The Leaflets of the Free Speech Movement
by Michael Rossman
An Introduction to Their Web Publication 
Here are the leaflets of the FSM, the paper life-blood of our movement, in all their glory, or nearly. You can see how drab they appeared, with dense blocks of text stretching sometimes to all margins as we crammed them with vital information.
You can read their digitized texts here without such complications. But if you look closely at their images, you can also read the raw traces of our productive process -- not only in the blotchy print of mimeos running low on ink and cheap stencils wearing thin as weary arms cranked the umpteen-thousandth copy through, but in the very words, in the typos and mis-spellings, the hasty and awkwardly precise phrasings, the mistakes typed over or just crossed out. Most of our leaflets were written at 3 a.m., after an afternoon meeting of the Steering Committee finally broke up, by a few of us who struggled to condense the meeting's sense to fit on a page, in time to rush this to the volunteer who stayed up to type the mimeo stencil in time to rush it to others who still stood by waiting to crank out the first thousand copies in time to give to those alerted by phone-tree last night to be ready at dawn to hand out the leaflets, smudgy with fresh ink, to students arriving for early classes at all the gates of the campus.
By such means, as well as face-to-face, we spoke to ourselves about meanings, purposes, and urgent tactics, in a flood of paper discourse springing not only from the FSM's Steering Committee, but from all its other centers of organizing among the graduate students and teaching assistants, in the many departments and the dorms, and from sympathetic ministers, Marxist analysts, crank visionaries and dissident complainers. All together, during three months of conflict, in this last moment before the flourishing of "underground" newspapers began, we must have produced six hundred leaflets and pamphlets and printed four million pages, heady with the power of talking to each other. As you passed through Sproul Plaza you could pick up three or four and linger to sort out their slants, the meaning of new developments, in the energized atmosphere of a political community awakening.
In the leaflets posted here, you can read the public story of the conflict, at least from our side -- how we understood the issues and stakes, the progression of events. But the deeper tale they tell is of who we were. We were crazy, we were fanatics: we actually believed in the First Amendment, in the power of free speech. We believed that rational discourse and appeals to principle could move people to action. We thought it reasonable to expect that our sisters and brothers would study the dense patchy text of our reports, understand the legal intricacies of the FSM's position, think through the complex issues and the urgings and risks of personal involvement. We believed that free speech was the key to future justice on everyone's behalf, and vital to defend on our home ground; we believed we could win it by using it. Our leaflets were the exercise of our belief, and proved us right.
About "My" FSM Leaflets 
If I can claim authorship of the leaflets that follow here, it is only in the narrowest of technical senses -- for though I wrote almost every word of their final drafts, I did so as a pen expressing a collective mind and will. The texture and rhythms and cadences of their language and thought-flow are so consistent that they could pass simply as one person's expression; and I suppose that some trace of my own personality as writer and thinker may adhere in some of the precise words chosen and their ordering, helping to provide a cosmetic effect of individuality. But it's more accurate to see them as written by a committee or some larger collectivity, for in truth I hardly know or knew which words and thoughts were "mine" even in their slight subtleties of expression -- even though every word was mine, from my heart and mind, including those I transcribed unaltered from earlier drafts made by others, or by comrades standing behind me as I typed.
One might analyze the leaflets' consistency from outside in this fashion: Their writer was commissioned to express a party line, and every word he wrote was subject to sharpest scrutiny and criticism. That's true enough, but quite misleading in its usual implications, given what happened among us on Steering Committee as ten to fifteen diverse and lively minds discussed every least detail of everything we considered down to exhausted consensus, day after day, week after week. By the time we digested the technical clarifications of the key issue in dispute, drafted and refined the FSM's principles, platform, and program, and decided what needed to be said to our constituency before or after each day's developments, each thought and motive and clause had tumbled so often through so many minds and mouths that the better cadences of each person's phrasings and logic became common property in our minds and on our tongues. We scarcely became any commoner in our personalities; indeed, I think we grew more diverse in becoming more our selves. But I think that if any other of us had had the duty to draft what we had decided should be said, her way of putting it would have been so nearly like mine as to testify to the intimacy of our conspiracy.
As I explain elsewhere, I came to be the FSM's main leafleteer only from early November on. Though other leaflets were also issued by Steering Committee during this period, these represent the main flow of its public communications on paper (as distinct from talks at rallies), and of events through the final sit-in.
At this distance, these leaflets seem a theatrical suite, as they were indeed at the time. And what strikes me is perhaps what struck their readers then in the slow unfolding of their drama -- the balance of thought and action, and how these were entwined, and how this balance shifted in urgency as the affair came to climax. Yet even more is visible than we could then see, in the leaflets' tacit expectation that they would be read and understood, which says so much about us.
