Notes
Section I
1. As the recent suspensions demonstrate, students who attempt to change the Administration's regulations may be placed in
the position of 'breaking the law'. But the students' grievance, consistently ignored, is that the Administration has broken
the laws by issuing regulations which infringe Constitutional liberties. (There is considerable legal opinion to this effect;
see the appendix on Legal Matters.) These regulations have been based on a single interpretation of a sentence in the University
Charter (Article IX, Section 9 of the State Constitution), which states: "The University shall be entirely independent of
all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its Regents and in the administration of
its affairs." Despite strong faculty protest* that the intent of this sentence was to prevent political influences from acting
upon the Administration itself, the Administration has persisted in the following interpretation: that students who advocate
'political' causes or distribute 'political' literature thereby "involve the University as an institution", and may only hold
meetings on campus or on occasion indulge in such activities at the will of the Administration. Always the definition of 'political'
rests with the Administration, and there is no appeal of its decisions.
For amplification of footnotes 1 and 2, see the appendix on Legal Matters.
* See Appendix D.
2. As the recent suspensions demonstrate, students who attempt to change the Administration's regulations may be placed in
the position of 'breaking the law'. But the students' grievance, consistently ignored, is that the Administration has broken
the laws by issuing regulations which infringe Constitutional liberties. (There is considerable legal opinion to this effect;
see the appendix on Legal Matters.) These regulations have been based on a single interpretation of a sentence in the University
Charter (Article IX, Section 9 of the State Constitution), which states: "The University shall be entirely independent of
all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its Regents and in the administration of
its affairs." Despite strong faculty protest* that the intent of this sentence was to prevent political influences from acting
upon the Administration itself, the Administration has persisted in the following interpretation: that students who advocate
'political' causes or distribute 'political' literature thereby "involve the University as an institution", and may only hold
meetings on campus or on occasion indulge in such activities at the will of the Administration. Always the definition of 'political'
rests with the Administration, and there is no appeal of its decisions.
For amplification of footnotes 1 and 2, see the appendix on Legal Matters.
* See Appendix D.
3. Information from these groups. For additional examples see Appendix A.
4. Information from these groups. For additional examples see Appendix A.
5. Information from these groups. For additional examples see Appendix A.
6. By the Fall 1964 'reinterpretations' of the Kerr Directives. See the appendix on Free Speech 1964.
7. See Appendix A for examples.
8. Daily Californian, March 5, 1962. Also see Appendix A.
9. See the several appendices on the ASUC and the appendix on the Student Forum.
10. For documentation and additional examples, see Appendix A.
11. For documentation and additional examples, see Appendix A.
12. See the appendix on the ROTC Controversy.
13. See Appendix B for documentation and further examples.
14. See Appendix B for documentation and further examples.
15. See Appendix B for documentation and further examples.
16. See Appendix B and the appendices on the ASUC.
17. See Appendix B and the appendices on the ASUC.
18. See Appendix B for documentation and further examples.
19. See Appendix B for documentation and further examples.
1. See The Uses Of The University, Clark Kerr; The Mind Of Clark Kerr, Hal Draper (published by the Independent Socialist Club); and the appendix on Clark Kerr.
2. And may hinder the University's attempts to get funds. See e.g. the statement by Gerry Grey in the appendix on the HUAC
Demonstrations, and the appendix on Free Speech 1964.
3. E.g., the University received $227 million for special Federal research projects in 1961-2, over half its budget. (See
Sanity, September 1963, p.16)
4. George Stewart, The Year Of The Oath, p.28. (The quote is the Administration's, not his.)
5. See the appendix on the Loyalty Oath Controversy.
7. See the appendix on the Subject A Controversy.
8. See affidavits in Appendix C.
9. The University later returned, despite misgivings; the Administration still refused to contest PG&E's decision. See the
appendix on the Bodega Head Affair.
10. For reinstatement of the suspended students. See the appendix on Free Speech 1964.
11. See the appendix on the ROTC Controversy.
12. See Appendix D, and also the appendix on Women For Peace.
14. See the appendices on the Kerr Directives.
15. See the appendices on the Kerr Directives.
1. See the appendix on the Loyalty Oath Controversy.
2. See the appendix on Slate.
3. Opinions expressed by faculty members to the compilers of this report (see also the appendix on the Faculty.) They have
suggested as examples of possible reprisals loss of advancement, loss of research monies, being forced to teach undesirable
courses, etc. As an expression of these and graver fears, the initiators of the faculty advertisement criticizing the presence
of police on campus this Fall permitted only tenured faculty members to sign the protest.
4. See the appendices on the ASUC.
5. See the appendix on the Graduate Students.
6. See the appendix on Slate And Due Process, appendix on HUAC and the other appendix on Slate.
7. See Appendix D and the appendix on the Graduate Students.
8. See the appendix on Free Speech 1964.
2. See Appendix D. Moreover, other changes in the Administration's regulations appear to have been influenced by threats of
lawsuits. See the appendix on Changes In The Kerr Directives.
