STANFORD UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA 94305

ACADEMIC SECRETARY tiv llniv*r(itv

GENBAI. September 28, 1970 " c M

TO MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL

The regular meeting of the Academic Council for Autumn Quarter will be

held on Friday, October 2, 1970, at 4:15 p.m., in Dinkelspiel Auditorium.

Agenda for the meeting are as follows

1. Minutes of Prior Meetings

a. Regular Meeting of April 3, 1970 (copy attached)

b. Special Meeting of May 1, 1970 (copy attached)

2. Memorial Resolutions

a. Siemon William Muller (copy attached)

b. Alfred E. Weisz (copy attached)

c. Donald M. Wilson (copy attached) " 3. Report from the Chairman of the Senate 4. Report from the President

5. New Business

STANFORD,

tn r I

MINUTES OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL

April 3, 1970

The regular Spring Quarter meeting of the Academic Council with the University Staff was scheduled for Room phlOO beginning at 4:15 p.m. " on Friday, April 3, 1970, with President Pitzer presiding. At the appointed hour a significant portion of the meeting room was occupied by unauthorized individuals. At approximately 4:20 p.m. the President attempted to call the meeting to order, requesting that those leave who were not either members of the Academic Council, members of the University Staff or specifically invited guests. At approximately 4:40 p.m. the unauthorized persons had left and the Council came officially to order. The President reported a request that KZSU be given access to an KZSU official tape of the meeting for the purpose of delayed broadcast of the proceedings under terms accepted by the Council for the previous meeting (see minutes March 2, 1970). This request was approved by unanimous consent. The minutes of the regular meeting of January 9, 1970, and the minutes of the special meeting of March 2, 1970, were approved as sub- mitted in writing. The Academic Secretary called attention to the fact that following ROTC the special meeting on March 2 arrangements were made to publish in the Campus Report of March 18 concise statements and arguments regarding the ROTC matter. However, since the arrangements were not anticipated on March 2, no record of it appeared in the minutes of that date. In view of the fact that these items represented quasi official records, Professor H. Pierre Noyes had requested that their existence be made a matter of record. The Academic Secretary declared his intention to " comply with this request unless there were objections. No objection was registered. It was also requested that Professor Noyes be recog- nized later in the meeting on a related matter. At the request of the President, the Academic Secretary then announced the results of the recent referendum on the ROTC matter. He reported that with the concurrence of the Committee of Tellers, composed of Professors Oswald Nielsen, Quentin M. Geiman, and Daniel M. Mendelowitz, the deadline for the return of referendum ballots had been extended from March 25 to March 30 in order to remove or lessen possibilities that the strike among postal employees would disenfran- chise any members of the Council. Total ballots returned had numbered 765, representing approximately seventy-five per cent of eligible voters , with 390 votes being cast for approval of the Senate's decision of January 22, 1970, 373 votes cast for disapproval, and 2 ballots found by the Tellers to be invalid. Senate Chairman William A. Clebsch presented a brief report, a SENATE copy of which is attached. REPORT " President Pitzer then presented a brief quarterly report to the PRESIDENT'S Council, including comments regarding acts of violence which had REPORT occurred on the campus earlier in the week. These comments were interrupted momentarily from the floor. A copy of the President's report is attached to these minutes. There followed, in succession, FACULTY <" statements by Professor H. Bruce Franklin, Professor Thomas Ehrlich, STATEMENTS ASSU President Patrick A. Shea, Professor Avram Goldstein, President Pitzer and again Professor Franklin, copies of which also are attached. The Chair declined to accept a motion for adjournment in view of NOYES the prior request for recognition by Professor Noyes who then made a STATEMENT statement regarding the recording in the minutes of Council debates. RE: A copy of this statement is attached. In response, the President asked RECORDING the Steering Committee of the Senate to take this matter under advise- DEBATE ment. Professor Noyes then called attention to the group of individuals INVITATION who had earlier vacated the meeting room and who were then outside TO GROUP the building. He urged that the Council admit spokesmen from this OUTSIDE group to address the Council. By consent, the motion which he intro- BUILDING duced was informally reworded to call for the admission of three spokesmen from the group to address the Council for a period not to exceed fifteen minutes. The motion was seconded by Professor Charles M. Stein. After a ruling that passage of the motion would require a two-thirds vote, the question was put and on a voice vote the Chair was uncertain of the outcome. On a standing vote, the motion was declared carried by the necessary two-thirds vote. Professor Noyes was then dispatched to invite the group outside to designate three individuals to address the Council. While the Council awaited the return of Professor Noyes, RESOLUTION OF Professor William E. Spicer introduced the following resolution: COMMENDATION Be it resolved that President Pitzer, Provost Lyman and the members of the relevant faculty be " combined with firmness in commended for their restraint dealing with violent actions of the past week. The motion was seconded by Professor William D. Nix. President Pitzer yielded the chair to Professor Clebsch who put the question, and the resolution was adopted in a standing vote. President Pitzer resumed the chair and there was a hiatus while the Council waited for a report from Professor Noyes. In INVITATION TO due course, Professor William F. Baxter urged the Chair to fix a GROUP OUT- time at which the allotted fifteen minutes would start to run. In SIDE BUILDING response, the Chair stated that if there were no objection, he would ask Professor Franklin to report to Professor Noyes and the group outside that the fifteen minute period had begun to run. No objection was registered, and Professor Franklin was dispatched accordingly to relay the message. When Professor Noyes returned he reported as the sense of the meeting outside that, "The three spokesmen would just be making speeches, and that what they would like to do would be to discuss the matter with the faculty, and you are invited to join them outside at the termination of this meeting." The Chair declared that this represented a declination of the Council's invitation although noting that it was in accord with a suggestion " he had earlier made before the Council came to order. 2 Professor Bacon moved for adjournment. The motion was seconded by Professor Charles J. Meyers and carried on a divided voice vote; whereupon the meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:20 p.m.

"

"

3 REPORT FROM THE SENATE BY WILLIAM A. CLEBSCH April 3, 1970

President Pitzer and fellow members of the Academic Council: Since the last regular Council meeting on January 9, 1970, the Senate " advised the President to approve a new Army ROTC contract on a one-year trial basis; limited academic credit may be sought for Army ROTC instruction as Undergraduate Special Courses, which are authorized by the Committee on Undergraduate Studies. On review, the Council sustained the Senate's action. The results of the referendum, as I said publicly when they were announced, are as narrow as the issue on which the vote was taken. I have thought all along there was little difference between the Senate's 1969 action opposing credit and the 1970 action specifying the single channel through which credit might or might not be given to ROTC courses. The vote shows the faculty has no strong preference between these two actions, but the 1970 action stands. It is clear, to me at least, that this faculty does not want to kick ROTC off campus. It is also clear the faculty does not want ROTC as a regular academic program. Nothing else is very clear. Since the last report, your Senate has held four regular meetings. The infrequency of meetings reflects the need of the Council's Standing Committees, which are now charged, manned, and functioning full tilt, to deliberate their business and take their actions before reporting to the Senate. "

" REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT BY KENNETH S. PITZER April 3, 1970

