REIPO'R TRESUMES ED 011 346 24 ED 011 346 THE "FREE SPEECH" CRISES AT BERKELEY,1964-1965.-SOME ISSUES FOR SOCIAL AND LEGAL RESEARCH. BY- LUNSFORD, TERRY F. CALIFORNIA UNIV., BERKELEY, CTR.FOR RAND C IN ED REPORT NUMBER ER--5-0248-5 PUB DATE CEC 65 CALIFORNIA UNIV., BERKELEY, CTR. FORSTUDY OF LAW CONTRACT OEC-6-10-106 ECRS PRICEMF-$0.27HC-$7.52 186F. DESCRIPTORS- *STUDENT ACTIVISM, STUDENTATTITUDES, *LEGAL PROBLEMS, LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY, EQUALPROTECTION, LEGAL SEGREGATION, POLICESCHOOL RELATIONSHIP, POLICY FORMATION, POLICE ACTION, COURT LITIGATION,*ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE, BIBLIOGRAPHIES, *SOCIAL INFLUENCES, *RESEARCH PROJECTS, *UNIVERSITIES, RESEARCH AND CEVELOPMENTCENTERS, BERKELEY AN EXAMINATION WAS MADE OF THE ISSUESAND EVENTS OF THE "FREE SPEECH" CRISES ON THE BERKELEYCAMPUS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROVIDETHE BASIS FOR MORE SYSTEMATIC AND DISPASSIONATE STUDY OF CERTAINISSUES BEHIND THE STUDENT PROTESTS, AND TO STIMULATESOCIAL AND LEGAL RESEARCH ON THESE ISSUES. FOLLOWING ANINTRODUCTION THE AUTHOR PRESENTED A BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OFSIGNIFICANT EVENTS CURING THE 1964-65 ACADEMIC YEAR. HE THENDEALT WITH THE PROBLEM OF RESTRICTION OF EXPRESSION ONTHE BERKELEY CAMPUS. QUESTIONS OF POLICY AND QUESTIONS OF LAWWERE TWO FACETS OF THIS PROBLEM THAT WERE EMPHASIZED. FINALLY,THE AUTHOR DISCUSSED RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND RAISEDFURTHER ISSUES WHICH DERIVE FROM THE TWO BROAD SOCIOLOGICALPERSPECTIVES OF ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS AND SOCIOLEGALISSUES. A BIBLIOGRAPHY CONCERNING THE BERKELEY STUDENT PROTESTS WASATTACHED TO THE REPORT. (GC) - - . a . I r- - 8R-C-oag 06e-6-/0404 (1), A °VI- The "Free Speech" Crises at Berkeley,1964-1965: Some Issues for Social and Legal Research TERRY F. LUNSFORD U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION AND WELFARE Office of Education This document has been rocroducedexactly as received from the .cn 301.! ;1.Vilf:/, it. Points of Viewor opinions st '-; ;ord.) U. of LdJcaiion A study conducted in cooperation with the CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF LAW AND SOCIETY THE "FREE SPEECH" CRISES ATBERKELEY, 1964-1965r SOME ISSUES FOR SOCIAL AND LEGALRESEARCH Terry F. Lunsford Center for Research and Development in HigherEducation Center for the Study of Law and Society University of California, Berkeley December, 1965 , 4,.hwommomio4. .,-,,4wammiklmklorm,413..laFXVVIA4VT.,...,.:.--",.. iiir- CONTENTS I.INTRODUCTION. 1. II.THE BERKELEY STUDENT PROTESTS, 1964-65: A BRIEF CHRONOLOGY . 4 III.SHOULD A ,UNIVERSITY.RESTRICT EXPRESSION ON ITS CAMPUS? ,. 17 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. 18 The State Constitution . 18 The Law Against Political Solicitation on State Property. 19 Issues for Further Study . 21 AVOIDING ON-CAMPUS ACTION BY "OUTSIDE" POLICE 22 No Legal Sanctuary. ... 22 Campus Police "Jurisdiction" . 24 Issues for Further Study . 25 AVOIDING JUDICIAL REGULATION OF ACTIVITIES ONTHE CAMPUS . 26 Constitutionality of the 1964 Restrictions. 26 Constitutionality of Content-Regulation Generally. 29 The Scope of Judicial Review. 44 How to Avoid the Courts . 45 Issues for Further Study 47 PROTECTION OF UNIVERSITY INTERESTS AND FUNCTIONS49 Organizational Interests of the University . 50 Organized Teaching and Research. 54 Assuring "Academic" Standards of Extracurricular Discussion and Inquiry. .. 57 .... The University as a Market Place for Ideas. 59 The University as a Springboard for Social Action . 61 The University as Guardian of "Democratic Government" . 66 Issues for Further Study . 72 ACHIEVING UNIVERSITY "SELF-GOVERNMENT" AMID "POLITICAL PRESSURES" . 75 Can a University Be "Politically" Independent?. 76 Intellectual Community and Political Diversity. 84 Issues for Further Study . 97 IV.SOME SUGGESTED DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH . 100 UNIVERSITY FORMS AND FUNCTIONS: ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES . 106 The Forms of University Authority. 106 University Aims and Their Organizational Embodiment . 113 UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE BY RULES: SOCIO-LEGAL ISSUES. 123 The Scope and Bases of Administrative Discretion. 123 The Effectiveness of University "Legal" Action. 130 Civil Liberties and Academic Freedoms of University Students. .135 V.LIST OF RESEARCH MATERIALS. 