The following chronology traces events of the "free speech" controversy at Berkeley from Sept. 10, 1964, through Jan. 4, 1965. Full texts of all  important documents, reports, statements and resolutions are included. Where full texts were too long for inclusion, they appear in the Appendix, beginning on page 76. Also included in the Appendix are relevant portions of the State Constitution, Education Code, "University Policies Relating to Students and Student Organizations," and "The Position of the FSM on Speech and Political Activity." 

September 10

A letter authored by "a former student" and distributed with the Slate Supplement
Report called for an "open, fierce and thoroughgoing rebellion" on the Berkeley campus. Although the letter did not relate specifically to the "free speech issue," it sounded the rallying cry for subsequent events: 

"the University does not deserve a response of loyalty and allegiance from you. There is only one proper response to Berkeley from undergraduates: that you ORGANIZE AND SPLIT THIS CAMPUS WIDE OPEN!... 

"Go to the top. Make your demands to the Regents. If they refuse to give you an audience: start a program of agitation, petitioning, rallies, etc., in which the final  resort will be CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. In the long run, there is the possibility that you will find it necessary to perform civil disobedience at a couple of major University public ceremonies..." 

The Ad Hoc Committee to End Discrimination—led by former Berkeley student and SLATE founder Michael Myerson and by Tracy Sims, leader of the Palace Hotel demonstrations — announced plans to picket the Oakland Tribune for the third Friday in a row, and held a noon rally at the Bancroft and Telegraph entrance to the Berkeley campus. 

September 16

1. Presidents or chairmen and advisers of all student organizations received a letter from Dean of Students Katherine A. Towle, dated Sept. 14, announcing that, effective Sept. 21, tables would no longer be permitted in the 26-foot strip of University property at the Bancroft and Telegraph entrance, and that advocative literature and activities on off-campus political issues also would be prohibited:

"Provisions of the policy of The Regents concerning `Use of University Facilities' will be strictly enforced in all areas designated as property of The Regents... including the 26-foot strip of brick walkway at the campus entrance on Bancroft Way and Telegraph Avenue..." 

(Small copper plaques, imprinted: "Property of The Regents, University of California. Permission to enter or pass over is revocable at any time," outline University campuses' boundaries. A series of these plaques is located parallel to Bancroft Way, about 26 feet outside the large concrete posts at the Bancroft-Telegraph entrance to the campus. The new policy did not apply to an approximately eight-foot-wide strip of City of Berkeley sidewalk located between the plaques and the Bancroft Way curb.)

"Specifically," Dean Towle's letter said, "Section III of the (Regents') policy...prohibits the use of University facilities `for the purpose of soliciting party membership or supporting or opposing particular candidates or propositions in local, state or national elections,' except that Chief Campus Officers `shall establish rules under which candidates for public office (or their designated representatives) may be afforded like opportunity to speak upon the campuses at meetings where the audience is limited to the campus community.'  Similarly, Chief Campus Officers "shall establish rules under which persons supporting or opposing propositions in state or local elections may be afforded like opportunity to speak upon the campuses at meetings where the audience is limited to the campus community." 
 

"Section III also prohibits the use of University facilities `for the purpose of religious worship, exercise or conversion.' Section IV of the policy states further that University facilities `may not be used for the purpose of raising money to aid projects not directly connected with some authorized activity of the University...' 

"Now that the so-called `speaker ban' is gone," Dean Towle's letter continued, "and the open forum is a reality, student organizations have ample opportunity to present to campus audiences on a `special event' basis an unlimited number of speakers on a variety of subjects, provided the few basic rules concerning notification and sponsorship are observed... The `Hyde Park' area in the Student Union Plaza is also available for impromptu, unscheduled speeches by students and staff. 

"It should be noted also that this area on Bancroft Way... has now been added to the list of designated areas for the distribution of handbills, circulars or pamphlets by University students and staff in accordance with Berkeley campus policy. Posters, easels and card tables will not be permitted in this area because of  interference with the flow of (pedestrian) traffic. University facilities may not, of course, be used to support or advocate off-campus political or social action. 

"We ask for the cooperation of every student and student organization in observing the full implementation of these policies. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to come to the Office of the Dean of Students, 201 Sproul Hall." 

Berkeley Chancellor Edward W. Strong, in a report to the Berkeley Division of the
Academic Senate dated October 26, said: 

"The situation was brought to a head by the multiplied activity incidental to the primary election, the Republican convention, and the forthcoming fall elections. Representatives of the Chancellor's Office, the Dean of Students Office, the Campus Police, the Public Affairs Office, and the ASUC had the problem on the agenda of meetings on July 22, July 29, and September 4. They agreed that the situation would worsen during the political campaign, and steps should be taken at the beginning of the semester to assure use of the area in accordance with University rules..." 

 2. Arthur Goldberg, former chairman of SLATE, announced lawyers representing SLATE and other interested groups would meet tomorrow (Sept. 17) to decide posible legal action. Goldberg called the new policy "another in a long series of acts to curtail either right or left wing political action on campus...

"As the students become more and more aware of America's social problems, and come to take an active  part in their solution, the University moves proportionally the other way to prevent all exposure of political action being taken.

"The most important thing is to make this campus a market place for ideas. But, the University is trying to prevent the exposure of any new creative political solutions to the problems that every American realizes are facing this society in the mid-Sixties." 

Representatives of 18 student organizations met with Dean Towle to point out what they considered to be the unfairness and purposelessness of the new enforcement policy. The student groups asked for: 

1) Advocacy of any political viewpoint or action or to be able to distribute literature to that effect in the Bancroft-Telegraph area.
2) Permission to distribute literature from tables, from which they can attract, by means of posters, interested people. They said they do not want to force literature on pedestrians, but rather hand out literature to those who approach them. 

Dean Towle answered that Regents' policy is clearly set down for all on-campus areas, including Bancroft-Telegraph, and that the University administration is under obligation to enforce that policy. 

Dean Towle also charged, during the meeting, that, although the University had repeatedly asked for cooperation from groups using the Bancroft-Telegraph area, it received little in the matter of poster and table placement. "Some of the students have been both impudent and impertinent," she added. 

Dean Towle implied it might be possible for the University to substitute the Hyde Park area in the Student Union Plaza for the Bancroft-Telegraph area. This offer was rejected. The students agreed to submit a list of written suggestions to the Dean of Students for the possible use of the Bancroft-Telegraph area and the Hyde Park area, although Dean Towle said further use of the Bancroft-Telegraph area was "almost out of the question." 

The students insisted on their right, and "duty to society" to remain at their south entrance posts. 

September 18

The 18 student organizations affected by the Bancroft-Telegraph controversy petitioned the Dean of Students for the use of the Bancroft-Telegraph area, under the following conditions:

"1. Tables for student organizations at Bancroft and Telegraph will be manned at all times. 
"2. The organizations shall provide their own tables and chairs; no University property shall be borrowed.
"3. There shall be no more than one table in front of each pillar and one at each side of the entrance way. No tables shall be placed in front of the entrance posts. 
"4. No posters shall be attached to posts or pillars. Posters shall be attached to tables only. 
"5. We (students) shall make every effort to see that provisions 1-4 are carried out and shall publish such rules and distribute them to the various student organizations.
"6. The tables at Bancroft and Telegraph may be used to distribute literature advocating action on current issues with the understanding that the student organizations do not represent the University of California--thus these organizations will not use the name of the University and will dissociate themselves from the University as an institution. 
"7. Donations may be accepted at the tables." 

At an evening meeting, most of the groups affected by the new University policy agreed to picket, conduct vigils, rallies and touch off civil disobedience, if the University stands firm on the Bancroft-Telegraph politics ban after a meeting with Dean Towle, scheduled for 10:30 a.m. the next morning. 

September 21

1. Dean Towle met with representatives of student groups affected by the new University rules for the Bancroft-Telegraph area. She accepted most of the proposals submitted by the students on Sept. 18: she would allow groups to set up a regulated number of tables with posters attached in the area, and she would allow distribution of informative--as opposed to advocative--literature from them. Dean Towle also announced the establishment "on an experimental basis" of a second "Hyde Park" free-speech area at the entrance to Sproul Hall: 

"Individuals are free to speak at will in these areas," she said, "provided they are registered students or staff of the University of California and observe the policies pertaining to use of University facilities. Since the University reserves such areas of the campus for student and staff use, those who speak should be prepared to identify themselves as students or staff of the University. It is suggested that speakers use as their podium the raised part of the wall on either side of the main stairway or the lower steps flanking the main stairway. Because of possible disturbance to persons working in Sproul Hall offices, voice amplifiers will not be permitted. There must be no interference with traffic or the conduct of University business." 

"It is not permissible, in materials distributed on University property, to urge a specific vote, call for direct social or political action, or to seek to recruit individuals for such action," Dean Towle said. 

Jackie Goldberg, spokesman for the protesting groups, insisted "the University has not gone far enough in allowing us to promote the kind of society we're interested in. 

"We're allowed to say why we think something is good or bad, but we're not allowed to distribute information as to what to do about it. Inaction is the rule, rather than the exception, in our society and on this campus. And, education is and should be more than academics. 

"We don't want to be armchair intellectuals. For a hundred years, people have talked and talked and done nothing. We want to help the students decide where they fit into the political spectrum and what they can do about their beliefs. We want to help build a better society." 

Dr. Saxton Pope, special assistant to Vice Chancellor Alex Sherriffs, who was present at the meeting, said the University was trying to discourage "advocacy of action without thought." 

