OCR Text |
Show From the right Speech movement not clear BY JAMES M.SCHULTZ In the past week, two matters have occupied the Editorial pages in the Chronicle. Both have been linked with a budding "free speech movement," although the connection is not quite clear. But that's expectable, for "movements" "move-ments" of this sort are often more gut than mind, and connections are more infatuation than logic. The first, in any case, and the more critical, concerns the community com-munity reaction to Jerry Rubin's engagement at the University. However, this concern remains the Administration's to a large extent, and the issues have already received receiv-ed exhaustive treatment. The second matter seems more likely to be a student concern, and since its treatment has been ad captan-dum captan-dum vulgus some sort of rational injection seems imperative. For instance, the SDS and three members of the English Department Depart-ment (and a post-script) registered their reaction to the events. The SDS letter, although slightly more informed, still raises a number of questions. Undoubtedly, all the authoritative information con- tliey can state that other groups have had speeches from outside speakers without referring to some of the back pages of the Chronicle), and the radical community com-munity was, at a certain juncture, excoriating the administration for its "nebulous pattern of repression." repres-sion." It seems that some word must have reached Mr. Hammel and his comrades concerning the agony and final ecstasy of Jim Bever and Curt Canning. Grape vines are rarely somnolent. Nevertheless, that is not enough. All of these accusations can be, through semantical legerdemain, leger-demain, translated into honest mistakes. Furthermore, there are those on campus who are only too willing to stretch their own legs for the sacerdotal concept of "free speech." It becomes difficult diffi-cult to justify the entire event, however, when a half-dozen SDS members decided to turn the incident inci-dent into a deliberate confrontation. confronta-tion. On Monday morning (the same day Mrs. Dillon was to speak) a sign appeared in the Union Building advertising the speaking engagement in the Campus Cam-pus Christian Center. Later that men(th,s word used onv h no other title was oft , Ci whether the Uni rs identically if the 2 - same position OnJ , counter by asking eV van, Vernon andR would have shownT cernforthe Chess Club n should ascertain ;L"Eil Chess Club would be !V -font the ; he answer is yes, then ' . the administration shl ' dentical,y. ,f the Y U- find themselves in the n Jr the SDS, would eP l Pag- of d,e Chronictft , with the trio's eudaemonif hkely answer is negative. Not this means Misters Sulk Vernon and Rudick would ,!. pose such an action, but mJ' cause the three would find J selves suddenly illiterate or sta with an inexplicable case of U tude. In a post-script, Mr. VeBl asked why the University h poetry readings without Slut-Affairs Slut-Affairs approval. The questi, provides some insight into j basic nescience these tluee a; cerning Student Affairs procedures proce-dures comes straight from experience experi-ence itself-Laury Hammel (later referred to as Miss Hammel, but without any malice). Last year Student Affairs made a recommendation recom-mendation that the speaker policy be changed to the extent that there would be no clearance at all. However, Laury, with all experience, exper-ience, should know that Institutional Institu-tional Council approval is neither that immenent or that expeditious. expedi-tious. To this date, it has not been approved, and, in lieu of recent ground-swells in the valley, it doesn't appear likely that it will be. In short, it could be said that Hammel's assumption was irresponsible. ir-responsible. Engagement cleared A fortiori, assuming a rough j line of communication among the ' radical community, how is it that j Hammel, Collard and company S did not notice that Jerry Rubin's ' engagement was cleared before Student Affairs. It made headlines on the front page of the Chronicle (for those who still believe that SDS is innocent, how is it that morning, me sign was cnangea, and the place of the meeting became be-came the entrance of the Little Theatre. From there, it was decided de-cided that Mrs. Dillon would converse con-verse with her meager following in the foyer of the Union. Now Mr. Hammel mentioned nothing of the Campus Christian Center, claiming the administration had left them no choice. Furthermore, the administration did offer another alternative. It was suggested sug-gested that Mrs. Dillon use the Huddle ticket booth in order to reach her audience. Of this there was no mention. Effulgent distortions Of course, this would come as no surprise to many. For any "revolutionary party" truth becomes be-comes the proposition of effulgent efful-gent distortions. Indeed, before Hammel directs the groups on this , campus to look for biased rules, he had better account for his own, and for the ommission of certain relevant and crucial factors. Still, we find those who stubbornly cling to "free speech." From the English Department, three gentle- woricing from. Student Affi concerns only speakers sponsoie by student groups, and cerli departments do not fall into ft' category. Perhaps with few . ceptions, the University cow. nity can be assured of the tinuous legality of the spefc events on this campus. Remains the same The pattern remains essential!, the same. Chords of ideologic sympathy resonate in harmony; the "revolutionary party" crie persecution, and the shibboM are repeated in earnest plea by ll: more inactive ame damnee.Mtx-while, damnee.Mtx-while, they defiantly scream It: revolution (despite its pernick use) and painfully whimper wk the going gets tough. Perliap ingenuity permitting, Mist Sullivan, Vernon and Runt would like to meet with Mi Hammel and discuss some nnt: of passing Mrs. Dillon off as i poetess, and let the Engiis!; Department sponsor the event, in which case, judging from lliestili of poetry today, the speaker ri. reach no one. |