these negotiations were conducted, it is incredible that such a mistake should have been made by the administration, and that this matter, together with other misunderstandings between the FSM representatives and the campus officials, should lead to a complete breakdown of negotiations and the resumption of student demonstrations on a more serious level.

Apparently the administration was thinking of the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct, which was appointed by and was advisory to the Chancellor, and the students assumed that it was something entirely different. The article in the Alumni magazine continued to state that "misunderstandings such as this characterize the period of negotiations—with the students and administration proceeding from entirely different premises and points of view, and deriving different meanings from common terms. The agreement effective between the administration and the FSM spokesman, a copy of which was obtained from the Chancellor's office, read as follows:

"1. The student demonstrators shall desist from all forms of their illegal protest against university regulations. 2. A committee representing students (including leaders of the demonstration), faculty, and administration will be immediately set up to conduct discussions and hearings into all aspects of political behavior on campus and its control, and to make recommendations to the administration. 3. The arrested man will be booked, released on his own recognizance, and the university (complainant) will not press charges. 4. The duration of the suspension of the suspended students will be submitted within one week to the Student Conduct Committee of the Academic Senate. 5. Activity may be continued by student organizations in accordance with existing university regulations. 6. The President of the university has already declared his willingness to support deeding certain university property at the end of Telegraph Avenue to the city of Berkeley or to the ASUC. Signed: Jo Freeman, Paul C. Cahill, Sandor Fuchs, Robert Wolfson, David Jessup, Clark Kerr, Jackie Goldberg, Eric Levine, Mario Savio, Thomas Miller."

During the following week there was complete disagreement between the FSM leaders and the administration over matters of procedure. The spokesman for the FSM seized on the mistake in the name of one of the committees, charging that the apparent error had not been inadvertent and that this duplicity on the part of President Kerr created the opportunity for him to ram the settlement through and disperse the mob of students, and also to hand-pick a special committee that would be more representative of his own views than those of the FSM. Chancellor Strong pointed out that since there was no committee on "student conduct" of the Academic Senate, he turned the matter over to the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct, which was a duly constituted body that had been in existence for some time.


91

The Robley Williams Committee

Pursuant to the agreement mentioned above, Chancellor Strong appointed members to the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct as follows: Student members, Charles Powell, president of the Associated Students at the University, and Marcia Bratten, Sproul Award winner; faculty members, Theodore Vermeulen, Joseph Garbarino, Henry Rosovsky, and Robley Williams, who was elected chairman; the administration was represented by Vice-Chancellor Allen Searcy, Dean Katherine Towle, Dean Milton Chernin, and Dean William Fretter. The other two student members were to be nominated by the FSM. The FSM was completely dissatisfied with the establishment of the Robley Williams Committee, contending that it was illegally constituted, asking for its dissolution, and complaining that they had no voice in its establishment. There ensued a period of complete confusion with unwieldy faculty committees, protests and threats from the FSM, indecision and weakness on the part of the administration, and the inevitable concessions by the campus officials to the demands of the student rebels who were now fired with success, becoming more arrogant and defiant, and threatening mass reprisals unless their ultimatums were met.

The American Civil Liberties Union indicated that it might interest itself on behalf of the eight suspended students, only two of whom had obeyed the request from Robley Williams to confer about setting the time for hearing their cases. On October 12 the FSM spokesman bluntly told the administration that the Robley Williams Committee was stacked in favor of the administration and they would have nothing to do with it unless they had a more substantial representation. On October 13 the Academic Senate resolved that it was pleased to declare itself in favor of maximum freedom for student political activity. It also expressed itself as hopeful that peace and order in the intellectual community could be maintained, and that full use might be made of the joint faculty-student administration committee for that purpose. That evening, however, the controversial committee held an open meeting on the campus of the university. The gathering was jammed with FSM representatives who insisted that the committee was illegally constituted and should immediately be disbanded. On October 15, FSM leaders met with representatives of the administration on the Berkeley campus and threatened "mass demonstrations" if they were not permitted to present their case to the Regents of the university. That evening Professor Arthur Ross, from the Institute of Industrial Relations and chairman of the Committee on University Welfare, conferred with FSM spokesmen and agreed to consider modifying interpretation of the six-point agreement. On the following day the administration diluted its position still further by agreeing that the Robley Williams Committee would be expanded to include six members from each category, should hold two or three public meetings each week and wind up its affairs within three weeks. It was further agreed that a maximum of five "silent" observers and two "silent attorneys" would be entitled to attend all meetings, and that all findings and recommendations were to be made by a concensus of opinion. On October 18, the FSM named as its representatives Mario Savio, Bettina Aptheker, Suzanne M. Goldberg and Sydney R. Stapleton. The other two student members, Charles Powell and Marcia Bratten, had already been appointed by the Chancellor.


92

The Robley Williams Committee on Campus Political Activity held meetings on October 21, 24, 28, 29 and November 4, 5, 7 and 10, 1964. The first meeting was devoted to organization, the second meeting was chiefly characterized by objections from the FSM representatives. For instance, Mr. Stapleton contended that no political activity was being allowed on the campus and that he believed existing regulations were not valid because the Robley Williams Committee had been established to determine the validity of the rules. Suzanne Goldberg contended that she did not feel the October 2 agreement was relevant or valid because it had been disregarded by the administration, and that if the committee did not function properly the FSM was prepared to decide for itself what the proper channels of communication should be. The FSM delegation, in effect, completely repudiated the agreement of October 2, and declared that it now considered itself free to take the situation at the main entrance of the university into its own hands.

We can see little to be gained by presenting in detail the various wranglings and the incredible amount of hair-splitting technicalities, bickerings, and indecision that characterized the other meetings of the Robley Williams Committee. We have a complete file of the minutes, and can only point out that the attitude of the FSM representatives made it utterly impossible for the committee to perform its functions efficiently, and that this situation was evident at the second committee meeting on October 24, 1964. An attorney from the legal office of the university was present representing the administration at each of these meetings, and on occasion the FSM was represented by Robert Treuhaft, who has been repeatedly identified as a member of the Communist Party and who was one of the first persons arrested during the massive invasion of Sproul Hall on December 2, 1964. The minutes disclose that those members of the committee who represented the university administration very rarely called upon their counsel for advice; on the other hand, the FSM representatives frequently called upon their counsel, Malcolm Burstein, or Mr. Treuhaft, and it soon appeared that as acrimony and disputes developed between the three elements represented at the meetings, the original prospect of some agreement quickly faded to the vanishing point.

At the conclusion of its November 7th meeting, one of the longest, most argumentative and unfruitful in the short and stormy history of this body, it was agreed to again convene on Wednesday, November 11. But before this could be accomplished the Robley Williams Committee was dissolved by the Berkeley administration on November 9.

The faculty members of the committee issued a report on November 12, 1964, which consisted of ten separate items, being the views of the six appointed members of the Robley Williams Committee representing the faculty, but since they were somewhat involved, and since nobody seemed to pay much attention to them in any case, we can see no useful purpose in describing them here.

President Kerr commented on their report in the student newspaper, accompanied by his expression of conviction that "most of the students and their leaders who participated in the violation of campus rules did so with heavy hearts." (Committee's italics) He concluded by stating that for the period of twelve years during which he was Chancellor and later as President of the university, he had always sought to "protect and increase the freedom of faculty members and students, always with the confidence that with greater freedom would go a greater sense of responsibility.


93
This view and the progress resulting from it is now meeting its severest test within the university and before the eyes of the entire State of California."

It will be seen, however, that President Kerr's insistence that the university be opened to professional Communist propagandists, and his statement that the tough leaders of the student rebellion performed their acts of violence and defiance "with heavy hearts," were precisely the sort of misapprehensions that paved the way for the demonstrations he deplored. And the biggest demonstration of all had not yet occurred.

The Heyman Committee

There is a Committee on Committees (our italics) of the Academic Senate at Berkeley, and on October 19, 1964, it appointed a Committee on Suspensions. Its members were Ira M. Heyman, professor of law, chairman; Robert A. Gordon, professor of economics; Mason Haire, research psychologist, Institute of Industrial Relations; Richard E. Powell, chairman department of chemistry, and Lloyd Ulman, director Institute of Industrial Relations.

The Heyman Committee released its report on November 13, submitting it to the Academic Senate which appointed it, instead of to Chancellor Strong. Since this committee had no authority to take any direct action, and was considered advisory to Chancellor Strong, he naturally expected the report to come to him. He, therefore, issued a statement on the day the report was released, stating, among other things, that:

"Although The Regents, the President and I had understood the Committee was to be advisory to me, Professor Heyman has `addressed' the report to the Academic Senate and its committee concludes `that it should render its report to the Berkeley division of the Academic Senate, with copies of the report to the university administration and the students involved.' President Kerr and I completely disagree with this procedure. Out of respect for and courtesy to the Academic Senate, we shall however await the reaction of the Berkeley Division to the report before commenting on its recommendations."

The Heyman Committee Report emphasizes the confusion that arose from an intricate complex of rules, administrative practices, and a lack of a clear, concise compendium that was sufficiently explicit to enable students to know what was prohibited and what was permitted. The basic policies were contained in a pamphlet and entitled "University of California Policies Relating to Students and Student Activities, September, 1963." These rules, however, were qualified and amended annually by supplements and qualified by what the Heyman Committee called "memoranda of clarification and modification" issued by Dean Towle and the statements made and practices followed by Chancellor Strong.

No one could find any requirement for a permit to operate tables on the campus, although such permits had nonetheless been required for several years. All were agreed that on-campus solicitation of funds for off-campus purposes (except for the Bay Area United Crusade, Cal Camp, and the J. F. Kennedy Memorial Fund) were clearly forbidden. In the cases of the eight suspended students, funds had been solicited for the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, Young Socialist Alliance, and SLATE—hence the violations were obvious. There was some doubt concerning the SLATE solicitations by students David L. Goines and


94
Sandor Fuchs, because their solicitations might be construed as having been made for on-campus purposes. In addition, five of the suspended students refused to see Dean Williams at his request.

The Heyman Committee recommended that students Bravo, Goines, Fuchs, Hatch, Turner and Mrs. Stapleton be reinstated and their records expunged, and that each of them be punished by being placed in a state of "censure" for a period of no longer than six weeks; and that students Goldberg and Savio be suspended for six weeks beginning with September 30, 1964. The report concluded as follows:

"The imposition of academic penalties on these eight students would amount to additional punishment, and of a severity disproportionate to the offenses. We recommend that, so far as is feasible for each student, he be permitted to complete his course work for the present semester, but without academic penalty. We further recommend that each, at his option, be permitted to drop one or more courses, or to withdraw for the balance of the semester, but without loss of academic credit or the imposition of other academic penalties."

After President Kerr yielded to demands by the FSM for more representation on the Robley Williams Committee and throughout the period of that committee's deliberations, and also during the deliberations of the Heyman Committee, the Bay Area press was reporting continued activities on the part of FSM leaders. On October 31 the chief of the Berkeley police department issued a statement to the effect that the presence of police officers on the Berkeley campus "without action" was extremely injurious to officer morale and damaged public respect for law enforcement. He was referring to the summoning of police officers, members of the Alameda County Sheriff's office and the highway patrol to the Berkeley campus and then having them sent back again when President Kerr and Mario Savio reached an accord. Richard P. Hafner, university public affairs officer, stated in a letter dated November 18, 1964, to an agent of this committee that:

"The cost of repairs to the police car captured during the recent demonstrations was $334.20. As far as students helping to pay for these repairs, rumor has it that the can in which contributions were being collected was found to be empty when the students went to pick it up. We have not been able to confirm this."

An itemized statement of the cost of police services rendered, on the occasion of the demonstration on October 1 and 2, 1964, is as follows: 1). U C Campus Police, 25 men, 517 man-hours, $2,377.26; 2) Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, 28 men, 249.5 man-hours, $926.44; 3) City of Berkeley, 104 men, 501.5 man-hours, $2,170.96; 4) Alameda County Sheriff's Office, 185 men, 913 man-hours, $3,628.60; 5) City of Oakland Police Department, 237 men, 1,086.5 man-hours, $4,580.78. This amounted to a total of 579 officers who spent a total of 3,267.5 man-hours, at an expense of $13,684.04.

On October 21, 1964, Mario Savio acted as a member of a panel at Willard Jr. High School, in Berkeley, at a meeting sponsored by the Friends of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, of which he had acted as campus president, to hear a report by Mrs. Irene Paull, concerning her activities with the Freedom School at Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Among the other qualifications of the principal speaker, one could mention her activities as an organizer for the Young Communist


95
League in Minnesota in 1938, and her invoking the Fifth Amendment when asked about her visit to Cuba in 1963 by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Mrs. Paull is also a contributor to the National Guardian, Communist Party line newspaper. Other members of the panel were Mrs. Fay Stender, a member of the National Lawyers Guild in 1964, and an attorney with the firm of Charles R. Gary and Benjamin Dreyfus. Dr. Carlton Goodlett, who has already been mentioned in this and in previous reports, was also a participant in the program.

On November 4, 1964, the FSM scheduled a picketing of Sproul Hall to commence at 11:30 a.m. and to conclude at 4:00 p.m. At the rally coincident with this activity, Mrs. Elizabeth Stapelton, one of the eight suspended students, declared that "we are playing a great chess game with the administration. They have the political and economic power. All we have is the power of the masses." And the FSM threatened that unless the committee on political activity supported complete freedom of speech, assembly and association for the students, the FSM would adopt other means to secure its rights.[40]

Two hundred and fifty FSM pickets paraded in front of Sproul Hall on November 5, 1964. Art Goldberg addressed the group demanding "total political freedom on the campus," and threatened more demonstrations. At this demonstration there were between two and three hundred unsympathetic viewers, all students, who signed a resolution favoring law and order and condemning the disorderly tactics of the FSM in settling disputes on the campus. Another resolution condemning such tactics was passed by the senate of the Associated Students of the university, which represented the overwhelming majority of the enrolled student body.

On November 6, Savio, acting as spokesman for the student representatives on the Robley Williams Committee, rejected a proposal of Professor Sandford Kadish to the effect that the university should be permitted to take action against on-campus activities that resulted in off-campus illegal demonstrations, and on the following day Savio declared that since the FSM negotiations with the administration's committees had broken down, the Free Speech Movement would no longer consider itself bound by existing regulations. Speaking from Sproul Hall steps to a crowd of about four hundred he threatened

"we'll break the regulations again and again and again." This determination to resort to still more defiant activity was implemented on November 9 when Stephen Weisman, chairman of the Graduate Student Coordinating Committee on the Berkeley campus and a member of the FSM, announced that there would be an effort to persuade teaching assistants, who comprised the bulk of the instructors for undergraduate teaching, to "tie up several of the larger departments of the university."

Several days prior to the threats of renewed demonstrations unless the administration agreed to the demands of the FSM, Mortimer Scheer, leader of the militant Progressive Labor Movement from New York (the most militant Communist organization in this country) appeared in Berkeley and contributed his talents to arousing the radical element among the rebellious students to more violent action. Scheer resided at 2679 Action Street, Berkeley, and is now the official representative on the West Coast for the recently-created Progressive Labor Party, an out-growth of the Progressive Labor Movement.


96

On November 9, Chancellor Strong warned the students against their planned demonstration on Sproul steps, and threatened disciplinary action. At the appointed time, however, about fourteen hundred students assembled, and Savio mounted the rostrum again with his familiar public address system. The rally was held in defiance of the administration, and tables were maintained and funds solicited in direct violation of the campus directives. Representatives of the administration took sixty names, but the demonstration nevertheless continued. A group of teaching assistants and graduate students working for higher degrees announced that they would also sit at the tables and join in the demonstration. This announcement was made by their spokesman, Robert Richeimer, a teaching assistant in the history department and a member of the FSM. Simultaneously a statement was issued by Richard Schmorleitz, FSM press secretary, to the effect that his organization would break off all communications with the university administration. On the following day two hundred teaching assistants, led by Stephen Weisman, joined the students. Twenty-two of them manned the illegal tables, but there was no effort to make any check on the part of the administration.

By November 16th the Chancellor's office had cited seventy students for violations of university regulations and the FSM thereupon commenced raising a defense fund. Signatures were also gathered on an FSM petition to the Regents, calculated to strengthen the Academic Senate report, which was not yet issued, but about which the FSM had prescient information.

Savio, Martin Roysher and Brian Shannon left Berkeley for Southern California on November 16 for the purpose of making visits and addresses at fifteen Southern California campuses for the purpose of spreading the FSM doctrine. The institutions on this speaking agendum were: the five associated Claremont colleges; the University of California campuses at Los Angeles, Riverside and San Diego; Occidental College; the University of Southern California; state colleges in the San Fernando Valley, Long Beach and Los Angeles; and city colleges at Los Angeles and Santa Monica. Savio also spoke at Stanford, addressing a meeting of a hundred and fifty students, sponsored by the young democratic organization.

On November 19, Assemblymen-elect John L. Burton and Willie Brown, Jr. sent messages to the university Regents demanding complete political freedom on the campus, and simultaneously the Academic Senate at Berkeley called for more liberal policies by the administration.

The Regents met at Berkeley on November 20th and modified but did not substantially change the rules regarding political activities by the students. They refused to allow on-campus activities in support of illegal off-campus actions, and added that the university should discipline students for illegal on-campus activities.

The Regents accepted the recommendations of the Heyman Committee and rescinded suspensions of the eight students who had been disciplined for violation of the campus rules. They declined to meet with representatives of the FSM, and during their session a silent demonstration of four thousand students was held, while Joan Baez, Carmel folk-singer, appeared and entertained the crowd. When Savio and Steve Weisman announced the Regents' decisions, the students sat in stunned silence. FSM leaders clearly considered that as a result of this meeting they had suffered a serious defeat, and declared that they were determined to proceed with further and more violent demonstrations. They received some support from Ralph J. Gleason, a columnist for the San Francisco


97
Chronicle who has addressed the San Francisco DuBois Club and had been a frequent observer of the student demonstrations. In his column "On the Town," which appeared on November 23, he praised Joan Baez and lauded the FSM, saying "a movement like this cannot be squelched." His fellow-columnist, Herb Caen, observed, however, that "the free speech rumpus over at Cal is getting more left-wing by the day..."

On November 25, Bay Area papers printed a statement by Kent Pursel, chairman of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, who expressed himself as follows:

"The continued demonstrations on the university campus show that a movement of students is publicly flaunting the authority of the administration. Even the weak-kneed compromise by the Board of Regents was unacceptable to them...

Unfortunately, a `noble ideal' (free speech) is being used to transform a respected institution into a common battleground between lawful authority and those who stand to gain by a continuation of chaos."

Pursel stated that "the Regents must be reminded that they represent all the people of California. Until the administration and the Regents stop marching in reverse, the university will have to remain subject to the harassment of a defiant minority."

On November 25th SLATE requested permission to exhibit a French film on homosexuality, entitled "Un Chant d'Amour." When this request was denied, Art Goldberg suggested that it nevertheless be shown against the wall at Sproul Hall, and another protest rally was staged on the steps of that popular building at noon.

In the November 26th issue of the San Francisco Chronicle, an editorial summarized the situation at Berkeley as follows:

"Under liberalized regulations, students may now assemble, speak, advocate, solicit and recruit to their hearts' content without restrictions, save one: they are subject to university discipline if they advocate on-campus actions that are illegal under California or federal laws...

The campus cannot become a breeding place for off-campus lawlessness. As President Kerr has observed, the university is not a fortress from which students (or non-student agitators) may mount attacks on the surrounding countryside..."