2. Approximately 75 students held an all-night vigil on Sproul Hall steps. 

September 22

The ASUC Senate (by a vote of 11-5) requested the Regents "to allow free political and social action to be effected by students at the Bancroft entrance to the University of California, up to the posts accepted as the traditional entrance." The Senate motion also requested the privilege of soliciting funds for off-campus activity. These privileges were also requested for eight other campus locations where only non-advocative literature is now permitted. The ASUC Senate also began circulation of a petition to gather student grass-roots support, and discussed the possibility of the ASUC purchasing the disputed land and establishing it as a free speech area. The Senate also proposed establishment of a board of control to prevent congestion in the area and to protect students from "overt confrontation" by  leaflet distributors. Commenting on the Senate's motion, Men's Residence Hall Representative Mike Adams said, "Advocacy of action makes our society a viable one, and is central to the entire educational process." Alumni Representative Wayne Hooper urged the Senate not to "use the petition as a crutch. Don't wait for the students to pat you on the backside before you take a stand of your own." 

September 23

Chancellor Strong issued the following statement: 

"I call attention to the following facts concerning student use of University-owned property at the Telegraph-Bancroft entry to the campus. The Open Forum policy of the University is being fully maintained. Any student or staff member is free to address a campus audience in the `Hyde Park' areas in the heart of the campus. Printed materials on issues and candidates can be distributed by bona fide student groups in nine places on campus, including the Telegraph-Bancroft location. A full spectrum of political and social views can be heard on campus, and candidates themselves can be invited to speak on campus. 

"The University, rightly, as an educational institution, maintains an open forum for the free discussion of ideas and issues. Its facilities are not to be used for the mounting of social and political action directed at the surrounding community. The University has held firmly to the principles set forth by President Kerr in his Charter Day Address on the Davis Campus May 5, 1964: 

"`The activities of students acting as private citizens off-campus on non-University matters are outside the sphere of the University... Just as the University cannot and should not follow the student into his family life or his church life or his activities as a citizen off the campus, so also the students, individually or collectively, should not and cannot take the name of the University with them as they move into religious or political or other non-University facilities in connection with such affairs... The University will not allow students or others connected with it to use it to further their non-University political or social or religious causes, nor will it allow those outside the University to use it for non-University purposes'." 

University President Clark Kerr condemned the student demonstrations, and disagreed with the protestors that you must have action in order to learn: 

"The Dean of Students has met many requests of the students. The line theUniversity draws will be an acceptable one...

"I don't think you have to have action to have intellectual opportunity. Their actions--collecting money and picketing--aren't high intellectual activity... These actions are not necessary for the intellectual development of the students. If that were so, why teach history? We can't live in ancient Greece...

"The University is an educational institution that has been given to the Regents as a trust to administer for educational reasons, and not to be used for direct political action. It wouldn't be proper. It is not right to use the University as a basis from which people organize and undertake direct action in the surrounding community." 

Spokesmen for the combined liberal and conservative student political groups announced plans to picket tomorrow's (Sept. 28) University Meeting: the groups would simultaneously set up tables at Sather Gate and hold a rally in front of Wheeler Hall, without giving the required prior notice to the University administration. While the University Meeting is in progress the students would march to the University Meeting. Politically conservative protestors would participate only in the march, since the other activities violated University regulations. 

September 28

Chancellor Edward W. Strong announced a substantial concession--that campaign literature advocating "yes" and "no" votes on propositions and candidates, campaign buttons and bumper strips could now be distributed at Bancroft-Telegraph and at eight other campus locations--as pickets formed in front of Wheeler Hall and marched to the University Meeting. Chancellor Strong's liberalization of regulations--a result, he said, of a "reinterpretation of Regents' policy"--was a direct contradiction to Dean Towle's statements earlier in the dispute. Dean Towle had stated Regents' policy prohibited distribution of literature advocating either a "yes" or a "no" vote. 

Arthur Goldberg, one of the protest leaders, said: "And you're asking me if picketing is effective?" 

Another protest spokesman said: 

"The Bancroft-Telegraph issue has alerted us to the free speech issue all over campus. We won't stop now until we've made the entire campus a bastion of free speech." 

Commenting on the student pickets disruption of the University Meeting, ASUC President Charles Powell said: 

"Placards like `Sproul Hall Will Fall' and constant heckling and disruption among an audience... are... unnecessary at this stage of the issue, and a reflection of student sentiment of which I can no longer be proud." 

1. Several tables were set up on campus at both Bancroft-Telegraph and in front of Sather Gate. Only one or two of the tables had the required permits from the University. (According to the Dean of Students Office, permits were issued only to  "qualified organizations" that promised not to solicit money or members, or initiate or advocate any off-campus activity  other than voting.) Most of the organizations represented by tables would not make this promise and, in fact, were conducting such activities. 

Dean of Men Arleigh Williams and University police officers informed each of the tables that some of the activities being conducted were illegal; a few times they asked for identification from students manning the tables. Dean Williams said:  "Every effort will be made to remove those tables." But, he did not indicate if such an effort would involve action on the part of University police. 

Arthur Goldberg, a protest leader, was asked to make an appointment with Dean Williams. 

2. Representatives of protest groups met at 10:30 p.m. to plan future action. 

September 30

1. At noon, University Friends of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and Campus Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) set up tables at Sather Gate. Neither had permits from the Dean of Students Office. According to Mario Savio, SNCC spokesman, the student groups were denied permits because it was suspected that they would attempt to collect funds for off-campus political or social action. According to Brian Turner, who set up the SNCC table, funds were being collected, in direct violation of University regulations. 

University administration representatives approached each table, and took the names of those manning the tables. Five students--Mark Bravo, Brian Turner, Donald Hatch, Elizabeth Gardiner Stapleton, and David Goines--were requested to appear before Dean of Men Arleigh Williams at 3:00 p.m. for disciplinary action. That action triggered what was to become the first of the Sproul Hall sit-ins. 

2. At 3:00 p.m.--under the direction of Mario Savio, Arthur Goldberg and Sandor Fuchs --more than 500 students and protestors appeared outside Dean Williams' office. Savio, Goldberg and others stood on a narrow balcony outside the second floor lobby of Sproul Hall, shouting to passing students and those gathered on Sproul Hall steps, urging them to join the growing mass seated and standing outside the Dean of Students Office. 

Savio, the apparent spokesman for the protestors, presented a petition signed by more than 500 students: 

"We the undersigned have jointly manned tables at Sather Gate, realizing that we were in violation of University edicts to the contrary. We realize we may be subject to expulsion." 

1) That everyone in the group who signed be treated exactly the same as the students who were summoned into Dean Williams' office, and 
2) That all charges should be dropped until the University clarifies its policy, and it is clear whether or not there has been any violation. 

Dean Williams answered Savio's demands: 

"I can not make any guarantee to concede to any request. We are dealing only with observed violations, not unobserved violations. And, we will continue to do this." 

At 4:00 p.m., Dean Williams asked the original five students, plus the three demonstration leaders, to enter his office to discuss disciplinary action. None of the eight people summoned entered the Dean's office. 

Savio then announced that, since it appeared none of their demands had been met, that they would remain in Sproul Hall throughout the night:

"We want equal action," Savio declared. "And, that's no action, because they can't take action against all these people who are here. They're scared. We're staying." 

3. At about midnight Chancellor Edward W. Strong issued the following statement: 

"Students and student organizations today enjoy the fullest privileges in the history of the University, including discussing and advocacy on a broad spectrum of political and social issues. Some students demand on-campus solicitation of funds and planning and recruitment of off-campus social and political action. The University cannot allow its facilities to be so used without endangering its future as an independent educational institution. The issue now has been carried far beyond the bounds of discussion by a small minority of students. These students should recognize the fullness of the privileges extended to them by the University, and ask  themselves whether they wish to take further actions damaging to the University. 

"The University cannot and will not allow students to engage in deliberate violation of law and order on campus. The Slate Supplement Report this fall urged `open, fierce and thoroughgoing rebellion on the campus... in which the final resort will be Civil Disobedience.' Individual students must ask themselves whether they wish to be a part of such action. 

"When violations occur, the University must then take disciplinary steps. Such action is being taken. Eight students were informed individually by a representative of the Office of the Dean of Students that they were in violation of University regulations and were asked to desist. Each of the eight students refused to do so. I regret that these eight students by their willful misconduct in deliberately violating rules of the University have made it necessary for me to suspend them indefinitely from the University. I stand ready as always to meet with the officers of any student organization to discuss the policies of the University." 

Savio, one of the eight students suspended, acted as spokesman for the protestors. He said the issue will be met with continued protest. The three points of future protest action will be: 

1) A fight for the dropping of disciplinary action against the suspended students; 
2) A continuation of the fight for the demands on the free speech areas, including a proposed meeting with Chancellor Strong, and 
3) The stipulation that no disciplinary action be taken against any students participating in further demonstrations. 

As the evening progressed, the demonstrators continued their sit-in, lie-in, and representatives of the various political organizations supporting the "Free Speech Movement" (FSM)—the name born that evening—met to plan future moves. 

October 1

1. The first Sproul Hall sit-in broke up at approximately 2:40 a.m., when  demonstrators voted to leave the premises. Before leaving, they announced a rally to be held at noon on Sproul Hall steps. 

2. Several mimeographed fliers appeared on campus, calling for student and faculty support for the suspended students and announcing a "Free Speech Rally" at noon on Sproul Hall steps. 

3. At approximately 10:00 a.m. two tables were set up outside Sather Gate, and one at the foot of Sproul Hall steps. 

4. At approximately 11:45 a.m. Deans George S. Murphy and Peter Van Houten, with University Police Lieutenant Merrill F. Chandler approached and spoke to a man who was soliciting funds at the Campus CORE table at the foot of Sproul Hall steps. The man, later identified as Jack Weinberg, a former student, refused to identify himself or to leave the table. Lieutenant Chandler arrested the man for trespassing. Weinberg went limp. Instead of carrying Weinberg into police headquarters in Sproul Hall, University police moved a police car into the area where students were gathering for the noon rally, intending to remove Weinberg by auto. 