3. See the appendix on Changes In The Kerr Directives.
4. See the appendix on Free Speech 1959.
5. See the appendix on Free Speech 1964.
1. Daily Californian, October 28, 1964. For other examples of the specific appearance this Fall of the general problems we describe, see the appendix
on Free Speech 1964.
* However, though such regulations need not interfere with First Amendment freedoms, they well might. For example, among the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment is the freedom to employ the most effective avenues of
approach to others for political and other First Amendment purposes. Therefore, a denial of certain avenues of such access
on the claim that there are others which though perhaps not as desireable are nonetheless available, will not avoid violation
of the First Amendment unless the governmental entity seeking the suppression or curtailment can prove that there are no alternative
means of achieving its purposes and that the means in question are so overwhelmingly necessary as to be "compelling." Schneider v. State. So important is the substance of this guarantee that the form of property ownership will be analytically pierced when necessary
even to the extent of imposing First Amendment restrictions on "privately" owned property. See Marsh v. Alabama, 1326 U. S. 501; Schwartz-Torrence, supra, 61A, C. 832.
1. For a summary of the differences between the first and the present versions of the Kerr Directives, see Appendix D.
2. All material about the Academic Senate, including quoted passages, is taken from the Academic Senate Record, Vol. 6, No. 2.
3. Daily Californian, Oct. 28
5. Daily Cal, Oct. 30, Nov. 4.
8. Academic Senate Record
9. Academic Senate Record
12. Academic Senate Record
13. See present regulations
14. Daily Cal Aug. 11, 1961
15. See, e.g., pages 83 and 95 of the report.
16. The quotation is from the appendix on the HUAC Demonstrations, q.v. See also the appendices on Slate and on the Faculty.
17. See appendices on Slate and on the Faculty.
18. See appendices on Slate and on the Faculty.
19. See appendices on Slate and on the Faculty.
20. Communications from several faculty members. I have softened their original phrasing, which was much more provocative.
21. In view of the events of Fall 1964, a note on Slate's internal debate is relevant. A minority of members felt that:
". . .the Administration has proved itself composed of unreasonable bureaucrats, so that to negotiate on reasonable grounds
would be hopeless. . .Slate must act immediately and sensationally while the issue is still a topic of interest. Pressure
the Administration by embarrassing them with constant demonstrations and petitions. . ."
A majority, however, took the view that:
". . .all legal methods, all negotiations must be exhausted before the student body could be aroused to the point that any
direct action could be taken. With an educated student body, Slate has a better chance of pressuring the University, or, if
that means fails, taking effective action."
These pessimistic views, reported in the Slate Newsletter of September 24 1961, testify to the extent to which many students were convinced that prospects for negotiations were poor.
The history of negotiations attempted previously might perhaps account for this feeling.
22. Daily Cal October 13, 1961
23. See the appendix on the liberalizations in Rule 17.
3. Clyde S. Johnson, Student Self Government pp. 215-226. An unpublished Master's Thesis available from the Associated Students of UCLA, and the Education Library, UCLA.
4. This was sought as an opportunity for the Committee to abandon its proposal in favor of the more liberal faculty position.
These differed because the Committee leaders acted on the assumption that they had little power, therefore making concessions
to the known interests of the University, while the Faculty, aware of its power, adopted a less compromising position. The
change was announced with unusual haste to forestall such a meeting.
1. Strong's statement was quoted in part in the Daily Californian of May 11, 1962, in the Berkeley Daily Gazette of the same date, and in full in the Daily Californian of November 29, 1962.
2. The letter is dated September 19, 1960, and is addressed to Mr. Lennart Cederborg of Oakland. Mr. Cederborg is a lawyer
who represents Mrs. Rose Gaffney, previous owner of much of the land on Bodega Head.
3. See below for a discussion of the oceanographers' report.
4. This report was finally released to the press through the Office of Public Information, December 13, 1962. See below for
the circumstances surrounding the release.
5. Daily Californian, May 11, 1962.
6. Transcript, PUC Hearings, p. 796.
9. All quotations are from the Daily Californian, November 29, 1962.
10. The report was compiled by Professors J. D. Frautschy and D. L. Inman of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and is
dated June 14, 1960.
11. From Roger Y. Stanier, University of California, Department of Bacteriology, dated May 25, 1960.
12. All quotations in this paragraph have been taken from the official ASUC Senate minutes. It is debatable whether all the
reports were "available" to the PUC, since the University did not encourage the PUC to request them for a public hearing.
13. See AEC Press Release, October 23, 1963.
(1) Militarizing Our Youth, Roswell P. Barnes, New York, 1927, pp. 28-29.
(2) Daily Californian, 11 Feb 60 p.1.