By this time the united front aspect of the Free Speech Movement was beginning to disappear. Many of the more conservative students who originally entered the movement as a sincere protest against a bewildering complexity of rules and regulations that were constantly being expanded, rescinded, supplemented, and amended, had realized that the entire movement was slowly but surely being taken over by Communist-oriented leaders. University offices and university typewriters, mimeograph machines, and other equipment, were being used by the FSM for its own purposes, and off the campus they had established offices known as "centrals," each one handling a special phase of the FSM strategy. The first of these centrals was maintained at Savio's home. Thereafter others were established to handle legal matters, public relations, press releases, planning of demonstrations, communications, and all of the other attributes that were now being organized with the precision of a military establishment. At the same time an intelligence


98
system was being established whereby liaison could be maintained with graduate students, teaching assistants, the academic senate, and an astonishing number of faculty members who were enthusiastic supporters of everything the Free Speech Movement espoused. There were also contacts and sources of information in the Chancellor's office, the offices of the various deans of the university, and in other key campus positions which enabled the leaders of the FSM to keep accurately informed of the plans of both the Academic Senate and the administration.

Savio had established himself, at least in the public mind and in the minds of most of the students, as the charismatic leader of the rebels. Disinterested and apathetic at meetings, impatient with long political discussions and arguments about ideological distinctions, this young man was a dynamo of activity when he mounted a rostrum with a bull horn in his hand and aroused his listeners to a high emotional pitch. He thrived on direct action, and cultivated a tough, condescending and arrogant attitude even toward the President of the university, to say nothing of the other administrative officials whom he treated with uniform contempt. Without the background of the FSM movement Savio and his handful of cohorts would have remained anonymous students at a big educational institution. Against the background of the FSM movement they were able to direct the activities of thousands of discontended students, force the university administration into retreat after retreat and concession upon concession. They were soon issuing ultimatums and threatening more demonstrations unless their demands were met within the time specified, and for a variety of reasons they were able to secure the support of a large segment of the faculty.

At the same time that the united front was becoming a para-military sort of organization, and the control was being consolidated in the hands of a few leaders, more and more adults appeared on the campus at the demonstrations, some of them known members of the Communist Party, some, like Mort Scheer, leaders of the Communist element that followed the tough line of Red China; some were students who had been indoctrinated on clandestine trips to Cuba; and there were the usual large numbers of chronic supporters of Communist fronts who always lend their assistance to such movements. After all, this was the greatest student rebellion in the history of the United States, and it occurred on the main campus of the country's largest educational institution. The classic united front organization that we described earlier had now become a tightly-disciplined, thoroughly organized, well-equipped movement. And it was about to stage the greatest demonstration of all, which was scheduled for December 2, 1964, with the invasion of beleaguered Sproul Hall.

On December 1, the press announced that Strong had brought disciplinary action against four FSM leaders: Mario Savio, Arthur Goldberg, Jacqueline Goldberg and Brian Turner, for their actions during the demonstration on October 1. This provoked a response from Robert Paul Kaufman, a graduate history student who had aided in the founding of the DuBois Clubs of America, had been active in Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, and who had been a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, to the effect that graduate students would join in a demonstration with FSM. Kaufman, one of the leaders of the student rebellion who came to Berkeley from U.C.L.A., had established his Berkeley residence at 2734 Haste Street.


99

Savio then issued a statement giving Chancellor Strong twenty-four hours within which to meet a list of five demands by the FSM or face a massive demonstration. The five demands were as follows:

  1. The dropping of all charges against Mario Savio, Arthur Goldberg, Jacqueline Goldberg, and several student organizations cited for breaking university rules.[41]
  2. An administration guarantee against further disciplinary action until a final settlement was reached with the Free Speech Movement.
  3. A statement that no regulations would be adopted by the university restricting students or organizations from exercising their full political rights on the campus.
  4. An administration agreement that only the courts should have authority to regulate the political activities on the campus.
  5. The adoption of a policy that all rules governing political expression on the campus should be determined, interpreted and enforced by the faculty-student-administration committee, whose judgment would be final.

If these demands were not met, threatened Savio, the university would face a sit-in demonstration and the Graduate Coordinating Committee, headed by Stephen Weisman, stated that it would launch a strike if any police were called to quell the demonstration.

The Invasion of Sproul Hall

On December 2 there was a noon rally at Sproul Hall. Savio, microphone in hand, in top form and plainly enjoying his work, spoke to two thousand students and threatened to "bring the university to a grinding halt," because the FSM ultimatum had not been met. He was flanked by Joan Baez, folksinger from Carmel who was currently in difficulty with the Department of Internal Revenue for refusing to pay all of her income tax because she did not wish to make any contribution to the government's activities in Viet Nam. Other leaders of the December 2 demonstration were Jack Weinberg of the Committee on Racial Equality, a non-student; Stephen Weisman, heretofore mentioned; Arthur Goldberg and his sister Jacqueline, and Robert Treuhaft, the husband of Jessica Mitford Treuhaft, and who has been repeatedly identified as a Communist lawyer.

At 12:30 Baez and Savio began singing “We Shall Overcome” , and led the march into Sproul Hall. Like the children of Hamelin following the Pied Piper, about five hundred of the assembled multitude followed their leaders into the building while two hundred stood silently and watched. With military precision the invasion proceeded. Savio was restrained from breaking into Dean Towle's office, but aside from that the sit-in proceeded in accordance with advance plan. The third and fourth floors of the building were used as study areas; the lobby was devoted to recreation, a firstaid station was established, and arrangements made to secure food.

By this time most of the broad base united front organization of the FSM was withering away, leaving the Communists and the more radical elements of the movement in full charge. Robert Treuhaft, counsel for the FSM delegates to the Robley Williams Committee, was observed at several of the student demonstrations and participated in this one—the most massive and defiant of all. He was also one of the first to be arrested. Treuhaft was a lecturer at the Communist School in San Francisco in 1947, and had worked as an Assistant Disputes Director for the War Labor Board and as a hearing Commissioner for the O.P.A. He also has


100
been active in virtually every Communist front organization in the Bay Area since the early 40's. In 1964 he attended the Communist-controlled International Association of Democratic Lawyers in Argentina with Robert Kenny of Los Angeles, Conrado Gomez of Argentina, and Norman Endicott of Canada. After attending the meeting these four went to Portugal where they endeavored to stir up difficulty over civil rights matters, and were summarily ordered to leave that country.

At about 4 p.m., Jack Weinberg—the arrested hero of the October 1-2 demonstration—made a dramatic appearance on the second floor balcony of Sproul Hall, standing in front of a large red and white FSM banner and announcing that there would be a program of entertainment during the evening which would consist of singing by Joan Baez, the showing of the film "Operation Abolition," which was calculated to arouse animosity against the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and an exhibition of the revolutionary motion picture, Juarez.

Just before the invasion of the Sproul Hall building commenced, Charles Powell, student body president, endeavored to persuade the leaders not to invade the building. But the apostles of free speech booed, jeered and made so much noise that he could not be heard, and called him "a strike-breaker and a fink." At this point the Young Republicans, who had been a part of the FSM united front movement in its earlier stages, announced that the group would not condone this sort of action and withdrew their support. Thereafter the spokesman for the campus Young Republican Organization, Warren L. Coates, Jr., issued the following statement:

"The Republican Party and its Young Republicans have always favored the freest possible expression of ideas and political activities consistent with democratic processes, law and order. The activities of the University of California Young Republicans at Berkeley have been completely consistent with these principles. We negotiated in good faith with President Clark Kerr and the university administration for the broadening of political activities on this campus. At the same time we opposed the educationally disruptive and unlawful tactics of the group calling itself the `Free Speech Movement' (FSM).

We remained members of the FSM with the hope of moderating their tactics. On December 2 we withdrew from the FSM convinced that it was hurting the image of a great university and destroying any chance of a further broadening of already liberalized political regulations.

The sad fact is that the FSM has inflicted irreparable damage on this campus. The university's independence and faculty-student relationship are at stake and may never be the same again. The fact that many of the FSM more militant tactics were suggested by identified Communist infiltrators and that these same infiltrators have greatly increased their influence over the FSM, makes us all the sicker. The situation on the Berkeley campus is bad and will probably become worse. But it is important to understand that the FSM neither represents nor is typical of the vast majority of Cal students."

By evening of December 2, the FSM organization had provided blankets, sleeping bags and food, a duplicate public address system, and even walkie-talkie equipment so that contact could be maintained with agents outside the building. Some of the teaching assistants who participated


101
in the invasion conducted classes, and pleas by the administration and orders from both the police department and university officials for the students to vacate the building were greeted with boos and disdain. President Kerr conferred with Governor Brown. Peace officers in the East Bay Area were again alerted, and the Berkeley Police Department by this time expressed some impatience at being summoned and sent home repeatedly, since on the occasion of the October demonstrations they had been summoned and dismissed seven times in one day by a Berkeley administration that could not seem to make up its mind to take decisive action to enforce the university regulations, discipline the violators, and put an end to the demonstrations by using whatever force might be necessary for the accomplishment of that purpose.

At 7 p.m. the doors to the administration building, Sproul Hall, were closed, with approximately eight hundred invaders in full possession of the building. Some university Regents arrived at San Francisco airport, and met with President Kerr and Chancellor Strong; there were other San Francisco meetings, while inside the building classes were being held to instruct the demonstrators how to resist arrest by going limp and refusing to cooperate with officers in the event there was any attempt to clear the building by force. At midnight Savio had sentinels posted at the building's entrances to observe outside activities, and at 2:30 a.m. on December 3, Stephen Weisman told the demonstrators to dispose of any illegal objects they might be carrying. Among the illegal objects that were found when police finally took measures to clear the building was a supply of marijuana cigarettes in the possession of Lee M. Rhoads, 2615 Channing Way, Berkeley, 22, a salesman from Virginia who was a sympathizer with the students, and who was held by the Oakland Police Department in lieu of $150.00 bail.

President Kerr and his administration had decided to allow the students to remain in possession of the administration building until they got tired and decided to emerge. This attitude was expressed not only by Kerr to Governor Brown, but also by other members of the Kerr administrative staff, who seemed determined to make any concession instead of resuming control of the campus by whatever steps might be necessary. But the public, responsible officials in Oakland and Berkeley, and highranking peace officers had other ideas as they watched the students settle down with their abundant supplies of food, blankets, communication systems and outside supporters, and they communicated with the Governor, who thereupon issued the following statement:

"I have tonight called upon law enforcement officers in Alameda County to arrest and take into custody all students and others who may be in violation of the law at Sproul Hall.

I have directed the California Highway Patrol to lend all necessary assistance. These orders are to be carried out peacefully and quietly as a demonstration that the rule of law must be honored in California."

Approximately seven hundred peace officers then proceeded to clear the building. Their forces comprised 150 highway patrolmen, 212 police officers from Oakland, and officers from the campus police department, the Berkeley police department and supplementary forces. Immediately before the arrests started, Joan Baez and other FSM leaders who were considered too important to be immobilized by arrests, escaped from the building and disappeared into the crowd. At 3:20 a.m. Police Lieutenant


102
Merrill Chandler followed Chancellor Strong into Sproul Hall to warn all demonstrators who refused to leave that they were in violation of the law, in that they were refusing to discontinue an unlawful assembly and that they were trespassing by occupying the building after it had been closed. Ten minutes later the arrests began, commencing on the fourth floor of the building and working down. The tensions were high, officers lined the hallways, ready for anything that might develop. The demonstrators were milling around outside the building, and the FSM leaders who had escaped were calling for a general strike by all of the 27,500 members of the student body. Jack Weinberg screamed and cursed as he was taken into custody; Savio shouted and sang and protested even after he had been incarcerated. There were a few who resisted arrest by struggling; some locked arms to make it more difficult for the officers to effect an arrest and to take them into physical custody, but most of the "freedom classes' had been sufficiently successful in telling the students to simply go limp and refuse to cooperate with the officers, and this was the procedure that most of them followed. In that connection it may not be inappropriate to refer at this point to an opinion rendered by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert H. Kroninger, in a case in which three juvenile Berkeley sit-ins were convicted of unlawful assembly during the December demonstration. The decision was mentioned in a column sent to newspapers throughout the country from Washington, D.C. on May 3, 1965, was written by Bruce Biossat, and read, in part, as follows:
"The notion is growing in the United States that there is a curious nobility in breaking, ignoring or misinterpreting the law if it is done in a `good cause.'

The cause, of course, can be racial desegregation, campus freedom of one sort or another, U.S. action in Viet Nam, or whatever.

Favoring job integration, some lawyers in Washington have consciensly and deliberately advocated a misreading of the Taft-Hartley Labor Law to give it a racial content its authors and supporters never intended.

Lawyers, politicians, scholars, teachers, artists and clergymen were among the countless persons who voiced unconditional sympathy for the nearly eight hundred law-breaking demonstrators who rebelled last December on the University of California's Berkeley campus.

They appear to have the grossly mistaken view that if an uprising is basically passive and is styled as `civil disobedience,' it somehow falls outside normal concepts of law violation.

In a little-noticed decision convicting three juvenile Berkeley sit-ins of unlawful assembly in the December rebellion, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert H. Kroninger (in the Berkeley-Oakland area) went right to the heart of that issue.

He cited section 148 of California's Penal Code which bars any intentional resistance, delay or obstruction of a police officer in the performance of his duty. Arresting persons unlawfully assembled in a school building was, he said, proper discharge of an official duty. Then Kroninger declared:

`It is clear that the response of lying down and relaxing the muscles of the extremities was intentional. And it is equally clear that the purpose and effect were to delay and obstruct the police officers. It matters not that the participants described such a resistance as passive, or seek exculpation under the mantle of civil disobedience. Such
103
terms merely obscure the question, as the purpose and effect of such conduct differ only in the degree from the responses of flight or violence. Resistance to the rule of law, whether active or passive, is intolerable...'

Unforgivably, the 378 University of California faculty members who sent Governor Edmund G. Brown a telegram of sympathy for the law breakers showed not the faintest awareness of this point. In ignoring it, they and all other sympathizers were dangerously close to arguing that the end (the demonstrators' objectives) justified the means (violating the law).

Judge Kroninger sensibly took note of that danger in his opinion when he said that `to excuse lawlessness by diverting attention to its avowed purpose would be to reject the rule of law and invite chaos.' Kroninger also said that those who consciously act unlawfully must accept responsibility as law violators and not plead, as did many demonstrators and sympathizers, for amnesty the moment they were arrested."

The arrest of almost eight hundred limp and uncooperative people crowded into several floors of a building, and their booking, photographing and fingerprinting, obviously took a great deal of time. The booking was done at the campus police station which was conveniently situated in the basement of Sproul Hall, and thereafter the men were taken to the Alameda County Rehabilitation Center and the women were booked at the Oakland Hall of Justice and incarcerated in the Oakland jail.

Some of the patterns of residence given by the arrested demonstrators show how they were concentrated in little groups. For example, at 2536 College Avenue, Berkeley, were Mario Savio, Dunbar Aitkens, Charles E. Artman, David L. Goines, Ilene Hanover, Albert B. Litewka, Martin H. Rock, Brian Turner, Samuel B. Slatkin, and jack Weinberg. Sandor Fuchs, Arthur Goldberg, Jonathan King, and Wendel C. Brunner, gave their address as 2632 College Avenue, Berkeley.

The premises in which little groups of demonstrators were housed consisted of dormitories operated under the supervision of the university, boarding houses, and apartment houses. There were some instances where a group of men or women would rent a house, but these were the exception rather than the rule. The pattern of occupancy is interesting insofar as it gives the geographical locations and the proximity to the campus of these component parts of the FSM movement. In addition to those addresses already given some of the other most popular locations in Berkeley were 2700 Bancroft Way; 2532 Benvenue Avenue; 2131 Blake Street; 2248 Blake Street and 2423 Blake Street; 2424 Channing Way; 2630 Dana Street; 1927, 2315, and 2939 Dwight Way; 2400, 2542, and 2650 Durant Street; 2515 Fulton Street, 2215, 2231, 2309 and 2426 Grant Street; 2650 and 2721 Haste Street; 2283 Hearst Avenue; 2635 Hillegass Street; 2100, 2208, 2228, and 2325 McKinley Street; 2140 Oxford Street; 2420, 2516, 2519, 2527, 2531, and 2600 Ridge Road; 2437 Shattuck Avenue; 2231 Ward Street; and other addresses from Alameda, Albany, Belvedere, Lafayette, Oakland, Orinda, Palo Alto, Stanford, Richmond, Sacramento, and San Francisco.

The first charges of police brutality were made on December 4. Bonnie Flemming, who was not one of those arrested, stated that she glimpsed some officers with long clubs striking students on the second floor of Sproul Hall when she was standing on the steps of a nearby building; Martin Rock, 20, said an officer broke a pane of glass on the second floor of Sproul Hall and blamed a student for causing the accident. Peter Israel said that he was slapped, Arthur Goldberg said the police beat the hell out of him, and Mike Entin said that the police were "unduly forceful." Michael Smith, a political science senior, said the physician at Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center had treated him for possible concussion; but Dr. James Terry, the responsible medical officer at the Santa Rita facility, made a flat denial of this accusation.

Judge Rupert Crittenden, presiding judge of the Berkeley Municipal Court, acceded to pleas from a delegation of university faculty members, headed by Professor Larzer Ziff, associate professor of English, when they asked him to reduce the normal bail for trespassing and refusal to disperse from $165.00 to $55.00, and the normal bail for resisting arrest from $275.00 to $110.00. Professor Ziff stated that the faculty had raised a bail fund of $8,000 by December 4, and had arranged for the posting of bail in the aggregate of $80,000 by a bail bond firm.

On the evening of Thursday, December 3, an unofficial emergency meeting of the Berkeley faculty was called, and approximately 1,000 of


114
them attended. At this meeting a vote was taken, with 15 dissents, criticizing the administration for its handling of the demonstrations and calling for the ouster of Chancellor Strong. Other resolutions passed at this emergency meeting were recommendations that all students arrested for the sit-in should receive full amnesty, that a faculty committee should be established to hear appeals from any students punished for breaking university rules, that new rules for campus political activities should be declared in effect and enforced "pending their improvement," that the presence of highway patrolmen on the campus be condemned together with the refusal by police officers to allow interested faculty members to enter Sproul Hall during the period of the invasion. A telegram was sent to Governor Brown embodying most of these points, and it was signed by 378 of those attending the meeting. Dr. Michael Duodoroff drafted the message to Governor Brown with the aid of his colleagues Dr. R. Y. Stanier, Dr. Leon Wofsy, to whom we have already alluded, Dr. Ben Papermaster, Dr. Nathan Glazer, Dr. Henry F. May, Professor Mark Schorer, Professor John H. Reynolds, Paul Jacobs, Dr. Henry N. Smith, who took charge of collecting the bail fund for the jailed students, Dr. Dell H. Hymes, who declared that he intended to resign in protest against the handling of the sit-in demonstrators and thought others should do so, and others who expressed themselves in general terms as critical of both Governor Brown and the university administration. From San Francisco State College, Professor Urban Whittaker spoke out against the Berkeley administration, and was joined by Professor Dan Knapp of that institution, who denounced Governor Brown.

President Kerr then issued a statement on December 4th to the effect that Governor Brown had made the decision to call the officers and end the unlawful occupation of Sproul Hall, and called upon the faculty, the staff and the students to carry on the orderly processes of the university and to reject "what has become a free speech movement attempt at anarchy."