The crowd chanted "Release him! Release him!" About 100 students promptly lay down in front of the police car, another 80 or so sat behind it. Mario Savio removed his shoes and climbed on top of it, urging the gathering crowd to join in. 

By noon, about 300 demonstrators surrounded the immobile police car; by 12:30 p.m., several thousand students were crowded around the car--which became the focal point and rostrum for the next 32 hours of student demonstrations. 

Weinberg remained inside the captured police car throughout the two-day demonstration. He was fed sandwiches and milk through an open window. 

Savio demanded Weinberg's release and the lifting of University prohibitions against soliciting funds and memberships on campus: 

"We were going to hold a rally. We didn't know how to get the people. But, we've got them now, thanks to the University... 

"Strong must say no to the suspensions. He must agree to meet with the political organizations. And, there must be no disciplinary action against anyone before the meeting! 

"And, I'm publicly serving notice that we're going to continue direct action until they (the Administration) accede. I suggest that we go into that building (Sproul Hall) and sit on the desks and chairs and make it impossible for them to continue their work." 

"I can see now that your cause is just," Powell said. He asked that, instead of a mob scene in Sproul Hall, only he and Savio enter the building to meet with Dean Williams. 

Dean Arleigh Williams told Savio and Powell that the matter was out of his jurisdiction. He referred them to Chancellor Strong, with whom they discussed the problem. 

Chancellor Strong refused Savio's demands. He said the University would not give in to pressure, the suspensions would stand, and that a meeting was possible only if the demonstrations ceased. 

Savio and Powell returned from their meeting with Chancellor Strong at about 1:45 p.m. 

Powell offered to have the ASUC Senate attempt to deal with the entire situation concerning the University's edict. The crowd refused Powell's offer, and he left. 

At approximately 2:30 p.m., Savio suggested the demonstrators force their way into Sproul Hall, in order to hinder operations of the Administration there: 

"I recommend that 500 of you stay here around this auto and others join me in taking our request back to the deans." 

About 4:00 p.m., the demonstrators inside now numbered about 400, voted to pack solidly in front of the door to the Deans' office, and not allow anyone out. Deans Peter Van  Houten and Arleigh Williams were trapped within the office by this maneuver. 

The situation remained static until about 5:30 p.m. when Savio, again atop the automobile, announced "a committee of independent faculty members" would try to make contact with high administration officials. If contact was made, the group decided, the students in Sproul Hall would be notified and would leave the building.  The students also voted to have the faculty committee notify them as soon as contact was made with the Administration. Within a short time, contact was made with Vice Chancellor Alex Sheriffs, but a breakdown in communications prevented the students being notified. 

At 6:15 p.m., 45 minutes before the scheduled closing, campus and Berkeley  police officers began closing the front doors of Sproul Hall. Angered, about 100 of the approximately 2000 students outside Sproul Hall charged the doors, packing them to prevent their closing. Two police officers were pulled to the floor; one lost his hat and shoes (which were returned to him as he escaped into the building) and  was bitten on the leg. About 20 police officers took up stations at the foot of the main stairway leading from the Sproul Hall lobby to the second floor, where the Deans' offices are. The students took up positions on the lobby floor. 

After a long discussion, the demonstrators outside decided to form a united front, and ordered those inside the building to come outside to join them on the mall. All but five of those inside Sproul Hall at the time obeyed the summons. The remaining five were left unmolested. The demonstrations then continued around the police car on the mall between Sproul Hall and the Student Union. 

5. Demonstration leaders met in a closed meeting at 10:00 p.m. They decided:

1) The demonstrators would attempt to remain on the steps and in the mall through Family Day on Saturday, Oct. 3. 
2) Tables would be set up at Sather Gate, separate from the Sproul Hall demonstrations, in the hope that more people would be suspended. 
3) A rally would be held at noon tomorrow (Oct. 2), centering around the car carrying Weinberg.
4) After the rally, groups of demonstrators again would move into the second floor of Sproul Hall and block off the Dean of Students Office. 

7. California Governor Edmund G. Brown issued the following statement:

"I support fully the stand of U.C. President Clark Kerr and Berkeley Chancellor Edward W. Strong. 

"This is not a matter of freedom of speech on the campuses. I and President Kerr and The Regents have long fought to maintain freedom of speech and an Open Forum policy on all the campuses of the University. 

"This is purely and simply an attempt on the part of the students to use the campuses of the University unlawfully by soliciting funds and recruiting students for off-campus activities. 

"This will not be tolerated. We must have—and will continue to have—law and order on our campuses." 

"Because two facts respecting University policies on students and student organizations are still being misunderstood or misrepresented by some persons, I want again to emphasize these two facts: 

"1. The University's policy prohibiting planning and recruiting on campus for off-campus political and social action, and prohibiting also the solicitation or receipt of funds for such purposes is now and has always been the unchanged policy of the University. 

"2. The University has not restricted or curtailed freedom of speech of students on campus by any change of its own Open Forum policy. 

"No instance of a newly imposed restriction or curtailment of freedom of speech on campus can be truthfully alleged for the simple reason that none exists. 

"Freedom of speech by students on campus is not the issue. The issue is one presented by deliberate violations of University rules and regulations by some students in an attempt to bring about a change of the University policy prohibiting use of University facilities by political, social and action groups." 

"The facts are these: 
"The prohibition on the solicitation of funds and membership on campus for partisan issues is not a ruling of the Chancellor or of President Clark Kerr.
"It is, in fact, a State law.
"Therefore, the only rational and proper action at this point is to seek changes in the law. Those opportunities are not here on the campus--but in the houses of the State Legislature.
"In a conference with President Kerr, I have been told that mob violence and mass demonstrations directed at the Administration will, in no way, do anything to alleviate the problem.
"In fact, we are indeed losing support among the Regents for concessions which have already been made. 
"I am certain, and President Kerr has confirmed this fear, that if demonstrations such as today's continue, we will lose the Open Forum policy. 
"This is a tradition for which all students and President Kerr have fought long and hard, and one which we need not lose.
"I appeal to my fellow students.
"I ask that you not oppose the Administration—the Administration can do nothing to meet the demands being made. 
"But this I do ask, write your State legislators, then give your full-hearted support to the ASUC Senate which will ask the property at Bancroft and Telegraph be deeded to the City of Berkeley for municipal administration.
"Above all, I ask you to discontinue demonstrations which are endangering lives, property, and the Open Forum policy which the entire University community enjoys." 

"The conservative campus groups fully agree with the purpose of the sit-ins in Sproul Hall. Individual members of our organizations have expressed their sympathy by joining in the picketing on the steps of the Hall, and will continue to do so.

"However, our belief in lawful redress of grievances prevents us from joining the sit-ins. But, let no one mistake our intent. The United Front still stands." 

1. The Daily Californian, the campus student newspaper, printed the following editorial, bordered in black and signed by the Senior Editorial Board: 

"Last night the students became a near mob, with a police car for their symbol.
"The demonstrators surrounded a police car in front of Sproul Hall as a banner for their disobedience against University authority. It became a symbol of their power. And yet when an opposition force appeared late last night from the fraternities and residence halls, the demonstrators appealed to the police to maintain `law and order.' 
"No one can rationally justify the simultaneous defiance of authority on one hand, the expectation of protection on the other. 
"We feel that, under these circumstances, the demonstrations have dissolved into a morass of distorted goals, inconsistent means, and blindness to their fallibility.
"The demonstrators say that the campus administration is no longer open for discussion. How can the demonstrators themselves be open for rational discussion when the basic issues of solicitation of funds, recruitment of members and `mounting social and political action' have been wholly overshadowed by defiance?
"The antagonists of late last night exhibited something just as dangerous. They overflowed with an explosive sing-song belligerence. They went to Sproul Hall with anger and without reason--and almost touched off a riot.
"The entire Open Forum policy has been threatened by the action of both of these student groups. The concept of the Open Forum will continue to be in jeopardy at the hands of persons completely outside the University if the same irrational and rash challenges to the Administration's final decision continue. 
"The Administration has drawn the line at what it believes is the last concession on the University level. We completely believe they are telling the truth. 
"Those who espouse over-simplified concepts of the issues and solutions, will tell you otherwise. 
"The University has drawn the last line it can. 
"We therefore suggest that the emotional commitment of the past two weeks needs a drastic reappraisal. We urge the students to think by themselves—not by the group." 

Demonstrations around the stranded police car, still containing Jack Weinberg, continued throughout the day. Sproul Hall was locked, except for one police-guarded door at the South end through which those with legitimate business inside could pass. A pup tent was pitched on one of the lawns. The entire mall area was littered with sleeping bags, blankets, books, and the debris of the all-night vigil. 

Speakers continued to harangue the crowd from the top of the sagging police car, gathering momentum as noon approached. At noon, lunch-time onlookers enlarged the crowd to close to 4,000 persons. 

3. At 10:30 a.m., after President Kerr and Chancellor Strong agreed that the situation had to be brought under control, a high-level meeting of administrators, deans and representatives of at least four law enforcement agencies was held to formulate plans for handling the demonstrations. At 11:55 a.m., representatives of the Governor's Office and the President's Office joined the session. (It was agreed that Chancellor Strong would read a statement at 6:00 p.m., declaring the assembled group an unlawful assemblage and asking the crowd to disperse. To enforce Chancellor Strong's declaration, plans also were drawn up for a mass movement of police officers onto the campus for the purpose of arresting those demonstrators who refused to comply with Chancellor Strong's request to disperse.) 

4. At about 4:15 p.m., demonstration spokesmen asked to meet with President Kerr, President Kerr and Chancellor Strong agreed to meet with the protest leaders at 5:00 p.m. 

