Crisis on Campus; 2

The program normally scheduled at this time will not be seen in order that we may bring you the following special broadcast. Society only moves when it's threatened, and I really don't even know why I'm telling you this because I'm sure you know this. You're all in some sense in decision-making positions. You know that it's very hard to bring about change, but under the God and with a gun to your head, you move a lot quicker. Example is given of the alleged positive effects of violence in the ghetto, of riots in the nation's ghettos. I look at what's happened since the riots in the ghettos. I don't see the slums having been torn down and replaced by decent housing. I don't see attempts being made to find jobs for the jobless, to improve our educational system. I see instead a reaction to the riots in the ghetto leading to the, or contributing to the election of a conservative administration, which has increased the unemployment rate, and which is doing virtually nothing about the problems in the ghetto.

Propose that this meeting declared Harvard University on strike. We are going to put this university in a trick bag that will blow your mind. I call for an end of minority tyranny on the nation's campuses. In a special one hour broadcast, NET presents crisis on the campus, highlights of the second day's hearings of the president's commission on campus unrest. Now NET correspondents David Proud. This was the second day of hearings for the president's commission on campus unrest. It was highlighted by the opposing testimony of two student representatives over the justice, relevance, and motives of current student protest. The nine member commission headed by former Pennsylvania Governor William Scranton heard

students described as frustrated, fed up, and ready to explode again in the fall. Later, these same young people were characterized as bored, snobbish, arrogant, and unconcerned with the rights and desires of the majority. In other words, the testimony today offered a microcosm of the tremendous polarization that splitting the campus and the country today. The first witness to appear was Ms. Eva Jefferson, president of the student body at Northwestern University. Despite her school's record of avoiding violence, she took a militant stand before the commission, saying often violence was the only way students could get attention. She was followed later by Steve Kilman, a recent graduate of Harvard University. He's national president of the Young People Socialist League, and the author of a book, Push Comes to Shove, an articulate indictment of campus protest. What you have on the college campuses are basically two sets of people, two types of people. Those who believe that the system is okay, basically, and it's just we need the right

people, the working through the system people, and some days I'm in that group. Then you have the people who think the system is all wrong, and you just got to off the system, off the way we have democracy now, off capitalism, and some days I'm in that group, it depends who I talk to. And very seriously, a lot of kids are caught in a bag, like that's why the campuses went up so, so much in May. You got people who are really sitting on the fence. They really want to believe, and I seriously believe this. They want to believe that our Constitution stands for justice. They want to believe that democracy is a hip thing, and if it was just everywhere in the world, everything would be groovy. They want to believe that if we just got out Nixon and got in, someone good, things would be okay too. But they have this nagging down in the back of their heads, that people like SDS and other radical people have known or felt for years, that it's not the system, but it doesn't really make any difference who you put, who you plug into the different positions, because

it's the end result is going to be exactly the same. At the Harvard Commencement this past June, I was struck by the sight of a graduating senior who participated in the procession carrying a vehicle flag, which you kept a law throughout the entire ceremony. During the ceremony nobody made any attempt to stop him, and next to the student holding the vehicle flag stood a friend of his, handing out a printed flyer with the word repression in blaze at the top. The universities of America and Western Europe remain in my opinion by enlarge the freest institutions in human history, that they are imperfect nobody can deny, but their imperfections clearly do not cause, much less justified, before they have been launched against them. The list of so-called crimes which student revolutionaries drum up against universities to provide excuses for campus violence, they are all the marks of makeshift hatchet jobs,

which can be accepted only by the most gullible. The problems of the campus do not originate nor can they be solved on the campus. Students who feel despair and resentment with American society take out these feelings on the object closest at hand, their university. When Ms. Jefferson entered the hearing room in the new senate office building, she was followed quickly by an entourage of young people who filled up the available seats to listen to her testimony. She didn't fail them. Her formal statement began by chiting the commission for just adding more words to a subject already overflowing with verbiage. She told them if they and the establishment didn't understand the concerns of students by now, they probably never would. Nevertheless, she did explain her position at length and offered some radical suggestions on how to quiet the campuses. What do you do?