Kerr declared that when the FSM issued its ultimatum and set a deadline for compliance by the administration, that its demands had nothing whatever to do with free speech which it well knew, and that it was also aware that the university could not possibly accept the conditions. He said that the FSM and its leaders knew from the start that the police would have to haul them out and were now finding that they had thrown themselves into the arms of a community at large which was less tender and which had fewer scruples about administering discipline.

On this occasion President Kerr had nothing to say about the students carrying on their demonstrations "with heavy hearts."

The Campus Strike

No sooner were the leaders of the student rebellion released from jail when they started planning more demonstrations and more acts of defiance. They first called for a general strike of the university, by the student body, teaching assistants, staff and faculty. This action was originally calculated to include a great many non-students who resided in the immediate vicinity of the university campus, and who had been participating to some extent in previous demonstrations. Even as the police were making their arrests on the morning of December 3, FSM leaders who had escaped from the building drove through the Berkeley streets during the pre-dawn hours with a sound truck broadcasting


115
appeals for demonstrators to block all traffic accesses to the campus, and several hundred people responded. A picket line was established at one of the entrances to the university and another one at a parking lot near Harmon gymnasium.

On December 4th the student strike was joined by graduate students and teaching assistants who protested the Sproul Hall arrests, as well as a number of faculty members. Some professors, employed to teach and drawing their salaries for that purpose, closed their classes and refused to carry out their responsibilities because they were in sympathy with the protesting pickets and the rebellious students. Other members of the faculty expressed views that might be epitomized by the statement by Wallace F. Smith, an assistant professor of business administration, who declared:

"One of the saddest experiences I've had in my life was in the midst of this disorder. To be asked by my students in class to suggest means that they might use to counter it, and seeing no effective means other than to resort to the same tactics and violence, there was nothing I could suggest. And clearly they were asking for assistance in overcoming this attack upon their reputability, seriousness, and respect for the community."[42]

The picketing continued through December 5th and 6th, but as this was over a weekend, many classes that might otherwise have been disrupted were not being held. The most serious effect of the picketing was on Friday, December 4, when sharp lines of faculty splits were drawn between the extreme liberals who were highly critical of Governor Brown and the university administration and vehement in their support of the FSM rebels, the moderate faculty members who advocated the use of normal channels of authority and communication for the purpose of restoring order to the strife-torn campus, and the more conservative element that advocated swift and firm disciplinary action on the part of the administration as the only possible method to bring an end to chaos and anarchy that had been engulfing the Berkeley campus since the first demonstration occurred in September, 1964.

There are reports to the effect that during the period of the general strike, many professors who were sympathetic with the FSM used their classrooms for the purpose of expressing these sentiments to their students. There are many instances of this sort of flagrant violation of what the faculty refers to as "academic freedom," and there were other instances of professors and teaching assistants deliberately indoctrinating their students in an attempt to gain support for the FSM.

It should be noted that the teaching assistants are graduate students who are working towards a Master's or Doctor of Philosophy degree, and who are employed by the university to conduct sections of large classes under the direction of a professor. Some of the classes in the liberal arts department of the Berkeley campus comprise several hundred students, and are therefore broken down into sections under a number of teaching assistants, who are neither regarded as students or members of the faculty. They are in much more intimate contact with the students than are the professors, and therefore exert a strong influence over them, and are in turn subject to a powerful influence by their students. Savio, when he threatened to bring the university to a "grinding halt" was referring to a


116
strike by these teaching assistants, which would in effect paralyze the university.

There is a wide variety of views about the effectiveness of the general strike of December 3rd and 4th. Many classes were cancelled without authority, and in some instances heads of departments requested their professors to cancel classes while many graduate students and teaching assistants joined the strikers. At noon on December 4th a rally was addressed by Joan Baez and Assemblymen-elect Stanton, Burton and Brown. There was a picket line of approximately fifteen hundred people across the entrance to the university at Telegraph Avenue and Bancroft Way, about half of the classes were not functioning, and the university did "grind to a halt," as Savio had predicted. SLATE had called for similar violent action earlier in the year when the supplement to its bulletin, issued in large quantities to these students, declared that: "this institution... does not deserve a response of loyalty and allegiance from you. There is only one proper response to Berkeley from under-graduates: that you organize and split this campus wide open!" (Committee's italics.) The rest of the booklet contained typical Communist propaganda.

The university administrators wisely determined that they should postpone any effort at negotiating with the FSM leaders until after the weekend, and thus allow the situation to cool and settle somewhat. But the FSM was busy also.

Until the Sproul Hall invasion there had been a loosely-knit organization which called itself the Free Speech Movement. Many of its meetings resembled group therapy sessions, with the participants sitting around and examining themselves and each other and arriving at very little in the way of plans for action. There were large numbers of people who belonged to no organization and who detested organizations of any sort. But all of this disorganization vanished like magic after December 3rd, and in some astounding manner was immediately replaced by a highly organized structure, complete with departments and sub-departments, an executive committee and a steering committee, plenty of finances, and an abundance of technical equipment.

At Mario Savio's apartment a "Work Central" was established, and soon there were so many people in his quarters that he and Art Goldberg were compelled to take steps to procure larger facilities. Then, in rapid succession, other "Centrals" were established. In addition to the Work Central there was a Press Central, a Legal Central, FSM Central, Command Central, Strike Central, Correction Central, Finance Central, a Night Legal Central, and a Running Expenses Central. The two Legal Centrals could be reached by calling the following telephone numbers: 843-2101 and 848-1208. The telephone for the Command Central was 849-1028, and the Finance Central was listed in the records of the FSM as University of California extension 4941.

It was at this point that the united front movement was jettisoned and in its place appeared this highly sophisticated and efficient FSM organization with its executive committee and steering committee and its system of centrals and its mobilization of supporters that were scattered in key positions throughout the entire Berkeley campus. The dominant figures on the Steering Committee immediately prior to the Sproul Hall invasion were Arthur Goldberg, Mario Savio, Brian Turner, Bettina Aptheker, Sherry Stephenson, Jack Weinberg, Dick Roman, Tom Miller, Sydney Stapleton, Jack Weisman and Mike Rossman. The personnel of this committee changed slightly from time to time, but after the Sproul Hall invasion


117
it became crystal clear that the main leaders were Arthur Goldberg, Mario Savio and Bettina Aptheker.

There has been much speculation as to whether faculty sympathizers for FSM worked to bring order out of the chaos and give that movement some direction and guidance. On more than one occasion, at times of extraordinary tension and when one of the FSM leaders such as Goldberg or Savio was present and making mistakes—some faculty sympathizer would curtly order them to quit talking, and there was instant obedience from these defiant students. That there was some guidance from the left-wing of the faculty was clear. How far it went, and how much authority the faculty exercised in the running of the rebellion, is another matter.

Stephen Weisman was also an important member of the steering committee, and although a non-student, was affiliated with Independent Socialist Club on the Berkeley campus, a peripheral socialist group of factionalists who opposed working with liberals or supporting Democratic Party candidates. Weinberg was recruited out of the Committee on Racial Equality into the Independent Socialist Club approximately one week before he was arrested, and was considered by his colleagues to be politically inexperienced. Mario Savio had joined the Young People's Socialist League at Berkeley in the spring of 1964—a fact which has not hitherto been disclosed, to our knowledge. YPSL was a Trotskyist Communist organization, but he took very little interest in it, was quiet and detached at most of the meetings, and was considered politically lethargic. In the summer of 1964 Savio went to Mississippi to help the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, and returned to the Berkeley campus fired with enthusiasm for the civil rights movement. He still took very little interest in meetings, but soon became a dynamic figure on the top of a battered police car, on the steps at Sproul Hall, on a podium, grabbing a microphone out of a professor's hands on the stage of the Greek Theater, and proving himself so adroit at arousing a crowd of students to a high emotional pitch that he soon became identified as the spokesman for the entire FSM movement.

Arthur Goldberg was an ex-chairman of SLATE, and is still active in that organization as well as in the Communist movement that follows the though Chinese Communist line. Many close observers have expressed doubt that such leaders could devote the time and energy or, indeed, that they had the organizational talent to put together the FSM "Central" system over the week end of December 5 and 6, 1964.

The invasion of Sproul Hall and the campus-wide strike which followed, might be accurately described as follows:

"... Attitudes are bitterly and rigidly sectarian, and political warfare is waged at a pitch that strikes the outsider as close to hysterical. Classes are frequently disturbed by political rallies, and sometimes they have to be suspended because of student strikes."

But this description is of another university, the Central University of Caracas, Venezuela, and is an excerpt from an article by Bernard Taper.[43]

The full quote is as follows:

"Like most other Latin-American universities, it is an intensely political place. Attitudes are bitterly and rigidly sectarian, and political warfare is waged at a pitch that strikes the outsider as close to hysterical. Classes are frequently disturbed by political rallies, and sometimes they have to be suspended altogether because of student
118
strikes. The most recent strike, a protest against the new university rule that students who repeatedly flunked two or three of their courses would be kicked out. In most parts of the world, such a rule would be taken for granted, but student leaders here declared that the reasons students were flunking was that the professors were reactionary and incompetent and their teaching methods antiquated. There is truth in that charge, but, characteristically, the quarrel had its roots in politics—an assertion by the university authorities that many of the students were on the campus solely to agitate, and had no intention of devoting any time whatever to academic work."

Greek Theater Meeting, December 7, 1964

By December 4, the antagonism toward President Kerr that had been consistently exhibited by the FSM, began to spread to other segments of the student community. On December 4, the Daily Californian reproduced an editorial signed by the editors of student papers at Berkeley, Los Angeles and Davis campuses. It was entitled "We Need A Leader," and stated that "Clark Kerr has shown perception and good will through his many statements to the press and the community. But to this day he has not come down to the level of the students, down to the base court."

Three days later the Greek Theater meeting was called. The administration announced that classes would be suspended and that students and faculty alike would assemble to hear what President Kerr had to say. By 11 a.m. the theater was jammed. Thousands of people lined the nearby slopes while still others listened to the proceedings on remote loud speakers. The meeting had been carefully organized, and was in charge of Professor Robert Scalapino, chairman of the Department of Political Science. Kerr's speech was one of dignity and a plea for moderation on the part of the faculty, administration, and students. At the conclusion of his talk he announced a further capitulation on the part of the administration, promising forgiveness to students for all offenses committed prior to the day after the invasion of Sproul Hall. This, of course, amounted to complete forgiveness for all offenses committed by the students since the inception of the demonstrations.

When Kerr finished speaking, he turned the podium over to Scalapino and while Scalapino was in the process of adjourning the meeting, he was shouldered from his position by Savio, who seized the microphone. This was an act of unwarranted and brash intrusion whereby Savio sought to inject himself without invitation on a program that had been carefully structured by the university administration. No invitation had been extended to, nor had any been requested by, the FSM movement. Savio merely saw an opportunity to keep the emotional fervor of his followers at a high pitch, and took this sudden and dramatic means to accomplish that purpose. Dramatic it was, indeed, as the campus policemen wrestled him to the floor, took the microphone from his hand, and dragged him on his back across the stage to the rear entrance of the theater. Professor Joseph Tussman, chairman of the Department of Philosophy, persuaded the police to release Savio so that he might speak, and he returned and announced, in a low and controlled voice, that there would be a noon rally on the steps of Sproul Hall. This rally was attended by the largest student assemblage in the history of the Free Speech Movement, estimates ranging from six to seven thousand, who listened while Savio attacked President Kerr, repudiated his proposals, and declared that the FSM would continue with its demands and its demonstrations.


119

While Savio made his sensational grab for the microphone, President Kerr stood in amazement, observing part of the occurrence from the door of a conference room where he had gone for a scheduled press conference. The acting chairman of the Department of Speech, Professor Robert Beloof, accompanied by Art Goldberg, approached the President and told him that he must let Savio address the audience. When Goldberg interrupted in an effort to catch the attention of Kerr, Beloof said, "for once in your life, shut up." And Goldberg meekly obeyed. President Kerr said that this would have to be arranged with Professor Scalapino, who was the chairman of the meeting, and after he had consented Savio announced the time and place of the rally.

Professor Beloof later recalled that the lack of communication between the Berkeley administration and its faculty was underlined by the fact that although he had been on the campus for sixteen years, during which time he had been promoted from a lecturer to chairman of his department, and Kerr had gone from a professor to president of the university, the two men had never spoken before.

Immediately prior to entering the Greek Theater to make his address, Kerr stated to two members of the faculty who were standing immediately outside the entrance, that Governor Brown had "double-crossed" him because when they had conferred about the invasion of Sproul Hall, the Governor had agreed with Kerr that the situation at the University of Chicago had been handled correctly by simply allowing the students to remain in a building until they became tired instead of ousting them forcibly. This was the course of action Kerr recommended at Berkeley, but he declared that when irate citizens and law enforcement officers began to telephone the Governor demanding that something be done to prevent continued violations of the law, he broke his prior commitment with Kerr and ordered officers to clear the students from the administration building.

Witnesses who were present at the news conference immediately following the Greek Theater program watched arrogant young leaders of the FSM talking to the President of the university as though he were their inferior, exhibiting no respect whatever for his position, issuing their demands and ultimatums, while Kerr stood and endured the situation. One cannot but wonder what would have happened if he had followed the action of Professor Beloof and told these arrogant youngsters to shut up and make their demands with some degree of respect, and at the proper time and place.

We should not close this description of the Sproul Hall invasion, the arrests, and the campus-wide strike that followed, without mentioning the fact that in connection with the strike FSM had a committee of almost one hundred and fifty members calling university students over the week end and asking for their support, and many students received anonymous telephone calls from people purporting to be their teaching assistants, advising them that it would not be advisable for them to attend classes during the strike. The Berkeley Chapter of the American Federation of Teachers also directed a statement to President Kerr, which, although employing polite language, made it clear that if any disciplinary measures were taken against teaching assistants or faculty members for deserting their posts to support a group of rebellious students, a strike would doubtless ensue. The pertinent part of this message read as follows:

We would like to inform you that any punitive action taken against teaching assistants or officers of instruction would be intolerable
120
to our group and create a situation in which class instruction could not continue..." (Committee's italics)

Pending a meeting of the Academic Senate on December 8, the FSM temporarily suspended its strike at midnight the previous day. We have already mentioned the result of this meeting of the Academic Senate: general support of the FSM position by a vote of 824 to 115. At almost the same time candidates from SLATE for important positions in the student government won victories in all seven of the positions for which they were candidates, and Sandor Fuchs, SLATE chairman and FSM member, declared that:

The victory for SLATE is a victory for the Free Speech Movement, and an independent ASUC. It comes at a time of the greatest victory for the student movement, just hours after the Academic Senate voted for full free speech on the campus.

Almost simultaneously the Senate of the ASUC (Associated Students of the University of California) passed this resolution:

The ASUC Senate urges all professors, instructors and teaching assistants to be most tolerant of and lenient toward students missing classes, examinations, and papers during this semester, and especially during the last week.[44]

The Role of Chancellor Strong

On the night of Saturday, December 5, 1964, Chancellor Strong was taken to the university medical center in San Francisco. His physicians tentatively diagnosed the difficulty as a gall bladder upset, and stated that he would be hospitalized for at least a week. For this reason one of the most controversial and outstanding figures during the whole period of the Berkeley Rebellion was unable to attend the important meeting in the Greek Theater.

There should be no mistake about the political sentiments of Edward Strong. He had opposed the ouster of two Communist professors from the University of Washington at Seattle in 1948, and it is a coincidence that Raymond B. Allen, who was then President at the University of Washington, and who wrote the first important work establishing the complete contradiction between Communism and academic freedom, later became Chancellor of the University of California at Los Angeles.

Strong also was a militant opponent of the loyalty oath at the University of California several years ago, and has always been in favor of throwing the campuses open to known Communist officials and allowing them to lecture to the students. We say it is important for us to know this liberal tendency on the part of Dr. Strong, because in spite of this attitude when he became Chancellor of the Berkeley campus he undertook to enforce the existing rules and regulations without timidity and without favoritism.

This attitude, of course, met with the universal disapproval of the FSM and its faculty supporters. It also met with the disapproval of certain conciliatory elements in the administration of the university. On several occasions Chancellor Strong was encouraged by the administration to proceed with disciplinary action, and when he did so he found that negotiations to nullify that action were being carried on by superiors without his knowledge or consent. It was Chancellor Strong who declared on September 30, during the first sit-in at Sproul Hall, that:


121
"The university cannot and will not allow students to engage in deliberate violation of law and order on the campus... When violence occurs, the university must take disciplinary action. Such action is being taken... I stand ready, as always, to meet with the officers of any student organization to discuss the policies of the university."

This comment provoked a statement from Mario Savio: "I think they (the administration) are all a bunch of bastards."

It was Chancellor Strong who took the decisive action to suspend the eight students whose names have been mentioned before, and it was Chancellor Strong's determination to enforce existing campus rules that brought him into disfavor with large segments of the liberal campus community. We do not contend that Chancellor Strong was the best of university administrators; we disagree with his views that known members of the Communist Party should be permitted to teach in an educational institution, or that they should be permitted to have access to campuses for the purpose of propagandizing large groups of students. But we are convinced that despite his liberal convictions, and despite his extreme popularity with the liberal element of the Academic Senate at Berkeley before the rebellion commenced, he had the integrity and determination to do the best job of which he was capable in attempting to enforce the rules he had been given to uphold. Then, as might be expected, his former liberal supporters turned upon him and joined with the FSM rebels to become his most bitter critics. We are further convinced that Strong was placed out on the end of a limb to receive the blows and the criticisms as the chief campus administrative officer, and when his unpopularity became apparent, the limb was chopped off and he was tossed into the discard. This action of summarily disposing of Chancellor Strong seems to us all the more reprehensible because it was not done openly, but the public relations department at the Berkeley campus issued statements that created the impression that Chancellor Strong wished to resign from his position because of ill health, and that he suggested Martin Meyerson as his successor. Fortunately, Strong himself issued a statement giving the lie to these contentions, and establishing the fact that he never had any intention of resigning and was told that he would either have to submit his resignation or be kicked out of office, and that he never did more than agree to accept Meyerson as his assistant, not as his replacement.

The Strong document went further and declared that he had been hamstrung at every turn from the moment the student rebellions commenced, and that he was continuously being by-passed in such a manner that his authority was whittled down and his prestige as Chancellor undermined.

Chancellor Strong refused to follow the recommendations of the Heyman Committee to reinstate the eight suspended students, but they nevertheless were granted amnesty through subsequent proceedings. We have noted that there were occasions when Chancellor Strong would take disciplinary action against some of the rebellious students for clear violations of the university rules, and then without his consent these same students would confer with other members of the administration, an ad hoc committee of the Academic Senate would be created without Strong's consent, and it would usually issue a recommendation completely opposed to the action the Chancellor had already taken. This procedure is, of course, characteristic of the cold, computer-like manner in which the university—especially the Berkeley campus—was operated.


122

The FSM, with its system of Centrals, the coordination of its activities, and the strength and firmness with which it acted, was far superior to the organization of the Berkeley administration, that was floundering in a bureaucratic tangle, with no clear and definite leadership, no firm insistence on the enforcement of its own rules, and an unwillingness to stand solidly behind the actions of the Chancellor. There were endless committee meetings, faculty resolutions, disruptions in the chain of command, and an area of confused overlapping between the administration of the statewide university and the administration of the Berkeley campus.