5. At 4:45 p.m. police officers from Oakland, Alameda County, Berkeley and the California Highway Patrol began marching onto the campus, taking up positions at the north and south ends of Sproul Hall and on Barrows Lane, behind the Administration building. Some 500 officers, including over 100 motorcycle police, were on hand by 5:30 p.m., some armed with long riot sticks. 

As the police arrived, onlookers and protest sympathizers  swelled the crowd between Sproul Hall and the Student Union to more than 7,000. Spectators lined the Student Union balcony and the roof of the Dining Commons. 

As the possibility of police action agaist the demonstrators increased, protestors were instructed on "how to be arrested" (remove sharp objects from pockets, remove valuable rings and watches, loosen clothing, pack closely together, do not link arms, go limp) and were counseled on their legal rights (give only your name and address, ask to see your lawyer, do not make any statements). All persons with small children, those under 18 years of age, non-citizens, and those on parole or probation were advised to leave. 

And, as six campus police officers penetrated the periphery of the crowd—in an effort to reinforce the stranded police car—the demonstrators packed themselves solidly around the car. 

6. At about 5:30 p.m., the demonstrators were informed that the meeting between protest leaders and University officials was in progress at University House, and that President Kerr had promised no police action until after that meeting. Participating in the negotiations were President Kerr, Chancellor Strong, members of an informal faculty group, student leaders, representatives of the Inter-Faith Council, and nine demonstration spokesmen. A six-point agreement was reached and was signed by President Kerr and the demonstration spokesmen. The meeting was disbanded at 7:15 p.m. 

7. At approximately 7:20 p.m., the crowd was informed that an agreement had been reached, and that the protest spokesmen were en route from University House to present it to the demonstrators.  8. At 7:30 p.m., with President Kerr and Chancellor Strong watching from the steps of Sproul Hall (the crowd was unaware of their presence), Mario Savio mounted the flattened roof of the police car to read the agreement:  "1. The student demonstrators shall desist from all forms of their illegal protest against University regulations.  "2. A committee representing students (including leaders of the demonstration), faculty, and administration will immediately be set up to conduct discussions and hearing into all aspects of political behavior on campus and its control, and to make recommendations to the administration.  "3. The arrested man will be booked, released on his own recognizance, and the University (complainant) will not press charges. 

"4. The duration of the suspension of the suspended students will be submitted within one week to the Student Conduct Committee of the Academic Senate. 

; "5. Activity may be continued by student organizations in accordance with existing University regulations. 

"6. The President of the University has already declared his willingness to support deeding certain University property at the end of Telegraph Avenue to the City of Berkeley or to the ASUC." 

(The agreement was signed by Clark Kerr, Jo Freeman, Paul C. Cahill, Sandor Fuchs, Robert Wolfson, David Jessup, Jackie Goldberg, Eric Levine, Mario Savio and Thomas Miller.) 

At 7:40 p.m., Mario Savio said: 

"Let us agree by acclamation to accept this document. I ask you to rise quietly and
with dignity, and go home." 

9. At 7:50 p.m., President Clark Kerr held a news conference in Sproul Hall. Chancellor Strong was present, but did not take part. Outside the window, the students were dispersing. The police officers had been dismissed. President Kerr said: "Law and order have been restored without the use of force." University rules remain unchanged, he said. The arrested non-student trespasser (Jack Weinberg) has been booked by police. Although the University agreed not to press charges, President Kerr said he could not speak for the district attorney. The eight suspended students remain suspended. Their cases will be reviewed, under the regular procedures, by a faculty committee. The faculty committee's suggestions ong. Final disposition is still in the hands of the Administration, President Kerr stressed. 

Chancellor Strong, the President continued, will issue appointments to the special ad hoc committee to be established under point two of the agreement. Four students, four faculty members and four Administration representatives will be named to the committee. Two of the students will be named from among those who negotiated the agreement with President Kerr. 

October 3

Edward W. Carter, chairman of the University Board of Regents, issued the following statement: 

"Law and order have been re-established on the Berkeley campus of the University of California. That this was accomplished without violence is a tribute to President Clark Kerr and his administrative staff. All applicable University rules remain unchanged; the non-student arrested has been booked by the police; the eight suspended students are still on suspension, and the regular procedures for review of student conduct and grievances are functioning. 

"A faculty committee will review individual cases in an orderly manner, and in due course will make recommendations for their disposition by the properly constituted administrative authorities. 

"It is regrettable that a relatively small number of students, together with certain off-campus agitators should have precipitated so unfortunate an incident." 

October 4

1. California Governor Edmund G. Brown pledged to maintain law and order on University campuses and asked President Kerr to prepare, "as soon as possible," a full and complete report on the student demonstration: 

"I would like a detailed account of its causes, what actions were taken and why, what issues were involved, and what recommendations you have for preventing similar situations in the future." 

2. President Clark Kerr, answering Governor Brown's request, said the Administration "has already begun an investigation and analysis" of the demonstrations. Kerr's statement said, in part: 

"Law and order were restored to the Berkeley campus without the use of force--a result the Governor desired as much as I. 

"...All applicable University rules remain unchanged; the non-student arrested as a trespasser has been booked by the police. The eight suspended students are still under suspension and the regular procedures for review of student conductand grievances are functioning."

President Kerr described the situation as "highly complicated... 

"Students with left-wing and right-wing political orientation  are more active than ever before. Off-campus elements excite this orientation. As a consequence, the historical position of the University against being made a base for political direct action is placed under unusual attack. 

"At the same time, the world and national situations have most unfortunately placed more emphasis in the minds of a few students on direct action, even outside the limits of the law, than on compliance with law and order and democratic process. 

"Nevertheless, the University is fully responsible for the maintenance of law and order and the guarantee that it remain an educational institution."

1) Ernest-Besig, executive director of the Northern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), disputed the University's interpretation of the State Constitutional clause relating to political and sectarian activity on the campus (Article IX, Section 9, see Appendix). His statement was issued October 1: "The ACLU does not share the opinion of the University Administration that the constitutional ban on political and sectarian activity is aimed at students."  Bessig said the ACLU Board of Directors would consider intervening on behalf of the eight suspended students. 

2) The Executive Committee of the Association of California State College Professors expressed support for the student protestors: "Participation in social action, whether it is political or non-political ought not only to be permitted, but actively encouraged, so long as it does not interfere with the regular instructional program..." 

3) The Inter-Faith Staff Workers and Student Leaders, a local religious group,  supported the aims of the protestors: "We affirm the right of members of the campus community to solicit funds, distribute literature and recruit members for involvement in common action." 

4) Cal Students for Goldwater supported the Regent's right to regulate as they deem necessary and complained of the non-enforcement of rules applying to campus political activities, according to Morris E. Hurley, vice president. 

1) Tomorrow (Oct. 5), Chancellor Strong will send the names of the eight suspended students to the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct. 
2) Tomorrow (Oct. 5), Chancellor Strong will send out letters of appointment to members of the student-faculty-administration committee which will discuss the dispute. 
3) The University has not pressed charges against Jack Weinberg (for trespassing), but re-emphasized the administration had no authority to speak for the district attorney's office. 

1. Protestors held a noon rally on Sproul Hall steps, claimed victory and voiced their approval of Friday evening's agreement. Art Goldberg said: 

"We ask only the right to say what we feel when we feel like it. We'll continue to fight for this freedom, and we won't quit until we've won." 

Mario Savio, one of the demonstration leaders who negotiated the agreement with President Kerr and who urged the students to accept the agreement, stated that "although the whole war is far from over, we have won the biggest battle." That battle, he explained, was to gain "jurisdictional recognition" from President Kerr of faculty- student-administration committee to negotiate the "free speech" issue. 

To answer what he considered President Kerr's implication of a Communist tinge to the anti-ban movement, Savio decried the "great bogeyman raised... whenever a roup is working for social change. No one wants to admit that large numbers of people are sick and fed up with the way things are." 

A number of speakers addressed the assembled students, including several of the eight suspended students, Professor John Leggett of sociology, Professor Charles Sellers of history, and Warren Coats of the Young Republicans. Statements of support were read, including a document signed by 43 political science and economics teaching assistants, commending demonstrators' goals. 

The rally was technically illegal under University regulations regarding non-student speakers. It was permitted, however, under a "special waiver" signed by Dean of Students Katherine A. Towle. Dean Towle explained: 

"We are honoring the spirit of the President's agreement and therefore have granted a special waiver for this meeting today, so that leaders of the demonstration may discuss the written agreement of last Friday." 
(University regulations require non-student speakers to wait 72 hours after officially requesting permission from the Dean's office to speak on campus. Most of the leaders of the current demonstrations are either suspended or non-students. No one requested permission for them to speak at this rally.)

(The Daily Californian speculated, on Oct. 6, that both sides had maneuvered behind the scenes to persuade the other to back down on the rally issue. The Administration wanted the students to postpone the rally—or, hold it on city property--apparently to avoid embarrassment over allowing anti-ban students to again break University regulations. The student protestors wanted to hold it on Sproul steps, in order to honor their Friday night announcement of the rally's location and time. Apparently, the students won.) 

2. In an effort to atone for damage to the police car during the Thursday and Friday demonstrations, the students began a collection of funds to help pay the $334.30 in damages to the police car. 

3. Chancellor Edward W. Strong turned the cases of the suspended students over to the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct, in accord with the agreement between the demonstrators and President Kerr to submit the suspensions to adjudication within one week. Unfortunately, as the Chancellor found out--and everyone soon knew--there was no "Student Conduct Committee of the Academic Senate," as specified in the agreement. The Faculty Committee on Student Conduct is a duly constituted committee, and, even if it had been asked to do so, the Academic Senate would have been unable to set  up an ad hoc committee to hear these cases before October 13, well beyond the 0ne-week deadline stipulated in the agreement. 

