OCR Text |
Show Letters to tHe EdiTOR Now for a little personal philosophy. philos-ophy. The way I see it Jerry Rubin and his bunch aren't really fighting for freedom. How could they be? Yes, I agree, sometimes there is a need to change but with the kind of change that most radical and liberal groups want today 1 can only answer that I want the slowest change possible. CORNELIS VAN T1ENDEREN III administration represents. Academic freedom is a myth!! The University is not a "market place of ideas" where "freedom for the thought we hate" is tolerated toler-ated when it is fundamentally opposed op-posed to the interests which the University administration serves. KATHY COLLARD LAURY HAMMEL VTCKI HAMMEL BILL WILSON MEMBERS OF SDS Ekins column An omitted line caused an inadvertent inad-vertent error in Roger Ekins' column col-umn Tuesday. The column read, "Mr. Bagley and countless others would readily agree with the major who telephoned tele-phoned my father to tell him I'm a to the first county disgrace to my God." I plead guilty to the firstcount only, and I am extremely proud to do so." Instead, the column should have read, "Mr. Bagley and countless others would readily agree with the major who telephoned my father fa-ther to tell him I'm a disgrace to the uniform, a disgrace to the country and a disgrace to my God." I plead guilty to the first count only, and I am extremely proud to do so.' " Ekins stoops low Editor: Dear Mr. Ekins: In your article published in the Chronicle on March 2 you staled, concerning a possible imposition on the freedom of speech: "We must prohibit this action from taking place by ANY MEANS NECESSARY -that's how important im-portant freedom is to us." That sounds very much like a threat of some sort. Well, Mr. Ekins, I'm appalled to learn that a person with such "noble" desires to protect pro-tect the freedom of speech can stoop so low in the same breath as to suggest using any means possible possi-ble to protect it. To use any means possible is much lower than merely withdrawing with-drawing your support to an institution insti-tution that allows speeches that you don't agree with. If an institution institu-tion allows someone to come in and advocate violence, utter obscenities, ob-scenities, and attempt to incite revolutionary overthrow of a government that you happen to support and believe in, I couldn't really say that it would be a crime to withdraw support even if it is monetary. That isn't prohibiting Jerry Rubin or some other unconstruc-tive unconstruc-tive nomad from preaching in his own back yard or for any group that happens to provide the "ringside" "ring-side" arena for him to perform in. Questions 'intent' Editor: The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) did not hold an official offi-cial meeting nor did they officially sponsor a speech by Mrs. Elaine Dillon, a member of SDS and Progressive Pro-gressive Labor Party (PLP) at San Francisco State College, on Monday, contrary to the article "Student Affairs to bring charges against SDS after it met in Union foyer to discuss PLP." Last Friday, several members of SDS spoke .with five members of the Student Affairs Committee concerning the appearance of Mrs. Dillon on campus Monday. Acting under a ruling passed by Student Affairs Committee on Jan, 28, 1969 that puts no restriction on off-campus off-campus speakers speaking only to the University community, SDS had scheduled a forum to be conducted con-ducted by Mrs. Dillon and publicized publi-cized the event only in the Chronicle. Chron-icle. On the preceding Thursday, SDS was informed that the policy under which we had acted, had not been (one year and one month later) confirmed by Institutional Council and that our room reservations reser-vations in the Union Building had been cancelled. Ernest Bebb, Director Di-rector of the Union Bldg. and immediate im-mediate subordinate of Dean Virginia Vir-ginia Frobes, said that "SDS could not meet anywhere in the Union Building for the purpose of conducting con-ducting a forum featuring Mrs. Dillon" because SDS had failed to have Mrs. Dillon's appearance cleared by Student Affairs Committee. Com-mittee. In our meeting with Doctor Bebb, Dean Frobes, Frank Over-felt Over-felt and three other members of the Student Affairs Committee, SDS admitted that we had, un-premeditatedly, un-premeditatedly, violated a regulation regu-lation and offered to alter our position in any way in order to comply with the existing regulations. regula-tions. First, we asked Dean Frobes co-chairman of the Student Affairs Af-fairs Committee, to call a special meeting of the committee to discuss dis-cuss the problem. This she refused re-fused to do despite the pleas of two student members of the committee com-mittee and three studentbody officers. offi-cers. Although five of the seven member majority necessary to