To a casual reader, their content may well seem obsessively technical, narrow, and redundant. You can see how we explained the same things over and over, at length and in capsule summary, in the course of analyzing each pertinent detail of the administration and faculty positions and responses as these and our own developed. In the slow, public drama of doing so, we displayed ourselves, as much unconsciously as deliberately, as intellectuals committed to careful thought, to the melding of mind and heart -- and to a grave formality of good manners, not only in speaking with our own.
If we might be seen also as generals drilling our troops in a martial catechism, surely there was good reason. The key issue of conflict was so complex, delicate, and embedded in other considerations, that the eighteen delegates and supplementary lawyers of the CCPA -- the tripartite "study committee" eventually resulting from the cop-car truce -- had taken five meetings and fifteen hours of fractious discussion to recognize and isolate it as central, and declare themselves deadlocked. In the chaos of process that followed the Chancellor's dissolution of the CCPA, it was essential that our movement's members come to understand what the FSM's representatives themselves had learned only as they led the committee to clarify the issue and its deadlock.
To share our developing learning adequately through a few sheets of paper and brief speeches at rallies was a challenge in itself, made more complicated and difficult by the changing ground and climate as the conflict progressed. For by the time we had fully articulated "The Position of the Free Speech Movement on Speech and Political Activity," the administration had changed its own position for the fifth time. After revising their excuses for banning the tables, administrators had given us back the tables, our rights to hand out literature and even to solicit members and donations, more territory to exercise them on, looser rules to run rallies by, somewhat more freedom of speakers and speech. We could hardly deny that they had conceded even more than we had asked for at first, before we came to understand the issues more clearly and to demand more. This news was trumpeted far beyond the university community by media, as within it by President Kerr's gracious, condescending declaration in the Daily Cal -- leaving us to seem to the public, as to so many on campus, not simply defiant and stubborn, but downright unreasonable in our persistence, and our insistence that the key issue had not been resolved or even addressed.
In the face of all this, our leaflets and rallies served both to interpret developments and to school our movement in its central understandings -- not alone of the technical issue that required such explanation, but of the moral core, our rights as citizens of this nation and of a dreamed community in which the governed have fair say in what affects them. Our moral rhetoric stirred the breeze at rallies; its skeleton of logic remains here on paper. One may imagine what the average Dentistry student or sophomore in English felt while reading these leaflets, listening in the Plaza, opening the letter from his parents in Fresno with the clipped editorial attacking Kerr for his concessions, trying to sort out what to do. And we did imagine this, or try.
For corny as it may sound, we were sharply aware of the responsibilities we recognized in leading so many, most younger than ourselves, to risk their bodies and careers for justice. For the most part, the best we could do was to help them understand the issues involved as clearly as they could while choosing how to act, faced with a problem as complex and much more consequential than any had encountered in a classroom test or assignment. The sit-in arrest record and the strike's rosters showed the results of their real-world test. And I will bet that had a paper test been given that next week or the next year, or even perhaps yesterday, the great majority of arrestees and strikers would have explained the issues clearly.
The point of our care in helping them prepare may be seen more clearly in perspective of what seems a truly tragic fact: By the time of our trial for the sit-in, the university's President still had not fully understood the key technical issue of the conflict, and had to have it explained to him again by the university's lawyers. If Kerr had read our leaflets, he might have understood sooner, and understood more about us. But he was too busy, proud, and blind to do so, or too entrapped in his role in society and history, as we were in forming our own.
WHY WE HAVE DECIDED TO BEGIN TO EXERCISE OUR RIGHTS AGAIN
WHY WE HAVE SET UP THE TABLES
The meetings of the Committee on Campus PoIitical Activity have not been negotiating sessions. It is purely a study group; none of its members regard it as a negotiating body. We have no way to negotiate the conflict between our rights and the Administration's policies. The Administration has not given us any effective voice in determining the policies which affect us.
Part of the faculty proposal now before the Committee agrees on our right to solicit members and donations at campus tables. Since the Committee is at best advisory, and has proclaimed itself deadlocked on the only issue it has considered yet, there is no indication that its further sessions will help restore this right. For a month we have voluntarily refrained from exercising this right. But a month is a long time; already many organizations have been seriously hurt by this restraint.
The long history of Administrative disregard for student rights, and of "negotiations" carried on in bodies with no power, gives us strong reason to fear that if we continue not to exercise this right we will never retain it. Rights not exercised die away. Since the Administration seems unwilling to approve actual negotiations, we have decided reluctantly that the only way to show that we will not give up this right is to exercise it. We cannot in good conscience keep the tables down anymore.