You know? And I don't have any simple answers. I don't have, you know, well, if you tell the president to do this, this, this, and this, everything's going to be mellow on the campuses next fall. I do have a couple of things that would do that. One would be to reactivate those detention camps that I think President Nixon was instrumental in getting passed through under the Internal Security Act. And maybe round up everybody who's ever been in a demonstration, who has ever bought a radical newspaper, who has ever smoked dope, kind of put them in these camps or exterminate them or something. And then just kind of, and put so much fear in everybody's mind that nobody's going to move. That's one way of doing it. And I hope you don't take me to be facetious when I say this because when I hear Agnew saying he's, you know, we must isolate the bad apples. You know, it doesn't take someone with a college education to understand what that means. And you know, who's a bad apple, you know, if you have dark skin or you're a bad apple, I don't know. If you smoke dope or you're a bad apple, I'm trying to say that this is a possibility and you're going to have to deal with that and you're going to have to address yourself

to that point. And if you make a recommendation, I pray to God that you make a recommendation that this not be implemented. Are you going to lead a drive to impeach Nixon? That could be one of your recommendations. And impeach everybody in the government who, I think— But see, the problem goes way, way beyond Nixon because you're going to have to go down to like the mayors of little towns of like 50 people whose heads are in the wrong places too, which is why that's not going to be a good recommendation. So all pervasive, it's everywhere. Are you going to have some kind of a miracle drug that all of a sudden makes people dig each other and makes people want to accept other people as fellow human beings and things like that? Wow, if you can do that, that would be great. But I guess we can't. I don't know. You people are in a really bad position. I don't envy you at all because what you and a sense have to do is propose some kind of a solution to the nation's problems.

You really do because that's what college protest is all about. It's not about, you know, having girls in your dormant night or smoking, smoking dope or about—we don't like our college president. It goes really deep to what everybody in some sense is saying about America. It goes to the guys who are on television last night who are wondering about inflation. You know, why do we have inflation? Does the war relate to that? Does our government spending relate to that? It goes to deep to what's at the heart of this country. And you have to address that and to address anything shorter that is going to be a cop out for all of you. And I have a feeling that you're not going to do that. The only thing—the final thing I guess I can say is that President Nixon, and I said this before, has done more to actively fill the ranks of the weathermen than any weathermen in the country. By his policies and by his ways of not reacting to problems or to reacting to them badly or to kind of saying, well, those people are the minority, and I can get reelected without

them, the way he did to black people and to other people in this country. See, by doing these kinds of things, he radicalizes people. By having commissions like this that come up with really dynamite statements and really, really good conclusions, and by having no one respond to that, you and a sense are going to radicalize people. Not because maybe you want to, but because that's what's going to happen. People are going to see more and more that they can't get anything done through the system. The system is ludicrous and that the only way the system is either going to move, if you still believe that we should keep democracy, is to blow up buildings, to kill policemen, to cause violence. That's one way, or to completely get rid of the system and bring about a revolution. And you people have got to address yourselves to that, and I don't envy you at all, but good luck. Thank you, Mr. Dips. What would you think should be the structural setup of a given university? I know they might differ, but just generally.

I guess I've been indoctrinated really well by the system. I really believe in democracy. We have a really funny situation at Northwestern, and it's a private institution, and it's run by the Board of Trustees, and I'm in a very interesting position, and I wish I could start screaming about a personal problem there about our president, but we don't have one. And we had a committee composed of trustees, alumni, and no administrators except the president sat in and listened to our acting chancellor, president, faculty, and students. Now this is a good arrangement, I think. You know, you have everyone representing, I would agree that the administrators should have a say in how the universities run. However, everyone agreed on one candidate, except the two undergraduate students who were violently opposed to him, he, this person I anticipate, will be appointed on Monday. Okay? Now, how I would have seen this working as a model is that committee would have had to have not unanimity, because you can never, you can never get that, and that's what the

chairman keeps telling us. But you don't try to go around unanimity by avoiding 6,000 people in a school, and what you have, what you should have are models like this, like the administration completely determines the budget, and we all know that money determines what the, what the university is going to be like. They determine the admissions policies, they determine who's going to come in. The faculty determines, you know, they're kind of self perpetuating. What you need are models representing all the segments of the university community, and these people have to have like, they have say, and they have the control, not an advisory position. Like, you people should have the control over, in a sense, if you were elected, should have the control over what happens on college protests, let's say, for an example. And this presidential committee should have had, I'm talking about should have had a say on who was appointed, yet even worse than the fact that this guy is going to be appointed, is that we just made a recommendation up to the Board of Trustees who have the final say.

These guys are businessmen, they're totally out of touch with what's going on, they may come to the football games, but I think the school goes a little beyond that. And I didn't mean to be so long-winded, but what you have to do is get every segment represented on things that affect them. And I don't mean to say that the administrators should have a say over what goes on in the dorms, because that does not affect them. But since the budget affects students, then we should have a say there. By the way, it was Northwestern University's president who resigned recently because of student disorders. Ms. Jefferson continued to emphasize the need for action and not more words, reflecting the growing impatience of many of her colleagues with what they view as a seemingly endless series of bureaucratic roadblocks. Throughout Ms. Jefferson's sometimes eloquent, sometimes disarmingly frank testimony, there was a consistent current of urgency, of a need for immediate solutions if the students were to be satisfied, a timetable that has never been reflected in the history of American social change.