I too will say a few words of regret - serious regret of the acts of violence as well as increased participation by outsiders of the last week, " which made necessary the involvement of Santa Clara County Police on last Tuesday and Wednesday nights. As you have probably seen quoted elsewhere, I found the restraint with which the police handled their own operations most commendable. (Interruption) I can assure you I have had very good reports, very detailed reports from a number of people. It was only, I think, good luck that the large rocks thrown did not seriously injure anyone. On the other hand, the cost of repair of the physical damage is at least $8,500. This has to come from General Funds otherwise available for educational activities, student aid, and the like. I want to thank Professors Clebsch and Ehrlich on behalf of the Faculty Senate, and others of the faculty Advisory Group, as well as those on the administrative staff who have given very faithful service, advice and counsel during this period, and I appreciate the remarks which the Chairman of the Senate just made, and would reiterate his statement that only when faculty and students regard those acts as intolerable will they cease to be tolerated. Great efforts have been made, particularly in the last year or two, to modify procedures in a way which brought community viewpoints into the decision-making process, including viewpoints of student and faculty. The decisions - important decisions - of the last year or two have been made after full participation by various constituencies, and it seems " to me particularly regrettable to see coercive tactics of a minority introduced in an effort to overturn decisions made with as widespread processes and as much democratic involvement as has been the case. Matters such as ROTC, land use, etc., have received a great deal of attention recently. I will comment on them only very briefly but I am, of course, ready to answer questions if you wish. I will add the reminder that the long-range plans for land use are in the course of being reviewed, and presumably revised, with full consid- eration of faculty, student and staff views through the Committee on Land and Building Development under Professor Mason's chairmanship. I note that that Committee has an open hearing very soon. Also, students and faculty serve on both the Land Development Committee and the Building and Grounds Committee of the Board of Trustees, before which such questions are eventually considered in the last stages of decision. Also, the Committee investigating low-cost housing proposals is in the late stage of preparing its report and has already had two preliminary joint discussion sessions with the Trustees' Committee on Land Development. " The budget squeeze which we are unfortunately in has all manner of unfortunate aspects, but I want to remark very briefly - with particular regret - about its effect on programs aimed to improve the opportunities of minority groups. For example, it was just called to my attention today that the Youth Opportunity Program which was very successful in the summer of 1969, with, I believe, over 120 jobs provided for minority youth, is having great difficulty in its plans for the summer of 1970, " and, at this time, has only a relatively moderate fraction of that number of jobs available. I hope that not only in this program but in various others, including regular employment on the campus and other aspects, that we will make every effort to continue to move forward on these programs of providing more adequate opportunities to the minority groups even in spite of the fact that budget limitations make it more difficult because we have less money available and in particular less money over and above the necessary basic commitments that can hardly be Avoided. These are the remarks that I have prepared. As I said at the beginning, I am available to answer questions if you have any.

"

" 2 April 3, 1970 STATEMENT BY PROFESSOR H. BRUCE FRANKLIN

I would like to apologize for interrupting. I had forgotten that decorum was one of the highest values in this body. Perhaps based on some experience, of last year. However, I was there two nights ago, " President Pitzer, and you were not, and next to me, as just one example of many, and there could be many cited, a person was standing who had done absolutely nothing when four people in plainclothes jumped on this individual and began beating him. I thought that these were just local rightwingers. While he was lying on the ground, absolutely helpless, and he offered no resistance during this - he was kicked repeatedly in the testicles and in the head, and when I went to assist him I was maced at close range. My eyes still burn from that so that I think one has to understand the impatience of someone who knows that what is being said is simply not true, and, furthermore, when one has had the experience of having many of one's friends tortured by these police - and I mean tortured to the point where they physically never have recovered - that it is very difficult to sit here patiently and listen to this. I think that it is very easy for people in this body to be blind to the fact that we are living in a developing fascist police state.

STATEMENT BY PROFESSOR THOMAS EHRLICH

I was at the demonstrations night before last. I could see what was going on everywhere throughout that demonstration and I tried as hard as I could to watch with as much care as I could, and as far as I could tell nothing like the remarks just stated occurred in so far as I saw or anyone else with whom I talked saw. Quite to the contrary. While it was a grim business indeed to see police on this campus, they acted " with what I can only call extreme restraint in the circumstances. They acted, it seemed to me, with extreme caution and care. Until this moment, I have not heard a single charge remotely resembling the one just made and I cannot in all honesty believe it is true.

STATEMENT BY ASSU PRESIDENT PATRICK A. SHEA

I would like to address the question which was raised by Professor Franklin. It seems that anyone who is desirous of provoking power to respond as an individual or as a group is quite capable of doing that. If people want to fulfill their own rhetoric, their own vision, by provoking a fascist state in the United States, it seems like it is perfectly possible. It seems to me that people who are acting in the mob in the faceless violence that we have witnessed on this campus, are interested in provoking that facistic state. Because I do believe that in provoking it, the people will rise and we will have a revolution and we will have a new society. It seems to me that they fail to take into account the kind of power that the technology has provided people who are rightly or wrongly in the positions of leadership and in turn in positions to oppress. The thing that students are talking about, and I think that many faculty are beginning to perceive, is that this society, and this " University in the society, have got to get moving in order to solve our problems. Professor Piatt from the University of Michigan in a science article the other day wrote about how Universities, as the only agent in our society, could possibly mobilize enough intellectual resource to solve some of the perplexing problems that we, as a group of people on # a very small planet, are facing, and what students are saying is "We are going to have to live with the actions and decisions which you take today." I addressed the academic Senate yesterday and urged them to get involved. By getting involved I meant addressing themselves to their students not as a teacher to a student but as another human being. We came to this University - or at least I came to this University to become educated. My definition of education has changed constantly in my time here, but it has changed through interaction and I have been able to gain what I consider to be a historical perspective by interacting with people who have had varying experiences from mine. The thing that disgusts me today is the faculty's tendency is to stick their head into the sand and say let the administration or let the police handle the situation, it is out of my control. It is not out of your control. You have got to talk to those students, you have got to talk to the faculty members and think about where this institution is going to be in five or ten or fifteen years if it is still around. Thank you.

STATEMENT BY PROFESSOR AVRAM GOLDSTEIN

You see what happened is that the Vietnam war has come home to roost, and the faculty is precisely hiding its head in the sand. When President Pitzer wrote in the material that was circulated to us, "I think it is in the interests of the University to effect some kind of compromise with the military," and then the faculty, by a narrow margin admittedly, but by a majority approved of that action, that made me feel that the faculty of Stanford University had done a disgraceful and a shameful thing because the Vietnam war dominates everything that is going on in our society today. It dominates the unrest and the turmoil on our " will stand longer for the draft, campus and these students who not any for the involuntary servitude, for being sent to kill other people in a strange land, are picking upon ROTC as the tangible symbol of the military on this campus, and when they say "Off ROTC," I say too "Off ROTC." This is not the kind of issue upon which you are going to gain a resolution by a majority and a small majority of the faculty, and to some of us who deplore the violence that has been deplored by others, we see that we are left with no alternative. What the faculty has done is to close the doors of communication and contact with precisely these same students. You are making the same mistake this year that you made last year. You make the mistake of supposing that a few people throwing rocks can be isolated, can be thrown away, can be jailed, and that every- thing will quiet down. But if you have been around here at all and in contact with these students, you know that these people who are willing to throw rocks are the vanguard and behind them are more who are willing to throw only marshmallows, and behind them are more who are willing to come non-violently and sit-in in a building. The faculty, I think, is making a fatal error in isolating themselves from those students. You can't adopt a neutral position. The faculty here has to declare that there will be no cooperation with the military on this campus, and that, as I see it, is the issue, and until the faculty does that, we will have the kind of polarization that has led some of our own colleagues here to the kind of emotional outburst in response to the equally emotional outbursts of

" 2 the students who came in here. I think the faculty has it in its power to save this University or destroy it, but not by calling in police to prevent window breaking. The breaking of a few windows is nothing compared to what our country is doing every day and every minute in Vietman. That is by comparison a trivial matter. The way the faculty can respond to bring some kind of harmony is to demonstrate to students by action that we are with them in their struggle against this war and against the military " and against what the war and the military represent in this country. Thank you.