WHY WE HAVE BEGUN TO ADVOCATE AGAIN
As a study group the Committee has been and will continue to be valuable. Its sessions have clarified our differences with the Administration on the subject of advocacy. We both agree that certain special forms of advocacy may not be Constitutionally protected, and may be unlawful. The FSM holds that only courts of law can determine that an act of advocacy is unlawful, and asks that freedom of advocacy on campus be subject only to such legal restraints.
The Administration disagrees. It demands the privilege to usurp the prerogatives of the courts, to pre-judge whether an act of advocacy is illegal, and to punish offenders before they have been found legally guilty. It demands this privilege as a tool to repress student social and political activity when outside pressures become great enough. At present it seems most responsive to pressures asking that it crush the Civil Rights movement. In the future this tool may be used against any student activity causing outside pressure to be directed at the Administration.
This position has been worded in several forms, but our lawyers agree that each form gives the privilege of prior jurisdiction in the area of advocacy. Some forms claim to set restrictions on the exercise of this privilege. These restrictions are no safeguard, since the Administration claims the privilege of determining their meaning, as it has so often in the past.
We regard this claim to prior jurisdiction and the responsiveness to pressure that motivates it as shameful and unacceptable. If we are to be accused of unlawful advocacy, we ask that we be accused only in a court, and that we have all rights of trial and appeal, up to the highest bodies of appeal if necessary. The Constitution guarantees us these rights. Can the Administration give us less?
We ask for our full civil liberties as citizens, and maximum freedom of expression on campus, unrestricted by the Administration's capitulation to outside pressures. Soon we will publish our platform, which proposes changes in the regulations. It is based on three principles:
1. Arbitrary harassment and restraints of free speech and expression must not be tolerated.
2. The Adminstration must not usurp the prerogatives of the courts.
3. It is impossible for an individual's civil liberties to be adequately protected unless he has a voice in the formulation, interpretation, and enforcement of all regulations governing his conduct. The students' right to this voice has never been recognized by the Administration.
We have no way to negotiate about our rights. We see no way to get them, at this point, other than to exercise them publicly. We ask for no more than our rights; we will not settle for less. We ask your understanding and support.
November 9, 1964
WHY THE COMMITTEE DEADLOCKED
It is crucial that everyone be absolutely clear on the issues that deadlocked the Committee on Campus Political Activity last Saturday. The differences between the FSM-supported position and that supported by the Administration seem technical, but we depend upon the intelligence of all concerned to see through the technicalities, to see that the first position protects civil liberties, while the second denies them.
FSM Position on Advocacy
The range of civil liberties and poIitical freedoms of any member of the university community or anyone else which are constitutionally protected off the campus should be equally protected on the campus. By the same principle, of course, speech or conduct which is in violation of law and constitutionally unprotected, should receive no greater protection on the campus than off the campus. In the area of speech and political conduct the University may not regulate content, and must leave to the appropriate civil authorities the sole right to punishment for any transgressions of law. While we recognize the need for appropriate regulations regarding the time, place, and manner of exercising constitutional rights, based upon maintenance of the appropriate function of the University and its peaceful operation, such regulations may not either directly or indirectly interfere with the right to speech or the content of such speech.
The Lawyers of the American Civil Liberties Union Support the Above Position
Administration-Supported Position on Advocacy:
(This was the most liberal position of the several taken by the Administration in the Committee.) (It is not clear that they remain willing to grant even this much.) If unlawful acts directly result from campus advocacy, for which unlawful acts (deemed finally and conclusively unlawful in a court of law) the speaker or his organization can fairly be held directly accountable under prevailing legal principles, by virtue of this on-campus advocacy the University should be entitled to impose appropriate disciplinary action against the speaker and his organization.
The Differences Between the Positions
(In questions of advocacy, two distinct acts are involved: the act of advocacy, and the act that is advocated. For example, if someone speaks on campus advocating a sit-in and the sit-in does occur, that person's speech is the act of advocacy and the sit-in is the act advocated.) The Administration position is unacceptable in two respects.
1. It allows the University to pass judgment on the legitimacy of the act of advocacy itself (although it gratuitously allows the courts to determine the legitimacy of the act that is advocated). It is not within the competence of the University to make such judgments. Only courts of law are competent to make them.
2. It allows the University to impose punishments for acts of advocacy that it deems illegal, This would be unacceptable even if the judgments as to the legality of the act of advocacy were left to the courts. Just as the civil authorities are the only ones competent in these cases, they are also the only ones competent to impose punishments. For the University which is an arm of the State to punish the same act that the courts punish is, in fact, double jeopardy.