On December 9 the executive committee of the Berkeley Chapter, American Association of University Professors, which had insisted on dismissal of all charges against the arrested demonstrators and demanded "a new chief campus officer" issued this statement: "Chancellor Strong has long been a respected member of this faculty. We are immensely saddened by the news of his illness and hope for his early recovery to full health." Strong was released from the hospital three days later and on the fourth day after his return to the campus moved swiftly to cancel use of Wheeler Auditorium on the Berkeley campus by the arrested students and their attorneys for a meeting at 7:30 a.m. on December 13.

There had been some intimations in the press, especially the San Francisco Chronicle, to the effect that Chancellor Strong would soon resign. We have positive information that these statements were never authorized by the Regents, but may have originated through unauthorized statements by one or more members of the Board of Regents who had advance information concerning Strong's ouster. These maneuvers behind the scenes, the hasty "off-the-record" meeting of three Regents at Hilton Inn at the San Francisco airport, and the announcement on January 3, 1965, that Strong had been removed from his position at his own request "for reasons of health," and that Martin Meyerson had been appointed Acting Chancellor in his place, so disturbed many of Strong's friends who were in a position to know the true facts of the matter, and they persuaded him to issue a statement on December 20, 1964, which was handed to each member of the Board of Regents and all of the Chancellors of the various campuses.

The following excerpts are taken from the Strong document:

"... The manner in which authority acts in relation to its responsibilities determines the reactions of others. Authority has reacted to violation of the rules and regulations, threats and intimidation with inconsistency rather than consistency, and through negotiation with ad hoc and often self-appointed groups and organizations rather than through established agencies involving appropriate persons and organizations. Too often reliance has been placed, or credence given, to individuals and groups without portfolio. Because of these mistakes there resulted an undermining of the acceptance of and respect for traditional ways of handling complicated matters of rules and regulations established both for the safety of the University and for the welfare of its members. There resulted an undermining of the respect for those campus officers normally responsible for carrying out the policies of the University. Too often there has been the announcement that `henceforth law and order will prevail,' followed by vacillation, concessions, compromises, and retreats. No wonder, then, that an increasing number of persons have felt insecure or have become confused about the rightness of the University's position. During the days leading up to the fateful evening of October 2, the position


123
was stated and restated for all to hear that the University would never negotiate with individuals who were at that time engaged in unlawful behavior—for thirty-two hours, for example, holding captive a police car and the prisoner within. Despite these firm statements negotiation did follow. Established committees were bypassed. An ad hoc committee of the Academic Senate was established to deal with violations. The implications were far-reaching. Credence was given to the idea that administrative committees were even less fair or less capable than ad hoc bodies, and a breach between the administration and the faculty was opened. Negotiations by-passing the Chancellor left a vacuum in authority on the campus. Into this vacuum rushed scores of individuals and groups, some intent on saving the situation and others on gaining power.

Why throughout these many days we have not had consistency in the expression and enforcement of rules and regulations is a long and complex story. Why we have not consistently supported the integrity of established instrumentality is to be explained, in my opinion, by a too political rather than a moral approach to our difficulties. That these things have occurred is a fact.

What must the future course be? It must be the opposite of the past. We must not take one more step in retreat. We must be consistent and steadfast in enforcing rules and regulations. We must work only through established organizations and agencies. We will listen to all. But we will not yield to threats, pressures and defiances.

It is revealing that on December 9, Mr. Steve Weisman, a graduate student leader, had a rally on Sproul Hall steps, announced that now that the advocacy battle was won, the FSM would seek to enlist students in a campaign of academic reform—that is, a campaign to influence course content and to change the grading system. This was the campaign announced at the beginning of the semester by the SLATE Supplement, calling upon students to split the campus wide open. After three months of student demonstrations, there can be no doubt about the basic issue which now confronts the University. The legitimate authority of the University is being challenged and attacked in a revolutionary way. It is imperative that respect for duly constituted authority be upheld. The conciliation undertaken by the President in his agreement of October 2 with leaders of the student demonstrations was flouted by resumption of deliberate violations of rules. Every succeeding concession has been followed by further demands. Efforts to restore order and to enforce rules of right conduct have been crippled by three deficiencies: (1) The lack of a consistent and stable position in enforcement of rules; (2) The lack of clear and firm policies consistently maintained; (3) Infirmity of delegated authority to act at the local level as needed to enable the Chancellor to meet the responsibility assigned to him in restraining conduct not in keeping with the educational purposes of the University."

There is much more to Strong's statement, and there was amplification of the material quoted above in documents handed to the Regents in Los Angeles. Strong made it very clear that in his opinion discipline at the Berkeley campus was shattered by the attitude of President Kerr, who repeatedly gave in to the demands of the student rebels, and that not one student was under censure, probation, dismissal or expulsion for acts of civil disobedience subsequent to October 1, 1964, and that members of


124
the teaching staff who joined in the student strike during the first week of December were given immunity under the Kerr amnesty decree. Strong emphasized that he was literally forced from office over his protests, and that the statement he gave out at the time was simply not true, and that he had been forced to make it under pressure, and did so for what he then considered the best interests of the university.

Dr. Strong, now 63, probably made his final appearance in connection with the Berkeley rebellion when he appeared on April 2 to testify pursuant to a subpoena in Judge Crittenden's court where the first group of one hundred and fifty-five defendants were being tried. After describing the general succession of events in which he participated from September until the time of his ouster, he stated that spokesmen for the Free Speech Movement had issued an ultimatum which came to him through President Kerr on December 2, ordering him to yield to FSM demands and to grant amnesty to suspended students or face massive trouble. He stated: "I could do nothing while they were holding a gun at the university's head." Dr. Strong is now living quietly in his home at 1155 Euclid Avenue, Berkeley, and maintaining his teaching status without participating in the stormy affairs on the Berkeley campus that smoulder and erupt sporadically as tensions ebb and flow.

When Martin Meyerson assumed his new position as Acting Chancellor at Berkeley, he issued a statement on January 3, 1965, containing the following passage:

"It was only last night after Chancellor Strong's request for a leave that I was asked by him, by the Regents, and President Kerr to be acting Chancellor."

It is quite possible that Chancellor Meyerson might have been laboring under a misapprehension, and that could be attributed to the peculiar press releases that were appearing out of the university's public relations department. In any case, it is completely disputed by Strong's declaration that he never requested a leave, was given an ultimatum of either resigning or being fired, and did not join in any request with the Regents and President Kerr to be replaced by Meyerson, or anyone else.

Four months after the first student demonstrations occurred, the Board of Regents announced the appointment of two committees of its members, one to study possible changes in rules on regulating political activities on the campuses, and the other to investigate causes of the disturbances at Berkeley. The first committee, headed by Theodore R. Meyer, a San Francisco attorney who was elected chairman, and which is commonly known as the Meyer Committee, was comprised of the following Regents, in addition to the chairman: Donald H. McLaughlin, a San Francisco mining engineer and formerly prominent member of the department of Geology and Mining on the Berkeley campus; Mrs. Elinor Heller, Atherton, former Democratic National Committeewoman; John Canaday, vice-president of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Burbank; Mrs. Randolph A. Hearst, Hillsborough; Lawrence J. Kennedy, attorney at Redding, and Samuel B. Mosher, president of the Signal Oil and Gas Company in Los Angeles.

The other committee, commonly known as the Forbes Committee, or Byrne Committee, was composed of the following Regents: William E. Forbes, of Los Angeles, chairman; Philip A. Boyd, Riverside; Mrs. Dorothy B. Chandler, Los Angeles; William K. Coblentz, San Francisco; Norton Simon, Fullerton; Jesse W. Tapp, Los Angeles, and Edward Pauley, Beverly Hills.


125

It should be observed at this point that the Board of Regents has never had any adjunct that would enable it to make an independent investigation of important university matters. It has drifted into the habit of relying completely upon information received from academic committees, representatives of the administration, and upon personal representations from the President. Indeed, during the Kerr administration, the Regents were persuaded to institute an innovation. It consisted of private, off-the-record sessions with the President of the university at gatherings immediately preceding the formal Regents' meetings. At these affairs, carefully restricted so that no other members of the university administration and no members of the news media were permitted to attend, the real work of the Regents was done and the strategy planned that was formalized at the open Regents' meeting the following day. It should be quite obvious that many of the representations made by committees of the Academic Senate, the administration, or the President of the university, might be self-serving, and when the Board of Regents has no other means of ascertaining the objectivity of the representations, it acts, in practice, as a sort of rubber stamping mechanism for virtually all of the recommendations submitted to it by the President as the chief administrative officer of the university. The dangers inherent in this sort of operation are obvious. And since the ground rules for the operation of the university forbid faculty members, students or other members of the administration from making any direct contact with the Regents or with state officials on matters pertaining to the operation of the university without first going through the President's office, it is sometimes difficult for the Regents to know exactly what is going on.

It should be noted that the first of the student demonstrations commenced in the fall of 1964, and the Regents had no independent observers of their own authorized to gather objective information until the formation of the Forbes Committee which was created in December, 1964, but which did not actually start to function until February, 1965. Its 85-page report was submitted to the Regents in May, and appeared in the press on May 12th.

"How Are Things at Berkeley?"

On February 26, 1965, a special committee headed by Professor Arthur M. Ross issued a statement for circulation among hundreds of colleges and universities throughout the country in order to bring them up to date concerning conditions at Berkeley. Other members of this committee were Raymond G. Bressler, school of agricultural economics; Earl F. Cheit, school of business administration; Carl E. Schorske, department of history; Arthur H. Sherry, school of law; Robley C. Williams, department of molecular biology, and Richard W. Jennings, school of law.

The tenor of the report was that the Berkeley campus had finally settled down. "The primary academic functions of teaching, learning and research have regained their proper places," it said, together with fresh, and new discussions about the purposes and methods of the educational process. It announced that there were better communications between students and professors "in classrooms, studies, restaurants and professors' homes," and it announced that political advocacy was occupying a secondary place.

Problems were now being solved, according to the report, "by rational discussion and mutual adjustment." This Emergency Executive Committee


126
, after conferences with the Regents, President, Chancellor, faculty and students, reported that the troubles had been solved. President Kerr had shown "discerning judgment," and Acting Chancellor Meyerson had "imaginatively opened new perspectives for the university community." The report chided some of the more liberal faculty members and FSM supporters because they had presumed to ask Judge Crittenden to dismiss the pending cases against the Sproul Hall invaders; it soothingly pointed out that campus tensions had relaxed; it saw no danger of students controlling education, and it concluded by declaring confidently that
"With the crisis over political activity largely behind it, Berkeley has thus turned its attention to the larger problems of higher learning on the American urban frontier. What might have been a fatal community crisis has become instead a constructive opportunity for relating the traditions of scholarly life to the spiritual requirements of a modern democratic society."

This confident and comforting document was signed by all members of the Emergency Executive Committee and on February 27 the Bay Area papers reported that the document was being mailed to the colleges and universities originally intended.

But "How are things at Berkeley?" proved more optimistic than prescient, because the Filthy Speech Movement exploded on the Berkeley campus five days later, and on March 9 Kerr and Meyerson called a press conference and resigned. Thus when copies of the Ross Committee's report reached the colleges and universities with the question "How are things at Berkeley?" the recipients could easily find the answer in the newspapers without reading the document.

The Filthy Speech Movement

The Filthy Speech Movement started on March 3 when a thin, barefoot lad of twenty-two, a non-student named John J. Thompson, strolled across the Berkeley campus bearing a large sign on which was a four-letter word for sexual intercourse. He was arrested and as he was being conducted from the premises protested that he was only opposing censorship.

The American Civil Liberties Union in San Francisco, usually alert and deeply concerned with such things as free speech, civil disobedience and censorship, was informed of the occurrence. Its Northern California director is reported to have simply exclaimed: "Good Grief!" But Arthur Goldberg, of SLATE and FSM notoriety, promoted another student demonstration, and he was quoted as saying, "a guy had a right to express himself like he wants."[45]

At the time this new incident triggered another demonstration, there were faculty committees in abundance, new rules had been announced, and the Regents had demanded a tougher policy on the part of the administration. The vast majority of the 27,500 students at Berkeley were still trying to get an education despite all of these disturbances, when this barefoot boy with his dirty little sign appeared. SLATE and FSM leaders started a demonstration that attracted twenty-three hundred students, including women and minors, and the offensive four-letter word was repeatedly shouted. It seemed as though the administration had suddenly surrendered and withdrawn from the arena. Tables were set up, one of them bearing the sign "F— defense fund," which the campus police allowed to remain after an altercation with Goldberg. But when David


127
Bills, a freshman, sat down at the table to make collections, he followed young Thompson off to jail. Other arrests were made as follows: Stefan Argent, a student from Oakland City College; Michael Klein, a senior in the engineering department at Berkeley, who led a crowd into Sproul Hall basement and began to read the more juicy portions of "Lady Chatterly's Lover;" Edward Rosenfeld, another non-student, who had also been arrested during the Sproul Hall sit-in, and who was displaying signs "Support the F— Cause."

When Chancellor Meyerson was located by reporters and asked for a comment he stated that he had no comment, "not even one word." President Kerr could not be reached.[46]

It will be recalled that the theme which was pounded home over and over again during the SLATE conferences at Berkeley, and also by the founding conventions of the DuBois Clubs of America, was the complaint that the university stood in the position of an intolerant and authoritative parent toward its students, in loco parentis. This incident would seem to indicate that perhaps there should have been a substitute for a parent who had the good sense to get down the razor strap and haul the kids off to the wood shed. But in the anarchy that was allowed to prevail, the handful of bullies again ran over the vast majority of stable, well-behaved students by interfering with their rights to obtain an education without these disturbances that were now beginning to assume the atmosphere of a comic opera at Berkeley, and subjecting them to a barrage of obscenity and gutter language.

On March 5 a crowd of over seven hundred students gathered as the rally continued. An English professor, Mark Schorer, had the courage to appear and tell the defiant group "this protest fits more appropriately into the category of a panty raid, a sex-and-beer party." Professor Arthur Ross stated that the demonstration was not an enterprise worthy of young adults; Chancellor Meyerson declared that the students had "defied public law and therefore were arrested;" the barefooted young John Thompson, out on bail, appeared on the campus again and said that he represented the May 2nd Movement which was an organization against the presence of American troops in Viet Nam.

Then yet another twenty-two-year-old young man appeared, a pre-legal student at Berkeley, and signed complaints against the chief offenders at these rallies, who persisted in thrusting themselves and their offensive language on the majority of the student community. This courageous young man who alone seemed to have enough determination to take these actions was Mark Van Loucks, of Oakland. He was quoted as declaring, in his lone crusade for decency on the campus: "If the law can protect our freedom of worship or assembly or speech, why can it not also protect our feelings?"[47]

There was widespread indignation throughout the state over this last defiance of order at Berkeley. There were irate messages from Regents, and a sarcastic editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle of March 8, stating: "When students at the University of California last week displayed their acquisition of a four-letter word that does not appear even in Webster's New International Dictionary... one should certainly put that down as a significant learning achievement..."

On March 10, the Chronicle declared that Regents had telephoned the university and demanded that Kerr and Meyerson act immediately to


128
expel the students responsible for the demonstration, but President Kerr demurred, not defending the student action, but insisting that the campus must follow the disciplinary procedures worked out in the FSM disputes of the preceding fall and winter.

The Regents refused to be put off, however, and demanded that Kerr assume a position of leadership and take immediate disciplinary action against the students involved. At this point President Kerr was faced with three alternatives: he could either follow the orders of the Regents and expel the students or take other appropriate disciplinary action against them; he could let the courts handle the matter, as was done in the case of the invaders of Sproul Hall; or he could escape personal responsibility by passing the burden to one of the many committees of the Academic Senate. He elected to follow the latter course, but when he tried to find an appropriate committee to handle the situation, he was unsuccessful. This time the Academic Senate balked, declined to assume jurisdiction of the matter, and the President and Acting Chancellor then resigned, as we have stated.

At this point we are reminded of the earlier statement made by President Kerr, that the alternative of giving students total immunity could engender a situation akin to that in the University of Caracas, where student revolutionaries "used the campus as a fortress from which to sail forth to attack the general society." It was painfully clear that at this point the university campus at Berkeley was operating without any discipline or restriction whatever, compendia of filth were being distributed on and off the campus, and in support of this nauseating campaign were some of the most prominent leaders of the Free Speech Movement whose dedication to Communism they had disdained to conceal.

Kerr and Meyerson "Resign"

Before proceeding with a discussion of the Filthy Speech Movement, the background leading up to the resignation of President Kerr deserves some attention. It had long been his custom to ask and receive a vote of confidence from the Regents whenever he deemed it expedient, but at the meeting held in February of 1965, he had asked for such a vote and failed to receive it. He had been violently opposed to any attempt on the part of the Regents to investigate his administration of the university, and his protests had been ignored. He was thoroughly aware that many of the more influential Regents had become dissatisfied with his failure to take a firm command during the crisis at Berkeley and were tired of seeing the responsibility thrust upon one faculty committee after another. The eruption of the Filthy Speech Movement, on the heels of a reassuring statement by the emergency executive committee headed by Professor Ross, was simply the culmination of a series of events that indicated growing dissatisfaction on the part of the Regents with the Kerr administration.

In the meantime, nothing was being done in the way of discipline against the offending students, but the statewide administrative office at Berkeley was busy issuing statements about the resignations through its public relations department, while, as the Oakland Tribune stated on March 11, 1965, "a fresh shipment of statements arrived from El Cerrito (Kerr's off-campus residence), where the outgoing President had lashed away at the latest campus disgrace..."

Senator Burns, in Sacramento, declared at a press conference that a state of anarchy had developed on the Berkeley campus, that drastic


129
action must be taken to end this strife, that Kerr had demonstrated his inability to cope with the situation, and that since Kerr's resignation had been dramatically delivered to the press instead of the Regents, it indicated to Burns that Kerr was not very serious about having his resignation accepted.

Commenting on the Burns' statement, Senator J. Eugene McAteer, Democrat of San Francisco, declared that the legislature should insist that the university make security checks of its faculty members and other employees. His remarks were printed in the Oakland Tribune on March 12.

Subsequent events indicated that Senator Burns was not far wrong when he predicted that Kerr's dramatic resignation was not exactly what it seemed. A convocation of Chancellors was held at Kerr's request, and they issued a statement asking that his resignation be withdrawn. At the same time messages began to appear from various organizations and individuals, all imploring the President and the Acting Chancellor to withdraw their resignations, but while there was considerable student and faculty support for Meyerson, there was noticeably less for Kerr.

The impact of the filthy speech incident among legislators at Sacramento, among the alumni of the university, and the community at large was enormous. The state apparently had its fill of these astounding antics at Berkeley, and it was clear that the administration was powerless to do anything toward successfully restoring order and had fumbled about since September issuing reassuring statements, passing responsibilities from one committee to another, and wrangling incessantly over the wording of complicated resolutions on matters of technical procedure, jurisdiction and recommendations. There was no strong, dominant figure who emerged to assume charge of the situation during the crisis with the fairness and the firmness that was so desperately needed.

On March 18 Mario Savio and Stephen Weisman issued the familiar old warning that all sort of unpleasant things would happen to the university if students were disciplined for circulating obscenity. In early March a dirty little magazine called Spider was issued and sold in large quantities both on and off the Berkeley campus. Its staff consisted of Jacqueline Goldberg, sister of Art Goldberg, who was arrested during the Sproul Hall invasion; Sue Currier; Jim Prickett; Richard Currier; Andy Magid; Sandor Fuchs, the president of SLATE and one of the persons arrested during the Sproul Hall invasion; Stephen DeCanio, also one of the arrestees and participants in the Free Speech Movement, and Alice Huberman, also a Free Speech participant and a Sproul Hall arrestee.