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT PITZER

In general, I would not enter substantively into discussion in the way of my next few remarks except that I think they do make direct reference to a statement or a word in a memorandum which I sent some time ago. I think that from my own remarks earlier, including those at the opening ceremonies of this fall and late last spring, my own personal position with respect to the Vietnam war and for that matter with respect to the draft, is really quite unequivocable. I feel personally that you cannot properly tar everything with everything that has a remote relation to it, and that one has to be prepared to make more precise distinctions than to associate ROTC programs on this campus with the war in Vietnam. We have to be prepared to distinguish between them. Also, I would like to point out that although one can, I think, have some compromise in terms of specific arrangements with respect to the program, I made it very clear to the Senate at the time they voted in January this year, I believe, that there was no question that the Senate and its parent body, this Council, had full authority with respect to the matter of academic credit. In other words, your authority is without question. I think there can be differences of opinion as to what the " proper decisions ought to be, and there is a difference between compromise on one of these points and on the other.

SECOND STATEMENT BY PROFESSOR FRANKLIN

Since Professor Ehrlich in effect called me a liar, I would like a minute to respond. As I understand what he was saying, because he didn't see something, a witness who did see it was not telling the truth. There were many witnesses to that one particular occurence. There were many others. Those people are outside. The names of particular people - Chuck Noble was the person who was beaten that badly. Another witness was D. McGuire. So on the question of fact, we can establish that. Now, when the people were in the process of leaving, my colleagues sitting in front of me said that they were chicken, and there was various kinds of condemnation because these people were only brave enough to break windows. I would like to point out how people who now are revolutionaries got to be there. We didn't start out where we are. We started out having non-violent demonstrations. We were the ones who have been beaten all over this country - beaten and jailed all over this country, from Mississippi to the Fairmont Hotel in November '67 - in a perfectly peace- ful demonstration. One of the leading revolutionaries in this area is Aaron Manganiello who is National Education Minister of the Brown Berets. " In 1966, when we were trying to stop with absolutely non-violent and

3 peaceful means the napalm factory in Redwood City, Aaron was out there 24 hours a day for several days without eating on his own personal vigil. He was hosed down every night. He was beaten. He finally was taken to the hospital with pneumonia. Where were you then?

4 STATEMENT BY PROFESSOR H. PIERRE NOYES # April 3, 1970 I actually have two matters I would like to discuss. The first, I hope, is non-controversial. It has to do with the minutes of these meetings. Since we do not take action in this body under the present rules, I think a more comprehensive reporting than we are accustomed to in the past is called for so that points raised in this body do become a part of the record. That was why I suggested in the case of the ROTC debate that the Campus Report statements from various Professors be at least mentioned in the minutes so that they could be referred to. I think that is not a satisfactory way to report debates in this body because it then devolves upon who has the time and the energy and the interest in writing up what he thinks he should have said at the time, and that is not a proper way for debates to be reported. I just want to bring this problem to the attention of the Council so that we can be thinking about what might be a more adequate procedure, and I think having a specific example in mind makes the point more clearly than talking in generalities. In particular in that debate, there were two substantive issues raised by different members of the Council which are not recorded in the minutes, and in the light of which subsequent events would be incomprehensible from the record. One of these was the statement from Professor Holman which does appear in the Campus Report, pointing out that, at least in his opinion, and you can certainly read the record that way, what had actually happened after the Council vote last year was that, again, as I say, in his opinion, the administration had followed the position that the faculty voted down and that the action of the Senate was in fact what we had instructed the administration not to do last year. This is a substantive matter which does not appear in the minutes and I think it should be in the minutes in the light of how at least some members of this body feel about that. I think it has important " consequences in the legislative history of this body and it should be in the record. An item that does not even appear in the Campus Report was again something that should be given serious attention to. It was raised by Professor Meyerhof . He feels that people who have not been present - and I think there are many of us who feel the same way - who have not been present at debate on an issue really have not taken the trouble to vote intelligently on that issue, and that mail ballots in contrast to votes taken in this body are not as satisfactory a procedure for reaching certain decisions. Again I think this should be a matter of the record and I don't know what the best way to solve this problem of the minutes is. I am just bringing it to your attention with two specific examples in mind.

" MINUTES OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL May 1, 1970

The Academic Council held a special meeting to hear a report from the President on Friday, May 1, 1970, beginning at 11:00 a.m. in " Dinkelspiel Auditorium. In calling the Council to order, President Pitzer called attention to the fact that the meeting was open only to members of the Academic Council and to specifically invited guests, the latter being limited to authorized representatives of the Stanford Daily, KZSU and Campus Report, former ASSU President Patrick A. Shea, and the Council of ASSU Presidents (Patrick C. Shea, Hal M. Mickelson, Robert N. Grant, and Adam K. Levin). He asked that all other individuals in the room leave and in response there were departures. The Chair then recognized Senate Chairman Clebsch on a procedural KZSU AND matter. Referring to the interest of a large number of people in LOUDSPEAKERS hearing the proceedings, Professor Clebsch moved that the Council, without setting a precedent, authorize live simultaneous broadcast of these proceedings over KZSU. The motion was seconded and carried on a divided voice vote. Professor Clebsch then moved that the Council also authorize transmission of the proceedings by loud speakers to be placed outside the Auditorium. This motion was seconded and carried on a divided voice vote. Professor Rebholz made an informal inquiry regarding the time required to install the loud speakers outside the Auditorium and whether the Council wished to delay proceedings until the completion of instal- lation. The Chair recognized Professor Clebsch who reported that KZSU was prepared to begin its broadcast of the proceedings immediately but that the setting up of loud speakers outside the Auditorium would " require some twenty minutes. The Chair put the question of delaying the proceedings until the completion of the installation and, on a voice vote, the motion was defeated. Thereupon at the request of President Pitzer, Senate Chairman Clebsch assumed the chair for the remainder of the meeting. Professor Rebholz requested a division of the house on the vote just taken. The Chair ruled that the only matter properly before the Senate was a report from the President, and that departure from the regular order of business would require a suspension of the rules which could be achieved only by a two-thirds vote. In response to an invitation from the Chair, it was moved to suspend the rules in order to consider delaying the proceedings for installation of the speakers. The motion was seconded and when the question was put, the motion was lost. At approximately 11:20 a.m. the Chair recognized President Pitzer PRESIDENT'S who presented a report, a copy of which is attached to these matters. REPORT Professor Clebsch then commented upon a meeting of the Senate of SENATE the Academic Council on the previous day when that body had been in REPORT session for some six and one-half hours. He referred to two resolutions adopted by the Senate as detailed in Second Senate Report No. 17 and published in Campus Report Volume 11, No. 29, May 6, 1970.