approve ap-prove Mrs. Dillon's appearance were present at the meeting, Dean Frobes refused to poll the other members of the committee by phone. Dean Frobes maintained that enforcement had to begin 'somewhere' 'some-where' in view of the recent attacks at-tacks on President Fletcher for the appearance of Jerry Rubin on this campus, it does not surprise sur-prise us that wis "enforcement" should begin in relationship to a speaker from a progressive, revolutionary rev-olutionary party. We believe that the revolutionary ideas which Mrs. Dillon wanted to discuss on this campus are a threat to Dean Frobes Fro-bes and the Administration, because be-cause they are a direct attack on the interests of the big businessmen business-men and politicians which control the Administration, and in whose interests they serve. After Dean Frobes had eliminated elimin-ated the two most feasible solutions solu-tions to the problem, SDS representative repre-sentative offered to change the format and publicity for the event in order to qualify under the rules. SDS offered to hold the speech in the context of an SDS meeting rather than a "forum" to o u r membership which our Constitution Constitu-tion defines as "those persons who wish to participate in our activities." ac-tivities." This alternative was unacceptable unaccept-able to Dean Frobes and Director Bebb, because they felt that our "intent" was still to have a speech to which the University community commun-ity as a whole was invited. While we agreed that it was obviously ob-viously our "intent" to have Mrs. Dillon speak, it was also our "intent" "in-tent" to comply with the rules and said that we would be glad to invite only our membership (as defined by our constitution) and not the University community as a whole. We were willing to materially change our position in order to comply with the rules but this we were not allowed to do. Every alternative we suggested was refused, re-fused, every compromise rejected. reject-ed. After all attempts to gain a reconsideration for SDS sponsorship sponsor-ship of the event, we proposed that other groups which could legally le-gally sponsor the event do so. Free University, which does not have to have its speakers approved by Student Affairs was also denied Union facilities which would be used for a speech given by Mrs. Dillon under their sponsorship. spon-sorship. As soon as we were able to qualify under the rules, Dean Frobes and Director Bebb, shifted ground. As long as the "letter of the law" had served their purpose pur-pose (i.e. that we had not followed fol-lowed the procedures of Student Affairs Committee) they pushed the need to strictly follow the rules. When we did find a group that could "legally" sponsor our speaker, Frobes and Bebb claimed that our "intent" and not the rules, was the rationale for denying our speaker Union facilities. facili-ties. After discussing what should be done with the people who had come to find out where Mrs. Dillon Dil-lon was going to speak, some individuals in-dividuals suggested that the administration ad-ministration had left SDS with no alternatives other than holding an official activity. Seeing no other oth-er alternative, SDS members voted to disband and not to have an official meeting nor officially sponsor the Progressive Labor Party representative's speech. People who had gathered decided to meet for an informal conversation conver-sation around the area by the fishpond fish-pond with Miss Dillon and other students. The rule SDS acted under was passed one year and one month ago and has yet to be passed by the Institutional Council. According Accord-ing to some members of the committee, com-mittee, is a rule under which the Student Affairs Committee has operated under this year. The fact that Student Affairs has been operating under the rule that no restrictions would be placed on off-campus speakers is substantiated by the fact that other groups have publicized and scheduled off-campus speakers without being penalized by the Student Affairs Committee. This rule was arbitrarily and capriciously ca-priciously applied to SDS by Frobes Fro-bes and Bebb. When SDS could not qualify under the "letter of the law" they maintained that the "rules" had to be enforced. When we did qualify legally, they claimed "intent" was the reason for denying legally qualifying groups the right to sponsor Mrs. Dillon's speech. We )y:;-ve that Dean Frobes and D.e or Bebb manipulated these :.ul i - serve their interests. inter-ests. In our opinion, SDS and other student groups should recognize that the rules which govern students stu-dents at the University are not neutral nor applied without bias. We know that these rules are designed de-signed to keep students in their place, to keep them from challenging chal-lenging the politicians and b i g businessmen whose interests the |