DeCanio had an article entitled "Bourgeois Slave Morality—Opiate of the People," on p. 9, wherein he stated "... we have to fight and destroy institutions, interests, or individuals when they stand in the way." And "revolutionaries realize that it is their duty to seize and consolidate political power, even if it means the total annihilation of the enemy."[48]

The second issue of this magazine outdid its predecessor in obscenity, carrying a boldly frank interview with four of the dirty speech advocates in a series entitled "To Kill A —ing Bird." Chancellor Meyerson barred sale of the first issue of Spider on the campus, and when the second one appeared on March 18, he ordered it withdrawn and sent Dean of Men Arleigh Williams and Professor Neil Smelser to warn those who were selling the magazine that if they did not desist they would be subject to


130
immediate disciplinary action. Notwithstanding the first warning, the students persisted in endeavoring to sell copies of the second edition of Spider on the Berkeley campus, received another warning and retreated. But the issue was sold out, about a thousand copies, and ten students led by a non-student, Charles Artman, staged a sit-down demonstration outside Chancellor Meyerson's office. Richard Schmorleitz, director of the FSM Press Central and a leader of the FSM movement, offered for sale published copies of a play entitled "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", another dirty word publication which Chancellor Meyerson also banned.[49]

It should be observed, however, that both issues of Spider and the play sold by Schmorleitz remained on sale at the student book store on the campus, and on March 24, despite the ban, Spider was being sold openly in a crowd of 3,000 students on the campus and at Sproul Hall in a probing strategy to find out what response could be provoked on the part of the Berkeley administration. There were no arrests, no interference, and the editors of the magazine conferred with Dean Williams and agreed to halt their sales for that day.

The trial of Arthur Goldberg, David Bills and Michael Klein, arrested during the obscenity rally on the campus, was set for April 20, before Municipal Judge Floyd Talbott, and pending the outcome of that trial and the case which resulted from the complaint filed by Mark Van Loucks, the Filthy Speech Movement, led by prominent members of the FSM, became dormant—at least for the time being.

We have no doubt that the Filthy Speech matter will not plague the camps as long as the most recent ruling of Acting Chancellor Meyerson remains in effect, because in April he ruled that the ban on the distribution of Spider which had been in effect although not observed since March 18, would be lifted. Immediately a third issue of the magazine was undertaken by its publishers. Meyerson ruled that the dirty little publication could be sold only by student organizations, and that shouting obscenities or displaying them on posters and handbills attached to doors, buildings, trees or other objects on the campus would be sternly prohibited.

When the Regents met in Berkeley last March, several of them expressed vehement criticism of the disciplinary laxness at Berkeley, but praised Chancellor Ivan S. Hinderaker for his handling of similar problems at the Riverside campus of the university. The student council at Riverside had passed a resolution calling on President Johnson to intervene in Selma, Alabama, which was obviously an off-campus issue and forbidden by the campus regulations. Chancellor Hinderaker did not endeavor to escape his responsibilities by shifting them to some faculty committee, but warned the council directly that he would dissolve it forthwith unless it rescinded its action. The action was rescinded, five of the students resigned from the council, and the educational processes at the Riverside campus of the university proceeded as usual.

On March 16, 1965, the senate of the Associated Students of the University at Berkeley passed a similar resolution, asking President Johnson to send Federal Marshals to protect citizens in Selma, Alabama, and the motion was carried. The response from Chancellor Meyerson consisting in a mild reminder to the ASUC Senate that off-campus issues were in violation of the "Kerr Directive."


131

On March 13 there was a five and a half-hour closed meeting of the Regents, specially called for the purpose of handling the emergency situation at Berkeley. Kerr and Meyerson withdrew their resignations, and announced later to the press that they would stay withdrawn "pending further discussions with the Regents."

On May 11, Judge Floyd Talbott found all nine of the defendants in the Filthy Speech case guilty. They were: Arthur Goldberg, James Prickett, John Thompson, Charles Artman, Daniel Rosenthal, Michael Klein, David Bills, Edward Rosenfeld and Stephen Argent. Time for pronouncing sentences was fixed by Judge Talbott for June 8.

The Free Student Union

About twenty-five hundred students gathered at Sproul Hall on April 22nd and listened while Mario Savio and Art Goldberg attacked the Acting Chancellor for imposing discipline upon the filthy speech offenders. Savio delivered another ultimatum, giving the administration until Monday, April 28, to rescind its action, and Goldberg lamely tried to defend himself for his participation in the incident, but his effort proved ineffectual. For the first time some students spoke in favor of the administration, and it was distinctly noticeable that support for the leaders of the FSM was waning.

On the following day Regents Meyer and Carter observed that new and tougher rules for student conduct had been suggested and that although the FSM would not like the new measures, there would be no capitulation on the part of the Regents. Savio addressed an audience of about three hundred, stating that telegrams from FSM would be sent to the Regents demanding reconsideration of the cases of the filthy speech participants by a special faculty committee, and reconsideration of the new rules of conduct before the Regents for consideration. But this time the Savio charm failed to work. Finally, he was interrupted by Brad Cleaveland, who said: "You're hot for direct action. It's stupid; you'll get crushed!"[50]

Three days later Savio bade his colleagues goodbye and good luck, stating that he was leaving the university because he could no longer "keep up with the undemocratic principles" of the administration. He said there was a widening gap between the FSM and the students in general, and he sarcastically assured his listeners that this was not "a Kerr-type resignation." When some of the most prominent figures of the FSM elected to support the Filthy Speech Movement, they were caught with an unsupportable cause. Their timing was also bad, because many of the students had been devoting so much attention to the stimulating activities of the FSM that their academic records had suffered badly. Steve Weisman had departed to work with the students for a Democratic Society in Georgia; Jack Weinberg had temporarily gone to San Francisco to work with the Committee on Racial Equality; Ron Anastasi, Martin Roysher and Mark Rossman were reported to have left the FSM altogether. With no dynamic speaker to replace Savio, the movement appeared enervated. It had long been apparent that dissension was growing, and that when Savio discovered his crowd was no longer responsive to his exhortations, he lapsed into his old attitude of detachment and left the arena.

On April 28, the Free Student Union appeared on the Berkeley campus. Jack Weinberg returned from San Francisco to assist Bettina Aptheker


132
with establishing the new organization. They declared that it would be operated with broader base support and tighter control than was the FSM, and defiantly declared that students would govern their own campus affairs, set their own standards of conduct, and join the faculty in determining the nature and form of the curriculum. It was announced that the new organization would fight to end "outside interference." Bettina Aptheker stated that the organizers of the FSU would not necessarily be its leaders, and Weinberg added that the weapon of the strike would be used, a more sophisticated and effective device than the sit-in.

We should add here that Bettina Aptheker had been one of the most indefatigable and effective leaders of the FSM, and had sent long descriptions of its activities to various Communist publications throughout the country; to the California Communist newspaper People's World, and to the official publication of the American Communist Party, formerly edited by her father, Political Affairs.[51]

On May 6th the new FSU held an organization meeting in Harmon gymnasium, a building with a seating capacity of 9,200. There were about 300 present to hear Bettina Aptheker, Jack Weinberg and Mike Lerner explain the structure of the FSU, which then claimed a membership of approximately 2,000 students.

Immediately following this meeting 500 students were recruited, and it was announced that support had been obtained from the Graduate Coordinating Committee and other sympathetic organizations, and that similar movements would be inaugurated on other campuses throughout the country "to represent the interests of all students." The FSU was a carefully-planned organization, whereas the FSM started spontaneously when students from all parts of the campus population became disgusted with an inefficient administration and translated their protests into defiant actions.

The Free University

One of SLATE's most important objectives was a drive to give students some control over their courses of instruction at Berkeley. Brad Cleaveland was a leader in this activity. He was a charter member of SLATE and had served as its treasurer in 1958, working closely with Marvin Sternberg who coordinated the Berkeley organization with other radical student groups at other campuses. There was a particularly close liaison between SLATE and the Independent Student Union in Los Angeles as early as 1958.

Soon SLATE was issuing student evaluations of university courses at Berkeley, and in some cases gave the most liberal professors the lowest ratings. Writing in a SLATE publication in 1963, Cleveland stated that students should have some authority in determining the course of studies that they would pursue. He attacked the administration's bureaucracy that "...is now upon us with a terrific force through all its elements. Those elements began with publish-or-perish (no teachers): with departmentalization, and come all the way down to units, courses, and grades. Knowledge has been exploded, torn apart, dissected, and finally comes through to us by way of an insanely administered flood of fragmented bits."

These remarks by Cleaveland in 1963 set the pattern for FSM complaints a year later, and he concluded his statements by declaring that:

"As students we permit to some extent, and witness, the existence of a terrible chain of confusion. We permit faculty irresponsibility by
133
not demanding extended thought and dialogue. The faculty permits bureaucratic imposition to prevent facing the problem. The administration snuggles up to the seats of power in Washington by selling, or helping professors to sell themselves, to power. The only rub is that Washington is more interested in weapons than anything else these days...so is California...we've lost the free university. And Washington is entertaining international politics with the narrow view which comes from the market place, with no depth, with little broad understanding.

The size of Berkeley is not an argument against meeting the problem. Learning is ultimately a deeply personal experience; size does not necessarily make this impossible."[52]

A booklet called SLATE Supplement is published five times during the academic year. Two issues are supplements to the university catalogue containing a description of all of the courses of instruction offered, and the other three issues are open to articles concerning "higher education, ranging in scope from teaching practices to the call for revolution in this issue." ( SLATE Supplement Report, Vol. 1, No. 4) It was in the fourth issue of this publication that Cleaveland issued his frequently repeated advice that the students "organize and split this campus wide open," accompanied by twelve pages of florid revolutionary propaganda.

It is also of interest to note that the editorial staff of these SLATE Supplements included Sandor Fuchs, Steve DeCanio and Ken Cloke, former president of SLATE and now a contributor to the Communist newspaper, Sue Currier, Jo Freeman, David Goins and Art Goldberg. Many of these were also on the staff of Spider, the publication that became a part of the Filthy Speech Movement.

The attacks contained in the SLATE Supplements included demands that the Regents delegate to the Academic Senate authority to handle student discipline, and that students and faculty combine to handle problems relating to curriculum. This insistence that the students have increasing authority in the operation of the institution is a system followed by radical students in other countries, is generally known as the demand for a "Free University," and is now becoming the chief concern of the Free Student Union. The term has long been used in other countries, and probably had its origin on the Berkeley campus because of a situation that arose at Adelphi College in New York.

In February, 1965, Dr. Allen Krebs, 31, was fired from his position as assistant professor of sociology at Adelphi College. An open Marxist, Krebs emphasized Marxism in his classes, but he did not believe that that was the real reason for his ouster. "The real problem," he said, "is that if you restrict yourself to a strict intellectual role in the classroom you are o.k. But if you become visible—if you act—you are squashed like a cockroach. The system cannot tolerate a real exposure of what America is in the world today."[53] But his department told him he was presenting Marxism unobjectively, and had used his teaching position as a propaganda forum. He had also organized the students and they supported him with a Free Student Movement last January. He was also supported by a petition from the Berkeley campus signed by 814 students and faculty members, led by Mario Savio.

Krebs and another discharged teacher announced that they would form a Free University in New York City, "that would expose students to what


134
is kept from them in most U.S. colleges—Marxian theories." And he agreed with Robert Armstrong, an Adelphi student, who told the press recently: "You want to know why he's been fired. He's been axed because a small-minded university like Adelphi—located in the middle of suburbia and with a lot of rich, conformist businessmen on its board of trustees—can't tolerate a radical."[54]

The student paper at Berkeley carried two items concerning the establishment of a Free University in March, and the massive Communist youth front, International Union of Students, is presently carrying on a propaganda campaign on the campuses of the University of California with its organ News Service, which advocates the planting of Free Universities throughout the world.[55] It will be remembered that the San Francisco DuBois Club sent Carl Bloice to Moscow when he attended the international meeting of Young Communists sponsored by the International Student Union in September, 1964. World headquarters for the ISU is at Vocelova 3, Prague 2, Czechoslovakia, which is the stopover place for American students en route to and from Cuba.

Issues of the ISU publication found in student lounges at Berkeley and UCLA referred to "students of the Free University in Brussels," and describe radical student movements in Algeria, Cambodia, Brazil, Japan, Mauretania, Morocco, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Sudan, Uruguay and Venezuela. Jacqueline Goldberg, Art Goldberg's sister, is on the policy committee to make arrangements for the Ninth World Youth Festival to be sponsored in Algeria by ISU.[56]

Robert Armstrong's description of the Adelphi College trustees as "rich, conformist businessmen," is typical of attacks against authority made by the FSM at Berkeley. Marvin Garson, a Sproul Hall arrestee, wrote a twenty-two-page booklet attacking the Regents, basing his criticism on the fact that they were rich, did not consider themselves accountable to the public, and operated in secret. The fact that successful men control the university is obvious. The other extreme would be to hand the responsibility to unsuccessful men. Private ownership, free competition, and the opportunity to acquire wealth through such competition is not yet an offense in this country. Nor are the unsuccessful people necessarily good while the successful ones are necessarily bad. These concepts belong to class-struggle systems.

Two pages of Garson's booklet criticize the alleged operation through secret meetings, but the rest of it is an attempt to sow distrust of the Regents because they are wealthy and successful business people.[57]

The FSM attempted to sell copies of this Garson booklet on the Berkeley campus on April 7, but since they had no permit to operate the tables and were collecting funds for the defense of Sproul Hall sit-in defendants, the campus police seized the tables, whereupon FSM called a protest march to the Dean of Students office, but managed to drum up a following of only twenty students, and the incident passed without attracting any particular attention.

Professor Joseph Tussman, Chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Berkeley, has recently advocated a new educational program for the Berkeley campus. It would consist of sixty units of instruction, to commence in the fall of 1965, and the course would initially be taught by Tussman, Albert Bendich of the speech department, and Norman Jacobson,


135
of the Department of political science. Dr. Tussman has been an ardent supporter of the student rebellion at Berkeley, cancelling his classes out of respect for and in assistance of the strike that followed the invasion of Sproul Hall, and he declared in a speech delivered on April 7, 1964, that he believed Communism must be given a chance to win the American mind. Tussman has also been an advocate of opening the campus to Communist speakers, in accordance with the plan announced by SLATE, and signed a petition circulated by a Communist front known as the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, protesting the State Department ban against travel to Cuba. This State Department directive was recently upheld by a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Department of Justice is presently proceeding with prosecution of students who made the pilgrimage to Havana while the prohibition was in effect.

Mr. Bendich came directly from his position as attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in San Francisco to accept a position as lecturer in the Department of Speech at Berkeley. His course is described as "superb" in a recent SLATE Supplement, and he has not only been active in support of the student rebellion on the Berkeley campus, but has acted in a legal capacity for the FSM and its members.

Bendich worked as a bus boy in the co-operative cafeterias in Berkeley while he was attending the university there, refused to sign a loyalty oath as a prerequisite for obtaining his salary, and brought a suit against the university in that connection. His attorneys were Dreyfus, McTernan & Lubliner, and Vincent Hallinan. In 1952 Bendich signed a letter in behalf of the Rosenberg atom spy defendants, issued by a Communist front known as The Bay Area Committee to Save the Rosenbergs. In 1953 he married Hilary Hancock Solomon, the daughter of Louis Solomon and Wilma Shore. She had been an active member of the East Bay Civil Rights Congress, which has been officially designated as a Communist front organization. Her mother, a motion picture writer whose pen name is Wilma Shore, has been identified by sworn testimony as a member of the Communist Party. In 1955 Mr. Bendich was associated with Richard Gladstein, a San Francisco attorney who has long been counsel for the Communist Party and its many front organizations and Communist-controlled unions. He became counsel for the Northern California Division of the American Civil Liberties Union, replacing Lawrence Speiser when the latter moved to Washington, D.C.

Norman Jacobson was also an ardent supporter of the FSM, having joined with Bendich and others in signing a statement of criticism against the administration at Berkeley for failing to recognize the FSM crisis as a legitimate campaign to secure freedom of speech on the Berkeley campus. He also accompanied Bendich and Jacobus Ten Broek, Sheldon Wolin, and Howard Schachmen when they presented Judge Crittenden with an eighty-page document on January 21, requesting him to dismiss the cases against the Sproul Hall defendants.

Apparently the suggestion advanced by Dr. Joseph Tussman met with approval by certain elements of the faculty and the administration because it was announced in the New York Times on March 21, 1965, that the faculty had approved and President Kerr had promised support for the establishment of the institution suggested by Tussman. It was scheduled to commence operating in September, 1965, with an initial enrollment of 150 incoming freshmen. This is precisely the sort of educational innovation the FSM and FSU have been demanding.


136

Communist Professors?

With an admirable sense of timing, SLATE issued one of its Supplemental Reports in 1965 entitled "Is It Time for Communist Professors?" A few years ago SLATE did not consider the time ripe for such a proposal, but now that the university was open to Communist speakers, since there was a new spirit of liberalism pervading the campus, and with the almost total success of the FSM program, the time appeared more propitious.

In this SLATE Supplement, William Mandel, the middle-aged Communist member of the FSM Executive Committee, wrote the affirmative argument, which was reprinted from his debate with Dr. Fred Schwartz. The negative was prepared by Assistant Professor Frank Ficcara from the Department of Philosophy at Chico State College. His was the lone dissenting voice. Mandel, however, was bulwarked by a supporting article from one of Ficcara's colleagues from the Philosophy Department at Chico, Knowle Mottershead.

It was, no doubt, a pure inadvertence that occurred in the preparation of this SLATE publication that caused Mandel's article to run smoothly and consecutively for seven pages. Ficcara's reply should have followed but it didn't. Mottershead's did. The reader was asked to skip from page 12 to 19 to find Ficcara's refutation. And even after finding it he could only read one page before being instructed to turn back to page 14 to finish it. By this time the reader's train of thought had been disrupted, and he was weary of puzzling out the chopped-up segments of the lone argument against employing Communist professors at Berkeley. In other words, the arguments in favor of hiring Communists to teach were accorded first place in the booklet, and then the reader was led through a maze of disrupted pages in order to pursue the dissenting opinion.

The editorial comment preceding Mandel's article was entitled "The Next Step Beyond Free Speech." An advertisement for The Spider magazine appeared on page 18 of this booklet.[58]

The matter of Communist faculty members at Berkeley was involved in the appointment of Eli Katz, who held a temporary position as assistant professor in the German department in 1964. He was not re-hired because he refused to answer questions before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and also refused to give satisfactory answers to the same general questions about his Communist background when interrogated by the Chancellor's office. Katz had taught at San Diego State College, had been active in the Communist youth movement for a number of years, was identified as a member of the Communist Party in Los Angeles, was a delegate to the Los Angeles County Communist Convention in 1957 and also had taught Communist classes in schools operated by the party.

The case was submitted to an appropriate committee of the Academic Senate, and there were four copies of its report rendered. One went to the President's office, one into the archives of the Academic Senate, one went to the office of the university's legal department and the other to the office of the Chancellor.