" 1 One of them dealt with ROTC and supported the President's proposal to return the question to the Advisory Committee on ROTC Affairs in the light of recent developments, local and international „ The other called for the sending of a delegation from Stanford to Washington, D. C. He also commented upon the discussion of members of the Senate meeting as a Committee of the Whole dealing with ROTC credit. After again reminding the Council of the limitation and the matters EXPRESSION " which might properly come before the meeting in accordance with Senate OF SUPPORT Charter, Article V, Section C,2, the Chair recognized Professor Stephen J. Kline who, along with Professor Harold M. Bacon, presented to President Pitzer a petition signed by more than 2,200 members of the Stanford Community and reading as follows: We, the undersigned faculty, staff and students of Stanford University, express to you, Dr. Kenneth Pitzer,. our support for whatever legal measures must be taken to preserve the integrity, the tranquility and the academic viability of our University. Professor William B. Shockley then called attention to a paper CAMPUS which had been circulated at the door containing a resolution under DISRUPTION the heading Proposed Moratorium on Discussion of Other Issues until Peace-On- Campus Issue is Resolved, a copy of which is attached to these minutes. The Chair questioned the propriety of the introduction of this resolution for Council action and suggested that its circulation be understood as providing Council members an opportunity to consider signing it and returning it to Professor Shockley so that it could be used in connection with the regular procedure of a call for a review of the Senate action of the previous day. Shortly before noon the meeting was opened to discussion of the DISCUSSION President's Report. A period of more than fifty minutes was devoted OF 1 to comments., questions, and debate on the President's Report, along PRESIDENT S with responses by the President. During this period, there was also REPORT " an interruption while a student contingent submitted a written state- ment to President Pitzer on behalf of a foreign student who was BIJAY reported to have been arrested in connection with the incidents of the previous week. In response to urging from the floor, at approximately 12:50 p.m. the Chair put the question of the Council's proceeding to consider resolutions related to the President's Report and within the competence of the Council. The motion was carried on a voice vote, without discernible dissent. Walter G. Vincenti, Chairman of the Advisory Board, then reported ADVISORY that the Board had earlier that day passed the following resolution BOARD at a special meeting: We believe that Stanford University provides ample opportunity for peaceful change. We are deeply distressed by the violence on campus in recent weeks. We unequivocally support peaceful protest. But we believe that recent protest activities on campus have passed acceptable bounds. The integrity of the University is now threatened by violence and its continued escalation. We urge all members of the University community to refrain from violence and to work " together to resolve our conflicts peacefully. 2 He moved that the Council endorse this resolution. The Chair ruled the motion acceptable only if stated in terms of a referral to the Senate. The motion, with amended wording understood, was seconded by Professor Patrick Suppes. After some twenty-five minutes of debate, Professor Bradley Efron moved to table the resolution and the motion was seconded by Professor J. Victor Baldridge. The question was put and on a voice vote the result was inconclusive. A division of the house was called " and the Chair appointed as Tellers, Professors Raymond D. Giraud, Wilfred Stone, Morris Zelditch, Jr., and Philip G. Zimbardo. On a standing vote, the motion to table was carried by a vote of 266 to 142. Professor Robert B. Textor moved the Council adopt the following CAMBODIA resolution on Cambodia. WHEREAS, the decision of President Nixon on April 30, 1970, to commit American ground combat forces to action on Cambodian territory: 1. was taken without consultation of Congress, thus violating the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution; and 2. will probably result in widening and complicating a cruel and immoral war that we wish to see liquidated; and 3. will further undermine the confidence of other nations in the morality and credibility of the U.S. Government ; and 4. is deeply exacerbating the distrust of Stanford students and faculty in the U.S. Government: NOW THEREFORE, the Academic Council of Stanford University, in convocation assembled: 1. condemns President Nixon's action as " unwise, immoral, and harmful; and 2. urges members of Congress to use every legal means to resist the implementation of this decision. The motion was seconded by Professor John W. Lewis. The Chair, again referring to limitations on the competence of the Academic Council, suggested that the resolution be reworded in part as follows: Now therefore the Academic Council of Stanford University, in convocation assembled, asks its Senate to consider the following: 1. to condemn President Nixon's action as unwise, immoral, and harmful; and 2. to urge members of Congress to use every legal means to resist the implementation of this decision. Professors Textor and Lewis accepted this amendment. Professor Joseph P. Kriss moved to amend the resolution by replacing the final two paragraphs with: To condemn President Nixon's action and to urge members of Congress to use every legal means to resist the implemen- " tation of this decision.

3 The motion was seconded by Professor Robert H. Eustis. After Professor Textor had declared the amendment unacceptable to him, the question was put and the motion to amend was lost on a divided voice vote. Debate on the original motion continued and Professor Shockley moved that the j___ preamble of the resolution be amended by the addition of: If the Senate votes and approves the two final statements or resolutions, the Senate should do so provided a period of at least 30 days without the presence of illegal coercive forces on campus has elapsed before its vote. The motion was seconded. Professor William F. Baxter rose to a point of order, urging that the motion to amend as well as the previous question be declared out of order. He said, "It is the most transparent sham for this body to pass what are in substance resolutions which everybody here knows are resolutions which are being referred to the Senate only for the transparently evasive purpose of violating the rules that we have adopted for our own conduct." The Chair ruled the motion to amend out of order because it would establish a new timetable for relationships between the Academic Council and its Senate in specifying the delay of 30 days as a condition of the action. Professor Baxter protested that the point of order which he had raised was more fundamental and would apply equally to the main motion. After several comments from the floor on the procedural point, the Chair ruled against Professor Baxter's point of order. Professor Baxter appealed the ruling of the Chair and, when the question was put, the Council sustained the Chair's ruling by a divided voice vote. Professor Lewis moved to close debate and the motion was seconded by Professor Textor. When the question was put, the motion to close debate was carried by the necessary two-thirds vote. The previous question was then put and the original resolution as amended was adopted on a divided voice vote. Professor Alan T. Waterman moved adjournment. The motion was seconded by Professor Morris Zelditch, Jr. and lost on a divided voice " vote. Professor Baldridge then introduced a motion which by consent ROTC was reworded as follows: Resolved that the Academic Council request the Senate to consider without delay terminating ROTC credit at the end of the current academic year. The motion was seconded by Professor Robert E. Greenburg. Professor George A. Collier moved that the resolution be reworded in accordance with th£ following: That the Senate of the Academic Council be instructed anew to explore every possible means of phasing out ROTC at Stanford within the immediate future. The Chair ruled this motion out of order on the basis of the judgment that the proposed substitute was not germane to the original motion. Professor Raymond E. Wolfinger moved to substitute the following: The Senate's decisions with respect to ROTC shall be consistent with the principle that the academic value of courses that are proposed for credit or may be proposed for credit shall not be judged prior to consideration of such courses individually by the University body responsible " for granting academic credit. 4 The motion was seconded. The Chair declined to accept this motion as a substitute but ruled that the following would be acceptable as an amendment to the original motion: That no decision categorically denying ROTC credit shall be made prior to particular decisions on ROTC courses that may be proposed. This revision was accepted by Professor Wolfinger and the seconder. However, Professor Suppes appealed the ruling of the Chair that such an amendment was germane to the main motion. When the question was put the Chair's ruling was overturned on a divided voice vote. The previous question was then called and the original motion was carried on a divided voice vote. Professor Thomas Ehrlich moved the adoption of the following: CONDEMNATION OF VIOLENCE Resolved that the Academic Council request the Senate to consid er a resolution condemning violence wherever it occurs, on the campus or off, and request the Senate to dedicate itself to seeking out the problems which trigger that violence. The motion was seconded and in support of this resolution, Professor Ehrlich made the following statement: Most of us are despondent, frustrated -- many of us are frightened about the events on this campus. Thugs are trying -- many of them -- to destroy this campus. Many feel that another gang seems to be destroying Southeast Asia. There is no logic to their violence, only terror. But the cry that illegitimate violence in Asia legitimizes violence at Stanford is lunacy. These campus thugs have destroyed and destroyed again, even reaching into the homes of our President and Provost. We must as a faculty stand united against that terror. Whatever our passions on other issues, we cannot let " them color our convictions that violence must stop and that the work of the University must go on. When the question was called, the resolution was adopted by acclamation and without dissent. After some informal discussion of the possibility and advisability of dismissing classes in recognition of the current crisis, a motion was made for adjournment. The motion was seconded and carried; whereupon the Council adjourned at approximately 2:20 p.m.