4. Chancellor Strong also announced appointments to the faculty-student-administration Study Committee on Campus Political Activity. They were: 

Faculty: Robley Williams, professor of virology; Theodore Vermeulen, professor of chemical engineering; Joseph Garbarino, professor of business administration; and Henry Rosovsky, professor of economics. 
Students: ASUC President Charles Powell and Marsha Bratten, both winners of the 1964 Robert Gordon and Ida W. Sproul Awards. Two additional student members will represent the demonstrators. 
Administration: Katherine A. Towle, dean of students; Milton Chernin, dean of the School of Social Welfare; William Fretter, dean of the College of Letters and Sciences; and Alan Searcy, recently appointed vice chancellor for academic affairs. 

1. The FSM Steering Committee met with Vice Chancellor Alan Searcy to protest Chancellor Strong's "unilateral" appointment of the Committee on Campus Political Activity without consulting the demonstrators and to express dissatisfaction with the way student-administration negotiations were proceeding. Arthur Goldberg said the Chancellor's action was "almost a breech of good faith by the administration... 

"It is dangerous to start out so arbitrarily. The University has put us in an impossible position before we start." 

The protestors argued that a special committee of the Academic Senate should choose the faculty members; the students would choose the student members. 
2. The ASUC Senate passed a resolution asking President Charles Powell to meet with President Kerr "to determine whether the Administration has violated the spirit of Friday's agreement..." The Powell-Kerr meeting would center on two points: 

1) The manner of the Administration's appointment of faculty members to the faculty - student - administration committee agreed to on Friday, and 
2) The Administration's referral of the cases of the suspended students to the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct. 

The ASUC Senate's first move would be a poll to determine whether "the students wish it to attempt to secure control of the Bancroft-Telegraph area... and if they would assent to the use of ASUC funds for the purchase of the land." The Senate would consider itself bound by the poll's results. 

If the students approved, two possible alternatives would be considered: 

1) The ASUC would purchase the land and donate it to the City of Berkeley, or to a trust of the Senate's choosing, or 
2) The land will be donated or sold outright to the City of Berkeley. 

1) The Administration tried to force the anti-ban students to postpone Monday's rally for seventy-two hours (in conformance with the University's rules regarding non-student speakers).
2) The Administration should let the Academic Senate choose the faculty members of the negotiating committee, rather than select them itself, which the Administration already had done. 
3) The district attorney was pressing charges against Jack Weinberg, even though the Administration had agreed not to. (President Kerr, in announcing the agreement, carefully pointed out that the University's decision not to press charges against Weinberg did not prohibit the district attorney's doing so.) 
4) The Academic Senate Committee on Student Conduct does not exist. According to Friday's agreement, the cases of the suspended students were to be eferred to this group. Instead, Wilson charged, the cases have been referred to the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct, which is appointed by the Administration. 

October 7

The Committee on Campus Political Activity held its first meeting. Ten FSM spokesmen appeared, presented a statement condemning the Committee as illegally constituted and asked it to disband, then left. The statement read, in part: 

"As the duly elected representatives of the Free Speech Movement (FSM), we cannot in good conscience recognize the legitimacy of the present meeting. 
"This present meeting is a result of unilateral action by the Administration, and as such we cannot participate...
"... We were not even officially notified of this meeting.
"... We respectfully request this body consider itself illegally constituted and disband." 

Following a three-hour session, minus FSM representatives, the Study Committee issued two statements: 

1) The Committee will conduct discussions, hold hearings, and finally draft recommendations to the Administration as to proper University policy. 

2) The Committee will hold its first public hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday (Oct. 13) in a room to be announced. 

October 8

1. An FSM spokesman claimed the demonstrators were surprised to discover the purpose of the Committee was study--not negotiation. (The first announcement of the Committee's name and purpose was made in statements issued last night.) 

Jack Weinberg said: 

"The Administration feels they have the sole right to  say what this committee is supposed to do." 

2. Two conservative groups took issue with the political ideas of the two students who may ultimately represent the demonstrators on the study committee. In a joint statement, the University Young Republicans and the Cal Students for Gold-water charged: 

These two are, in fact, being chosen by a sub-caucus called the `Steering Committee,' a group which believes in unlawful solutions to legitimate problems, and which represents solely left-to-center political groups." 

FSM's press relations group answered the above charges: 
1) FSM's Steering Committee had attempted to reach the conservative groups, but had been unable to do so.
2) The Steering Committee had been democratically elected from members of the Executive Committee (which is composed of representatives of all student groups involved in the demonstrations). 
3) FSM intended to add four independent students to its Steering Committee at a 7:00 p.m. meeting tonight. 

4. President Clark Kerr, during a speech before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, said: 

"The situation (at Berkeley) is new in that students are more activist than before and that diverse groups... are attacking the historic policies of the University. Students are encouraged, as never before, by elements external to the University." 

Kerr also described the incident as "one episode--a single campus, a small minority of students, a short period of time." 

5. President Clark Kerr answered student charges of "bad faith" on the part of the Administration in a statement released tonight: 

"A question has been raised about the appointment of the joint advisory committee. The minutes of the meeting show the following: 
" `Kerr: This committee would have to be appointed by the administration.' 
"It was noted that it was the only agency with authorization to appoint faculty, students and administrators. 
"A question has also been raised about the `Student Conduct Committee of the Academic Senate.' This is a misnomer. It was used in a draft prepared by an informal group of faculty members. I did not catch the misstatement at the time; nor did anyone else. The only such committee that exists is the `Faculty Committee on Student Conduct' which is composed of faculty members. The minutes show the following: 
"`Kerr: We need to understand that the Committee does not make final determinations. You would have to be aware that you would be dependent also on whatever confidence you have in the decency and fairness of the Administration and respect for it.' 
"The campus administration went ahead promptly to show its good faith in appointing the joint committee and submitting the suspension cases to the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct. The campus administration reserved two of four student places for representatives of the demonstrators as they clearly represent only a minority of students." 

"We who have sought to mediate some of the issues growing out of the recent demonstration, deeply regret that the present steering committee of the demonstrators took during the negotiations a rigid and unreasonable position on the question of student representatives, jeopardizing the successful organization of the student-faculty-administration committee. 
"We continue to believe firmly in the importance of maximum freedom for peaceful student political action, and in company with all individuals whose primary interest lies in this end, we shall bend every effort to realize that objective." 

8. Dean of Men Arleigh Williams sent letters to the eight suspended students, informing them that in accordance with the agreement, their cases had been referred to the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct. The letters also asked the students to appear in the Dean of Students Office to set times for hearings. (Two students appeared, but none submitted himself to the Committee.) 

9. The Northern California branch of the American Civil Liberties Union announced it has agreed "to intervene on behalf of the students recently suspended by the University... 

"The ACLU's position is that the regulations which the students were alleged to have broken violate their political rights as guaranteed by the first amendment... the ACLU will challenge the suspensions as a violation of due process of law." 

11. A petition was circulated among student leaders by Sharon Mock, ASUC second vice president. The petition expressed a belief... 

"... that rational democratic procedures should be used to voice opinion and to revise laws, since we as Americans have benefitted by this process for years. 
"We condemn the methods... used by a minority of students and non-students which are disrupting the educational process through the deliberate violation of present University and State regulations. We also wish to preserve the Open Forum Policy which now exists on our campus as a result of orderly democratic procedure." 
(The petition was signed by the presidents of Inter-Fraternity Council, Winged Helmet, Deutsch, Davidson, Griffiths and Cheney Halls, Treble Clef, the Commuter-Independent Association, Golden Guard, and the Spirit and Honor Society. It also was signed by the entire Panhellenic Council, most of the Board and Cabinet of the Associated Women Students, and by 29 Oski Dolls.) 

1. The FSM Steering Committee met with Chancellor Strong and called for suspension of activities of the Study Committee until representatives of the Administration and the FSM could reach agreement on "the interpretation and implementation of the Pact of October Second" and either immediate reinstatement of the suspended students, or submission of their cases to an ad hoc committee of the Academic Senate, with the provision that the Administration would abide by their decision. 

The FSM representatives stated that they could not recognize the legality of the Study Committee without jeopardizing their leadership and control of the situation. hey also maintained that, not only the students, but also the faculty members elected to serve on the Committee should be appointed by negotiations between the FSM and the Chancellor on selections acceptable to the FSM. 

Chancellor Strong answered that, since the Study Committee had been appointed and was meeting, he would ask it for advice on the propriety of suspending its activities. He also said that, since interpretation of the intent of the Agreement was best referred to the signers, they might discuss that point with the President. Chancellor Strong also explained that he had referred the cases of the suspended students to the only existing appropriate committee that could have been meant by the October 2 Agreement. 

2. A petition, signed by 88 members of the faculty, was presented to the Chancellor, urging reinstatement of the suspended students. 

October 13

1. The Academic Senate passed two motions: 

1) The first noted "with pleasure the general improvement in recent years in the atmosphere of free inquiry and free exchange of opinion within the University." This motion also declared in favor of "maximum freedom of student political activity," and directed the Committee on Academic Freedom to inquire into recent events and report to the Senate as quickly as possible. 
2) The second motion recognized "the welfare of the University can only be maintained if the peace and order of an intellectual community are also maintained," and called upon all parties "to resolve the dispute in peaceful and orderly fashion" and "make full use of the joint faculty-student-administration committee for that purpose." 

3. The Study Committee on Campus Political Activity held its first public meeting at 7:30 p.m. in Harmon Gymnasium. Approximately 300 students attended. The Committee heard testimony from fifty students, all but one of whom, as instructed by an insert in the FSM Newsletter, stated that the Committee was illegally constituted and should disband. 