The highly articulate and insistent left-wing of the faculty immediately took up the action and insisted that Katz be restored to his position. The matter was taken up by the Berkeley Chapter of the Association of University Professors, and Ernest Besig, director of the American Civil Liberties in San Francisco, made threats of bringing a legal action.


137

Just before Katz was fired, Kerr sent word that he could remain for one more year if he would agree not to go to a lawyer or to the ACLU. But news of this undercover arrangement leaked out, and even many liberal members of the faculty were disgusted at such negotiations and such ridiculous conditions, and the moderate members of the faculty were disgusted because of this undercover deal with a teacher at the expense of the university and its students.

The administration has apparently yielded to pressure from the insistent Left because in late April of this year the President's office sent for all copies of the Katz file, and refuses to release them to anyone.

In stark contrast to prevailing conditions at Berkeley since the late 50's, it is interesting to see how the Committee on Academic Freedom formerly regarded the employment of professors who defied lawfully constituted committees of the state or federal governments when asked to testify about their subversive affiliations and activities. In 1953 the Academic Freedom Committee made a report which read, in part, as follows:

"...The Committee on Academic Freedom believes that a member of the Faculty of the University of California is under an obligation to testify in a cooperative manner in inquiries lawfully conducted by legally constituted State and Federal investigating committees."[59]

This report was signed by Robert B. Brode, Emily H. Huntington, Kenneth S. Pitzer, William W. Wurster and Wendell M. Stanley, chairman. But the report was made before the new policy of complete freedom and liberalism came to the Berkeley campus, and obviously conditions have vastly changed since this report was rendered in 1953. Dr. Kenneth Pitzer was formerly chairman of the department of chemistry at Berkeley and played a top role in the development of the atomic bomb for the United States. He is now President of Rice College, and shortly before he was appointed to that position the Regents of the University of California desired to offer him the position of Chancellor at Berkeley. They sent word to him by President Kerr, and Pitzer refused. Later, when asked about the matter by one of the Regents, Pitzer stated that Kerr had offered him the Chancellor's position on any of the university campuses except Berkeley.

On the question of employing Communist faculty members at the University, it is interesting to review the attitude of Kerr's predecessor, Dr. Robert Gordon Sproul, when he was President of the university. He declared in June of 1954 that the university served blunt notice on the so-called "liberal" forces that had been sniping at the loyalty requirements of the university. There would be no compromise with Communism, and that no Communist would be employed either in the faculty or in any other capacity, Dr. Sproul declared. He was quoted as follows:

"As for the argument, made off campus by a minor faculty member, that `one or two Communists' should be hired to present the Communist point of view, Dr. Sproul promptly declared it to be utter nonsense. `It is as ridiculous to suppose we must have Communists as teachers as that we should have astrologers in the astronomy department, or African witch doctors in the medical school,' he said."[60]

On October 11, 1940, the Regents concluded that adherence to the Communist Party disqualified a person as an objective teacher, and announced the policy of excluding Communists from membership on the


138
faculty of the university. An excerpt from the minutes of the Regents' meeting on this date read as follows:
"The Regents believe that the Communist Party gives its first loyalty to a foreign political movement and, perhaps, to a foreign government; that, by taking advantage of the idealism and inexperience of youth and by exploiting the distress of underprivileged groups, it breeds suspicion and discord, and thus divides the democratic forces upon which the welfare of our country depends. They believe, therefore, that membership in the Communist Party is incompatible with membership in the faculty of a state university."

President Sproul further emphasized the general policy of the university on August 27, 1934, when he told the Northern Section of the Academic Senate, in substance, that:

"Essentially the freedom of a university is the freedom of a competent person in the classroom. In order to protect this freedom, the university assumes the right to prevent exploitation of its prestige by unqualified persons or by those who would use it as a platform for propaganda. It therefore takes great care in the appointment of its teachers; it must take corresponding care with respect to others who wish to speak in its name."[61]

The foregoing general statement is incorporated in university regulation No. 5, has been included in each edition of the statewide Faculty Handbook to and including the most recent edition, February, 1963. On January 18, 1965, a revised edition of the handbook for faculty members was in process of preparation under the supervision of Virginia Taylor Smith, in the President's office.

The clear and unequivocal statement of the Regents was first included in the faculty manual and other publications of the university on October 11, 1940, and continued to be printed in each issue thereafter until 1958. In other words, this statement commenced by declaring that: "The Regents believe that the Communist Party gives its first loyalty to a foreign political movement and, perhaps, to a foreign government; that, by taking advantage of the idealism and inexperience of youth and by exploiting the distress of underprivileged groups, it breeds suspicion and discord, and thus divides the democratic forces upon which the welfare of our country depends." And it continued to state, for these reasons, that membership in the Communist Party was incompatible with membership on the faculty of the state university. This left no possibility of mistake about the firm attitude of the Regents against the employment of Communists.

Since 1958 this clear statement of policy has been omitted, although President Kerr has at times alluded to it in public speeches. The 1958 edition of the faculty handbook, issued from the office of the President, omitted the specific statement, and under the heading of "academic freedom," printed the following:

"Essentially the freedom of a university is the freedom of competent persons in the classroom. In order to protect this freedom, the university assumes the right to prevent exploitation of its prestige by unqualified persons or by those who would use it as a platform for propaganda. It therefore takes great care in the appointment of its teachers; it must take corresponding care with respect to others who wish to speak in its name."

Obviously, these vague and general expressions do not serve to announce the ban against employment of Communists to employees of the university,


139
nor does it express the firm position of the Regents of the university against Communism in general.

This policy of excluding Communists from university employ received a further dilution when Kerr submitted a report to the Regents suggesting that the rule be applied only to members of the American Communist Party and that foreign Communists, temporarily at the university, be excluded from its provisions although they were compensated from university funds. This suggestion was made despite an opinion submitted on April 30th from the legal department of the university to the Regents, advising them that the rule applied to all Communists, and not just to the members of the organization in any particular country.

On September 24, 1964, Kerr suggested that the Regents might wish to reconsider the wording of the ban against employment of Communists in general, and that he would present his recommendations later. As yet no such recommendations have been submitted.

Omission of the specific anti-Communist language expressed by the Regents would remove any possibility of offending the sensibilities of the more progressive members of the faculty who are not bashful about expressing their resentment against the use of this sort of language in official publications. There is no question about the continuance of the university policy against hiring members of the Communist Party, but it is very clear that since 1958 the provisions have been gradually toned down, the specific language has been lost and has not appeared in any of the books of rules since 1958, and that for political, ideological, or other reasons, the foundation and supporting structure of the policy against hiring Communists has been loose, general, and transitory. It is still in operation, but it is now treated more as custom, subject to modification as the political climates demand, than as the clear and well-established rule of the Regents.

Communists on the Campus

No Communist speakers had been allowed to lecture on university property since January 1952, until President Kerr persuaded the Regents to rescind that prohibition about three months before the Berkeley Rebellion commenced. Said the California Monthly alumni magazine:

"Despite this policy, students could and did hear Communist speakers across the street or, at most, a few blocks away from university campuses. Moreover, the ideas of Communists were available to students and the daily press, over radio and television and in books and periodicals in the campus libraries. Political activists in the student body, usually caring less about Communists than about the right to hear all sides of current issues, engaged in intricate series of skirmishes with the administration of the university. Permission to hold meetings featuring speakers of a wide range of controversial persuasions was sought. Whether permission was granted or not, sponsors of such meetings gained campus and public notoriety far out of proportion to their real influence among the students on the campus. One effect of the `ban,' President Kerr reported to the Regents, was that it `permitted American Communists to pose as civil liberties martyrs denied the "right" to speak on the campus, rather than presenting them as the puppets which in reality they are.' "[62]
140

Prior to 1951 there were bans against Communist speakers at the individual campuses of the university, but no protests against the restriction developed during the 1950's, the opposition actually commencing about 1958 or 1959. A campaign was then waged by the Student Civil Liberties Unions at various campuses, by SLATE at Berkeley, by Declare, a similar radical student organization at the Riverside campus, by the Independent Student Union at UCLA, and by groups of petitioning students and members of the faculty.

On December 6, 1962, the Berkeley Chapter of the American Association of University Professors issued a resolution deploring the continued ban against Communist speakers, and asked President Kerr to persuade the Regents to rescind the long-standing prohibition.

Governor Edmund Brown had declared emphatically in a speech delivered on September 19, 1962, that:

"I don't believe we should permit any subversives to speak on our campuses. I don't see any reason why we should give them any platform from which to spread their poison."[63]

Early in 1962 the student group comparable to SLATE at Berkeley endeavored to arrange a program on the Riverside campus involving a panel discussion including Dorothy Healey, chairman of the Southern Division of the Communist Party of California, and Ben Dobbs, a veteran Communist functionary. They were to be opposed by two anti-Communists. The Chancellor of the university enforced the Regents' rule forbidding Communists to speak on university facilities, and the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in April 1962 on behalf of a group of the students against the Regents of the university, Herman Speith, Chancellor at Riverside, and its Dean of Students, T. L. Broadbent. The official title of the suit was "Edward J. Lessin, et al, v. Regents, et al." After both sides had been heard, Superior Court Judge John G. Gabbet decided in favor of the Regents, and A. L. Wirin, chief counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Southern California, announced that he would immediately file an appeal. His appeal was filed, and the Regents' brief was submitted to the appellate court in January 1963. From that point on this case pursued a very peculiar course. Mr. Wirin, a tenacious and capable lawyer in cases of this type, requested a voluntary dismissal of the ACLU appeal on May 10, 1963, and it was accordingly dismissed three days later. On that day ACLU president Lloyd M. Smith wrote to President Kerr, saying:

"Press reports indicate that the Regents would promptly reexamine their policy if it were not for the fact that the Lessin case is still pending in court."

And on the following day, May 14, the New York Times said:

"The American Civil Liberties Union moved today to drop a suit to force the University of California to allow Communist speakers on campuses. The unusual move was understood to be based on the belief that the university Regents may reconsider its policy on speakers."

The Regents had won their suit. The ban against throwing open the university to Communist lecturers now had the firm sanction of the court. What moved the Regents to rescind their prohibition after winning this victory? The answer apparently is found in a statement from one of the appellants, Richard Unwin, who said he received a message by telephone


141
from the ACLU attorneys who told him of a conference between themselves and Dr. Kerr, who had assured them that he would lift the ban if the appeal were withdrawn. Kerr predicted an early decision by the Regents, saying: "Today's college students are not Communist sympathizers. They are pro-civil liberties."[64]

On May 21, 1963, by a vote of 15 to 2, the Regents opened the university to Communist lecturers on Kerr's recommendation. The new policy provided that a Chancellor "may if he considers it appropriate," require that the meeting be chaired by a faculty member with tenure, that questions from the audience be allowed, and that "the speaker be appropriately balanced in debate with a person of contrary opinion."[65]

Ron Moskowitz, education editor for the San Francisco Examiner, declared that there was some contention to the effect that Communists should be placed in a somewhat different category than other speakers, since the United States Supreme Court had ruled that the Communist Party of the United States was the tool of a foreign power, and advocated the overthrow of our government.[66]

Albert J. Lima, Northern California chairman of the Communist Party, was the first to speak at Berkeley under the new "free speech" policy of President Kerr. Then came the deluge. In came Malcolm X, William Buckley, Jr., Mark Lane, Dr. Fred Schwartz—an endless procession of political candidates, folk-singers, and an incredible procession of controversial figures ranging from the extreme right to the extreme left, with heavy emphasis, in our view, on the left. The students no longer had to walk across the street to Stiles Hall, the YMCA facility where Communist speakers had been holding forth for years, because the university was now bringing the Communists to the campus. As might be expected, Lima's appearance was sponsored by SLATE, the Communist-oriented radical movement that we described as a transmission belt for Communism in our 1961 report, and which has since become almost wholly under the influence of the Communist Party, as can be seen from the activities and affiliations of its officers and former officers; by the Young Socialist Alliance, which is the young Trotskyite branch of the Communist movement, and by the DuBois Clubs, which are Communist from top to bottom.

Not all educational administrators are convinced that their institution should be opened to Communist propagandists. In June 1964 Mr. Charles Luckman, chairman of the board of trustees of the California State Colleges, delivered a commencement speech at San Diego State College which provoked considerable wrath from academic circles. He stated:

"There is indeed nothing to choose between Nazism and Communism, except that the latter is far more dangerous because of its seductive intellectual appeal. No teacher should hesitate to condemn both these tyrannies... Communist ideology is demonstrably false. Its economic theories have been disproved by history. Its practical applications have been characterized by the imposition of terror; by the complete disregard for human life and liberty; by the rejection of all the traditional moral and spiritual values which underlie Western Civilization."[67]

It is difficult for us to understand how a disciplined Communist who addresses a crowd of students for 30 minutes can actually teach them anything worthwhile about Communism. Certainly not anything they could


142
not learn much better from the thousands of books on the subject in the university library. The Communist is obviously there to indoctrinate and recruit, so he benefits. But the student, presumably there to learn, gains nothing except a satisfaction of his morbid curiosity and 30 minutes of entertainment.

If, as a result of several years of exposing students to the propaganda emitted by Communist lecturers, one student is drawn into the Communist conspiracy against his own country, who is really to blame? We conclude it must be the persons who are charged with the high responsibility of caring for and teaching the students entrusted to them. The Communist speaker is clad with the reflected prestige of the university where he is a guest; and we are unable to understand why the people should contribute to their own destruction by making their public institutions available to those who are dedicated to the task of overthrowing our government by any means available.

And what about the political science department at the university? Are there no professors capable of teaching objectively in this field? If not, we are wasting our money. If there are such teachers, and if the students really desire to learn something about Communism, why don't they have these experts deliver the lectures, or why do they not attend their courses? It is our considered view that to throw wide the portals to any controversial speaker who wishes to utilize the opportunity to harangue a college audience, is to put curiosity and entertainment above the educational process, and to appeal to the morbid and emotional rather than to the scholarly and the intellectual.

In 1964, J. Edgar Hoover, testifying before the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Eighty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, declared:

"One of the primary recruiting targets of the Communist Party, U.S.A., is the youth of America and the party has continued its intensified program aimed and directed at our youth. The intensity of this program is revealed in a statement made by Gus Hall in March 1963 when he spoke on the party's success in placing its speakers on various college campuses throughout the country. The youth program of the party, he said, is so important that he or any other national leader would go anywhere to meet with young students even if but one student is met. Admitting that the old timers are still the backbone of the party, Hall nevertheless concluded that the future depends on the youth.

Subsequently, Hall was optimistic about their possibilities, reasoning that the party would eventually be afforded a fertile field for recruiting youth because millions of young people would be entering the labor market and many would be unable to find employment.

Skillfully imparting the Communist line with espousals paralleling Soviet views, Soviet spokesmen appeared before forty-five student groups, mostly at on-campus sites during the calendar year 1963.

That the party is enjoying some success as a result of expanded contacts with college students is indicated in the comment of Daniel Rubin, National Youth Director of the party, in June 1963, that of the number of young people attracted in its last recruiting drive, sixty-five percent were students."

A table submitted as an exhibit with the testimony of Mr. Hoover, disclosed that on February 20, 1963, Herbert Aptheker spoke at the University of California, and at San Francisco State College the following


143
day; that Albert Lima spoke at the University of California on July 22, 1963, and at Marin Jr. College on October 8, 1963; that Dorothy Healey spoke at the California Institute of Technology on October 16, 1963, and at the University of California in Los Angeles two days later; that Lima spoke at the University of the Pacific with Herbert Aptheker on October 28, 1963; that Aptheker spoke at San Jose State College on October 29, 1963, University of California at Berkeley on the following day, and also at Oakland City College; and that Dorothy Healey spoke at the Riverside campus of the University of California on November 18, 1963.

Our view of the problem is in complete accord with the sentiments of Governor Brown, whose perceptive statement will bear repeating:

"I don't believe we should permit any subversives to speak on our campuses. I don't see any reason why we should give them a platform from which to spread their poison."

Governor Brown made this statement a little more than a year before the Regents rescinded the ban against Communist lecturers on the campus. We trust the Governor has not changed his attitude in the matter since he made the vehement statement in September 1962.

In conclusion, we wish to point out that if the Regents and President Kerr believe that members of the Communist Party are unfit to teach at the university, it is difficult for us to understand how they can justify allowing Communist officials who are not members of the faculty come on the campus and lecture to the students. It reminds us of the ambivalent attitude of the American Civil Liberties Union. It considers Communists unfit to hold any official position in their organization, but is always eager to file a law suit for the purpose of forcing them into official positions in other organizations.

Security

The Berkeley campus in recent years has been opposed to security measures that would at least help keep it accurately informed concerning problems of subversive infiltration. In cases where projects are operated under contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense, the administration has no choice. It is required to secure Personnel Security Questionnaires from all employees who have access to classified information. In such matters the F.B.I., and occasionally some other governmental agency, will conduct the necessary security investigations.

A member of the university administrative department is usually designated to handle the perfunctory office work involved in seeing that these questionnaire forms are properly executed and filed.

In 1951 representatives of this committee offered its facilities in assisting universities and colleges in California to obtain information concerning subversive front organizations on or near their campuses, and in making an effort to prevent subversive infiltration. Some institutions had little need for such services, as they were not subject to any serious infiltration problems. The larger institutions had contracts with the Department of Defense and were under the obligation to designate some employee for the purpose of seeing that the necessary personnel security questionnaires were distributed and properly filed. These institutions also designated persons whom the committee could contact for the purpose of effective interchange of information in the counter-subversive field. This co-operation did not consist of monitoring classes, maintaining any spies on campuses, or the utilization of university facilities; but it did make


144
available a source of information and co-operation that in most cases proved exceedingly valuable.

The offer of co-operation was received graciously and enthusiastically by the presidents of universities in this state. Letters in our files attest to this cordial relationship, and we quote brief excerpts from four of these letters, each signed by the president of a university or college, as follows:

"... The university... is proud of its relationship with you and will continue to co-operate in every way possible in your future work.

Your method of procedure is far more effective than the televised hearings of some... committees.

I wish to congratulate you on the excellent work which has been done by your committee.

I believe that all of us in the academic world in California are much in debt to you..."

The Chancellor at the Los Angeles campus of the University of California testified concerning his participation in this cooperative system when he appeared before the committee on December 10, 1956. The testimony was as follows:

"Q. About three or three and a half years ago, the president of the university, Dr. Sproul, designated each chancellor and each provost on each of the eight campuses of the University of California for the purpose of maintaining a liaison with this committee. Is that right?

"A. Yes, indeed.

"Q. That liaison has been maintained so far as your office is concerned, has it not?

"A. That is correct. I think that liaison occurred before I arrived. It was in May, 1952.

"Q. Yes.

"A. It preceded me; I picket it up since.

"Q. Pursuant to that directive on the part of the president, contact has been made and maintained between the committee and your office, is that right?

"A. That is right, but I want to underline this: not in any sense to mean that this committee which is established by the Legislature, the Senate and the Assembly, has intruded one iota into the affairs under my jurisdiction; in terms of management, responsibility and internal organization, we function on our own.

"Q. May I add that the committee will continue to follow that policy.