Also, on ancient proverb, which says that the best is the enemy of the good. Is there any responsiveness in student thinking? The best is the enemy of the good. Is the pro, namely when you try to do too much, you fall flat. You have to move forward one step at a time. Is there any kind of bridge between student thinking and the rest of the populist by which we can move a step at a time rather than destroying everything in advance? See that philosophy just bothers me because every time I'm in a situation where I'm with adults or with people who are not within the universities, they say, well, things take time, you know, it could take 20 years to get this done. And the thing that's wrong with that is we know it doesn't. We got a man to the moon and how many years, 10 years, you know, because there was a national will to do that. How can anyone possibly say take time to do things? You may be by saying take 10 years, you may be doing some black child born in a ghetto to a life where he's so far, so far alienated to everything, he's never going to really

have a chance to be everything that he could have been. You're saying take one step at a time means that some person in Vietnam is just going to be killed tomorrow because the war is going to go on until Friday. We as people in a somewhat comfortable position have the luxury and it is a luxury of saying things take time. But what's really so great about what's happening on the colleges is people who do have that luxury are saying no, we do not have time. You know, if you read the ecological statements, they say we're killing our earth, the earth's going to be dead in a matter of years. Just something as apolitical as that. What about all these social things, all these people who, by our inaction, we're totally warping their perspective of reality in a sense or maybe ours is warped and they really know what's happening. We don't have a luxury of what you really don't. And that attitude is always the attitude of those who do, who can't wait and who it's really, who really aren't under the gun. Well, just in fairness, I would like to say that I'm not making an argument for delay, offer a cop out.

I'm making an argument for starting and starting in the most practical possible way. But have, you know, how many starts do we need? Just one. But once again, is it going to be an event? Is it going to be, you know, today we're just going to start to make America a good place? It seems to me people have written articles, have written books, have written, have talked to talk to commissions, and proposed ways of doing it, and nobody wants to do it. You know, little things have started all around the country, but nothing is falling into place. This might be a good day to start. Right on. Sir, I'm sorry, but when we have a witness here, we have to, there we would be delighted to have you come and meet with us at some other time, but we cannot interfere with it. Sir, this is what's in a sense wrong. Why can't he come up?

He'd be delighted. We would be delighted to hear from him at the, in the regular sequence, but come up and make your territory a point, sir. Black is not of color, black is love, the black revolution, mean of love revolution. It means all of us combined together trying to, that's why you hear now, trying to find some format. We need this, bros. You need this, my man here is sweating, trying to take things down, what she's saying, she's right, but she didn't have the deafness to give you, well, I have it to give you. Number one, I started giving it to you from Watts, when we were out there with the Watts riot.

Yes, I was there. You'll find me in the jail over there at Holland Park, a jailhouse in Michigan, when the Detroit riot was in Michigan, yes, I was there as someone trying to bring the grievances to the nation. There are colleagues of mine all over the world, colleagues of yours all over the world, who are trying to do the same thing. Actually, all we're trying to do, see I care, that's why I am of two commodities, love and truth. That's why I'm here because of love, now if I'm only dealing with truth, I separate from you. But I love, now the necessity for things to happen, no more, we got to get away from the materialistic of society. We've got to leave material values. We have to work from a vibration of each other. We have to coordinate with each other, let material values uphold that. We need each other. We can't do without each other. But this is why love must come in to be, and when you have love and truth, which is

an opposite that what has subdued us in the past, which is white supremacy, which was built on life, deceitfulness, greed, these things were in the past. Now the black revolution, which is in the future, which white faces are still a part of, is one derived from love, truth, understanding, tolerance, then you've got freedom, then you've got justice, then you've got peace. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you. Thank you so much. Mr. Jefferson, you have made a statement in which you indicated that nobody believes in equal justice under law. I don't disagree with you. I think it's a terrible indictment of our system, and I shouldn't think that if this is what

large groups of young people are concluding, then we are in deep trouble. And I would like to know if you have talked with other student leaders like yourself, and is this fundamental principle of democracy now being downgraded in the minds of young people? I'd have to address that from two points, a spectacular example, and then just little examples that I had. And the spectacular example was a conspiracy trial, and a lot of people said, oh, this is an aberration of American justice. Well, if it was, it would have been stopped by someone. And I think the U.S. government has some power to deal with things like this. The contempt charges, just the whole thing. I don't even need to start on that, but just that that could go on, and that we're going to go through the shams of saying, well, the system works because that awful decision

can be appealed up and overturned. First of all, people all across the country thought that was a really great thing, including lawyers, not just people who are quote, uninformed, but people who were lawyers thought what Hoffman did was really great. But then, okay, that's grandiose, and that's very political, and we can see why that might have been done. But I worked for a little while with a legal aid society, worked with some people there in Evanston. Black people, for one example, and poor people, have the worst lawyers in the entire world if they can't afford a good one. Instead of looking for the best people to be the defense or public attorneys, they find people who can't do other things, and who don't want to do other things, or they don't give them lawyers at all. And these people just, of course, are going to be going to get rotten justice. The whole thing that the Black Panthers are into, what does a jury by your peers mean? There's a very serious question if a rich person could really judge a poor person's motives. If a white person could really judge a Black person's motives, this whole thing, kind