October 14

Professor Arthur Ross, chairman of the Committee on University Welfare, met with the FSM Steering Committee and agreed to discuss with the administration proposed modifications of the interpretation of the Agreement of October 2. 

October 15

1. Agreements were reached with the FSM, the Administration, the Regents and the Study Committee, and were announced to a meeting of the Academic Senate by a communication from President Kerr and Chancellor Strong, both of whom were attending the Board of Regents meeting at Davis. The points of the new agreement were: 

1) The Study Committee was expanded from 12 to 18 members. The new members will include two faculty members named by the Committee on Committees of the Academic Senate; two administration members to be named by the President to represent the University-wide administration; and two additional student members plus the two members initially assigned them to be named by the FSM Steering Committee. The Study Committee would hold two or three public hearings a week and finish such hearings within three weeks. No more than five silent observers and two silent attorneys were to attend all meetings, and all findings and recommendations were to be by consensus. 
2) The Academic Senate was asked to appoint an ad hoc committee to hear the cases of the eight students suspended two weeks ago. The ad hoc committee was to be advisory to the administration. 

The Academic Senate, during the same meeting, also passed a motion introduced by Frank C. Newman, dean of Boalt Hall School of Law: 

"Whereas, the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate recently has gone on record as favoring maximum freedom for student political activity and the use of peaceful and orderly procedures in settling disputes;  "And, whereas, the attitude of the Division has been widely misunderstood as condoning lawlessness, now, therefore, this body reaffirms its convictions that force and violence have no place on this campus." 

"The Regents have concluded that in view of the study being conducted by the appropriate committee, no useful purpose would be served by considering whether your group should be heard by the Regents at this time." 

5. The FSM Executive Committee met briefly this evening and accepted the changes in the Study Committee and in the appointment of the ad hoc Academic Senate committee. Following this meeting, Art Goldberg said: 

"For the first time in the history of the University, an  administration treated its students as representative members of the University community. This is a major event in the life of the University and for all the students on campus." 

1. The FSM Steering Committee issued a statement at 12:30 a.m.: 

"The FSM has every hope that the negotiations which we are entering into with the administration can be productive. 
"However, we hope that President Kerr's attack upon us is not an indication of an unhealthy attitude with which the administration is entering these negotiations. 
"It is regrettable that the President has resorted to such attacks and that the Board of Regents has permitted President Kerr's attack." 

The Regents also "reaffirmed the University's traditional policy of encouraging maximum freedom with responsibility and disapproving resort to force or violence." 

October 18

The FSM Executive Committee nominated its representatives to the Committee on Campus Political Activity: Mario Savio, Bettina Aptheker, Sydney Stapleton, and Suzanne Goldberg.

October 20

1. Chancellor Edward W. Strong appointed the four FSM candidates to the Study Committee. Upon nomination of the Committee on Committees of the Academic Senate, he also appointed Earl F. Cheit, professor of business administration, and Sanford H. Kadish, professor of law. 

2. Particle Berkeley, an on-campus group devoted to encouraging student scientific research, was warned by the Dean of Students Office that it faced the possibility of losing on-campus status, if it joined the Free Speech Movement. 

Jack Weinberg, as FSM spokesman, said: 

"We hope this is not an indication of future punishment to be given on-campus groups involved in the FSM. 
" `On- and off-campus' means `what we like and what we don't like' to the Administration. 
"This is a bad omen, especially at the start of negotiations on the free speech issue."

3. Chancellor Edward W. Strong issued a statement warning of possible further demonstrations led by "hard core demonstrators": 

"The hard core demonstrators still are going to try to open the campus," he said. Chancellor Strong identified "hard core demonstrators" as activists who had spent the summer in Mississippi as civil rights workers. Strong went on to say: "The University will not be used as a bastion for the planning and implementation of political and social action." He said the activists returned to Berkeley thinking the University should become more directly involved in social justice, and that some of those involved were "professional demonstrators, but I won't smear all the other good kids by calling it Communist-led." As far as freedom of speech was concerned, Strong said "the University has truly an Open Forum policy, but we have to draw a line between the freedom and the planning and implementing of political action." 

"If `hard core demonstrations' means that we are still going to fight for our principles and the Free Speech Movement, then Chancellor Strong is right." Goldberg said it was possible that some of the demonstrators had been in Mississippi during the summer. 
There are two types of "political action," Goldberg explained. "It's sort of like the double standard--we (FSM) are the girls, with lock-out, and the administration is the boys, with no limitations. When they want to talk about their Democrat and Republican politics, it's `University policy.' 
"But, if we say anything about social action, or something that might make people think, it becomes `too political.' If the University has a true Open Forum, why can't we advocate social action? It seems we have a closed Open Forum." 

6. The expanded Committee on Campus Political Action agreed that all decisions would be by consensus of students, faculty and administration, each voting as a bloc with one vote. 

October 25

The Ad Hoc Academic Senate Committee on Student Suspensions (known as the Heyman Committee) requested that the eight suspended students be reinstated during the course of the Committee's hearings. 

October 26

1. Chancellor Edward W. Strong refused the Heyman Committee's request for reinstatement of the eight suspended students. 

2. The FSM Steering Committee issued a policy statement, charging "the Regents have had legislation drafted which would make certain forms of otherwise legal demonstrations on campus misdemeanors." The Steering Committee also accused President Kerr of changing the regulations governing political activity on campus (presumably, subsequent to the changes made at the beginning of the semester). The Steering Committee also stated: 

"If the administration refuses to acknowledge the right to advocate off-campus political and social action, we shall have to consider action as well as talk."

"We may soon have to admit that the administration does not mean to deal fairly with us." 

1) Instead of stating he supported the work of the Committee  on Campus Political Activity. President Kerr attacked the FSM as "non-students and Communists." 
2) Chancellor Strong has refused to reinstate, for the duration of their hearings, the eight students suspended for their part in the free speech demonstrations. Thus, "apparently the students are guilty until proven innocent." 
3) The Committee on Campus Political Activity will not allow the FSM counsel to question witnesses on points of law. 

1) Freedom to advocate off-campus political and social action. 
2) Freedom to recruit for off-campus political organizations. 
3) Freedom to solicit funds for off-campus political causes.
4) Freedom from harassment of `72-hour rules' and the mandatory presence at meetings of tenured faculty moderators and police. 

Peter Franck, head of the Berkeley ACLU chapter, proposed two alternative methods of testing the constitutionality of the University regulations: 

1) Challenge directly the suspensions of the eight students, or 
2) Have someone else violate the regulations. 

4. Thomas Cunningham, University general counsel, had "no comment" on the FSM-Franck charges that his office was drafting restrictive legislation. Other University sources denied knowledge of either alleged action. 

October 27

1. Chancellor Edward W. Strong announced the appointment of two University-wide administration representatives to the Committee on Campus Political Action, bringing the Committee to full complement. The administration representatives were Robert B. Brode, academic assistant to the President and professor of physics, and Frank L. Kidner, University dean of educational relations and professor of economics. 

2. Two University faculty members attacked the University regulations governing student off-campus political activity during an open forum meeting of the Graduate Coordinating Council. 

Seymour M. Lipset, professor of sociology and director of the Institute of International Studies, described the rules as "irrelevant and destructive to the purposes of the University. Social action is relevant" to both graduate and undergraduate education. He said that while the University has liberalized a great deal in the last six years, it still has not gone far enough. He said he felt President Kerr has been responsible for "very significant changes" in the liberalization of the University. 

John R. Searle, associate professor of philosophy, claimed that, while the avowed function of the regulations is to keep the campus politically neutral, the actual result is an "increase in the alienation, hostility and contempt" of the students toward the Administration. 

October 28

1. The Committee on Campus Political Activity considered a recommendation that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution be the only policy regarding political expression on campus. The recommendation was introduced by FSM representative Sid Stapleton. Although the Committee did not adopt Stapleton's motion, Mario Salvio, another FSM representative, expressed pleasure with the proceedings. However, Savio said, if the Committee did not adopt the First Amendment as the only policy regarding speech on campus, "we will have to consider more direct action." 

The Committee also heard an explanation, by Dean of Students Katherine A. Towle, of University policy regarding on-campus and off-campus groups, and activities permitted these groups. It was permissible, she said, for a speaker to recommend certain actions be taken, but it was not permissible for a speaker to advocate such actions be committed: 

"A speaker may say, for instance, that there is going to be a picket line at such-and-such a place, and it is a worthy cause and he hopes people will go. But, he cannot say, `I'll meet you there and we'll picket'." 

November 2

1. The FSM Newsletter strongly criticized Chancellor Strong and President Kerr, made several references to possible "direct action," and said: 

"We repeat: when the morass of mediation becomes too thick to see through, action must let in the light." 

"The leaders of FSM must realize that if they wish the recommendations of the committee to be seriously considered by Chancellor Strong, the recommendations will necessarily need strong support of the entire committee, and threatening the committee with subtle hints that future demonstrations will ensue is definitely not the wise course to take." 