"A. I know that is the case. You wouldn't want it any differently and I wouldn't want it any differently. In view of the fact that the committee, the State Legislature, the Regents, and myself, and as far as U.C.L.A. is concerned, we are working toward exactly the same end, that there should always be a free America, that conspirators will be uncovered. It only makes good sense that I, as top administrator acting under President Sproul's approval and under the direction of the Regents, shall exchange any information which is of interest and help in achieving the objectives that every honorable American is seeking."[68]

When Kerr, then Chancellor at Berkeley, learned that all chancellors had been designated as liaison with our committee, his reaction struck


145
us as peculiar, because, instead of communicating with us directly, or at all, he made the following statement in the student paper:

"President Robert Gordon Sproul requested me early in August to serve as the official on the Berkeley campus whom the Burns Committee might approach. I accepted. In the intervening period the committee has not communicated with me nor have I been in communication with the committee. Moreover, I have no plan for communicating with the committee.

Should problems ever arise, from relations with the committee, I shall consult with faculty and student leaders on this campus."[69]

The committee considered this public declaration supercilious and antagonistic, and for that and other reasons there was a minimum contact with the Chancellor's office on the Berkeley campus, although contact was nonetheless maintained with the situation through other channels.

After Kerr became President, he again disclosed his aversion to loyalty investigations in general when he spoke to the Representative Assembly of the Academic Senate in Berkeley as follows:

... and I trust, whatever happens, that the faculty will not cease to be concerned with the impact of the pressures for conformity in our society, including some of those expressed in the form of loyalty investigations, upon academic and student freedom and with the search for the best methods by which the University can resist those pressures. I conceive it to be one of the primary duties of university administration to support affirmatively free discussion of all issues within the University and to protect actively students and faculty from any unfair or unwarranted frictions resulting from such discussions."[70]

And, in 1964, in connection with the controversy over Eli Katz, heretofore mentioned, President Kerr said:

The university has not and does not have a system of security clearance for appointment, except when required for specific federal contracts.[71]

There had been a security officer for the statewide university, with headquarters at Berkeley. His duties, in addition to the ministerial function of collecting and filing Security Questionnaires, consisted in maintaining proper contacts with other agencies investigating subversion in general, and in building up an efficient collection of material dealing with problems of infiltration, operation of front organizations, and all of the other pertinent information that would enable an education institution to protect itself against subversive influences. This officer was a graduate of the F.B.I. Academy and a veteran of more than twenty years on the campus police department. When Kerr succeeded Sproul as president, he gave this statewide security officer so much extra work to do in the field of insurance at Berkeley, that he made it impossible for the officer to handle his full statewide security work.

On July 2, 1954, the committee agreed with the university administration that because the security officer had been falsely accused of acting as a "thought policeman," that his duties should be limited to matters concerned with defense contracts, and a public declaration issued to that effect. Thereafter the criticisms died down, and the security officer was thenceforth consulted on all problems pertaining to subversive activities and organizations affecting the university. This practice continued until


146
after Kerr became president, when the security officer was given so much insurance work to handle that his counter-subversive operation was smothered.

At a meeting on January 17, 1963, Kerr stated to some Regents that a full-time security officer was not necessary, because arrangements had been made to obtain the information from the F.B.I. As we have explained, the F.B.I. had investigated persons working under federal contracts before Kerr became chancellor, and this routine had nothing whatever to do with the investigation of infiltration of the university, or with any other counter-subversive matters in connection with the institution. And that was what concerned the Regents—properly so, in our opinion, as has been amply proved by subsequent events.

We made an inquiry through the appropriate channels and learned that no such information was ever provided to the university by the F.B.I., that no arrangements had been made to obtain it, and that no request to that end had ever been made by the university.

Thus, when the first demonstration occurred in the fall of 1964, the university had no security officer. The title appeared in the directory, but the only work done in the security field was the routine office work of handing out, collecting and filling Personnel Security Questionnaires from those employees who were working on federal contracts. There once had been files of vital information concerning subversion in general, but now there were none, and there had been none for several years.

One high administrative official at Berkeley had assumed that when the rebellion commenced its security facility would be able to furnish vital information, but learned with astonishment that there was no real security officer and there had been none for years. So, having had some experience in intelligence work prior to coming to the Berkeley campus, he functioned as a temporary security officer during the emergency period, but obviously under a great handicap.

A representative from the Berkeley campus had also been sent to the Berkeley Police Department prior to the commencement of the demonstrations and attempted to find out how the department obtained its information concerning subversion on the Berkeley campus. Failing in this effort, the Berkeley Police Chief was asked to discontinue maintaining channels of contact on the campus concerning subversive infiltration. The Chief refused, and we are glad to state that the Berkeley Police Department, noted for being one of the best in the nation, has for many years maintained an excellent counter-subversive division.

At the height of the rebellion there was some attempt on the part of the university administration to find a full-time security officer and put him to work. Even the old one, still working on insurance and questionnaires, was asked if he would like to resume his full-time job. So fas as we know, the position has not yet been filled.

Communists in the Rebellion

Conditions at Berkeley in the fall of 1964 provided an ideal situation for Communist activity. The administration was opposed to the maintenance of proper security facilities; there was a militant left-wing element in the faculty; there was a lack of communication between the administration, the faculty and the students; there had been an alarming influx of Communists to the Berkeley area; there had been an easy acceptance of radical student organizations that had become both arrogant and defiant; there was a confusion of rules and directives concerning student


147
activities; the Regents had been persuaded to rescind their long-standing ban against Communist speakers on the campus; the headquarters for the nationwide Communist youth organization had been established in San Francisco; there was general student resentment of the cold and bureaucratic atmosphere on the Berkeley campus, the inaccessibility of university officials, and obviously weak administration and confusion of rules and restrictions that were constantly being amended, repealed, supplemented, and reinterpreted.

In the early portion of this report we emphasized that we have maintained a continuous investigation of activities of the University of California as well as other educational institutions in the state since the inception of this committee more than twenty-five years ago. During all of this time we have developed our sources of information, added to our files, and endeavored to keep abreast of the situation to the best of our ability, so far as our staff and our finances would permit. We also made it clear that our investigation of the Berkeley Rebellion commenced with the first demonstration in the fall of 1964 and has been continuous thereafter. We found that the original demonstrations represented almost every segment of the student body, that even during the united front period of the Free Speech Movement there was no Communist control of the movement in general or the FSM in particular. But we wish to emphasize with all the force possible, that there was increasing Communist control of the FSM immediately prior to and after the invasion of Sproul Hall on December 2, 1964. At that time the movement lost its non-radical support almost entirely, closed its ranks, created its extremely effective organization, and thenceforth operated through the facilities of its executive committee and its even smaller steering committee.

Communists are not hesitant about declaring that they are too weak and disorganized to control anything. They tell the naive and inexperienced that there may have been a few members of the FSM who were somewhat inclined to favor Marxism, but that they actually exercised no influence in the movement. One could hardly expect a subversive organization such as the Communist Party or any of its splinter groups to come forward and admit that they were actually controlling any organization except the Communist Party itself.

By the fall of 1964 the Communists had not only perfected their youth organization in the Bay Area, but there were hundreds of nomadic young radicals living around the perimeter of the campus—a supporting force of agitators and activists. It is incredible that anyone could be so gullible as to believe that these Communist leaders, whose names are listed herein, presented with the opportunity at Berkeley and occupying strategic positions in Communist organizations as well as in the FSM would simply sit on their hands instead of making a determined drive for leadership. Let us take a look at some of the individuals who occupied important roles in the leadership of the FSM and who participated in its demonstrations.

Bettina Aptheker is the daughter of Herbert Aptheker, a member of the national committee of the Communist Party of the United States; leading party theoretician; lecturer at Communist schools and on university campuses throughout the country; former editor-in-chief of the official publication of the National Committee of the Communist Party, Political Affairs; presently the head of a Communist school in New York, which is being conducted with the assistance of Vincent Hallinan, the father of the ubiquitous Hallinan brothers, and who is secretary-treasurer


148
for the school. Bettina Aptheker's father is also one of the alumni of the Communist school in San Francisco. When Bettina came to Berkeley she lived at apartment 18, 6321 Dover Street, Oakland 9, where she received the Communist newspaper during 1963 and 1964. She has been affiliated with SLATE, the DuBois Clubs, and resided for a short time with the family of Albert Lima, whose daughter was also prominent in the FSM demonstrations as an undergraduate at Berkeley, and whose father is the head of the Northern Division of the Communist Party of California. Miss Aptheker has also lived at 1579 Scenic Way, Berkeley, an address which was also the residence of Pat and Mike Hallinan and Kenneth Cloke, all of whom have been heretofore mentioned. Miss Aptheker was a member of both the executive and steering committees of the FSM, and when arrested in connection with the invasion of Sproul Hall on December 3, 1964, was living at 1005 53rd Street, Oakland.

Robert Paul Kaufman, a member of the FSM executive committee, was formerly a member of SLATE during his undergraduate days at Berkeley, was active in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and played a leading part in the organization of the DuBois Clubs of America. He is now a teaching assistant in the Department of Social Science at Berkeley.

Jacqueline Goldberg, the sister of Arthur Goldberg, came from Los Angeles to attend the university at Berkeley. She soon became the head of U.C. Women for Peace, a front organization,and was its delegate to a Moscow meeting in 1963. She was also active in the American-Russian Institute at San Francisco, cited by the Attorney General of the United States as a Communist-dominated organization, and is now a member of the Policy Committee for the next World Communist Youth Festival which is scheduled to be held in Algeria. She was a member of both the executive and steering committees of FSM, and was arrested during the invasion of Sproul Hall.

Arthur Goldberg, who was a member of both the executive and steering committees of the FSM, received his early Communist indoctrination as a member of the Youth Action Union in Los Angeles. At Berkeley he identified himself openly with the more militant Peking line of the Communist movement, proclaimed that he was a follower of the Progressive Labor Movement, and was present to hear Mort Scheer, West Coast Representative for the PLM, deliver a lecture at Stiles Hall Y.M.C.A., across the street from the Berkeley campus, in August, 1964. Scheer then resided at 6929 Acton Street, Berkeley, and Goldberg, who had also been chairman of SLATE at Berkeley, lived at 2536 College Avenue. Listed as residing at the same address were Sandor Fuchs, who was also chairman of SLATE; Mario Savio, Jack Weinberg, and Charles Artman, identified with the Filthy Speech Movement, and David L. Goins. All were arrested with Goldberg at the time of the Sproul Hall invasion.

Alex P. Hoffman had been a speaker for the Labor Youth League, young Communist component of the Party, has been acting as an advisor for the FSM, has made no effort to conceal his Marxist convictions, and was a research assistant at the law center on the Berkeley campus. He recently transferred into the Department of Speech.

Phyllis Haberman, East Bay chairman of the DuBois Club, was a former roommate of Bettina Aptheker at 2231 Grant Street in Berkeley, and at 635 51st Street in Oakland.

Mort Scheer, already mentioned, was a former member of the Communist Party, found it too tame and inactive for his taste, and was expelled with several other founders of the Progressive Labor Movement


149
for what the Communist theoreticians would term "left-wing deviationism." He had been present at all of the FSM demonstrations, is an associate of Arthur Goldberg, and with his adherents has been active in distributing propaganda literature on the Berkeley campus.

William Mandel, is a middle-aged member of the FSM executive committee. He is also Moscow correspondent for radio station KPFA in Berkeley, the recent target of an investigation before the U.S. Senate Internal Security Sub-Committee. He has been identified as a member of the Communist Party, and formerly lived at 545 West 164th Street in New York City. When questioned about his Communist affiliations by the Senate Internal Security Sub-Committee during its investigation of the Institute of Pacific Relations, he invoked protection of the Fifth Amendment. Mr. Mandel has also been present at virtually all of the FSM campus demonstrations, although he has no connection whatever with the university, and has delivered pro-Communist lectures at Berkeley and at schools and colleges elsewhere. He has been exceedingly active as a member of the FSM executive committee.

Sydney Stapleton and his wife, Elizabeth, are typical of the Trotskyist Communist element in the FSM movement. Sydney was a member of the FSM executive and steering committees, and both were arrested during the Sproul Hall invasion.

Margaret Lima, the daughter of Albert J. Lima, was active in SLATE and the U.C. Women for Peace. As we have stated, Bettina Aptheker lived with the Lima family when she first came to Oakland, and Margaret was one of the persons arrested during the Sproul Hall invasion.

Kathleen Grossman, who, like Margaret Lima was a student at the Berkeley campus, is the daughter of Aubrey Grossman, who was active on the Berkeley campus when he was a student at the same institution. He had repeatedly been identified as a member of the Communist Party, has been its legal representative, and was formerly listed on its official stationery as the Party's educational director in San Francisco.

Lee Goldblatt, a student at Berkeley, is the daughter of Lou Goldblatt, and served as secretary-treasurer of the East Bay DuBois Club. Miss Goldblatt was also arrested at the time of the Sproul Hall invasion.

Ann Goldblatt King, sister of Lee Goldblatt, and also active in the FSM, was organizational secretary for the East Bay DuBois Club.

Barbara Garson, the wife of Marvin Garson, who wrote the booklet The Regents, heretofore mentioned, was a member of the FSM executive committee, was formerly active in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, was affiliated with the Young Socialist Alliance, the Trotskyist branch of the Communist movement, and was arrested during the invasion of Sproul Hall.

Sandor Fuchs, chairman of SLATE, was also a member of the FSM executive committee, and arrested during the Sproul Hall demonstration.

Larry Barnes, active in SLATE, and a member of the FSM executive committee, was arrested during the Sproul Hall invasion.

James Burnett, head of the Trotskyist movement on the Berkeley campus and formerly national president of that organization, was a member of the FSM executive committee.

Stephanie Koontz, a member of the DuBois Club and also the FSM executive committee, was arrested during the Sproul Hall invasion.

Deward Hastings, was a member of SLATE and also the FSM executive committee.


150

Louis Lester, arrested during the Sproul Hall invasion, was a member of both the DuBois Club and the FSM executive committee.

Steve Weisman, whom we have heretofore discussed at length, was a member of both the steering and executive committees of the FSM, and was also civil rights chairman of the East Bay DuBois Club.

Jack Weinberg, whom we have also discussed at some length, was a representative of the East Bay DuBois Club on both the executive and steering committees of the FSM, and was arrested during the Sproul Hall invasion on December 3, 1964.

Mike Rossman, a Sproul Hall arrestee, was a member of the FSM steering and executive committees as a representative of the DuBois Club.

David Rynan, formerly active in SLATE, and whose father is a professor in the Speech Department at Berkeley, was a member of the FSM executive committee.

Jan Tangen, also arrested during the Sproul Hall invasion, lived at 1927 Dwight Way in Berkeley, and came from a mountain home ranch near Calistoga. Other FSM activists who lived at the same address were James D. Moon, Bruce Bell, Frank Garfield and Stephen Leonard. All were arrested with Jan Tangen during the Sproul Hall invasion.

Robert Treuhaft, who has been repeatedly identified as a member of the Communist Party and who is the husband of Jessica Mitford Treuhaft, was one of the first to be arrested at Sproul Hall. Since he is attorney for the FSM movement it was hardly necessary for him to be formally listed as a member of its executive or steering committees. Obviously he was in constant communication with the leadership of the FSM, and if he had not had some influence with them, they would undoubtedly have dispensed with his services. The fact that this veteran Communist lawyer was closely associated with the FSM and obviously exerted great influence on it is too clear to warrant further consideration.

Elena Flemming, a Berkeley student, visited Cuba in 1963 and was also one of the Sproul Hall arrestees.

Brian Shannon, a leader of the Young Socialist Alliance, was also active in the FSM demonstrations.

We do not consider it necessary or productive to extend this list further. It would be possible to do so, but we submit that it is perfectly obvious that after December 3, 1964, with the perfection of the FSM system of Centrals, the establishment of its executive and steering committees on a highly effective basis and with the type of leadership we have already mentioned, those who still doubt that there was a Communist domination of the movement after December 3, 1964, could not be convinced even if we produced a document showing that the FSM movement was actually operated by the members of the national committee of the Communist Party of the United States, the heads of the Trotskyist movement, and the leaders of the Progressive Labor organization.

In addition, in March, 1965, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified that while the FSM movement at Berkeley had not been originated by Communists, they had exploited it for their own purposes, and that forty-three persons with subversive backgrounds, including five faculty members, had participated in the demonstrations.

Charles E. Moore, a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation for ten years, now director of public relations for the International Association of Chiefs of Police, testified before the Internal Security Sub-Committee of the U.S. Senate on May 17, 1965, that he personally


151
investigated the situation at Berkeley, and that he found the entire FSM action was dominated by hard-core Communists.[72]

The Los Angeles Times of May 18 amplified Mr. Hoover's testimony somewhat by quoting him to the effect that of the forty-three individuals with subversive records who were actively involved in FSM activities, thirty-eight of them were "students or otherwise connected with the university." Although he had testified on March 4th of this year, Hoover's testimony was released to the public on May 17th.

During the progress of our own investigation of the Berkeley Rebellion, covering a period of eight months, we contacted every official agency in the area that possessed reliable information concerning the demonstrations. We also conducted interviews with and received statements from university officials. We had sources of confidential information from inside the FSM movement, the DuBois Clubs, the Trotskyist organizations and SLATE, as well as various Communist front organizations that were concerned with the FSM. From all of the sources available to us we came to the inevitable conclusion that while the FSM movement started by many students who were certainly not Communist dupes or members of any subversive organizations, and while some of them were emphatically anti-Communist, that there were experienced and disciplined members of the Communist movement deep in the heart of the FSM from its very inception. We also found as a result of all of our investigations and contacts that members of the Communist organizations on the executive and steering committees of the FSM were in firm control of the situation continuously after December 3, 1964.

Information apparently reached the State Department about the control of conditions at the Berkeley campus because it refused to participate in the so-called "teach-in on Viet Nam," scheduled for May 21 and 22 on the Berkeley campus.

Jerry Rubin, an organizer of the mammoth outdoor rally, said that State Department official John W. Piercy telephoned that there would be no State Department representative on hand, although two had originally been promised. Rubin declared, with some rancor, that the State Department objected that the program was not balanced.

Perhaps Mr. Piercy's sources of information had disclosed that Rubin himself was one of the students who had made an illegal trip to Cuba in defiance of State Department regulations, and that after his return in 1964 he and another student named Jeff Lustig addressed an FSM rally on October 9, 1964, and extolled the virtues of the Communist Cuban regime.[72] The news media on May 20 also carried statements that Robert Scalapino, chairman of the Department of Political Science at Berkeley, and Eugene Burdick, professor of political science, and well-known author, also declined to participate in the Viet Nam "teach-in" for much the same reasons expressed by the State Department.

The first issue of Insurgent, the DuBois Club organ, sneered at the idea that Communists actually exerted any influence in the student rebellion. The utter duplicity of this position is shown by the fact that the editor of the publication, Carl Bloice, is a Communist. He was active in the Independent Student Union at Los Angeles, the DuBois Clubs in San Francisco, is a member of the staff of the Communist newspaper, and had written reams of propaganda publicity for the FSM. We had already discussed his presence in Moscow at the International Communist Youth.


154

As we prepare this concluding portion of our report, Mario Savio, who had been suspended from the campus, has just been readmitted, although the matter still is not finally determined, as it provoked considerable controversy on the campus. When the Forbes Committee, headed by attorney Jerome C. Byrne, first went to the Berkeley campus in February, 1964, it inserted a statement in the student newspaper asking for any interested individuals with pertinent information to contact Mr. Byrne at Pauley Auditorium. Savio stood in the back of the room and made audible sarcastic remarks about the Regents and their committee headed by Regent Forbes that was undertaking to investigate the general administration of the university and the immediate causes for the student demonstrations. When the report was made public on May 12, 1965, Savio exclaimed: "It sounds like a great report. It represents a tactical defeat for the Regents."[73]

Jack Weinberg's remarks, together with those of Art Goldberg, were quoted in the same issue of the San Francisco Examiner. Weinberg said: "I'm only surprised that the Regents allowed such a report to be published." Goldberg said:"I'm delighted to hear about this report. I was one of the FSM leaders interviewed. I'm glad the committee took notice of what we had to say."