" 5 REPORT OF PRESIDENT K. S. PITZER TO THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL May 1, 1970

We face today both an extreme emergency on the Stanford campus and " an unprecedented national constitutional crisis. Without ignoring the national problems on which I spoke yesterday and your Senate spoke last night, I must urge primary attention to our problems in this meeting at this time. I am committeed to the defense of Stanford University and I trust that all of you share that commitment „ We must find the means to save the University from attacks, regardless of origin. Regardless of legitimate intentions of many students to protest without violence or coercion, we must recognize the declared commitment of a small group to the destruction of this University. Until the violence has been stopped, we may have to forego other forms of protest that shield the anarchists and allow their violence to continue. I will now review briefly the events of the past month, but first I will remark that even earlier I had noted the increasing participation in campus disruptions of people other than Stanford students and the corollary to that situation which is that only civil authorities can discipline outsiders. On Monday the 30th of March, first day of Spring Quarter, by mail ballot the Academic Council approved, by a narrow margin, the con- tinuation of the Army ROTC courses on a limited academic credit basis for a one-year trial period. Violence began the next night, following speeches in this auditorium by Tom Hayden and Michael Sweeney „ Forty Santa Clara County deputies dispersed a rock-throwing crowd of about 200 at the ROTC Building. The crowd moved across campus, smashing windows at the Business School, History Corner, Placement Office, President's Office, Lou Henry Hoover Building, and the Durand Building. Police behavior was not provocative - no arrests were made. The " police did not even appear on the scene until there was disturbance and violence, and no effort was made to disperse any peaceful gathering. The next night 150 demonstrators marched on the ROTC Building and several windows were shattered. Police arrested four persons only after rocks were thrown at the officers. On April 2 the Council of ASSU Presidents strongly condemned violence and coercive mob action,, That same day demonstrators jammed an ROTC class, but the standees departed after the campus disruption policy was read to them. That night about 1,000 persons staged a peaceful protest at the ROTC Building and 300 walked to the President's home. There they gathered in the back yard patio and listened to a talk. At the Academic Council meeting on April 3, 140 demonstrators entered the Physics Lecture Hall. I pointed out that the agenda would be brief and offered to hold informal discussions following the Council meeting. None of the demonstrators left until I declared the meeting disrupted. At the request of the students, the Council agreed to hear three anti-ROTC spokesmen, but the students declined to accept the invitation. That night 175 demonstrators marched on the ROTC Building for the fourth 'successive night. This time the protest was a peaceful one and Sheriff's deputies were on campus but not needed.

1 The second week of the quarter opened with another hit-run of demon- strators. Fifty-five windows were broken. On April 7, 150 students held an hour long mill-in at the ROTC Building until, under emergency powers, I ordered the building closed. I issued a statement deploring the violence of the preceding night and also the entry of a mob into a University building to disrupt classes. The next morning, April 8, the demonstrators returned to that same " building to padlock the front doors and paper the front entrance with posters. About fifty demonstrators blocked the entrances of the building until police were called to clear the doors. After consultation with the SCLC, I promulgated temporary legislation authorizing the temporary closing of any building on campus. That legislation was later amplified and revised by the Council itself. In answer to news inquiries that morning I noted that the police had shown great restraint, acting only in response to violence by the protest groups. On April. 9 I reiterated my preference for the use of campus judicial mechanisms wherever possible, but I pointed out that when large numbers of non-students and off campus police are involved, the only equitable way of handling the cases may well be through the civil courts. On April 13, the University filed affidavits for civil contempt of court against five individuals named in the court injunction against disruptions obtained last Spring. We chose to press only for the civil remedy rather than for the more serious criminal charges that might have been possible in these cases. Provost Lyman on April 15 discussed ROTC and other issues of campus importance on a KZSU radio interview, and answered questions on these issues. On the 16th the SJC summoned thirty-two students to appear for hearings on charges related to various protest activities prior to that date. That Sunday evening, April 19, 200 members of the Movement voted to stage a White Plaza rally on Monday noon, to be followed by a march to my office to present an ultimatum that ROTC be forced off campus. The ultimatum had a Thursday noon deadline, with a sit in to follow if terms " of were not met. Demands formulated at that time were total elimination ROTC from the campus, amnesty for members of the Movement who had been involved in violations, and that the University seek to reverse a court action against a particular individual. This was the meeting which was interrupted by forty members of the Brown Berets and their supporters. Following the promised noon rally on April 20, fifty individuals presented this ultimatum to Provost Lyman, who received them in my absence in Washington. He talked with them for about an hour. Tne next night there were scattered incidents of vandalism on the campus, including the painting of a large OFF ROTC sign on the back of the President's house, the fouling of locks in many campus buildings, and the painting of signs in various places. On the 22nd I issued a statement reviewing the status of ROTC and making it clear that we would not accede to the ultimatum. After a brief rally at White Plaza on Thursday, the Old Union was occupied by 150 persons at approximately 12:45 a.m During the afternoon, discussions seeking to keep the sit in non- disruptive and non-violent were held with certain protest leaders, the faculty consultative group, and members of the Sheriff's Office. The limits of non- disruptive action were defined and distributed in writing at the Old Union. In accordance with general agreement by the faculty consultative group that " the University could not tolerate overnight occupation of a building housing 2 sensitive records, particularly when large numbers of non-students were present, it was decided to close the building at the customary hour of 5:00 p.m. This was done under the interim legislation adopted by the SCLC on April 19, although no special authorization was needed to close the building at the normal closing time. The written order closing the building until 8:00 a.m. the next morning was distributed to the demonstrators, but most of them remained. As a " result, the matter was turned over to the Sheriff, four of whose officers entered the Old Union at 6:00 p.m. and warned the students that they were in violation of the law. The Sheriff's Office decided not to clear the building until after midnight in order to allow time to do so to those who wished to leave the building and the courtyard and because of the time necessary to mobilize their own man power. The Sheriff also decided not to give further advance notice in the hopes of forestalling a repetition of the fruitless pursuit of vandals about the campus. The Sheriff's detail moved into the Old Union at approximately 1:00 a.m. and twenty-three persons still remaining were arrested. Protesters who fled the building retaliated by throwing rocks at the police. They broke windows at Tresidder, the President's Office, Encina Hall, Graduate School of Business, Lou Henry Hoover Building, and the Police Station. At 5:00 a.m. unknown arsonists set fire to the Behavioral Science Center, destroying the offices and research papers of ten scholars - a most tragic event. On Monday of this week, following a request from the student radio station, Provost Lyman and I appeared to discuss the ROTC question, use of outside police on campus, and to answer questions, including those telephoned in. Tuesday, the new Council of Presidents asked students opposed to the use of violence on the campus to attend a meeting of the Anti-ROTC Movement in Bishop Auditorium. Many students did so, but the militants refused to allow them to participate significantly in the meeting, and the pleas that force be avoided went unheeded. The Anti-ROTC forces voted to hold a " destructive sit in at the President's Office Wednesday morning. After the meeting was adjourned windows were broken in the Book Store and Bowman Alumni House. During the night the President's Office was closed to unauthorized persons for thirty days under the emergency powers previously referred to. The building was posted and guarded. When the protestors arrived the next morning, they moved on instead to the Old Union for a sit in. The sit in on Wednesday was peaceful - no disruptions occurred. The decision was again made to close the building from 5:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m. for the reason cited previously. The nearby Nitery was made available for all night use by the Sit In group. The group rejected that alternative and voted to remain in the Union. The group was informed that it was guilty of trespass, and at 9:00 p.m. Sheriff's deputies arrived to clear the building. They did so in a firm quiet manner, arresting only the ten persons who elected to remain in the building after having every opportunity to leave. No sooner had the police set up their lines around the building than those asked to leave began a sustained verbal harassment of the police surrounding the structure. The policy did not respond. The demonstrators began a march around the campus during which a large group of students chanted, "Don't throw rocks." while a small group did precisely that, smashing windows at Encina and the Graduate School of Business, and forcibly entering the ROTC Building again. A fire of unknown origin broke out in the construction shack " near Encina Hall. Demonstrators returned to the Old Union Courtyard where