138 APPENDIX: NOTES TO THE TEXT. 162 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The principal purposes of this report are twofold:first-, to lay the basis for systematic and dispassionate study of certain issues, both practical and theoretical, which lay behind the student protests and sur- rounding events at the University of California, Berkeley, during the aca- demic year 1964-65; second, to stimulate social and legal research on these issues.The events at Berkeley have been widely discussed, various- ly chronicled, and perhaps too freely interpreted.This report is not de- signed to add one more partisan interpretation, or to evaluate the actions of students, faculty, administrators, or Regents.In social conflicts running over a long period, such as those which occurred at Berkeley, issues can easily become obscured or confused, and may need to be clari- fied if an understanding of the situation as a whole is to be attained. More- over, it is valuable to see issuesin relation to each other and to a broader context.This report attempts to make such an analysis and clarification. The events that occurred at Berkeley in 1964-65 are of wide in- terest to students, faculties, administrative officers, and governing boards of colleges and universities.It seems probable that many institutions will continue to experience student unrest and pressure for revision of regula- tions concerning the expression of controversial views by students, faculty members, and speakers from off-campus, and concerning the advocacy and organization on campus of social action in the wider community. Section II of the report is a brief chronology of significant events during the academic year 1964-65 at Berkeley.It is necessarily selective, and draws heavily on accounts published elsewhere, as well as on official documents and first-hand observations.Its purpose is to provide a factual framework for the illustrative and analytical discussions following. Section III takes as its point of departure the major substantive issue of the Free Speech Movement protest: whether a university should restrict expression on its campus.In the discussion of problems sur- rounding this issue, two kinds of questions are emphasized.These are (1) questions of policy, and (2) questions of law.Policy questions are practical ones which face administrators, faculty members, and other participants in or observers of university governance.Their form is normative: what should university policy be in this case?Legal ques- tions closely affect policy determinations, but are of a different order, at once factual and predictive.. They ask: What are the legal boundaries within which university policy may be set?On the basis of legal precedents 2 and these specific circumstances, what would the courts likelyhold to be the rights and obligations of the parties involved? A Section IV of the report discusses researchdirections a little more fully, and raises furtherissues which derive from two broad socio- logical perspectives.These are issues of "organizational" analysis and what we have called "socio-legal" issues; they aredefined in this section. Section V of the report is a list of referencesconcerning the Berkeley student protests, in particular.Notes and cited references are collected in an Appendix. The report is based primarily on an extensive file of written materials assembled at the Berkeley campus withhelp from University officials, members of the Free Speech Movement, and others.It is also informed by first-hand observations and by discussions with anumber of participants in the year's events.The research file is available to re- searchers interested in study of these problems.However', where possi- ble citations in the text of the report were made to easilyavailable pub- lished materials. Of course, no one is neutral about the dramatic events.that oc- curred during 1964 -65 at Berkeley, and it has not beenpossible in this re- port to avoid all "interpretation" of them. Someinterpretation is implied merely in the reordering ofmaterials according to statedissues, and still more in the selection of some amongthe many statements made about each problem.Not all of the statements of any person on an issue areincluded, by any means; however, a strong effort was made not tomisrepresent anyone's position.The substantive assertions of each party in the contro- versy were taken seriously intheir own right. At the same time, no attempt was made to"settle" issues of his- torical fact which have remained in dispute.Events were used to illus- trate the ways in which issues arose, not primarilyfor their own sake or as proof for the assertionsof a particular group.It is possible that some bias in selection was introduced by efforts to bring outsubtleties in the issues not generally understood; again, however, nopolemical intent was involved. Some repetition was necessary, because single eventsbore on several issues; some disjunctiveness among sections resultedfrom the attempt to suggest issues of different kinds in a single report. The report and the research file on which it is based are results of a project conceived in late 1964 by T. R. McConnell, Chairmanof the Center for Research and Development in Higher Education(CRDHE), and Philip Selznick, Chairman of the Center for the Study of Law and Society (CSLS), at the University of California, Berkeley. Members of the pro- ject advisory committee, besides Professors McConnell and Selznick, .11 3 were Professor