September, 1970 DISSENT and UNREST on TFIE CAMPUS, 1931—1970 Dissent, Unrest and Disruption Did Not Develop Suddenly on the Oh
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
September, 1970 DISSENT AND UNREST ON TFIE CAMPUS, 1931—1970 Dissent, unrest and disruption did not develop suddenly on The Ohio State University campus in the spring of 1970, just aft:er the peak of the Centennial Year. Division of a sort might even be said to have had a beginning in the ouster of President Walter Q. Scott in June, 1883. This was because of his failure to conduct daily compulsory chapel as the Trustees had ordered, and because of his espousal of nonconformist economic ideas as embodied in Henry George’s Single Tax proposal. The repercussions of the Scott ouster reached into the governor’s office and newspaper columns, But while he was permitted to “resign” shortly he did not regain his job and he was not even accorded the courtesy of being named president emeritus until 1909. From time to time there was a division of opinion over compulsory military training. At one early point even the legislature made it optional but this did not last long. It was not until the ‘Thirties that the anti—military movement grew to real proportions. In 1930—31 a number of issues came rapidly to a head. These were free speech, compulsory drill, and the ouster of Professor Herbert A. Miller, of Sociology. Externally these matters were unrelated, but it was not long before those involved in them found a certain amount of common ground. Unfortunately this was also a time of. financial stringency because of the depression and many University services were curtailed seriously. The Free Voice, a dissident student weekly newspaper, appeared at 15th Avenue and High Street in January, 1931. Since it was unauthorized it could not be peddled on the campus side of High Street. It was small publication that sold for a nickel. Among those on its staff were such later notables as Earl Wilson, the Broadway columnist, and Ruth McKenney, the author. Compared with publications a generation —1— FROM: The papers of James Pollard (RG 40/52/3) located at 141—192—3ab. later, it was relatively mild in tone. Successor publications appeared in 1934 and 1935. A major target, of course, was compulsory drill. This protest was more vocal than effective. On the occasion of a major review on the Oval, however, some of these dissidents armed”with broomsticks mocked the event by parading behind the commandant and others receiving the review. The protesters also made their objections vocal from the base of the Thompson statue at the head of the Oval. The Miller ouster was something else. He was a nonconformist professor of sociology who was either ahead of his time or unable to understand plain English, or both. He was given leave of absence for the Spring Quarter, 1930 to go to India but after some discussion among the Trustees it was understooW that President Rightmire was to notify Miller that his contract would not be renewed for 1931—1932. Rightmire wrote Miller who was away, during the 1931 spring vacation to remind him of this fact. The word soon got around, the faculty was split — liberals vs conservatives —, and the administration, especially the Trustees, was criticized severely. At an unprecedented Sunday meeting in the chapel, 132 faculty members signed a protest against Miller’s removal. It stood, although the Trustees after meeting later with a faculty committee clarified the University’s policy on tenure. The scars from this battle over academic freedom were a long time in healing. The next major issue arose following the adoption in September, 1951 of the so—called speaker screening rule under which the president had to approve outside speakers whose names had to be submitted to him for clearance at least 10 days in advance of the issuance of the actual invitation to speak. This caused an immediate uproar and, eventually, the adoption of censure against the University by the national A.A.U.P. Students were not so much involved in this, although the hubbub was a long time in dying down and then only after the Trustees had modified their stand considerably. —2— At one point, in fact, an influential Trustee invited a senior faculty member to his downtown office and, in effect, asked the latter, “How do we get off the hook in this?” The speaker rule had been adopted after Professor Harold Rugg, of Columbia University, had given affront by talks he had made on the campus that summer. Rugg was accused of being un—American and a Board resolution condemned the invitation to him as “not in accord with the traditions and objectives” of the University. Two incidents in the early ‘Sixties proved that at times student feeling had a low boiling point. In November, 1961 after Ohio State had won the Big Ten football title and thus qualified for the Rose Bowl game, the Faculty Council voted against letting the team go to Pasadena. This led to a major demonstration on the campus and a march on the Statehouse by an estimated 7,000 students. It was said that the “riot” cost the city up to $10,000 in damages and police overtime. Even a glass front door on the Faculty Club was broken. In February, 1964 another demonstration followed the arrest the day before of a coed for jaywalking. She had gotten the ticket the previous quarter but never paid it. The offense had occurred on High Street near 15th Avenue. The afternoon after the arrest, when she was taken to the police station in a “paddy wagon”, hundreds of students began to gather near the intersection. They lined both sides of the street shouting, “We’ll win. We can’t be beat. Where we want we’ll cross the street,” along with “Red Rover, Red Rover. You kids cross over.” Traffic came to a standstill at the rush hour after radio news cars and TV cameras arrived. It was said that 4,000 students lined one block of High Street and filled the street. Nearly a score of trolley buses and as many autos were blocked by the demonstrators. The disorder lasted seven hours. Another 200 students paraded downtown to enter a protest at the police station. Later seven students were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct. As an aftermath —3— two students were suspended from school and five, were put on disciplinary probation. In May, 1964 some hundreds of students were drawn to the Oval for a civil rights rally. There was an hour of speeches, folk—singin g and a march to the campus postoffice to mail pleas to U.S. Senator Frank J. Lausche, of Ohio. It was said that payment of $50 was required for police protection before the rally could be held. But the police merely took some pictures and watched the faces of the crowd. There were no incidents; in fact, a sand—lot soccer game went on nearby during the rally. In the spring of 1964 also, a weekly soapbox forum was held on the Oval near Hayes Hall. Anyone was permitted to have his say. These peaceful dialogues, if that is what they were, served a purpose but they drew small crowds who stood or lolled about on the grass. But there were no demonstrations and no disorder such as occurred later. Rumblings of discontent over the Speakers’ Rule continued intermittently but with no serious untoward incident until 1965. That spring a new group which called itself the Free Speech Front staged two sit—ins in the Administration Building in seven days. On April 28 that year an estimated 300 students began by sitting outside President Fawcett’s office. Some stayed all night. The Free Speech Front was not recognized by the University but its spokesmen said this was their way of trying to get the Speakers’ Rule made unrestrictive, i.e., toothless. The Trustees, who that month invited the Faculty Advisory Council to make suggestions on the problem, had agreed to consider proposals to change the rule at their July meeting, but the Free Speech Front said this was too late and wanted immediate action. The demonstrators were peaceful. They even observed the cordoned—off aisles that had been arranged on the second floor of the building and when their numbers grew too large, 50 of them took up their vigil on the first floor. Late in the evening all of the demonstrators went there. Outside the building some 200 —4— picketers marched until well into the evening. More than a score of the demonstrators spent the night there. This Free Speech Front protest had begun with a rally on April 14 when the group demanded that the rule be changed within three weeks so as to require only 72 hours’ notification of the appearance of a guest speaker. But the next week, with a crowd estimated at 2,000, demand was made for immediate change in the rule. This followed word of plans to invite Dr. Herbert Aptheker, national director of the American Institute for Marxist Studies, and that he had been, in effect, banned from the campus. The Students for Liberal Action had planned to have him on the campus May 11 in an apparent test of the rule. But Vice President John E. Corbally wrote to SLA’s faculty advieer that Aptheker probably would not be permitted to speak. Agitation over changes in or abandonment of the Speakers’ Rule continued. On May 10 Aptheker spoke off campus but made no mention of the Speakers’ Rule or that he had been barred twice from the campus. The Free Speech Front vowed to bring him back to the campus later in the month but President Fawcett warned its leaders that if Aptheker spoke they would be “subject to disciplinary action.” On May 21 arrangements had been made for him to appear on the Oval where a small platform had been erected.