of like the stuff on paper is really groovy, but put it to practice, it just doesn't work out. The whole way that I was talking to some people who were into insurance law, and they say that the 70% of the claims taken by people go directly to the lawyers, you know, the people who get their money for whiplash have to pay their lawyers for all sorts of things like this. It's all up and down from the political aspect to how the law is not equal to just the day by day thing. Why do you think so many Americans have such a low opinion of students, if what you say represents students' attitudes, but why do you think so many people, I was just in Kent and talk to people who have an incredibly low image of the value and human value of students and others who are involved in dissent, why do you think this is a case and does it contribute to the likelihood that something tragic occurs to students? What's going on on the campuses is very confusing to me and I'm there, you know, I try to understand

but only because I'm living in the middle of it. Now imagine that you're sitting in a small town in America, and all you see is what the media presents as what's going on on the campuses, and I understand your problem that nobody wants to see a picture of a car driving down the street and not getting hit, that's not news. But so when a building blows up, you people pick up on that, all right? So you're sitting in this small town and you see, okay, college students rampage throughout the country, blow up buildings, kill someone, so take over a building. Now you kind of don't understand why they'd be doing this, so you kind of puzzle, you don't think they're all bad because your kids in college and, you know, he's our boy and he may be a little mixed up, but he's okay. So then you're watching later on in the news and you see our national leaders and I'm sure you understand this better than anybody on the commission. Getting up and saying, why those, getting up and saying, why those kids are being stirred up by outside agitators in there, you know, snotty nose, ungrateful people, they don't

know what's going on, let's kick them out. Now, you know, what do you expect them to do? And I really, in a sense, people, it's too bad that people look to other people to form their opinions about things that they don't understand rather than finding out first hand. But when you have somebody like the vice president who isn't, I think he's number three now. Maybe he doesn't try quite as hard, but he tries harder. But he's number three now and he shapes opinions. And when you have people like that who have no intention of trying to understand or bring people together, then it's only logical that people hate college students. It's sad, but it's very logical. Steve Kelman is an outspoken young socialist with an admitted old-fashioned dedication to social justice and democracy. His main worries about students, college and university students in particular, is that they're the new idol rich, playing at the glamorous but dangerous game of inciting social action by violence.

His conclusion is that the self-determined needs of this new elite group don't reflect or even consider the needs of the masses. As a democratic socialist, I believe that the majority of the American people feel and feel personally the evils of a capitalist economy. In the forms, for example, of inflationary pricing by large oligopolistic corporations of unplanned cities, of deteriorating housing, of intolerable unemployment, of a tax system shocked full of monstrous loopholes, I believe that changes in American society will come about because the average American, the so-called silent majority, if you will, feels that changes are necessary. But the idealism of students does not extend to concern over the problems of the ordinary citizen. Instead, most students take a snobbish, arrogant and elitist attitude towards the American man on the street. The student movement thus has a heavy responsibility to clean its own house. Snobism and arrogance must be replaced by a genuine idealism and a genuine compassion

for the American people. Students must begin to address themselves not only to the romantic problems of racism, poverty, and war, but also to the mundane problems of inflation, taxes, and unemployment. And immediately, unconditionally and completely, students must reject those of their fellow students who affirm totalitarian regimentation, one-party regimes, and so-called revolutionary police states. The young people socialist league, of which I am the national president, has urged and will continue to urge that the student movement clean its own house. But for the student movement to do so, it needs encouragement, both in word and indeed from the adult community. Mr. Kalman, I noticed in your statement that you put the issues or the problems of racism, poverty, and war in the category of the romantic, and problems such as inflation, taxes, and unemployment in the category of the mundane, certainly to a vast segment of

students with whom ideal racism would be considered a very fundamental mundane kind of problem. How do you make the distinction? I meant that simply in terms of what it seems exciting. As to students who have experience with none of these problems, as well as direct experience with neither the problems of racism, nor poverty, nor inflation, nor unemployment, now that students who are just deciding what issues they want to feel an idealistic concern about. And as students who don't have experience in any of these problems, who are acting in an idealistic way of concern for other people's problems, those problems which seem the most exciting or the most action-filled, the most of where it's at, type problems, are the problems of poverty, racism, and war. And I'm not, it could be very well because it's the most serious. I think they are the most serious and the fact in the sense of affecting the people they

