OCR Text |
Show 'All voews should be heeoird' the hearing over to those who wished to come to the podium and voice their feelings. No Speaker Limitations Among the individuals w h o presented arguments Friday, the (Continued on Pago 4) BY CYNTHIA VVOOTTON Staff Writer " "We seek your assistance in ' formulating a speaker policy that is explicit enough so that we know , what our speaker policy is." With this introduction, Prof. Alfred Emery of the College of Law, opened the speaker policy hearing which was held Friday I by the special commission re-!' re-!' cently appointed to review and improve the University's policy for the appearance of speakers on campus. ' The commission, appointed in March by Pres. James C. Fletch- !! er, had invited members of the University community to give their comments and recommendations recommenda-tions on free speech and a speaker speak-er policy for the University. Prior to the hearing on Friday the commission com-mission has been engaged in a major effort, as Prof. Emery put it, to define the perimeters of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and to examine the major decisions handed down on the amendments. The speaker policies pol-icies of other universities, where available, have been examined. A list has also been compiled of all student sponsored speakers ad vertised in the Chronicle or via other news media who have appeared ap-peared at the University over the past five years. The number of such speakers totals approximately approximat-ely 1,500. Commission Members Besides Prof. Emery, those members of the commission who were present were: David Grant, chairman of the Department of Chemistry; Frank Overfelt, past president of the studentbody; Philip Sturges, professor and chairman of the Department of History; Edward W. Clyde, chairman chair-man of Institutional Council; and B. Z. Kastler, alumni board of control. Jeff Winston, former member of Academic Affairs Board (ASUU) was absent. As Prof. Emery explained to the audience of approximately 75 in his introductory remarks, the commission wanted and needed the suggestions of faculty and students in order to come up with satisfactory recommendations on a speaker policy. The commission seeks critics of the past policy and of future policy. "I can say in all candidness," stated Prof. Emery, "that this commission has not ' formulated any policy prior to this hearing. We have expressed attitudes to one another, but formulation of a policy has not taken place." He proceeded to explain that extensive exten-sive hearings could not be held at this time because of time limitations limi-tations (the commission is to report re-port to Pres. Fletcher on April 20) but that the hearing Friday was held in order for the commission com-mission to obtain some notion as to what University feelings are. The commission will draw up recommendations and once these recommendations have been reviewed re-viewed by Institutional Council (final decision making authority at the University) they will be made public. At this point, further fur-ther opportunities will be available avail-able for individuals and groups to express their opinions. After these explanatory remarks, re-marks, Prof. Emery then turned Speaker policy hearing: 'Give free speech right to oil' (Continued from Page 1) general concensus was that the University should place no limitations limita-tions on speakers, beyond scheduling sched-uling arrangements, except those which already existed as law. There were also individuals who expressed the desire to revamp or do away completely with Utah's obscenity law. The Reverend John Wade was the first to come to the podium. He read a letter, a copy of which had been sent to Prof. Fletcher, which he and three other campus ministers had signed, in which they express their concern for the recent activities on the campus. The letter acknowledged that the University is well above the average av-erage in providing freedom for expression, but that recent actions ac-tions taken against certain students stu-dents and speakers gave cause for grave concern. Rev. Wade, speaking on behalf of the signers of the letter, stated that the University must remain autom-onous autom-onous in the area of speakers and entertainers rather than submit . to pressures from non-University cemmunity interests. Lester G. Major, professor of law, next suggested that certain matters of principle needed to be reaffirmed. He pointed out that a serious misconception existed as to the nature of the University. Univer-sity. He said, "The misconception misconcep-tion is that the University' is owned by the people of Utah or by tax payers, or that it is a creature of the legislature. This is not the case; it existed before the State of Utah existed; in its fundamental character it existed before any of the states." A Free Forum He went on to explain that the fundamental character of Hie University Uni-versity is as a free forum where all ideas and a full range of modes of expression can be presented. pre-sented. This concept, he felt, had net been articulated by the University Uni-versity in its effort to curtail speakers. He recognized that tne University has, in the past, preserved pre-served this character, but he also expressed the fear that this character char-acter might be compromised in the future. The fundamental point which Bill Wilson, the next speaker, made was that "the University is a neutral body and we must protect pro-tect it at all costs from becoming the political arm of one group or faction." Wilson, a student at the University, said that whereas the University should be neutral, it was not because of the presence of Kennecott Copper Corporation and ROTC. He also felt that the University lost its neutrality by discriminating against those with leftist views; that classrooms lost their neutrality when professors vigorously espoused one political philosophy; that vague, unclear rules were enforced differently in similar cases; and that a stu- body of the University ,, the policy into effect b3 State Board of Highe might be involved. Mrs b l' expressed her fear that twf be the case. Law Should Pr0tect The use of