The Practical Effect of the Administration-Supported Position
The practical effect of giving the University the power to judge the legitimacy of acts of advocacy and to impose punishments on the basis of these judgments is to give the University a weapon. This weapon would be dangerous and potentially lethal to effective political action on this campus. It is clear that the University is subject to great external pressure. The power of this pressure was illustrated last spring when the University attempted to take disciplinary action against student demonstrators participating in sit-ins at the Sheraton-Palace Hotel and the auto agencies. The University proposal would give the administration the power to impose disciplinary action against students for advocating off-campus political and social action. Further, the Administration would have the power to take away all the on-campus rights of the organizations that sponsored that advocacy on campus. It would, if accepted now, give them a weapon in the future to crush any student movement on this campus that had become effective enough in the outside community to bring pressure on the University to repress.
Both in principle and in effect the Administration-supported position constitutes an intolerable infringement upon political rights. That is why we voted against this proposal in the Committee. We made clear at that time that we were willing to continue discussions on other issues in the committee. We regret the Administration's unilateral dissolution of that body.
SOME COMMENTS ON THE FACULTY PROPOSAL
The changes proposed by the faculty members of the former Committee on Campus Political Activity are a first step towards liberalization of present University regulations. But they do not provide for full freedom of speech on campus. We should like to indicate briefly why certain sections of the proposal are unacceptable. The other differences between this proposal and our platform are, we think, self-explanatory.
SECTION III: It is not clear whether the faculty proposal gives the Administration the power to decide that student conduct on campus has resulted in illegal acts off campus before the courts have decided, by formal trial, that the off-campus acts in question are illegal. This is, of course, unacceptable. Even if the faculty proposal does not grant this prior jurisdiction, we cannot accept the double jeopardy which would result from the exercise of this power.
We are shocked that the faculty proposal unquestionably gives the Administration the power to punish students for acts of advocacy whether or not these acts are in violation of the law. The Administration would thus usurp the prerogatives of the courts in determining whether an act of advocacy (rather than an act advocated) is illegal. This is blatantly unconstitutional.
Though the faculty proposal purports to establish safeguards protecting the students from the Administration's exercise of this power, we note that (1) the Administration is to appoint the faculty committee which holds hearings and (2) the recommendations of the committee are advisory only. Such "safeguards" against unconstitutional powers are useless.
SECTION II: The faculty proposal makes no provision for student-sponsored "off-campus" speakers to use facilities other than the Hyde Park Areas. For example, they cannot speak at meetings held in the new student office building. This is unfortunate, since most speakers sponsored by student groups generally require some other place to speak than outdoors.
Their proposal for registration of "off-campus" speakers in the Hyde Park Areas makes it impossible to give adequate advance publicity to speakers who, on short notice, are found to be available or who need to speak on issues which suddenly arise. The faculty proposal institutes the unprecedented requirement that the Chancellor be empowered to require tenured faculty moderators at Hyde Park speeches. These moderators are often impossible to find, and this amounts to censorship. The purpose of the Hyde Park Areas is to provide a place for spontaneous speeches and rallies. The faculty proposals for registration, the 72-hour rule, and the faculty moderator requirement all defeat that purpose.
SECTION V: For the reasons sketched in our platform, temporary non-students should not be barred from membership in student groups.
SECTION VIII: From past history clearly the appointment by the Chancellor of a student group to advise him on the interpretation only of rules cannot be said to provide fair weight to the needs and views of the students. An autonomous body of student advisors is necessary, and they must be part of a body which has the power to make regulations and to interpret them. We suggest that the legitimacy of regulations depends on consent of those they govern, and that the governed should have some effective voice in the formulation of regulations. The faculty proposal does not even hint at this.
SECTION X: The use of Sproul Hall steps and the adjacent upper Plaza as a Hyde Park Area should continue, since this is the only campus area large enough and convenient enough to accomodate major rallies. No reason has been given for discontinuing its use.
THE PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE FSM PLATFORM
ON THE CONTENT OF EXPRESSION: We hold that only courts of law can legitimately judge whether or not the content of a particular speech is lawful. The Administration has held that the University must reserve the right to indict and try a student if it feels that the student has made improper use of his right to advocate.
There are two possible ways the Administration may act. It may hold that the student's speech is improper because it constitutes a crime. In this case, their indictment and hearing will be a clear invitation to the District Attorney to initiate criminal proceedings. He will be shielded from the protest such criminal proceedings would normally invoke, because a respected institution has declared the action a crime. Furthermore, the hearings would provide information which might otherwise be legally unobtainable. On the other hand, they may indict the student on a charge which does not constitute a crime. In this case they would be declaring improper speech which is protected by the first and fourteenth amendments. They would be judging that less political freedom should obtain on the campus than off.