2. Chancellor Edward W. Strong, addressing the Town and Gown Club, said: 

"Finally, there is the problem of keeping the University true to its role and purpose in society. We cannot permit the University to be used or exploited for purposes not in accord with its charter as an educational institution in a democratic society. The University is a public trust. It was founded to enlighten the minds of its students and to prepare them for useful careers as educated men and women. Freedom of thought and inquiry is essential for the sifting of ideas, the advancement of knowledge, and the discovery of truth. No less essential, as the accompaniment  of intellectual freedom, is exercise of that freedom with responsibility. No civilized society can endure if obligations are not honored in living under law. The most disturbing aspect of the recent student demonstrations was the philosophy expressed--the ends justify the means. The employment of illegal means to secure ends desired in the name of freedom would, if tolerated, be destructive of freedom. Individuals enjoy freedom in so far as the guarantees are built into the laws that protect individual rights. When these laws are flouted, protection is weakened and a society is on the road to anarchy. Living as we do under a system of representative government, the right way to effect changes in the laws is by consent and majority vote. 
"The functioning of any society requires that authority be vested in some individuals, be they judges, legislators, or executives. Arbitrary exercise of authority is always to be challenged, but defamation of authority duly exercised undermines respect for high offices and demoralizes a society. 
"The University is a champion of intellectual freedom; it must no less be a champion of orderly and responsible conduct. It cannot and will not tolerate deliberate violations of its rules and regulations. If it did, it would be in the position of aiding and abetting disrespect for law and order. As the twig is bent, so the tree grows. Among the lessons to be learned, even if it be by a hard way, is the lesson of responsibility. The University remains steadfast in teaching this lesson." 

"WHEREAS: Specific infractions of University rules and regulations occurred during the demonstrations of September 30, and of October 1 and 2 which were: 

1) Disruption of University business in Sproul Hall and of ASUC business in the Student Union. 
2) Deliberate prevention of University police action by detaining a police car and an arrested man for 32 hours. 

"AND WHEREAS: There have been on various occasions verbal threats on the part of leaders of the Free Speech Movement to resort to open demonstrations again in order to force individuals, the Administration, or the Hearing Committee on Campus Political Activity to be sympathetic to their demands, 
"BE IT RESOLVED: That the ASUC Senate condemn mass demonstration which violates University regulations on this campus of the University of California as a means of forcing compliance on the part of those in positions of authority to student demands. Willful and blatant violation of law and order in a democracy cannot be tolerated by an ordered society, nor should it be used by those who seek changes of rules and regulations governing this campus, even when those same rules may not be agreed upon by all.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the ASUC Senate does recognize that there may be inconsistencies in the University laws regulating campus political activity and urges all who are concerned about the existing regulations in one way or another, to support the efforts of the Hearing Committee on Campus Political Activity and to communicate their concerns to the individuals on that committee. 
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That subsequent to the report of the Hearing Committee the ASUC Senate calls upon all students to express their sentiments through the processes of the ASUC Senate, their constituted student government.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the ASUC Senate encourages all other on-campus and off-campus organizations to go on record as supporting the stand of the Senate in an effort to prevent future unlawful demonstrations." 

The Heyman Committee completed hearings on the eight student suspensions. 

November 4

1. Two letters, one bearing the typewritten name of Clark Kerr and the other the typewritten name of Thomas Cunningham, University general counsel, were introduced by FSM as "documentary proof" that the Administration "had been drafting legislation without waiting for the report of the Committee on Campus Political Activity." Both letters were photostatic copies; neither had been signed. The letters dealt with University rules and were dated October 13, 1964. 

President Kerr said the letter bearing his name had been prepared by a staff member; he disagreed with it and never signd it. "I made no proposals for any changes in the rules at the October (Regents') meeting, neither those in the letter nor any others," Kerr said. The Kerr letter included an addition to University Regulations on the Use of University Facilities: 

"University facilities may not be used for the purpose of recruiting participants for unlawful off-campus action." 

"They (the Regents) told me to go ahead and study the problem and report back to them. I am. There has been absolutely no legislation prepared at all, and I am still studying the problem. My letter has nothing to do with University rules." 

"I prepared it. The president discussed it with the chief campus officers, and decided he would not recommend it. He said the students were studying it at that time." 

The pickets' specific purpose, Richheimer said, was to call attention to the afternoon meeting of the Ad Hoc Academic Senate committee (Heyman Committee). FSM intends to ask the committee if the students should be able to enjoy their constitutional rights as citizens in certain geographical areas of the campus. The answer to this question, Richheimer said, will determine whether the administration intends to be sincere in its negotiations. If FSM concludes the administration is not sincere, and that nothing can be gained from the committee, the FSM "will have to resort to other measures," Richheimer said. 

November 5

The Committee on Campus Political Activity continued to debate a faculty proposal introduced by Earl Cheit, professor of business administration, during yesterday's (Wednesday,  Nov. 4) meeting. The debate centered around phrases which the Administration laims are necessary to protect the University, but which the students contend would give the University the right of "prior restraint." 

The first part of Professor Cheit's proposal read: 

"That in the Hyde Park areas, the University modify its present regulations by dropping the distinction between `advocating' and `mounting' political and social action. Although we could find no case in which this distinction has been in issue, the position of the students and the recent resolutions of the Academic Senate and the Regents all support a University policy which (subject only to restrictions necessary for normal conduct of University functions and business) permits free expression within the limits of the law. Subject only to these same restrictions, off-campus speakers invited by recognized student groups to speak in the Hyde Park area should be permitted to do so upon completing a simple registration procedure which records the inviting organization, the speaker's name, and the topic of the talk." 

An amendment proposed by Sanford Kadish, professor of law, would have rephrased Professor Cheit's original sentences dealing with action "within the limits of the law." It would have inserted two new sentences after the first: 

"The advocacy of ideas and acts which is constitutionally protected off the campus should be protected on the campus. By the same token, of course, speech which is in violation of law and constitutionally unprotected should receive no greater protection on the campus than off the campus." 

The committee adjourned for an hour while Kadish, Kidner and Attorney Malcolm Burnstein attempted to find suitable phraseology acceptable to all three factions. They returned with this amendment: 

"If, as a direct result of the advocacy on the campus, acts occur in violation of U.S. or California laws, the University should be entitled to take appropriate disciplinary action against the speakers and their sponsoring organizations, to the extent that the person or organization can fairly be found to be responsible for the unlawful acts." 

The meeting adjourned. 

November 7

The Committee on Campus Political Activity reached an impasse over the first resolution proposed by the faculty for recommendation to Chancellor Strong. The question again was over whether the University should be able to take action against students involved in illegal acts off campus when the acts were advocated or organized on campus (even though, at the time the acts were advocated or organized, they were legal). 

Frank Kidner, University dean of educational relations and an Administration representative, offered an amendment to the faculty motion which read: 

"If acts unlawful under California or Federal law directly result from advocacy, organization or planning on the campus, the students and organizations involved may be subject to such disciplinary action as is appropriate and conditioned upon as fair hearing as to the appropriateness of the action taken." 

Sid Stapleton, student committee member and a member of the Young Socialist Alliance, said he felt the University would be unable to conduct a fair hearing because of political pressures. Vice Chancellor Alan Searcy responded, "the Administration is made of men of good will." 

Dean Kidner's amendment failed. The Administration representatives voted affirmatively, the faculty abstained, and the students voted negatively. 

The student representatives then offered this amendment: 

"In the area of first amendment rights and civil liberties, the University may impose no disciplinary action against members of the University community and organizations. In this area, members of the University community and organizations are subject only to the civil authorities." 

Professor Kadish's substitute amendment failed by one vote. The student amendment was defeated, with the Administration and faculty voting negatively. 

When it was obvious the committee could not reach agreement, Professor Cheit proposed the committee report agreement on points two through seven of the faculty recommendations, and that the students and the faculty prepare a statement of the nature of their differences and present it to Chancellor Strong and the University community. 

Mario Savio agreed to make the disagreement public, but he indicated he did not agree that point one was the only point of disagreement. 

It was agreed that no action would be taken until everyone agreed. 

The meeting adjourned. 

November 8

The Free Speech Movement issued the following statement: 

"Ever since Oct. 2 the organizations composing the Free Speech Movement have voluntarily refrained from exercising their constitutional liberties on the Berkeley campus of the University of California. The FSM imposed this moratorium in the hope that agreement with the administration regarding any regulations could soon be reached. Although we continue to be a party to the Campus Committee on Political Activity, we feel that we must lift our self-imposed moratorium on political activity because the committee is already deadlocked over the issue of political advocacy and appears headed for a long series of radical disagreements... We must exercise our rights so that the University is not permitted to deny us those rights for any long period and so that our political organizations can function to their maximum capacity. Many students and organizations have been hampered in their efforts in the past election and in civil rights activity because of the moratorium. 
"Saturday the CCPA became deadlocked over the issue of the student's right to advocate off-campus political activity. 
"... (the proposed) amendment is directly aimed at student participation in the civil rights movement and is totally unacceptable to the students. The administration would give themselves the right (1) to decide on the legality and the `appropriateness' of the students' off-campus political activity, (2) to decide the legality of the students' on-campus advocacy of off-campus action, and (3) to discipline the students in the area of their civil liberties. 
"... The Free Speech Movement proposed (an) amendment which is the position of the American Association of University Professors and the American Civil Liberties Union.
"... the administration vetoed our position and insisted on the ability of the University to discipline students in the area of their civil liberties. The FSM believes that the University is not a competent body to decide questions concerning civil liberties, especially since it is subject to strong political pressure. Because students' rights have great political impact as well as legal significance, the courts should be the only body to decide upon them. 
"The AAUP has declared that `students should enjoy the same freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly, and the right to petition the authorities that citizens generally possess.' The Free Speech Movement intends to exercise those freedoms on Monday (Nov. 9)." 

1. The following statement by Chancellor Edward W. Strong appeared in the Daily Californian: 

"If the FSM returns to direct action tactics, this will constitute a clear breach of the agreement of October 2. Students and organizations participating will be held responsible for their actions." 

"In view of the continuing newspaper reports that the FSM has threatened demonstrations in violation of the agreement under which the committee was constituted, the faculty representatives wish to reiterate their statement made at the Saturday morning meeting. 
"It is our belief that substantial progress has been made and will continue to be made so long as no action is taken which jeopardizes the continuation of the good work of the committee. 
"Once again, therefore, we call upon FSM to abide by the terms of its agreement." 