3 speakers goaded the crowd into action and many of its members moved toward the police in front of the Old Union Building. Rocks were thrown at the building and the police. After waiting for several moments, the police advanced toward the crowd to move it from the courtyard. Cascades of rocks forced the police at times to take shelter behind the arcades in front of the building. At least ten demonstrators were injured as the police cleared the area - six were arrested and thirty deputies were injured by thrown " objects. Last night the violence flared again as mobs roamed the campus, breaking windows in sixteen different buildings and at the homes of Provost Lyman and Provost Emeritus Terman. Twelve demonstrators and fifteen policemen were injured - one person was arrested. A car was set afire along the Row. Tear gas was used both Wednesday and Thursday nights to disperse crowds. Throughout these troubled weeks, the Anti-ROTC forces have held numerous public meetings during which speakers have openly discussed the "trashing," as they call it, and burning of the buildings, the kidnapping of University officers, use of firearms and other weapons, and the destruction of the institution as a whole. The systematic campaign of terror, designed to bring the University to its knees, was advocated and undertaken long before police were called to the campus to terminate the occupation of the building. While I recognize the sincerity of those who have opposed calling the police, not one of them has suggested how the absence of police would prevent further attacks by the small group that is by now so openly and obviously committed to violence. We all realize that the police are not going to be gentle when facing a barrage of rocks, and that there will be occasional episodes when police misjudge an onlooker for an enemy. On the whole, the police have operated with remarkable restraint. I see no possibility of bringing peace to this campus without the help of the police. 1 ask that all of you give the police your cooperation and that you help them as much as possible. What else have we done? What steps to give encouragement and to build for the future? Most important is the proposed commission to recommend " policies to maintain peace on the campus in the future. I believe most of you were given releases which include many of the things to which I will be referring. Most of you have read or seen the statement on this particular point which I made yesterday. I asked the University Ombudsman, Dr. Herant Katchadourian, to lead a preliminary study - and he has appointed two faculty, Professors Amsterdam and Panofsky - and two students, Messrs. Craig Schindler and John Grube - to assist him in the preliminary study. Key questions which the study and the commission are asked to face are, "What are the appropriate limits of protest on campus? What are the appro- priate responses to conduct that exceeds those limits? What are the responsibilities of individual faculty, students and staff at times of dis- ruptive conduct." Yesterday I asked also that all members of the community devote them- selves today to our exceptional problem by intensive discussion in or out of classes. The Senate meeting last night was an exceptional one - extending nearly to midnight. Professor Clebsch will have comments on this meeting presently. What more can we do to protect the campus? Under these emergency situations, I urge the administrative head of operations in each building or closely associated group of buildings - be he Dean, Department Chairman, Librarian, or other officer - to develop procedures for round the clock surveillance, for passive defense, and for fire protection. I think the only " effective way to do this is on a local decision basis, with the staff that are 4 speakers goaded the crowd into action and many of its members moved toward the police in front of the Old Union Building. Rocks were thrown at the building and the police. After waiting for several moments, the police advanced toward the crowd to move it from the courtyard. Cascades of rocks forced the police at times to take shelter behind the arcades in front of the building. At least ten demonstrators were injured as the police cleared the area - six were arrested and thirty deputies were injured by thrown " objects. Last night the violence flared again as mobs roamed the campus, breaking windows in sixteen different buildings and at the homes of Provost Lyman and Provost Emeritus Terman. Twelve demonstrators and fifteen policemen were injured - one person was arrested. A car was set afire along the Row. Tear gas was used both Wednesday and Thursday nights to disperse crowds. Throughout these troubled weeks, the Anti-ROTC forces have held numerous public meetings during which speakers have openly discussed the "trashing," as they call it, and burning of the buildings, the kidnapping of University officers, use of firearms and other weapons, and the destruction of the institution as a whole. The systematic campaign of terror, designed to bring the University to its knees, was advocated and undertaken long before police were called to the campus to terminate the occupation of the building. While I recognize the sincerity of those who have opposed calling the police, not one of them has suggested how the absence of police would prevent further attacks by the small group that is by now so openly and obviously committed to violence. We all realize that the police are not going to be gentle when facing a barrage of rocks, and that there will be occasional episodes when police misjudge an onlooker for an enemy. On the whole, the police have operated with remarkable restraint. I see no possibility of bringing peace to this campus without the help of the police. 1 ask that all of you give the police your cooperation and that you help them as much as possible. What else have we done? What steps to give encouragement and to build for the future? Most important is the proposed commission to recommend " policies to maintain peace on the campus in the future. I believe most of you were given releases which include many of the things to which I will be referring. Most of you have read or seen the statement on this particular point which I made yesterday. I asked the University Ombudsman, Dr. Herant Katchadourian, to lead a preliminary study - and he has appointed two faculty, Professors Amsterdam and Panofsky - and two students, Messrs. Craig Schindler and John Grube - to assist him in the preliminary study. Key questions which the study and the commission are asked to face are, "What are the appropriate limits of protest on campus? What are the appro- priate responses to conduct that exceeds those limits? What: are the responsibilities of individual faculty, students and staff at times of dis- ruptive conduct." Yesterday I asked also that all members of the community devote them- selves today to our exceptional problem by intensive discussion in or out of classes. The Senate meeting last night was an exceptional one - extending nearly to midnight. Professor Clebsch will have comments on this meeting presently. What more can we do to protect the campus? Under these emergency situations, I urge the administrative head of operations in each building or closely associated group of buildings - be he Dean, Department Chairman, Librarian, or other officer - to develop procedures for round the clock surveillance, for passive defense, and for fire protection. I think the only " effective way to do this is on a local decision basis, with the staff that are 5 normally in that building. I authorize each such officer in charge to close the building or space in his charge if he has substantial evidence that it is threatened, and also to call the police directly, but, if possible, always through our security officer, Mr. Dan DeYoung. Specifically, if the building under your responsibility is threatened, you do not have to await my order to secure the building. Criminal acts can be dealt with only if information is available and the police have great difficulty in identification. Anyone with information about criminal acts should send in the facts in writing. If they are sent to the Office of the President, they will get prompt attention. Send definite information please. If you feel you could not testify if called upon, that request will be honored, but I hope people will serve as wit- nesses when needed. This matter of information is important. Even more drastic measures must be considered, and they are being studied although I have no further announcement about them. The possibilities include such matters as a curfew, either total or against non-Stanford people, at certain specific hours. Another possibility is the closing of the campus to unauthorized persons at all times. Either of these actions would have to be enforced by the police. Violators of the rules would be arrested on mere presence at unauthorized times and places. Such an action would be hard indeed and I hope we are not forced to do any such thing. Another set of possibilities concerns immediate temporary suspension and possible banishment from the campus of those arrested for disruptive activities who are charged with substantial evidence of violation of campus regulations related to disruptive activities. There would have to be prompt hearings to terminate unjustified suspensions in a judicious manner. Further use of restraining orders and injunctions must also be studied. Finally let me say again that regardless of the provocations of various outside sources, I intend to defend this University, to keep its essential operations going, and to fulfill its responsibilities to students and others. " I hope you share this determination.