There are many more reasons we hold the Administration proposal to be objectionable. In brief they include: Our belief that due process on campus would be almost impossible to obtain; our belief that indictment would occur as a response to outside pressures rather than to the actions of particular students; and our realization that if entities other than the courts begin convicting of unlawful advocacy, it will be impossible to develop the now-sparse case law pertaining to the relevant issues.
ON THE FORM OF EXPRESSION: The bulk of the changes we propose in the regulations are meant to ease unnecessary restrictions on the forms of advocacy. We have tried to formulate regulations which consistently apply the principle that any restriction on campus political activity whose effect is to hamper, harass, or inhibit, and which cannot be based upon a sound and compelling demonstration that it is necessary for the efficient functioning of the University, must not exist.
ON STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN THE ENACTMENT, ENFORCEMENT AND INTERPRETATION OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING POLITICAL ACTIVITY: We hold that students should have an effective voice in the enactment, interpretation, and enforcement of regulations governing campus political activity. When a body of students is constituted to perform this function, we hold that a majority of its members should be democratically selected by the students directly involved in political activities.
AN APPEAL TO THE REGENTS
Today the Regents meet in plenary session. They are expected to decide what regulations shall officially govern student political activity on campus. We appeal to the Regents to make a wise decision. We appeal to the Regents to act in a manner which shall begin to restore the confidence which every student should have in our University.
The past month has been a period of controversy at the University of California at Berkeley. In the heat of this controversy, both the students and the Administration may at times have become unnecessarily vindictive. Today the Regents, a body which has not as yet been party to the conflict, must reach a decision upon the issues under dispute. We trust that in reaching their decision the Regents consider only three criteria: that their decision be legally sound, that their decision be morally correct, and that their decision help reduce the mistrust and alienation which has developed on ths campus.
A DELEGATION TO THE REGENTS
The following request was forwarded by the Steering Committee of the FSM to the Regents:
To The Regents of the University of California:
We request permission to have the plenary session of the Regents of the University of California receive a delegation from the Free Speech Movement.
The delegation, to consist of five members of the FSM Steering Committee, would formally present the Platform of the FSM, which consists of a carefully formulated body of proposed regulations to govern student political activity on campus.
The delegation would like to discuss briefly the reasons for the changes in the present regulations which this Platform embodies. Many of the proposed changes are motivated by problems that students encounter as part of their every-day experience. Since these problems possibly may not be fully understood by all parties concerned with the formulating of regulations, the delegation feels that such discussion might be of service to the Regents, and it would be honored to answer any questions that might be asked.
Our five-man delegation can adequately present to the Regents the principles behind the FSM platform. But no delegation of five could ever show the Regents the overwhelming support the student position has on campus; only the students themselves can demonstrate this support. For this reason, the FSM has requested that the student body accompany the delegation of five to University Hall and wait outside while the student position is presented. This gathering will demonstrate individual concern; it will show how many of us share the belief that full political freedom shall obtain on campus subject only to the restraints imposed by law and to legitimate considerations of non-interference with the functions of the University. This show of support will be much like a vote. Each member of the academic community must decide whether or not he wishes to be counted.
MASS MEETING SPROUL HALL NOON TO 2:00 P M
(Guests to include Joan Baez and Congressman Phil Burton)
AT 2:00 PM THE FSM DELEGATION AND THEIR STUDENT ACCOMPANIMENT WILL LEAVE FOR THE REGENT'S MEETING.
THEIR RULE AND OUR RULES
On Friday, the Regents acted. They passed a policy statement concerning the regulation of political activity at the University of California. On the question of advocacy, the most controversial issue in the Free Speech fight, the Regents endorsed a policy which was recommended before October 13 by the University of California General Counsel. Thus, over a month of petitioning and negotiating was totally ignored. The Regents ruled that the advocacy of "illegal action" is grounds for discipline. By all administrative interpretations of this policy, if an action is advocated, and after the fact an unlawful act occurs which can in any way be connected with the advocacy, the on-campus speaker can be expelled. Thus if arrests occur during any civil rights demonstration, an on-campus speaker who advocated participation in that demonstration, or a student who handed out leaflets about the demonstration could be expelled. Arbitrary harassments against student activity were made practicable by provisions for increased staff in the Dean's Office and in the Police Department. Chancellor Strong yesterday published rules implementing the Regents' policy. They were as expected; no protections against arbitrary administrative action were provided. The administration is the sole judge of what is legal, what is not, what violates rules, what does not. The purpose of the policy is to provide a tool for the further suppression of student political activity; it is not to protect students.