affect the most seriously. All I'm saying is by mundane problems, I mean, normal problems that affect so-called middle-american, so-called silent majority, which are problems to these people, to the silent majority, and which may not be as dramatic and obvious to the student as other problems which are more dramatic and apparent, but which nevertheless are important and which the student has very, very little sympathy with. As I'm saying, when I'm saying it's not that students are too idealistic with, they're not idealistic enough, that their sympathy and compassion extends to a certain range of problems, but it stops at a certain, at a certain definite point, this idealism suddenly becomes transformed into an attitude of contempt. In other words, let me take an example. One of the big criticisms that a student would make of, let's say, the average American amount on the street is that he spends all this time watching television, that he's not, doesn't read books and things like that. Now, I think if you go in the ghetto, let's say, I think you'll find that most people,

this is no criticism of either the average American or the ghetto, spend a lot of time watching television and don't read books, yet this, the fact that people in the ghetto do not spend time watching television and do not read books, does not lead the average student to have contempt for the resident of the ghetto. But the fact that Joe Auto-Worker from Hamtramik, Michigan, goes home from the auto plant and watches television and doesn't spend this time reading books, leaves the average student say, oh, this is disgusting slog. So all I'm saying is that the compassion and sympathy among students is too selective. And it should be extended. Kelvin went on to say that because of the current polarization on the campus, middle of the road students, fence-citters, as he calls them, are forced into taking a radical position on either side of the political spectrum. And the tragedy, he claims, is that many of them find themselves in this radicalized position without really believing in or even knowing the cause for which they're fighting. Kelvin said continuing this polarization is one of the most serious problems facing any

attempts to bring back order to the campuses. And he had some ideas on how to do it. First, in words and ideas, an ideological counteroffensive must be launched in terms that young people can relate to against the anti-democratic, totalitarian ideologies which are growing up on the campus. Generally, government spokesmen have spoken, even in terms of vague concepts of freedom or indulge in flag-waving rhetoric, which may appeal to the older generation, but which leave young people cold. Young people must be told, in no uncertain terms, what communist dictatorship implies for them. I read recently about young Cubans who were imprisoned by the Castro dictatorship for the crime of defiling posters of Che Guevara. I didn't read about this in a speech by government official or in the mass media, but in descent, a democratic socials magazine with a circulation of under 10,000. Similarly, the fate of youth behind the iron curtain where all political and cultural

strivings are ruthlessly suppressed remains largely an untold tale. Second, if we are to undertake an ideological counteroffensive in support of democratic values, our actions must correspond to our words. American support for the military dictatorship in Greece, just to cite one example, is hardly consistent with our role as the most powerful defender of democracy in the world. Similarly, all anti-civilitarian measures by government, even if allegedly undertaken to defend ourselves against supposed subverses, must be vigorously resisted. I think particularly here of FBI political dossiers and individuals who descent or harassment of groups such as the Black Panthers. Third, those on campus who break the law should be treated as other citizens who break laws are treated, through fair trials in our courts. Students should not be exempt from the law, but neither should they be given what is an effect pre-trial punishment.

I'm referring here to police brutality in cleaning out of campus buildings, for example. Finally, the response should be to measure it with the danger. American society faces serious problems, of which one, but certainly not the most serious, is campus violence. Students from the Vice President, indicating that the antics of what are admittedly a bunch of hooligans, threaten the future of the Republic, are hardly helpful. Nor, to say the least, is the presence of National Guardsmen with loaded rifles on a campus. Perhaps if we see the problem of campus violence in a proper perspective, we will have more time to devote to solving other of our nation's social ills. The witness on yesterday suggested that the problem with students and on campuses that they're bored, and that they ought to be kept out of school between high school and college for a few years, and then while he suggested they age 22 that they would go back, do you find any credence in such things?

That's a good proposal, I think it's a good idea. I think it's important, though, to say that there are certainly students on campus who are bored, but I think you have to draw a distinction. I talk about it in my book to some, like, between political radicals and cultural radicals, and I think the political radicals, people in SDS and so forth, and I think my testimony may clear have absolutely no brief for their political views, but I don't think they've adopted them because they're bored or because, you know, for some sort of psychological reason like that. I think they've come to these views for various reasons, which are too lengthy to go into here, but, you know, they're not bored, they're visually working on various things, and they're intelligent kids who are not bored. I think there's a separate group on campus who could be called the cultural radicals, or sometimes it hippies, sort of overlap with this group, who are not really that political, but who do go into these demonstrations just for kicks and for, you know, because the action-cool thing to do.