We do not know what Goldberg told the committee, but we do know that there has been considerable controversy concerning whether or not any follower of the Peking line of the Communist Party, the line of militance and violence, played any important role in influencing the activities of the FSM. Arthur Goldberg certainly was a follower of this line, by his own statements. It may be contended that he exerted little influence in the FSM, but he was a member of its executive committee, and his influence is attested by a respectable authority, Mario Savio. Savio stated that over the "marathon week-end meeting of October 3 and 4," when the FSM was actually created, the sessions were held in the two-room residence of Arthur Goldberg. On many occasions there were as many as fifty people participating, and Savio said he spent forty-eight hours there with Goldberg putting the FSM together. So here, assuredly, was at least one Maoist who exerted considerable influence in the FSM.[74]

About a month before the Byrne Report was published, a preview of it appeared in another magazine, Science, which published a series of two articles entitled "Crisis at Berkeley; The Civil War, The Second Front." These articles were written in the same general vein as the report itself, and reached much the same conclusions concerning the reasons for the Berkeley Rebellion. The articles were written by Mrs. Christopher Jencks, wife of one of the more prominent staff members of the Byrne Committee. She wrote the articles under the name of Elinor Langer. Apparently Mrs. Jencks had interviewed President Kerr, as she quoted him as follows:

" `There were tensions before,' Kerr commented. `Underneath the great public support for university expansion under the master plan there were always political resentments. On a wide variety of issues running from the lifting of the ban on Communist speakers to the abolition of compulsory ROTC we were usually able to persuade the Regents to go along—usually on the argument that it was best for the university. But the sit-ins and the strike really provoked the
155
public, and the obscenity issue was simply the last straw. I believed it when I argued that giving the students freedom would lead them to act responsibly,' he concluded, `and it has been a great personal disappointment to me that it didn't.' "[75]

In addition to the support and advice given to the student rebellion by adult Communists in the United States, such as Herbert Aptheker, Lou Goldblatt, and William Mandel, there was also support from international Communist movements. In the second issue of Insurgent, recently published, is this statement:

The Secretariat of the International Union of Students has expressed solidarity with the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley, California, in a telegram sent to FSM leader Mario Savio. This action indicates the world-wide attention that has been given to the FSM."[76]

The same issue of this publication contains a long and favorable account of World Youth Festivals by Kenneth Cloke, heretofore mentioned, urging students and other young people to attend the Ninth World Youth Festival which is scheduled to be held in Algeria, July 27 to August 7.

One of the most recent activities of the FSU consisted of a meeting with President Kerr by Bettina Aptheker and James Burton. He suggested that they meet with Regents McLaughlin and Heller, so they might voice their objections to the Meyer Report. This report, recommending new and tough rules for student conduct, would obviously be a great obstacle to future demonstrations. Whether or not the two Regents mentioned have consented to meet informally with these students has not been disclosed at the time of this portion of the report is being written.

The Chairman of the Board of Regents, Edward Carter, rejected a wire from the FSU for a meeting with the Regents, stating that: "We find no reason now to make an exception for your group and particularly because of the threatening tone of your telegraphic request." The wire had said: "If this demand is not met the only conclusion which we and other citizens of California can make is that the legitimate channels for negotiations are closed to us." The FSU wished to discuss the Meyer Report, with which they disagree, and the Byrne Report with which they do agree.[77]

The Critics Chorus

There have been, as one might expect, numerous magazine articles, surveys, questionnaires and booklets, dealing with the Berkeley Rebellion. All agree that weak and irresolute administration was responsible, in that it allowed the situation to develop that presented the Berkeley campus as an irresistible target for radicals of all varieties. There is also agreement that when the demonstrations commenced they drew wide support from students who were not connected with any organization—certainly none with the Marxist and outright Communist groups.

It is important to observe how the vast majority of Berkeley's 27,500 students were largely ignored by the administration and the press during these long months of incredible rebellion. At least 23,000 students who were trying to get an education were subjected to brainwashing in their classrooms; were excluded from their classes during the campus-wide strike in early December; were subjected to a barrage of filth and pornography, and their civil rights were not deemed worthy of attention by the


156
ACLU, or the administration, or the press. Certainly one of these was the right to pursue their studies, without undue interference.

This vast student majority was not organized as was the FSM. It was not sensational, and therefore not newsworthy. But who can say it was unimportant? It was the university, an institution operated at public expense and entrusted to the administration of the Regents for one purpose: the education of our young students. During these eight months of demonstrations and disruptions the official student government was paralyzed and utterly incapable of coping with this brash minority of activists. It represented all the students, but when its duly elected president pleaded with the FSM to desist its tactics of violence and disruption, the lovers of free speech drowned his pleas with jeers of derision.

For those who may wish to study the growing literature dealing with the rebellion, we have included a bibliography of sources. They are, mostly, magazine articles written by close observers of and some participants in the scene at Berkeley. Some are university professors, some are students in and out of the FSM, others are experts in the field of education, and yet others are professional journalists. The list is by no means exhaustive, but it does present many important aspects of the subject in broad terms.

Some of these writers believe that the Regents and the university administrators have fallen into the belief that since the university was big and had the most students, the largest faculty, the most campuses and lots of money, that it must, therefore, be the best of all educational institutions. They point out that President Kerr indicated an awareness that size and quality were not necessarily synonymous when he delivered the Godkin Lectures at Harvard in 1963.[78] But, they insist, the problem should have been anticipated long ago, and then something should have been done to solve the difficulties instead of accepting them as inevitable and waiting patiently for the campus to explode.

One writer, a sociologist, has described the concentration of Communists and their supporters at Berkeley:

During 1963-64, my first year as a teacher at Berkeley, student political activity was vigorous beyond anything I had recently seen at any other American college." "There was," he said, "a grand chaos of oratory, advocacy and action... in 1951, when I visited Berkeley for the first time, a number of socialist youth leaders from the East had just migrated here, because they found the political climate peculiarly congenial to their work. In addition, it was my impression that Communism, too, retained more life and relevance in the Bay Area than in the East. Some of these socialist youth leaders became students; some worked at the university; others worked in the community, becoming part of the penumbra of campus life which, at Berkeley, involves many people who are neither students, faculty, nor staff...[79]

Mr. Glazer is the author of The Social Basis of American Communism, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., N.Y., 1961. This was a volume in the series called Communism in American Life, which was financed by the Fund for the Republic. Dr. Glazer was professor of Sociology at Berkeley during the rebellion and observed it at first hand.

Some of the writers reject the concept that because the university is big, it will lose contact with its students, who will then become unhappy


157
and take over the buildings by force. These observers point out that only a relatively small minority of the students reacted in such a manner, and that spoon-feeding on a campus will not necessarily insure student serenity.

Fred M. Hechinger, education expert for the New York Times, observed that

"... the administrators, instead of mediating daily, let themselves be cut off from their constituents—the students, the faculty, and even the Regents. They mediated—like labor mediators—after the breakdown of communications. At that point, with the balance of power upset, the faculty, either troubled by its own conscience or intent on increasing its power, joined forces with the students against the administration."[80]

An article in the Washington Post, February 18, 1965, stated that:

"... the key role played by the Communist Party and several of its splinter groups has somehow become obscured," and quoted Mort Scheer as declaring after he moved to Berkeley that he was going to forge "a new revolutionary movement," based on "pure Marxist-Leninist principles."

Aside from attacks by the FSM and FSU, perhaps the most critical anti-Kerr article appeared in the liberal Frontier magazine. It was written by Colin Miller, who was sent to study the rebellion by the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions (formerly The Fund for the Republic). Clark Kerr has acted as a co-author and consultant for the Center and the Fund on occasion. The article was entitled "The Student Revolt," and is a "... distillation of Miller's long report for the Santa Barbara Center," and appeared in Frontier for the first time. Miller proceeds without delay to his theme. In the first paragraph of the article he wrote:

Despite widely held conclusions drawn from the March 13 meeting of the University of California Board of Regents, the resignation of Clark Kerr is inevitable. His ultimate retirement is an unscheduled appointment on the University calendar for three reasons: (1) The divisions between the Kerr administration and the faculty have broadened rather than narrowed since the crises of last fall; (2) the absence of a flow of trust from student body to the Kerr presidency makes the Berkeley campus subject to sudden dissensions; (3) Kerr's failure to prove he can stabilize the University by techniques of mediation rather than leadership have given the Regents cause for a lack of security in his administration.

Without solid faculty, student or Regent support, the Kerr regime cannot be considered in control of the University. The actions of March 13, when Kerr withdrew his abrupt resignation of four days earlier, are no more than a temporary extension of his stay in office. This is true although his departure may be as much as a full year away.

Both the proposal to increase Forbes Committee Funds, which passed, and the Meyer Resolution (calling for stern measures against students thenceforth) which didn't, were implicitly critical of Clark Kerr. His March 9 resignation before a hurriedly called press conference was no less precipitate than the unexpected acts of civil disobedience perpetrated by FSM last fall. How secure can the Regents be with the administration of nine campuses in what may be regarded as unpredictable hands?

On two successive days Clark Kerr released statements of apology to the press. The first, on March 12, was to the faculty for his accusation


158
two days before that faculty committees had sought to `avoid responsibility' in disciplinary problems. The second was to the Regents for his resignation via the press instead of through customary channels. These messages of regret are temporary palliatives without precedent in Kerr's career as President.

Miller contended in his article that Kerr understood all about the complex multiversity of which he wrote, except his own role as chief administrative officer. Thus in commenting on the closing of the Telegraph-Bancroft entrance area to tables manned by students, Kerr told the press, according to Miller: "I thought it was a mistake and that we should return this area to the students, but that was difficult. It had just been taken away—we could hardly turn around and hand it right back." But, Miller points out, "had he chosen to assume command he might have averted the most sizable manifestation of civil disobedience ever seen on a university campus."[81]


159

Bibliography

1. "A New Campus Speaker Policy." California Monthly, February, 1963.

2. The Uses of the University, by Clark Kerr. Harvard University Press, 1963.

3. The Mind of Clark Kerr, by Hal Draper. Berkeley, 1964.

4. "The Berkeley Free Speech Controversy: Preliminary Report." By a Fact-Finding Committee of Graduate Political Science Students. Berkeley, December 13, 1964.

5. “Campus Dispute,” by Fred M. Hechinger. New York Times, December 20, 1964.

6. “Rebellion at Berkeley,” by Lewis S. Feuer. The New Leader, December 21, 1964.

7. “Dr. Feuer's Distortions,” by Paul Jacobs. “What the Students Want,” by Stephen Weisman. “A Reply,” by Lewis S. Feuer. The New Leader, January 4, 1964.

8. “What Happened at Berkeley,” by James Cass. Saturday Review, January 16, 1965. (Reprinted in Cal Aggie Alumni, Davis, Spring Issue, 1965.)

9. “Civil Rights: Some Background Notes,” by Michael Rossman. The Occident, Berkeley, Fall, 1964.

10. “The Anti-Bureaucratic Revolt at Berkeley: A Deeper Disenchantment,” by Sol Stern. Liberation, February, 1965.

11. “Letter from Berkeley,” by Calvin Trillin. The New Yorker March 13, 1965.

12. “What Happened at Berkeley,” by Nathan Glazer. Commentary, February, 1965.

13. “Pornopolitics and the University,” by Lewis S. Feuer. The New Leader, April, 1965.

14. The Trouble in Berkeley, Diablo Press, Berkeley, April, 1965.

15. The Regents, by Marvin Garson. Berkeley, 1965.

16. The F.S.M.—The Free Speech Movement, by Bettina Aptheker, Robert Kaufman, and Michael Folsom. W.E.B. DuBois Clubs of America. San Francisco, 1965.

17. “Crisis at Berkeley,” by Margaret Langer (Mrs. Christopher Jencks). Science, April 9 and April 16, 1965.

18. Insurgent, DuBois Clubs of America. San Francisco, March-April; May-June, 1965.

19. “The Explosive Revival of the Far Left,” by Richard Armstrong, Saturday Evening Post, May 8, 1965.

20. “Free Speech Revolt on the Berkeley Campus,” by Bettina Aptheker. Political Affairs, January, 1965.

21. “Revolt on the Berkeley Campus,” by Bettina Aptheker. Political Affairs, March, 1965.

22. Spider; March 1, 1965; March 15, 1965. Oakland, California.

Footnotes

"The United Front: The Struggle Against Fascism and War," by Georgi Dimitroff, General Secretary of the Communist International. International Publishers, New York, 1938, pages 149-150.

Committee transcript, May 5, 1964, pages 1791-1792.

1943 report, page 114.

1943 report, page 115.

Gates, op. cit., pages 56-58.

The Daily Californian, October 13, 1963.

The Encampment for Citizenship was described in our 1963 report, page 190, et seq.

A Short History of the Young Communist League of the Soviet Union, by A. Afonin, Co-operative Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the USSR, Moscow, 1934, page 5.

Encyclopedia of Russia and the Soviet Union, edited by Michael T. Florinsky, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., N.Y., 1961 page 282, et seq.

A. Afonin, op. cit., p. 63.

The term "scientific socialism" is Communist Aesopian language for Communism.

Political Affairs, October, 1963.

The Convener, vol. 1, No. 3, p. 10.

The Convener, April, 1964, p. 3-4.

The Convener, vol. 1, No. 4, p. 3.

Daily Californian, November 11, 1964.

Problems of Communism, November-December, 1964, pp. 64-67.

See Communist Affairs, July-August, 1964 page 10; San Diego Union, January 31, 1965; Problems of Communism, November-December, 1964, page 64; Washington Report, American Security Council, December 21, 1964.

Tass, April 18 & 20, 1964, p. 33.

The American Security Council, Washington Report, issued on December 21, 1964; see also: Bulletin for Study of the USSR, November, 1964, p. 62, which states that establishment of the solidarity fund was announced in Moscow on September 26, 1964.

Written by Jules DuBois, Latin American correspondent for the Chicago Tribune.

Algiers Republican, Nov. 23, 1964; Communist Affairs, Nov.-Dec., 1964, p. 11.

Daily Worker, April 9, 1946.

Daily Worker, April 1, 1964.

Political Affairs, March, 1949, pp. 34, 44, 45.

Political Affairs, May, 1950, p. 155.

Young Communist Review, April, 1938, p. 4, cited in The Communist in the Schools, by Robert W. Iversen, Harcourt, Brace & Co., N.Y. 1959, p. 124.

"Investigation of Communist Activities, New York—Part II—Youth Organizations." hearing before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Eighty-Fourth Congress, First Session, March 16, 1955, p. 219 et seq., United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1955.

The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles. Harper & Row, N.Y., 1963, p. 111; See also: The Techniques of Communism by Louis F. Budenz, Henry Regnery Co., Chicago, 1954, p. 288; Masters of Deceit, by J. Edgar Hoover, Henry Holt & Co., N.Y., 1958, p. 295, et seq.

Los Angeles Times, March 6, 1953.

The Web of Subversion: Underground Networks in the U.S. Government, by James Burnham. The John Day Co., N.Y., 1954, p. 108, et seq.; see also The Silvermaster Cell: Russian Conspiracy in the U.S., by Ronald W. Hunter, MSS., Sept. 1957, p. 66, et seq.; also: Soviet Espionage, by David Dallin, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., 1955, p. 439 et seq.

Official Catalogues, Communist School in San Francisco.

1961 report, p. 89.

"Communist Infiltration in the Latin American Educational System," Senate Internal Security Sub-Committee Dec. 15, 1964.

Senate Internal Security Sub-Committee report, Feb. 8, 1963, p. 451.

See: "The Communist International Youth and Student Apparatus," monograph prepared for the U.S. Senate Sub-Committee on Internal Security, 1963; "Communist Infiltration in the Latin American Educational System," op. cit.

1961 report, p. 38.

California Monthly, February 1965, p. 11.

"The Explosive Revival of the Far Left," by Richard Armstrong. Saturday Evening Post, May 8, 1965, p. 27 at p. 32, et seq.

San Francisco Chronicle, November 4, 1964.

The San Francisco Examiner also included Brian Turner in this list.

California Monthly, February, 1965, p. 14.

"Letter from Caracas," by Bernard Taper. The New Yorker, March 6, 1965, p. 101 at p. 124.

The foregoing quotations are taken from the California Monthly, February, 1965, pp. 68-69.

Daily Californian, March 4, 1965.

San Francisco Chronicle, March 5, 1965.

Oakland Tribune, March 7, 1965; Daily Californian, March 8, 1965.

The Spider, March 1965, 398—61st St., Oakland, California, pp. 9-10.

See Daily Californian, March 11, 1965, and San Francisco Chronicle, March 19, 1965.

San Francisco Chronicle, April 24, 1965.

See Political Affairs, January, 1965, p. 53; March, 1965, p. 10.

The Cal Reporter, SLATE publication, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 13, 1963.

National Guardian, March 13, 1965.

National Guardian, op. cit.

News Service, No. 23, Dec., 1964.

News Service, op. cit.

The Regents, by Marvin Garson.

SLATE Supplement, Vol. II, No. 4, 1965.

Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom to the Academic Senate, Northern Division, March 25, 1953.

Los Angeles Times Editorial, June 1, 1954.

Proceedings, Academic Senate, Northern Section, August 27, 1934.

California Monthly, October, 1963, p. 7.

Los Angeles Times, September 20, 1962.

San Francisco Chronicle, May 18, 1963.

San Francisco Chronicle, May 22, 1963.

San Francisco Examiner, July 5, 1963.

Los Angeles Times, July 7, 1964; National Review, July 28, 196,p. 650.

1957 report, pp. 15 & 16.

Daily Californian, October 3, 1952.

Academic Senate Record, Northern Section, Berkeley, May 25, 1959, Vol. V, No. 6, p. 6.

Letter dated June 9, 1964.

San Francisco Examiner, May 18, 1965.

San Francisco Examiner, May 12, 1965; Daily Californian, February 10, 1965.

The New Yorker, March 13, 1965; Oakland Tribune, May 19, 1965.

Science, Vol. 148, April 9, 1965, pp. 198-202; April 16, 1965, pp. 346-349.

Insurgent, Vol. I, No. 2, May-June, 1965, p. 8.

San Francisco Chronicle, May 19, 1965.

See: "The Uses of the University," Harvard University Press, 1963.

"What Happened at Berkeley," by Nathan Glazer, Commentary, February, 1965, p. 39, et seq.

"Campus Dispute," New York Times, Dec. 20, 1964.

"The Student Revolt," by Colin Miller, Frontier, April, 1965, p. 11, et seq.

About this text
Title: Report of the Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities in California, no. 13, 1965
Copyright Note: Copyright status unknown. Some materials in these collections may be - protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). In addition, the - reproduction, and/or commercial use, of some materials may be restricted - by gift or purchase agreements, donor restrictions, privacy and - publicity rights, licensing agreements, and/or trademark rights. - Distribution or reproduction of materials protected by copyright beyond - that allowed by fair use requires the written permission of the - copyright owners. To the extent that restrictions other than copyright - apply, permission for distribution or reproduction from the applicable - rights holder is also required. Responsibility for obtaining - permissions, and for any use rests exclusively with the user.