Chancellor Strong tried to appear to accept the proposal of the faculty contingent of the Williams committee. Thls group, however, admittedly framed their proposals in a manner they were sure was acceptable to Kerr. They do not represent faculty opinion. Far more liberal views have been expressed in the many other proposals submitted by faculty groups. But Strong didn't accept even that conservative position -- and notably, retained the Faculty Committee on Student conduct to handle all cases of discipline. By its history of star-chamber proceedings this committtee has established itself as totally unacceptable.
The F.S.M. cannot recognize these attempts to stifle the exercise [of] our rights. Since the administration has failed in its mandate to provide regulations by which student political organizations can adequately function, those engaging in political activity will follow the regulations of the F.S.M.
Should the administration take action against any student or student organization on account of his exercising his rights, the F.S.M. shall protect that student or organization with whatever action is appropriate and necessary for the defence of such rights.
There will be a RALLY at NOON today in which the Du Bois Club, Campus Core, and Slate will advocate off-campus political activity. There will be tables set up all over campus, including now traditional areas. All activity will proceed by F.S.M. regulations.
THE POSITION OF THE FREE SPEECH MOVEMENT ON SPEECH AND POLITICAL ACTIVITY
The following statement sets out and explains the position of the Free Speech Movement on the rights of speech and advocacy. The statement is divided into three parts: (1) Regulation of Advocacy Under the First Amendment; (2) Impropriety of Nonjudicial Forums for Punishing Political Activity; and (3) On-Campus Regulation of the Form of Free Expression.
The constitutional questions involved in regulating advocacy have been discussed informally with Berkeley Albany American Civil Liberties Union representatives, and the FSM position is consistent with that of a detailed formal statement issued by the Berkeley-Albany ACLU. In this connection, Mr. Ernest Besig, Executive Director of the Northern California Branch of the ACLU, will be pleased to discuss the ACLU position in further detail with the reader of this statement.
1. Regulation of Advocacy Under the First Amendment
Civil liberties and political freedoms which are constitutionally protected off campus must be equally protected on campus for all persons. Similarly, illegal speech or conduct should receive no greater protection on campus than off campus. The Administration. like other agency of government, may not regulate the content of speech and political conduct. Regulations governing the time, place and manner of exercising constitutional rights are necessary for the maintenance and proper operation of University functions, but they must not interfere with the opportunity to speak or the content of speech.
In contrast, the University regulations adopted by the Regents on November 20, 1964 and interpreted by the Chancellor, read as follows:
"The Regents adopt the policy . . . that certain campus facilities carefully selected and properly regulated, may be used by students and staff for planning, implementing, raising funds or recruiting participants for lawful off-campus action, not for unlawful off campus action."
By making the distinction between advocating "lawful" and "unlawful" action, the Regents propose to regulate the content of speech on campus. It is this distinction that is at the heart of FSM opposition to these regulations. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that advocacy of unlawful conduct cannot constitutionally be punished -- even in the courts -- so long as the advocacy will not clearly and presently cause some substantial evil that is itself illegal.
Impropriety of Nonjudicial Forums for Punishing Political Activity
Under the November 20th regulations, if the Chancellor accuses a student of advocating an unlawful act, the student and his sponsoring organization are liable to punishment by the University. A student so accused may appear before the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct, whose members are appointed by the Chancellor, and whose opinions are only advisory to him.
The Free Speech Movement considers this to be unconstitutional and unwise for the following two reasons.
(1) Since such a procedure allows the Chancellor to assume the role of prosecutor, judge and jury simultaneously, the students have no confidence that the final verdict will be fair. In fact, the history of the treatment of civil liberties cases by the campus administration reveals an insensitivity to safeguarding such liberties.
Further, the fact that the Administration is peculiarly vulnerable to pressures originating outside the University should remove it from consideration as the proper authority for determining guilt or innocence in the extremely sensitive area of speech, assembly and protest within the First Amendment. It must be emphasized that the current crisis has not developed in a vacuum. These rules work a grave hardship on the civil-rights movement in Northern California. Organizations in this move ment rely heavily on negotiations, demonstrations, picketing and other such legal tactics. It is true, however, that in order to focus attention on a serious injustice and to bring pressure to bear for its correction, civil-rights workers sometimes employ tactics which result in violation of law. Without passing on the propriety of such acts, the Free Speech Movement insists that the question whether their advocacy is legal or illegal must be left to the courts, which are institutionally independent of the shifting pressures of the community. Moreover, the standard that the Chancellor is free to apply is only one of "responsibility" of the act of advocacy for the act advocated, which is far more inclusive and vague than the "clear and present danger" test. Hence, guilt is likely to be found upon much less substantial and compelling grounds than would be necessary to obtain conviction for illegal advocacy in a court of law. Students are convinced that the regulations providing for such a hearing are the direct result of pressures generated by the civil-rights movement in the surrounding community, and enable the Administration to respond to such pressures by disciplining student civil-rights workers.