And I think here, I think these people themselves would admit, if you ask, and they are bored, and they are seeking something new to do. And these people provide a lot of the cannon fodder, sort of, for a lot of demonstrations, but I don't think they provide the leadership, or I don't think they don't ask to set the policy or set the ideology. Well, there's very interesting, in fact, there's a big tension between the cultural radicals and the political radicals on the campus. During the Harvard strike in April 1969, the cultural radicals had staged during one of the rallies, you know, in Harvard yard, a big constant performance by some rock groups. And, you know, kids were dancing in the yard, it was really fun, really cool, they all said. And the political radicals, the SDS, got so hysterically mad over this, they said it was detracted from the seriousness of the struggle, and at one point, one of them got so angry that he said, if this goes on any longer, he was going to break the musical equipment. It was really, they reacted with a puritanism that would do, I don't know, some hard-laced, I don't know, a 60-year-old's proud, and they really, they were absolutely incensed and horrified that these cultural radicals were interfering with the seriousness of this revolutionary

confrontation by doing something so evil as to play rock and roll music. And in fact, also during the Harvard strike, when they occupied University Hall, the event that caused the direct cause of the confrontation, one of these, the first thing they did was voted not to allow kids to smoke marijuana inside University Hall because it would detract from the seriousness of the political discussions going on. And this got some people very angry, some cultural radicals. Let me ask you another question. You indicated that violence does not accomplish anything, and certainly there are many persons who share that thought with you, but several students have indicated that this is their only means for attracting attention. This is their only means for being heard. What is your explanation for your view now as opposed to the views that were all about

you when you were an undergraduate student at Harvard? Yeah, I think that this is simply untrue that it's the only way that people can get heard. I think that if people want to get heard, they certainly have to speak up, and I think frequently they have to demonstrate and so forth. But I would ask any student to compare the success of the various revolutionary activities which, and violence activities which he has undertaken with, let's say, the success of the boycott, non-violent boycott, undertaken by the great workers in California. This has been completely without violence, and it's been a campaign that's finally leading some success. I think that you can't just sit on your behind to do nothing, then you're not going to be heard. You have to speak up, and frequently you have to demonstrate to get attention, but I don't think you have to either coerce other people or engage in physical violence or engage in anti-civil libertarian activities or the type that students have been engaged in. I think certainly you have to make your voice heard, and I'm all for doing that.

I think that it's simply untrue that violence has worked better than a determined, non-violent struggle. Let me add a post script to that. One person can blow up a building. It doesn't take majority support or even anything approaching majority support to blow up a building. It can be done in the heater, in the stealthy night, and so forth. I think one of the advantages of non-violent mass protests is it shows you have some support behind you. In other words, I just, that some person on campus has decided that he has a solution to the world's problems, doesn't give him a divine right to have these solutions followed by either the government leaders or by the people or whatever, and therefore, he says I, you know, spoken I was not listened to, and that doesn't really strike any weight, frankly, in my book. It begins to strike weight if he has support from significant sections of the population, and I think that he can show that support by determined, non-violent action and protest,

including electoral action. Take it that is President of Yipssel, you travel around the country and see universities other than the one you attended. So it's fair to ask some general questions about your observations on the university. It began by arguing that American universities are very, very free, and one might say in response that this may be true of the elite institutions and the East Coast, but it may be less true in general. What is your observation bit on that? It certainly, many universities are certainly less free than the so-called elite universities I've been leading so forth. The least free universities are small private schools, which I've visited very few of. I think that the large public universities in the country at this present time, in the year 1970, are by and large rather free institutions.

I don't think they're completely free, or there are no problems in this regard, but it seems to me that the fact that even at public institutions, let's say in Illinois or Indiana or in the Midwest, that university buildings, university spaces, provided free for students to hold meetings to plan the destruction of the university. With the, not only the buildings being provided free, the lighting being provided free, the janitorial helping being provided free, and these are meetings whose open purpose is to plan various attacks against the university's in question. It seems to me that this strikes me as an example of an institution which is quite free. Similarly, on most of the large institutions in the country, the drug laws are by and large not really enforced. There's a great deal of freedom in this regard.

In most of the large institutions in the country, the parietal rules, you know, rules when you have girls in your room of by and large, in most of the public institutions, and by and large abolished. In fact, Harvard voted the slowest ones in abolishing them. Despite their mile-wide ideological differences, Kelman and Miss Jefferson did agree on a few things. They both charged Vice President Agnew with helping to polarize the students with his continuing verbal attacks on some groups of young people. And they both said that American society had to change and become more responsible and more responsive, although they pinned the major responsibility for action on different groups. Kelman on the students, Miss Jefferson on the establishment. And there was one other area of agreement. You see any, is there anything that you could recommend to this commission that whereby we may have some influence or impact in helping us not to arrive at a point of no return? Yeah, I think this is really far beyond the realm of students unrest.