According to Mario Savio, the Committee on Campus Political Activity meetings have not shown promise of reaching a solution. Savio said the FSM could not accept the Administration's demand that the University have jurisdiction over the legality and "appropriateness" of off-campus political activity.

Another member of the FSM Steering Committee said:

"The University has changed its position considerably throughout the period of negotiation. Originally there was no suggestion that the Administration wanted to have jurisdiction over the legality of off-campus activities."

Speakers addressed the rally from the top of an old dresser. The crowd sat, squatted and stood around the dresser, as it had around the stranded police car early last month. Approximately 200 students participated in the rally, while an additional 400 watched from the fringes.

4. The Graduate Co-ordinating Committee announced members of its group would set up tables tomorrow afternoon with FSM and other protesting groups. The graduates would sit under signs identifying their departments for at least an hour. They said they would man their tables until they were suspended, arrested, or their demands were met. Approximately 75 or 100 graduate students at the meeting said they would man tables. The motion to man the tables was passed with only one dissent. 

Steve Weissman, Graduate Co-ordinating Committee representative to FSM, said that if the police attempt to arrest the students, the graduates will refuse all cooperation. He added that such an action might be cause for a strike by the teaching assistants and the faculty. 

5. The following statement was issued jointly by President Clark Kerr and Chancellor Edward W. Strong this evening: 

"FSM has abrogated the agreement of October 2, and by reason of this abrogation, the Committee on Campus Political Activity is dissolved... 
"We shall now seek advice on rules governing political action on campus from students through the ASUC and from the faculty through the Academic Senate. 
"The Academic Senate and the ASUC Senate have called for the use of peaceful and orderly procedures in settling disputes. We welcome proposals from all interested groups." 

"... students participating in violation of rules will be subject to penalties through established procedures." 

"The University is devoted to rational discussion, to law and order, and to freedom for students and faculty matched with responsibility in the use of this freedom." 

Mario Savio added his own comments to the official FSM statement: 

"By its continuing acts of political oppression, the University Administration has abrogated the Pact... Accordingly, the students have lifted the self-imposed moratorium on the exercise of the constitutionally-guaranteed political rights... No institution, except the courts, has any competence to decide what constitutes the abuse of political freedom.
"The students shall not cease in the responsible exercise of their rights." 

1. Graduate student protestors continued defiance of University regulations on the steps of Sproul Hall. The University took no official notice of their actions. Tables soliciting money--in one case, for a haircut for a professor--were manned by 196 teaching assistants and graduate students who worked in large groups. The large number of workers was intended to prevent administration action against a few participants, according to FSM. Demonstrators and spectators heard a speech by Mario Savio, then members of the Graduate Co-ordinating Committee of the FSM set up tables to distribute literature and to collect funds. Savio said: "The administration is on the horns of a real dilemma. They must either take all of us or none of us." 

The Dean's office took no official notice of the violations, nor was any effort made to obtain names of those manning tables. The demonstrators obligingly sent a list of their names to the Dean's office, however. 

2. Participants in Monday's (Nov. 9) demonstration were mailed notices to appear at the Dean's Office for disciplinary action. Students whose names were taken in Monday's demonstration held a late-afternoon conference at Westminster House, where Malcolm Burnstein, an Oakland attorney, counseled them on their legal rights. Burnstein told them: 

"The regulations attempt to deprive you of a kind of speech, not a place to do it in. It is the opinion of all of us who have read the regulations that the University cannot legally do this." 

4. Faculty representatives of the Committee on Campus Political Activity met at noon to report on the status of the committee's deliberations at the time the committee was dissolved. The Faculty Representatives' report said negotiations deadlocked on "the question of the authority of the University to discipline for on-campus conduct that results in off-campus law violation." Earl F. Cheit, professor of business administration, said: "We were very concerned lest the committee go out of existence when we were so close to an agreement." Faculty representatives expressed a general disappointment over the dissolution of the committee. 

5. Art Goldberg, one of the student protest leaders from the beginning, announced he was no longer a member of the FSM Steering Committee. "No comment," he said. (He was later reinstated.) 

6. ASUC President Charles Powell announced formation of a five-man ASUC Senate committee to make recommendations regarding student political activity. Powell said he was acting because of the dissolution of the Committee on Campus Political Activity. Powell noted that the ASUC Senate was the first body to formally endorse the free speech rights of students on campus, but that the efforts of the Senate and of the class officers had been undermined and destroyed by the militant demonstrations of the FSM. "Up until now, the Administration has chosen or been forced to negotiate around the Senate. Now, the issue is back where it started, where it should be, and where real decisions are going to be made," Powell said. Powell also said: 

"Members of the ASUC Senate placed their faith in the ability of the committee to solve the problem. Now that the committee is defunct, the Senate must take decisive independent action to reach a solution. 
"The whole idea is that it's time the Senate took charge of this question of political activity on campus which was so confused and distorted by demonstrations, and we intend to take charge with conviction and responsibility." 

Mario Savio and Dean Frank Kidner addressed the ASUC Senate in the evening. Savio demanded equal rights for students, both on and off the campus. He said: "If the FSM must resort to mass demonstrations, they will not be halted unless we receive substantial concessions from the administration." Kidner listened to Savio's remarks "with some interest and some sympathy," then reported, "the administration will continue to consider revisions in its policy." 

November 12

President Kerr released the report of the faculty members of the disbanded Committee on Campus Political Activity. (Full text, see Appendix) The report recommended substantial liberalization of University rules regarding on-campus political activities. In essence, the six faculty members recommended on-campus mounting of legal off-campus political and social action be permitted. Recognized student organizations, they said, should be allowed to accept donations and sign up members in designated areas on campus. However, the report said: 

"The on-campus advocacy, organization or planning of political or social action... may be subject to discipline where this conduct directly results in judicially-found violations of California or Federal criminal law; and the group or individual can fairly be held responsible for such violations under prevailing legal principles of accountability." 

1) Room should be made available for meetings of off-campus groups in the student office building, scheduled for completion next semester. 
2) The experimental use of Sproul Hall steps and the adjacent area as a Hyde Park area should be discontinued. 

1. The Academic Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Suspensions recommended six of the eight suspended students be reinstated as of the date of their suspensions. The committee also recommented six-week suspensions for Art Goldberg and Mario Savio, the suspensions to begin Sept. 30 and end November 16: 

"We recommend that Messrs. (Mark) Bravo, (David) Goines, (Sandor) Fuchs, (Brian) Turner, and Mrs. (Elizabeth) Stapleton be reinstated as of the date of their suspensions. The penalty of indefinite suspension should be expunged from the record of each student... 
"Instead, the penalty for each of these six students should be recorded as that of `censure' for a period of no more than six weeks. 

Regarding the Heyman Committee report, Chancellor Edward W. Strong issued the following statement at 5:15 p.m. today: 

"I have received a copy of the report of an ad hoc advisory committee which was established by the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate to review the duration of suspension of eight students indefinitely suspended last September for violation of University rules. This advisory committee has been under the chairmanship of Professor Ira M. Heyman, a member of the faculty of the school of law, Berkeley. 
"Although Regents, the President and I had understood that the committee was to be advisory to me, Professor Heyman has addressed the report to the Academic Senate and his committee concludes `that it should render its report to the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate, with copies of the report to go to the University administration and students involved.' President Kerr and I completely disagree ith this procedure. Out of respect for and courtesy to the Academic Senate, owever, we shall await the reaction of the Berkeley Division to the report before commenting on its recommendations. 
"As the report stresses, the committee, with the assent of the parties, `has been concerned only with events occurring through September 30, 1964, and has not been asked to, nor has, considered any events after that date.' Much has happened since September 30. Some of the students mentioned in the report have since engaged in seriout misconduct since that date and with regard to those actions, regular disciplinary procedures will prevail, including the immediate filing of charges by appropriate officials and hearings before the faculty committee on student conduct. In a conversation with Professor Heyman on November 9, he agreed recent violations of rules should be referred to the faculty committee on student conduct. 
"President Kerr has today sent a copy of the Heyman Committee report, together with this statement, to each of the Regents for their information in accordance with the request of the Regents made at their October meeting." 

Members of the Free Speech Movement were generally pleased with the Heyman Committee findings. 

Mario Savio said: 

"It is gratifying that the initial contentions of the students that the rules governing political activity were obscure and their reinforcement was arbitrary have been upheld by the faculty findings." 

"The committee's recommendations that six of the students should never have been suspended in the first place constitutes a clear moral imperative for the administration to reinstate them immediately." 

3. The FSM issued a clarification of a statement made Wednesday (Nov. 11): 

"We request that an action be taken against all participating groups or students equally. It must be understood that membership in the FSM is contingent upon an organization's endorsement of the principle of full political freedom, and not necessarily upon an endorsement of the tactics of the FSM." 

1. Tables again appeared on the steps of Sproul Hall for solicitation of funds and recruitment of members. FSM spokesmen said the tables would remain on the steps all week. 

2. The Free Speech Movement began circulation of a petition in support of its stand on advocacy of illegal off-campus acts, in preparation for the Board of Regents meeting in Berkeley on Friday (Nov. 20). The petition, which will be presented to the Board of Regents, disagrees with point three of the recommendations of the faculty members of the former Committee on Campus Political Activity. 

"We the undersigned resolve that: 
"Only courts of law should have the power to judge whether the content of speech on campus is an abuse of constitutional rights of free speech. Only courts of law should have the power to impose punishment if these rights are abused. 
"Therefore, we ask the administration to recognize that it not usurp these powers."

"1) Directly results in judicially-found violations of California or Federal criminal law, and 
"2) The group or individual can fairly be held responsible for such violations under prevailing legal principles of accountability.")