(2) Even if complete mutual trust existed between the Administration and the student body, and even if the University attempted to observe the requirements of due process, it would be impossible for it to provide all of the safeguards of our judicial system, or otherwise to fulfill the functions of a court. The points in controversy, relating to the degree of responsibility of an act of advocacy for an act advocated, are of such a delicate and complex nature that even the courts have not built up wholly adequate precedents. Certainly, then, a nonjudicial body should be considered incompetent in this area.
On the other hand, the students' position that the courts alone have jurisdiction does not in any way imply the creation of a haven for illegal activity on the campus. On the contrary, it involves just the opposite of this -- the removal of any special protection the University may now afford, as well as any extra-legal punishment. The student becomes subject to the same process of trial and punishment for illegal acts that all other citizens must accept.
On-Campus Regulation of the Form of Free Expression
The Free Speech Movement recognizes the necessity for regulations ensuring that political activity and speech do not interfere with the formal educational functions of the University. Rallies must not be held so as to disturb classes, block traffic, damage University property, conflict with other scheduled public meetings or rallies, etc. Such regulation is purely formal; no discretion to regulate the content of speech can constitutionally be permitted the controlling authority. Further, the regulations must be carefully tailored to protect or promote these State interests without unduly burdening the opportunity to speak, hear, or engage in political activity on the campus.
At the present time, University regulations governing the form of expression on the campus are promulgated by the Administration, while other segments of the University community are limited to a purely advisory capacity. It is the general position of the Free Speech Movement that those persons and organizations subject to regulations must have a part in their final enactment. It is especially important as a safeguard against abuse or factual error that students share the responsibility for promulgating regulations over the form of speech. The Administration has demonstrated many times its propensity to plead the necessity to regulate form as an excuse for regulating content. For example, the Administration has until recently designated a place removed from the area of normal student traffic as the sole "Hyde Park area," thus seriously hampering access to listeners. As the local ACLU has pointed out,
'"a denial of certain avenues of such access (such as the open areas of the campus) with the claim that there are others, which though perhaps not as desirable are nonetheless available, will not avoid violation of the First Amendment unless the government entity . . . can demonstrate that there are no available alternative means of achieving its purposes, and that the purposes in question are so necessary as to be, in the language of the Court, 'compelling.'"
Students have thus regarded the designation of such an area as an unreasonable and unconstitutional restriction and refused to accede to it.
Because of such past experience, and because of the important principle of democratic self-government involved, the Free Speech Movement has taken the position that final regulation of the form of exercise of speech should be by a tripartite committee, consisting of representatives chosen independently by the students, faculty and administration.
Why are UC Students Still Not Satisfied?!!
The Regents' meeting of November 20 resulted in surprisingly harsh rulings concerning the dispute over political activity on the Berkeley campus.
I. Although the Heyman Committee recommended that six of the eight students suspended on September 30 should not have been suspended at all, the Regents voted to confirm their suspensions; in addition, while voting to reinstate all eight, the Regents decided that Mario Savio and Art Goldberg should be placed on probation for the rest of this semester. Such probation could easily result in expulsion for both, because they have been in repeated violation of university regulations since September 30.
II. The Regents voted to allow the administration to take disciplinary action against students, staff, and organizations who advocate illegal off-campus actions. The wording of the resolution is ambiguous, and the responsibility for interpreting it is given to Chancellor Strong. The Regents rejected without consideration the proposals concerning political freedom made by various faculty members, the ASUC Senate, and the FSM.
These rulings (and others not discussed here) stunned the 5000 students awaiting the Regents' decision outside University Hall. It is the consensus of students involved in the controversy that the rulings are unconstitutional and unacceptable. The university must not set itself up as a secondary court, to punish students for actions which are liable to civil court action.
Chancellor Strong said in the Daily Cal Monday that "there will be no prior determination or double jeopardy in matters of political and social activities organized on the campus by students and staff." That's fine, for now. But the essential thing is that he can make "prior determination" not only of the act of advocacy but also of the act advocated. He can take disciplinary action against students -- whether they are subjected to court action or not -- if he decides to do so at any time in the future. This is clearly intolerable.
The Academic Senate is meeting this afternoon to discuss the Eli Katz case. This case involves the refusal by the administration, and specifically by the chancellor, to rehire Professor Katz, despite the recommendation of the German Department that he be rehired. In that instance the chancellor interpreted his powers as the case demanded. Professor Katz was not rehired as a direct result of insisting on his constitutional rights.