But since, as I argued earlier, the problem of the campus unrest and there's a lot of other witnesses have said cannot be solved on the campus alone, if you can make recommendations about national policy outside of the particular realm of students, I would strongly suggest that the government has to follow policies for dealing with the problems of the cities. One, they're going to cost a lot of money, but the two are going to be aimed in order to get popular support, not just, although of course they have to be aimed at the poor in our society, and particularly black people in our society, but also policies that are aimed at helping the needs of the silent majority at the same time. In other words, so that the auto worker or the steel worker doesn't think that the black men or the poor people are gaining at his expense, but rather that the working class and poor people working in poor people of our country are advancing together. And I think particularly the way that a practical way, which this can be done, is through the

creation of government job programs in the public sector, in construction of things which are needed by the society as a whole, and as if we put the poor and the unemployed to work, building mass transit, building hospitals, building housing, this at the same time aids the stock of these goods for our people as a whole, works to tear down the ghettos and provides employment for our unemployed people. As I think that we're going to have to begin to think in terms of solutions to social problems, which are not aimed just at a minority group, but which are aimed at the majority of the people, and which therefore have more of a chance of being supported by the majority of the people. Now that is nothing to do with students, but I think it will help overcome the polarization in society. I think that's what the game is becoming about. Is the depth of alienation and disaffection so great that we have passed the point of no return?

No, because, see, as long as one college campus can open in the fall, you've not passed the point of no return. I really don't mean that to be flippant, but there are a lot of people. No, that's a very good answer. Thank you very much. One establishment group that has played and will continue to play a major role in keeping the cool on the campuses is the local police department. Used badly, police have turned relatively quiet student gatherings into riots. Used properly, they've prevented property damage and probably saved lives. Washington DC's police have an enviable record in maintaining order while still letting the First Amendment do its work. The man most responsible for this is District of Columbia Police Chief Jerry Wilson. Probably the highest praise Wilson ever received came from a hippie during a demonstration who said he's very definitely a non-neurotic pig. This is a typical demonstration in Washington, big, generally well-behaved, but with an ever-present

possibility of violence by hardcore activists. And these are the police, working under what Wilson calls command and control, close supervision and applying what he terms minimum force but firmly. Chief Wilson has men specially trained in crowd control, trained to put down trouble before it starts. He was asked by the Commission to comment on the use of firearms and controlling campus disorders. I'm not certain that there's any magic way to handle this order. To be quite honest, I think, you know, if you have a crowd that you want to disperse tear gas, we'll do this without doing permanent damage to anyone. Experts tend to be controlling, tend to stop crowds. One of the things that we're experimenting with here is the identification of specific trouble-makers at the scene of disorders and obtaining warrants for their rest later.

As I said, as I related, this really arose during the demonstrations of war in circles during May, in which the first day or two there were students, obviously, apparently students from the American University who were out leafletting, if they would get in the streets on, but when they were told that they had to be out of the street, we'd get out of the street. But by about the third day, we began to see in the crowd individuals that we had seen at other demonstrations away from the American University. And in the later days of the problems there, we began photographing these individuals and seeking warrants for their rest. This was towards the end of the demonstration, and whether that was the fact that it stopped it or the fact that the students themselves, I think, took a great deal of, made a great deal of effort not to land any presence support to the trouble, but in any event, it did dissipate. I believe though that the rest of the trouble-makers is a useful device. There are a wide variety of options, open, short of the use of firearms.

But I still, and other, I'm very excited to apologize. Chief Wilson, what do you think about the ethics of the wisdom of infiltrating student groups with police officers in disguise? Well, we do that. So we do that for a variety of reasons. One principle thing that a police agency must do if it's going to successfully cope with this order is to gather useful intelligence about what's going to happen. And this is not possible to do without doing some infiltration. If an infiltration obviously is not the most ethical undertaking in the world, any of the undercover aspects of police work obviously are somewhat unethical. But it's a matter of what is practical. We have to, we found it necessary, for example, to infiltrate our hospitals in recent years

because of the increasing hard dope traffic in the hospitals, and there's just no way to address these problems without infiltration. We have much the same problem in universities that you can't deal, for example, with narcotics traffic without replacing undercover personnel. And indeed, you can't really effectively deal with demonstrations without knowing what at least reasonably what is going to happen. And you can't know this without infiltration. So VALI will admit that an undercover operative is in a somewhat questionable position as regards ethics. It's a necessary evil. Sure, Chief. In several areas, or in many of the metropolitan areas where the police are not quite so well and bowed in terms of finance, as such as you have been, the cities have found it possible

to secure additional funds for their police departments, and those who have taken a look at this situation have found out that they have used most of these funds to buy hardware. That is the, what's known in Jackson, Mississippi as the Thompson Taint, and in other areas, large vehicles bristling with guns, and that sort of thing. Do you feel that funds could be directed or should be directed in securing of additional hardware or all their training programs or other remedies to assist in the control of disorders that would be much better for all concerned? Well, I don't think you can really do it as an either or situation. Of course, one of the factors involving a decision is to whether you buy hardware and we don't own any tanks, although we do have an armored truck, which is simply a protected

device rather than an armed armored truck. But when you make a decision is to whether you buy hardware or engage in training, you sort of make an option in what cost, you know, I don't really know what an armored tank would cost, but probably $10,000, let's say. And really an effective training program, when you start talking in terms of the cost of the manpower to attend training programs, gets up towards, on the same order, $150,000. Hardware is a lot cheaper, what I'm saying than training or manpower, but I don't personally recommend or no advocate a great deal of purchase of hardware. I think that agencies have to consider what they need and make a determination as to what types of equipment they need. There is equipment that is necessary if you're going to deal with this order.