dirty words lie is bad taste and bad!?' in the opinion of aw J Lionel Frankl. However ' that the force of law & used to Protect us and ?:' force what some individual!' are good or bad manners T each side which are attL to capture the University 2 it into a tool for their 2 ests." He concluded that re tion of speakers would creates a bland atmosphere on m. that the students seeking aft' rate university will g0 President of the Utah ct of the American Civil Libert' Union, law professor William Lockhart, referred to the k which the law faculty had j lished in the Chronicle ov9 year ago in which the entire t faculty expressed its desire allow SDS a place on car.,, He reiterated points made it letter by saying that stade must be given every peact' channel of communication no ie ter how loud the dissent. Spee-he Spee-he explained, provides a me. for people to let off steam, tl; letting off steam has value!, its internal benefits to the k vidual as well as a means communicating to others the : tensity of feeling. This he fell, the key to the First Amendus: to the Constitution. "Obscenity is Poetry" He suggested that "obscenitj: poetry" for both are express:: of the soul. He asked the qt. tions: "What is it you aret tecting when you prevent thea pression of controversial idee Does obscenity or do obscei laws pose a substantial threat the community and to the E versity?" Toward the conclusion ol c hearing, Paul Frisbie, a Unfe sity student and representative Voices Against Needless Destr tion of Air, Land and Sea (ffi DALS), took the podium. Out ing in the vein others had p. sued, that every one has a dfc ent idea as to what obscenity-he obscenity-he stated that some people t four letter words are obs: At that moment, four indiM-sitting indiM-sitting on the front row toot their jackets and stood up. Spe. out across their sweatshirts f an "obscenity." "This isn't': we find obscene," he co "But 'these things we do." Alt point four more individuals, tered through the audience, up. Printed on their sweat were various "obscenities," nam genocide," "CBA Net1 Gas," "Panther Murder' "Political Prisoners." In his closing remarks; hearing, Prof. Emery af his appreciation to those w o: spoken. He assured the . that their opinions would K seriously considered. Headed Head-ed that any individuals -not had an opportunity at the hearing could him in his office, or leave ten expression of their with him. "My concern is very ' . explained, "if your that a speaker pohcy m restraint. I do not look t a erpoucymthisnar. We have made no lore, elusions in our cons to what kind of SPiy the University should ... dent's responsibility for making decisions is denied when the expression ex-pression of certain views or philosophies phi-losophies are restricted. He concluded con-cluded by saying that people of all philosophies should not only be able to speak out but encouraged encour-aged to do so on campus. Challenge Week Voice Roger -Ekins, a student and member of this year's Challenge Week committee, came to the podium next. He said that as a member of the Challenge Week committee he had felt the attempts at-tempts to gain control over the programming of the speakers. According Ac-cording to Ekins, much pressure was exerted by the administration administra-tion to keep Dick Gregory and' the San Francisco Mime Troupe off the campus. He referred to John Stuart Mill's treatise "On Liberty," John Milton's famous essay on freedom of speech "Are-opogitica", "Are-opogitica", and modern, day scripture scrip-ture in making the point that we cannot know falsehood until it is exposed and by suggesting that it cannot be exposed unless it is presented many times in many ways alongside truth. Ekins stated stat-ed that he was positively against any speaker review board whatsoever, what-soever, overtly or covertly. He concluded by saying that whereas Milton wanted freedom of speech but sought to restrict that freedom free-dom for atheists and Catholics, he seeks to give it to atheists, Catholics, Cath-olics, Mormons, SDS, anyone. Bruce Plenk, another student, said that the issue of free speech resolved itself into the question: Who controls the University? Plenk would have no rules, no restrictions, no review board, nothing to restrain student sponsored spon-sored speakers beyond routine scheduling regulations. He concluded con-cluded that whenever such rules exist, they can be used against one group and not against another group, so there should be no restrictions re-strictions at all. What Is Obscene? The issue of obscenity was dealt with by Jeff Fox in h i s remarks to the commission. According Ac-cording to Fox there are two ways of looking at obscenity. Some people see obscenity in sexual sex-ual matters; this is the old generation, gen-eration, death-oriented. Some people see obscenity in death and killing; this is the young generation, genera-tion, life oriented. "If you say we should eliminate one kind of obscenity," ob-scenity," Fox declared, "I say let's eliminate what I find obscene ob-scene bringing people on to this campus to teach others to kill." "Speaker bans," he concluded, con-cluded, "will least benefit those who enforce them." Connie Lundberg, a freshman law student and a transfer student stu-dent from Arizona State University, Univer-sity, pointed out that students' avenues of expression are fairly limited and that if student sponsored spon-sored speakers are restricted, students stu-dents will be deprived of one of the main tools of academic freedom. free-dom. Vickie Hammel, speaking for (Students for a Democratic Society So-ciety (SDS), posed various questions ques-tions to the commission members. mem-bers. She asked Prof. Emery and the others to express what fears they had concerning a speaker policy. Prof. Emery replied that the time would come, with the releasing of their recommendations recommenda-tions to the Institutional Council, , for them to justify their stand and ; that at that time they would fully express their sentiments. Mrs. Hammel also asked who would finally okay a speaker policy. . Prof. Emery again replied by saying that the Institutional Council, Coun-cil, as the ultimate governing |