(4) " 6 Dec 56 p.8. Latter to editor by Dave Jones and Hank di Suvero.
(11) Minutes of the Board of Regents Meeting, February, 1936, p.223.
(12) Daily Californian, 22 Apr 60 p.1.
(13) Ibid, 13 Dec 60 p.1.
(15) Minutes of Regents Meeting, October, 1940, p.509.
(16) Daily Californian, 27 Oct 59 p.8. Cites Committee on Educational Policy Academic Senate report of May, 1958 which was first released as part
of Kerr's report to the Regents. This undoubtedly took place at Executive Session in Santa Barbara on September, 1959 for
which minutes are not open to the public.
(17) Daily Californian, 27 Oct 59 p.8.
(18) Education and Military Leadership, Gene M. Lyons and John W. Masland, Princeton, 1959, pp. 209-242.
(19) The Campus Protest Against ROTC, Allan Brick, Dartmouth College, 1960. He quotes from letter written by Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles Finucane to
Trustees of Michigan State University on February 15, 1960.
(20) Daily Californian, 29 Sept 59 p.1.
(22) Student, David Horowitz, New York, 1962, pp. 23-26.
(23) Daily Californian 20,21 Oct 59
(24) Ibid, 28 Oct 59 p.9.
(25) " 23 Oct 59 p.8., " 26 Oct 59 p.11.
(28) Minutes of Regents Meeting, December, 1960.
(29) Daily Californian, 16 Mar 60 p.1.
(30) Ibid, 29 Mar 60 p.1.
(31) Minutes of Regents Meeting, April, 1960.
(32) Daily Californian, 27 Sept 60 p.1.
(33) Ibid, 13 Oct 60 p.1.
(35) " 3 May 62 p.1. This is noted in review of history of ROTC fight on eve of reversal in policy.
(36) Daily Californian, 14 Dec 60 p.1.
(38) Daily Californian, 15 Dec 60 p.1.
(39) Ibid, 14 Feb 61 p.1.
(41) Daily Californian 16 Dec 60 p.1.
(42) The Creighton Petition, A Statement by Jacobus ten Broek. Presented to Academic Senate on May 1, 1961. p.1.
(43) Ibid, p.2. Here ten Broek is referring to Chapter IX of By-laws and Standing Orders of the Regents, which gave them power with
respect to Military training units on campus; Academic Senate Regulation 1275 dealing with grades; and University Regulation
25 concerned with disciplinary powers of committees, administration officials, and instructors.
(44) Army Regulation 145-421.
(45) Daily Californian, 15 Feb. 61
(46) The Creighton Case, A Statement by Jacobus ten Broek before the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate, October 9,
1961, p.5.
(47) Daily Californian, 10 Oct 61 p.1.
(48) Ibid, 3 May 62 p.1. Recapitulation of history of fight.
(1) See photograph in Feb. 1, 1962 issue of the Oakland Tribune showing five microphones on the podium. One microphone could have been the PA system.
(2) See statement by Alex Sherriffs in Daily Californian of Feb. 1, 1962.
(3) Regulation on the Use of University of California Facilities, Revised August 16, 1961, IV b, page 3.
(4) San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 27, 1962, page 7; Berkeley Review, Feb. 1, 1962; Daily Californian, Feb. 1, 1962; Oakland Tribune, Jan. 27, 1962, page 1.
(5) Mr. Mandel's letter to ASUC Ex Com, Feb. 28, 1962.
1. Daily Californian, February 11, 1959.
2. Daily Californian, May 12, 1958.
3. Daily Californian, April 16, 1957; December 11, 1957.
4. Daily Californian, February 5, 1959.
5. Report as appended to minutes of the Executive Committee, April 21, 1959, pp. 7, 24, 25.
6. Daily Californian, February 17, 1959.
7. Minutes of the Executive Committee, April 21, p. 6.
8. Minutes of the Executive Committee, April 26, p. 3.
9. Daily Californian, April 28, 1959.
10. Daily Californian, May 1, 1959.
11. Daily Californian, May 4, 1959.
12. Daily Californian, May 6, 1959.
13. Daily Californian, May 22, 1959.
14. Daily Californian, September 23, 1959.
15. Minutes of the Executive Committee, May 26, p. 7.
16. Daily Californian, May 18, 1959.
17. Daily Californian, September 23, 1959.
18. Minutes of the Judicial Committee, October 1, 1959.
19. Daily Californian, December 9, 1959.
20. This is the opinion of Robin Room, graduate student and former SLATE executive.
21. Daily Californian, February 9, 1960.
22. Daily Californian, February 15, 1960.
23. Daily Californian, February 29, 1959.
24. Daily Californian, April 18, 1961.
25. The vigil was organized by graduate students Bob Starobin and Brian Van Arkadie.
1. Stone's letter from the files of Aryay Lenske.