8804110 THE FREE SPEECH MOVEMENT: A CASE STUDY IN THE RHETORIC OF SOCIAL INTERVENTION Stoner, Mark Reed, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1987 © 1987 Stoner, Mark Reed All rights reserved 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V . 1. Glossy photographs or pages_____ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or_______ print 3. Photographs with dark background_____ 4. Illustrations are poor copy_______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy ^ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides_______ of page 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several________ pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirements______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost_______ in spine 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct_______ print 11. Page(s) ____________lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)____________seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages numbered . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages______ 15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received__________ 16. Other____________________________________________________________________________ UMI THE FREE SPEECH MOVEMENT: A CASE STUDY IN THE RHETORIC OF SOCIAL INTERVENTION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Mark Reed Stoner, B.S., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1987 Dissertation Committee: Approved By John J. Makay William R. Brown / Adviser James L. Golden department of Comrrtlmication Copyr ight © by Mark Reed Stoner 1987 To My Wife, Daria, and my Children, Ian and Heather Whose Encouragement, Love and Support Made This Project Possible i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge the invaluable help o£ my advisor, Dr. John Makay, in creating a vision and a context through which this study was possible. Dr. William Brown not only allowed me to freely use his ideas, but his part in my development as a scholar must be noted. He welcomed me to the Department of Communication and saw me off. Finally, I much appreciate the support of Dr. James Golden with whom I share spiritual a tie. I must also thank Dr. Henry Smith for his constant support in giving his time, and advice, as well as teaching some of my classes to allow me time to finish this project. VITA September 12, 1952 Born - Altoona, Pennsylvania 1976 B.S., The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 1982 . M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1982 - 1987 Assistant Professor of Communication, Mount Vernon Nazarene College, Mount Vernon, Ohio PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS Stoner, Mark R. (1986). "The Art of Learning, the Art of Teaching, and the Art of Rhetoric: A Modern Trivium." The Ohio Speech Journal 26: 35-51. (1986). "The Free Speech Movement as Public Moral Argument." Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Culture and Communication, 7-11 October, Philadelphia, PA. (1984). "Free Speech at Berkeley: 'University as Factory,' An Argument from Analogy." Paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the SCA, 1-4 November, Chicago, ILL. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Communication Studies in Communication Theory. Professor Jack Douglas Studies in Rhetorical Theory and Criticism. Professors John Makay and William Brown Studies in Organizational Communication, Professor Keith Brooks TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION..................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................... iii VITA ...................................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES ...................................... viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION..... .............................. 1 Background .................................. 4 Statement of the Problem ................. 8 Method and Pr o c e d u r e ....................... 10 M e t h o d ................................ 10 P r o c e d u r e ............................. 15 Review of Pertinent Literature ............ 21 Social Movements ................... 22 The Berkeley Conflict ............... 24 Freedom of S p e e c h .................... 25 Organization of the S t u d y ............... 27 Works C i t e d ................................ 29 II. THE FREE SPEECH MOVEMENT, 1964-65 .... 35 Introduction ................................ 35 Description of the Free Speech Movement 36 Conditions of Conflict ............ 36 Initial Confrontation ............... 37 Escalation Begins ................... 40 Crisis at the C a r ................... 43 The Free Speech Movement Created . 46 The Movement Declines ............... 49 The Students Re-Unified ............ 52 The "Final Atrocity" ............... 55 The Students S t r i k e ................. 58 The Faculty M o v e s ................... 60 Crisis at the Greek Theater .... 65 v The Faculty S p e a k s ................. 69 The Administration Reacts .......... 71 Denouement ................. 74 A Short Round T w o ................... 76 E n d n o t e s .................................... 79 Works C i t e d ................................ 85 III. THE RHETORIC OF SOCIAL INTERVENTION: A DESCRIPTION ............................. 86 Introduction ................................ 86 Three Interrelated Subsystems in the Process of Ideologizing ................. 86 Intrapersonal Role Development . 89 Interpersonal Role Development . 90 Continuity and Discontinuity in Ideologies.................... 93 Need, Power and Attention-Switching S u b s y s t e m s ........................... 95 A Complementary Version of Rhetorical Vision Theory ................. 101 Vision Actors ........................... 102 Power Shares and the "Church" . 104 Vision Managers ......................... 106 Strategies of Intervention ................. 108 Conclusion.............................. 113 Endnotes ..................................... 116 Works C i t e d ........................... 119 IV. ATTENTION-SWITCHING AND THE FREE SPEECH MOVEMENT ................................ 120 Introduction .................................. 120 Renaming the University as Factory . 121 Text, Context, and Interpretation .... 126 Attention-Switching as Social Intervention .................................. 133 An Ideology of Social Justice and the Need to A c t ................. 134 An Ideology of Social Order and a Need for C o n t r o l ............... 135 Strategies, Tactics and Maneuvers of the F S M ......................... 138 C o n c l u s i o n .............................. 150 E n d n o t e s ................................ 152 Works C i t e d ............................. 154 vi V. POWER AND THE FREE SPEECH MOVEMENT .... 156 Introduction .................................. 156 Power D e f i n e d ................................ 158 Power C y c l e .................................. 161 Strategies, Tactics and Maneuvers of Power C o d e ........................... 170 Strategies, Tactics and Maneuvers of the Administration................. 173 Strategies, Tactics and Maneuvers of the F S M ............................. 181 Conclusion .................................. 190 E n d n o t e s ....................................... 193 Works C i t e d .................................. 197 VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND EVALUATION . 199 Introduction ................................ 199 Ideology, Attention-Switching and Power: A Summary . •........................... 199 Research Questions and Conclusions . 203 Evaluation of the M o d e l ................. 219 Works C i t e d ................................ 226 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ 228 vi i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Deviance Amplifying Needs Sub-Cycle .... 97 2. Deviance Compensating Response from Power C y c l e .............. 100 Chapter 1 introduction The student uprising at the Berkeley campus of the University of California known as the Free Speech Movement did not develop in a vacuum, but was the result of a complex interaction of political, social and moral issues salient at the time. Of course, student protest on campus is not new to the American college system. Lipset noted that "If lor half century after the Revolution, students recurrently engaged in protests, some of them quite violent in character, directed against the universities for various deficiencies" (Lipset 127-8). Most of the disturbances, although focused on student concerns, were over bad food, accommodations, or "compulsory commons." But not all of the disturbances were of such a mundane nature. The spirit of the Revolution was still very much alive and was particularly expressed in clashes between the Christian and secular interests that were vying for power at the societal level and found a crucible on the campuses as the students' 1 liberalism confronted the more generally conservative elements of the institutions in the faculties, administrations, and boards of trustees. The pre-Civil War years, according to Lipset, saw a decidedly political turn in the issues dealt with on campus and has generally remained that way. What was unique about the events at Berkeley was the recognition of students as a class of individuals (Lipset 191; Horowitz and Freidland 13) and a focus on student rights and concerns whereas student activism prior to 1964 was generally related to the larger civil rights struggle. The Berkeley revolt became the "prototype event of the student