There is a close connection between the Katz case and the free-speech controversy, and we hope that the Academic Senate will consider this fact. Specifically, we expect the senate to take a stand against the Regents' rulings. Up until today the faculty has played the role of mediator in the dispute between the administration and the students. In so doing, the faculty has seriously compromised the principles of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The faculty, by its compromising proposals, has allowed the administration to becloud the principles involved.
LET THE FACULTY NOW STAND UP AND UNEQUIVOCALLY SUPPORT THE STUDENTS OF THIS CAMPUS IN THEIR JUST DEMANDS FOR FULL POLITICAL FREEDOM.
We urge all students to attend the Academic Senate meeting today -- place as yet undetermined.
A SPECTRE IS HAUNTING THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA -- THE SPECTRE OF STUDENT RESISTANCE TO ARBITRARY ADMINISTRATIVE POWER
The Board of Regents has urged Chancellor Strong to attack leaders of the Free Speech Movement.
Chancellor Strong has summoned Arthur Goldberg, Mario Savio and Jackie Goldberg before his Faculty Committee on Student Conduct. These three students have been singled out -- from among thousands -- for their participation in the demonstrations of October 1st and 2nd.
The Administration has also initiated disciplinary action against these student organizations: Campus CORE, Young Socialist Alliance, SLATE, Women for Peace, W. E. B. DuBois Club, University Friends of SNCC.
WE DEMAND THE FOLLOWING ACTION BE TAKEN BY WEDNESDAY NOON:
That disciplinary procedures against Arthur Goldberg, Mario Savio, Jackie Goldberg and the student political organizations be halted.
That the Administration guarantee there will be no further disciplining of students or organizations for political activity that occurs before a final settlement is reached.
That Freedom of Political Activity be protected by revision of present University policy so that:
-- Only the courts regulate the content of political expression.
-- Independents for Free Speech meeting, Thursday, 7:30 p.m., Hillel. Elections will be held.
-- Graduate Coordinating Committee meeting, Today, 4:00 p. m., 100 Cal. All students (including undergraduates) and all faculty members are urged to attend
-- FINAL STRIKE PREPARATIONS WILL BE MADE.
-- MASS MEETING TODAY, NOON, SPROUL HALL STEPS.
December 1 F S M Labor Donated.
We have asked the Administration to grant these demands by noon today:
1. The arbitrary and vengeful charges against our leaders and our organizations must be dropped.
2. There must be no new punishments for protesting Administration policies.
3. Immediate and substantial improvements in the regulations must be made.
Proper policies and regulations have been proposed by the organizations affected. The Administration has refused to consider these proposals, or even to admit that a problem exists. Instead of facing the real issues, the Administration is trying to stamp out protest by attacking the leaders and the organizations involved.
THE CHANCELLOR HAS TAKEN HIS DIRECT ACTION. NOW WE MUST TAKE OURS .
We have published our platform, asked for public discussion, petitioned, sent delegations, demonstrated, held a moral protest. Yesterday we demanded, and now we await a reply. If no satisfactory reply is given by noon, we will begin massive direct action to force the Administration to heed us.
WE MUST PROTECT OUR LEADERS, OUR ORGANIZATIONS, AND THE STUDENTS AND TA'S WHO PROTEST UNFAIR POLICIES. THE NEEDS OF THE STUDENTS MUST BE MET.
EXCEPT TO THREATEN AND HARM US, THE MACHINE OF THE ADMINISTRATION IGNORES US. WE WILL STOP THE MACHINE.
COME TO THE TO THE NOON RALLY. (Joan Baez will be there.) BRING BOOKS, FOOD, AND SLEEPING BAGS.
HAPPINESS IS AN ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING
With deep gratitude the Free Speech Movement greets the action of the faculty. The passing of the proposals of the Academic Freedom Committee is an unprecedented victory for both students and faculty. For months the FSM has fought to bring the issues to public discussion and to rouse the faculty to take action. Our efforts have finally succeeded, and our protest has been vindicated.
Now that the University community is again united, we hope that it will work together for speedy implementation of its proposals. The faculty must see that the Regents adopt its recommendations. For our own part, the FSM will be completely at the service of the Committee on Academic Freedom in its coming efforts to formulate proper regulations.
We regret having been forced to undertake controversial actions to begin a dialogue. These actions have weighed more heavily upon us than upon any others in the academic community. We hope that the dialogue which has at last begun will continue and increase, and that the success of this dialogue will mean that such actions will never again be necessary.
We urge the faculty and the Academic Senate to do everything in their power to see that the court charges against the 800 are dropped. These students risked arrest to protest unfair regulations and arbitrary disciplinary actions. They made a responsible protest, and should not be punished for having fought in the only ways available for just goals which are now largely achieved. We ask that the faculty honor their dedication by taking appropriate action.
FSM (labor donated)