"

6 PROPOSED MORATORIUM ON DISCUSSION OF OTHER ISSUES UNTIL PEACE-ON- CAMPUS ISSUE IS RESOLVED. May 1, 1970

The undersigned believe that a community dedicated to intellectual " integrity is obligated to avoid even a superficial appearance that coercion by force influences its logic. We believe that the preeminent issue that should be discussed by the Council at this time is peace on the campus. Our position is that intellectual objectivity requires that discussion of vital national issues must not occur in a climate of illegal coercive force. We believe that for rational discourse to warrant credibility a prerequisite is peace on campus. We propose a moratorium on administratively organized discussion of all other substantive issues prior to the establishment of peace on campus. Accordingly, we shall seek signatures for a petition to propose review of the Senate's resolutions of April 30, 1970 and propose the following resolution as a substitute: WHEREAS, during the last few years decisions by this academic community on matters of national policy have been associated with the existence of illegal coercive force, and WHEREAS, whether this association is causal or coincidental, it conveys the undesirable impression, especially to immature but intelligent and idealistic minds, that force is an appropriate academic argument, and WHEREAS, resolutions Were passed by the Senate on April 30, 1970 during a period of violence on the campus THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the Administration initiate the employment of means that have proven successful on other " campuses to eliminate illegal coercive force and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a moratorium prevail on formal discussions by the Academic Council and Senate, leading to position statements on national issues, until peace-on-campus is assured.

Prepared by W. Shockley and Thomas R. Kane. Concurring, A. E. Bryson, Jr.

" MEMORIAL RESOLUTION SIEMON WILLIAM MULLER 1900-1970

One of Stanford's most colorful and beloved professors, Siemon W. " Muller, died quietly in his sleep on September 9, 1970, without premonitory signs of illness. He had been on the campus the day before, apparently well and cheerful, and was looking forward to an active year despite his emeritus status. "Si" Muller' s life history was as extraordinary as his personality. He was born May 9, 1900, in Blagoveshchensk, eastern Russia, near the border of Manchuria. His father, Wilhelm, had come from Denmark, worked on the trans-Siberian telegraph line, and had become a teacher. At the time of the Russian revolution Si was 17 and was enrolled in the Russian Naval Academy at Vladivostok. Knowing that this affiliation would mark him for elimination, he escaped and in time went to Shanghai where he found a job with an American company and began to learn English. In 1921 he sailed to the United States, earning his passage as ship's purser. He and his older brother, William, attended the University of Oregon, at times living in a basement where Si tended a furnace to pay the rent. He majored in Geology and received his A.B. in 1927. A graduate assistantship at Stanford enabled Si to undertake advanced work in paleontology and stratigraphy under the famed James Perrin Smith. "J. P.," a professor of legendary keenness and personal warmth, inspired young Muller and became his idol. This doubtless reinforced Si's interest in teaching as well as research, and led to his eventual succession to Smith's position on the Stanford faculty. However, there were many intervening years of hard work and personal sacrifice. Si could hardly afford room and board while a student at Stanford, and during the summer he camped in the " hills and commuted to the campus in a Model "T" Ford made available by Huber G. Schenck, who was also destined to join our faculty. Perseverance brought rewards, and Si Muller received his M.A. in 1929 and his Ph.D. in 1930, his research being centered on Triassic paleontology and stratigraphy in western Nevada. While a student, Si met a charming girl whom he eventually married, Vera Vilamovsky, of Russion parentage. The two young people are remembered as a strikingly vivacious and handsome couple. ,Si Muller served Stanford as an instructor, 1927-1930; assistant professor, 1930-1936; associate professor, 1936-1941; professor, 1941-1965; and professor emeritus, 1965-1970. He taught courses in historical geology, elementary paleontology, stratigraphy, permafrost, and the Geology of California > and few other teachers could bring to these subjects the enthusiasm and color that he achieved. Students who heard him lecture knew that this was a special experience and that he was giving them a solid foundation. The Geology of California gained such acclaim that he continued to teach it every spring quarter after retirement. This course included fabulous three-day field trips to such destinations as Death Valley, Mount Lassen, the Mother Lode Country, and Yosemite. The students learned that Professor Muller' s birthday was May 9, and for a number of years they arranged surprise parties on that date. During a recent field trip to Yosemite, there appeared an enormous cake sculptured in the form of Yosemite Valley, and inscribed "In Honor of " Mr. Yosemite, on His 70th Birthday, from His Geology of California Class." Champagne glasses, and bottles too, magically appeared from the Geology Department's vehicles. During World War 11, Si's thorough knowledge of the Russian language was put to work with his geological skill. The Russians had pioneered in studies of engineering aspects of permanently frozen ground in Arctic regions, and Si was employed by the Alaskan Division of the Air Transport Command to initiate and carry out a comprehensive research program on this subject. In time he prepared the most authoritative books on permafrost, to use a term which he himself coined and which is now a part of the English language. He was cited by the Armed Forces for meritorious service, and later received the Freedom Medal. His contributions to the knowledge of permafrost, however, were actually a digression from the central theme of his research, which was the use of fossils in interpreting the origin and subsequent geologic history of stratified rocks — especially those of late Paleozoic and Mesozoic age in the western United States. His geologic field studies began in 1927 in the complex and hitherto unknown terrain midway between Carson City and Tonopah in the desert country of western Nevada. Si's ability as a paleontologist, stratigrapher, and structural geologist -- not to mention his prodigious physical endurance as a field man -- soon attracted the attention of the late Henry G. Ferguson, of the U.S. Geological Survey, who shared Si's interest in the geologic history of this region. Thus began two decades of collaboration between these two friends and a part-time affiliation of Si with the Geological Survey. During the years before and after World War 11, the team of Muller and Ferguson energetically and painstakingly worked out the complicated geologic framework of a part of the western Cordillera larger than the State of Maryland and established the foundation upon which all further geologic studies of western Nevada would rest. Professional recognition came naturally to Si. Among many appointments and honors, he was, as a relatively young man. during the late 1930' 5, a councilor of the Geological Society of America, a Guggenheim Fellow for " foreign study in Austria during 1937-1938 and again in 1956-1957, President of the Paleontological Society in 1965, and a trustee of the California Academy of Science. Professor Muller 's scholarship, engaging personality, and strength of character have enriched the lives of many others: students, colleagues, and people from all walks of life in the far flung places to which his geologic interests took him. No greater accomplishment can a man have. Our sincere sympathy is extended to Professor Muller' s wife, Vera Vilamovsky Muller; to his son, Eric Muller; and to his grandchildren, Cheryl Ann Muller, Kenneth Muller, and Richard Muller.