You must, for example, if you talk about hardware, if you're talking about buying helmets for you men, you almost have to do this. You have to buy gas masks. These things all have come under the category of hardware. I'm not aware, really, of anyone who owns any tanks. I suppose I know there were some placed on the market back in 67 and 68, but I don't personally know of anyone who's voting. Now, this isn't to say that there were, but I don't think there's any wide proliferation of that type of hardware. The police action is only effective when a potentially dangerous situation exists. Dr. Robert Rankin, today's fourth and last witness, is more interested in preventing confrontation at the source. Dr. Rankin, a former minister and chaplain, is vice president of the Danforth Foundation of St. Louis, Missouri, a group specializing in the support of research projects in education and urban affairs. A commissioner asked him if he would agree with Steve Kelman's statement that American universities are extraordinarily free institutions. We agree with that up till the present time.

The factors which have been introduced into American life during this last year, however, raise a severe question in my mind about the truth of that in the future. Yes, and how do you control violence that may occur there without causing more problems along that line? Yes, that is your question, and I wish you well in the pursuit of it. We would appreciate very much anything you would like to send us to help us, sir, and we are very grateful for what you have presented to us today. May I also say that knowing something about the Danforth Foundation, we would be very grateful for any information in the way of research or anything else that you have, that you could forward onto us, that could be helpful to us in our deliberations. Joe, you had a question? I think that you perhaps said it, but maybe I can put it more succinctly. Two of these students who have appeared before us, one yesterday, one today, stated very

frankly that they were reluctant to appear because they feared that this commission would merely become like the other commissions, and that the report would be put on somebody's shelf, and that no matter what they said, it wouldn't have very much relevance or significance. Then you indicate that this commission does have within its power the ability to make recommendations that could be meaningful. But if we are, and I submit that we may be less prestigious than the other commissions, how do we get our voices heard, and of course inherent in that, is the constant refrain from students that they can't get their voices heard? Well, if I understand your process well enough, it seems to me you have made a splendid

beginning. You are trying, admirably, to listen to a wide variety of views. For example, Mr. Hayakawa yesterday, and Mr. Rankin today, represents somewhat different views, and the student representatives, etc. It seems to me that what you must try to grapple with is all of these factors and come up with that combination of political strategy, plus coping with the facts of the case, toward moving toward Justice Holmes' simplicity on the other side of complexity, to reach simplicity, yes, but ones which are products of all of the struggle and all of the conflicts you have heard, and do your best, submitting to the President, terms so persuasive and so powerful, that they cannot be escaped, the stakes, I submit, are very great.

Yes, sir, and your own judgment, how much time do we have? How are things running out? How long can we sustain this state of tension and crisis that you describe? This sudden change in our character that you describe? How long? How much time do we have? In your own judgment, I know it's something. It's a exceedingly complex question, but a fair one. One which Mr. Rhodes I should not try to speculate about, I have moments of deep fears. That, unless some new exciting challenge occurs within our society, unless we are able to avert further depressing aspects in our foreign policy, that yes, it might be possible for the crisis to continue into new heights.

At the same time, I must report to you my own sense of confidence in the quality of youth. This is a result of many visits in universities and colleges in the United States, which continue to give me hope. When I read the newspaper, Mr. Rhodes, I despair. When I visit the campuses and talk with the students, I have a sense of hope. There is a reservoir of leadership and of faith here, which may be large enough to avert catastrophe, I devoutly hope so. After two days of hearings, a few things have become increasingly clear. The commissioners are earnestly trying to understand and analyze issues that don't readily lend themselves to intellectual understanding or analysis. There are emotional issues, emotional issues that touch us all in different ways, and that mean different things to us all.

The students who have testified have consistently lamented about the difficulty of communication and their lack of belief that their words would go beyond room 1202. And that may be a legitimate concern. It certainly has a basis in fact in the action taken on prior commission reports. But the men on the diester trying, and if the love and concern and charity that are such a large part of the young people's rhetoric is real, perhaps they can spare a bit of it here and show some of it toward the men they are talking to, and more importantly to the American people who support they need and should have. This is David Proud in Washington, good night. This was a production of national educational television. Distribution of the preceding program was a service of the cooperation for public broadcasting.

Thank you.