A. Myra Keen Norman J. Silberling Benjamin M. Page, Chairman "

9 "

MEMORIAL RESOLUTION ALFRED E. WEISZ 1934-1970

Dr. Alfred E. Weisz, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Stanford " University School of Medicine, died on Thursday, July 23, 1970, at the age of 36. Though tragically young in age he was amazingly mature in spirit, having had broad experience with the varieties and complexities of life and having absorbed these experiences in a way that gave him great strength, compassion, and intuitive understanding.

Al Weisz was born in New York City. He was a graduate of Horace Mann High School there and went on to receive a bachelor of science degree from the University of Michigan in 1956. He attended the School of Natural Resources at the University of Michigan, worked for one year with the U.S. Forest Service, and then served as a forester with the Army from 1957 to 1959.

It was during his several years of forestry work, seemingly kindled by the intensity of his emotional experience with the wild and solitude of nature, that his desire to help and heal his fellow man led him to choose a medical career. He attended Case-Western Reserve School of Medicine, receiving his M.D. degree in 1963. He interned in Medicine at Stanford University Hospital and completed his training in psychiatry there in 1967. He was Chief Resident and Instructor in Psychiatry in 1967 and became Assistant Professor of Psychiatry in 1968.

Al Weisz had a variety of special professional interests, to each of which he added a personal touch and wisdom through his teaching and publications His attentions focused particularly on Emergency Psychiatry, Suicidology, and Liaison Psychiatry. Most recently, and perhaps most excitedly, he had turned " his energy to a study of the psychological and psychiatric problems associated with population growth and control.

Al was a gregarious and warm person, equally appreciated and enjoyed by students and colleagues. He was also a devoted family man, who derived great sustenance from his wife and three children. These qualities are captured so well by one of his students who wrote: He was my teacher, friend and collaborator, and he remains an ideal for me in each respect. In June shortly before I left the residency, I tried to express this to him. Even at that time with death facing him, he showed his usual warm and personal concern for my future plans, my wife and her pregnancy. He was genuinely excited that I was about to become a father and mentioned that he only hoped my family would provide as much happiness for me as his had for him.

In the spring of 1969 Al developed a malignant tumor. Prompt surgery gave him a year of active life and hope. But in the spring of 1970 the tumor returned. And in his incredible and indomitable way, Al accepted the course which was set for him, quietly but passionately said his goodbyes, and died as he had lived, with inner strength and great concern for his family, friends, and patients.

Warren B. Miller, Chairman Frederick T. Melges C. Peter Rosenbaum MEMORIAL RESOLUTION DONALD M. WILSON » 1933-1970

To most of Don Wilson's friends, it will seem inappropriate to begin an account of him with the kind of historical biography one finds in curriculum vitae. There are chose whom the past interests, but Don was not one of them; he lived mostly in the present, and thought mostly about the future. For the record, he was born in Seattle in 1933, lived later in Los Angeles, and began his education at USC and UCLA. After finishing his doctoral studies at the latter institution with T. H. Bullock in 1958, he went to the Zoophysiological Institute in Copenhagen, where he performed a series of experiments on insect flight that are now universally regarded as classics. He was the first to show that the pattern for such a delicate, complicated action was an inherent part of the central nervous system's wiring. He held faculty positions at Yale and at the University of California, Berkeley, before coming to Stanford as Professor of Biology in 1967.

Don Wilson's scientific work seemed to blend, more fully than it does in many people, with the rest of him. His life style was manifested equally in his intellectual efforts, his avocations, and his world outlook. It was characterized by attraction for challenge, by a refusal to compromise or to accept anything inferior, and by tremendous determination to see things through. Performance, to him, was the significant parameter of existence-- whether it involved the carefully-planned ascent of a desert rock pinnacle, the preparation of an experiment, or an attempt to reshape society. His focus upon outcomes instead of intentions, coupled with his deep concern for the poor and the exploited, made him a proponent of radical social change. His pleas were neither strident nor self-serving, and they did not neglect individual decency. " He personified a kind of lean, stripped-down clarity of thought and purpose. It was reflected in his prose, which was spare and to the point; in his impatience with sophistry and decoration; and in the beauty and simplicity of his experiments. If it sometimes led him into a disregard of nuance, he would have held that to be a small price to pay for decisiveness and self sufficiency. He placed his standards high and applied them rigidly; but somehow he avoided presenting them as challenges, and instead urged and encouraged others to meet them. His students were strongly motivated to do that, and as a result they were unusually successful.

But Don Wilson challenged himself, boldly and repeatedly. Danger, as much as simplicity and clarity, was a thread through his life. In the 1950' s he was an accomplished climber who was involved in a number of first ascents in California and the desert Southwest; more recently he had taken up the equally challenging sport of running white-water rivers. Death overtook him in this latter activity on June 23, 1970, on the middle fork of the Salmon River in Idaho. It caught him in characteristic attitude: doing something difficult and risky with courage and competence.

Donald Kennedy, Chairman Julian M. Davidson * Philip C. Hanawalt