Crisis on Campus; 3

The program normally scheduled at this time will not be seen in order that we may bring you the following special broadcast. Islands on campus are the same as you can in city streets. We feel that deadly force should only be used as a last emergency and I think a guy should have the right of protection of his life or the larger budget. In a special one hour broadcast, NET presents crisis on the campus. Highlights of the third days hearings of the president's commission on campus unrest. How NET correspondents David Proett. The National Guard had a chance to explain, argue and defend its position today as the president's commission on campus unrest held its third day of public hearings.

All three types of response were needed as the head of the federal National Guard Bureau came under fire in the toughest questioning of a commission witness to date. The National Guard Actions in Ohio with Kent State University where four students died. At the University of Wisconsin and in scores of other confrontations have been seriously criticized by both students, government officials and citizens groups. This concern over the use of the Guard in campus violence was reflected in testimony from Senator Edward Kennedy the first day of the hearings. The General Survey now being undertaken by my Senate subcommittee on administrative practice and procedures it appears to me that the National Guard at Kent State was in direct violation of the standard set forth in the Army field manual under which all National Guardsmen are trained. If those standards have been followed in the past, Kent State could not have happened. If those standards are followed in the future, no more Kent states can happen. The man who this morning had to answer this and other prior criticism of the Guard

is Major General Winston P. Wilson, Chief of the Pentagon's National Guard Bureau. During his statement, he claimed that the National Guard has had more experience with civil disorders than any other law enforcement body other than local and state police agencies. From January of 1968 to May of 1970, he said, the Guard had been called up 324 times for this purpose. During the height of campus unrest, last May, National Guardsmen were used on 24 occasions at 21 universities in 16 states. He also defended the men who had done this work and said the people did not appreciate the difficult task of the Guard. It was to the verbal abuse of angry mobs. They have suffered the indignity of many other forms of abuse. I can guarantee you indeed that these men would not wish a similar experience on anyone. I might add that from my experience in watching them and in my reviews of their actions of hundreds of occasions,

the single most outstanding impression I get is that they're patient men, professional in action, and brave in the face of real danger and concern with the protection of the rights of all citizens. Drag control, civil disturbance operation, or whatever one chooses to call it, is one of the most just tasteful, thankless, and dangerous missions the National Guard has. It should not be forgotten that when the Guard has been called out, a serious emergency exists. By the time we're called, lives and property already are in jeopardy. It's a day of a dangerous situation. If the confrontation was not threatening to expand beyond the capabilities of the state law enforcement agencies, calling a Pagan Maguard by the Governor would not be necessary. I dread to think what might have happened if the Guard had not been available to the states in some of these cases. You must remember that guardsmen are civilian soldiers and airmen who have been summoned reluctantly from their homes and from their jobs in obedience to duty.

The dangers they face on duty are real. This rock coming and I'm holding in my hand was one that landed among police and guardsmen at Berkeley. It weighs four pounds, and it was propelled in the formation by a homemade slingshot pictures are in the front. Some other devices we have, and the police have faced up to and these disturbances also are on display here. General, do you the fact that it appears that a number of the federal guidelines have been violated by National Guard units? Do you have any recommendations on how they could be more strictly enforced or what changes could be made in them? Commissioner Ahern, I'm not sure that I could say because I have not run an investigation on the guidelines in Ohio. This is being run by the other agencies. The only thing I can say is that in the hundreds of times that we have had people on disturbance duty around the country that the rules that we have had seem to work.

And I would not want to comment on the not following the rules of the 19 days, 15, and what causes the investigation so forth is going on. Well, let me rephrase that. I will say that, I did say that it appeared that they were violated. Do you have any specific recommendations for change in federal guidelines for the use of National Guard troops? No, sir, as you know that a guard is trained under the standards that are prescribed by the active army. We can constantly work with the army based on after action, and we force to improve all of our plans and the training methods. We had did change our training standards after the riots of Detroit and completely reviews them. We have changed some of our standards in the training of the guard on the refresher training and other things to better improve it. We can always improve. There's no question, Chief Ahern, that we can, and we try our best to get the best training that we can to make our people more responsive to the needs of the state.

Wilson admitted there were no standardized federal guidelines for the conduct of National Guardsmen. Each state makes its own code, and each governor is the commander in chief of his own private army. It's not until the guard is federalized, a rare occurrence that the national government takes over. So, to all intents and purposes, unless the law has changed, the federal government has no control over the state guard units, except as an advisory and administrative coordinator. Whatever praise or blame is due to the organization must be laid at the governor's door in each individual state. General Wilson testified that he had personally reviewed the state's riot control plans in 1967 after the Detroit disturbances. Then he quoted from the current guard manual on when lethal force, that's guns, could be used. The manual was clarified to read, quote, three circumstances must exist before deadly force can be authorized, unquote.

The three circumstances, and I quote again, one, lesser means have been exhausted or unavailable. Two, the risk of death or serious bodily harm to any innocent person is not increased by its use. The purpose of its use is one of more of the following, self-defense to avoid death or serious bodily harm. Prevention of a crime which involves a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm, for example, to prevent sniping. Prevention of the destruction of public utilities or similar property vital to public health or safety. Detention or prevention of escape of persons against whom use of deadly forces, arthritis, and subparagraph, ABC, immediately, above, unquote. Then you should there be a general rule that other than selected marksmen to confront sniper fire, guardsmen should not carry loaded weapons on campuses when brought there to quell civil disturbances.

That burns, I believe, that the situation has got to defend. We can have violence on campus the same as you can in city streets. We feel that deadly force should only be used as a last emergency. And I think a guy should have the right of protection of his life or the lives of others. I think the question is, who should use it general? Should there be selected individuals that can adequately confront sniper fire or should every guardsmen have a loaded weapon? Normally, we have endless states when we have snipers, known snipers, they have what they call sniper teams who are equipped, who are trained, and so forth, that they use air. This doesn't preclude if a man is about to lose his life of protection himself as an individual. I would say that normally, the fire upon orders.

Chief of police Wilson, yesterday, testified that it was the practice of his department that when officers were called to a campus in the District of Columbia, that they would not go on the campus armed, and that if they were confronted with sniper fire, special marksmen would be called in to handle that situation. Would you agree with that policy used by guardsmen? We agree that snipers should be handled by people that are capable and trained for that type of person. Would you agree that the other guardsmen on the campus at the time would not be armed? I would think that it would have to be that the flexibility there to determine what the situation required. And this is a judgment factor that's got to be made at the time that the people are called in there. Would the live ammunition be chambered at that time? Could be, but it probably would not. General, you stated that 47 of the states conformed with the Army Plan of Engagement. Is Ohio one of those states?

Could you, General, describe what the Army Plan of Engagement prescribes as the appropriate method for chambering shells? I have with me, sir. A summary of the special orders on the Department of Army orders that go to each individual as well as a summary of the special orders in the Ohio Plan. To that extent, I will cover a situation about the fire. I'll cover that one point. I'd be glad to make this whole thing available to the committee if you'd like to study it. I think that would be very useful. Yes. General, I think what I'm interested in is just if you could briefly describe the prescribed rules that you've set forth for the use of loaded weapons for civil disorders. Under the D.A. Plan says, I will not load or fire my weapon except when authorized by an officer in person, when authorized in advance of an officer under certain specified condition, or when required to save my life.

I'm reading from the Department from Ohio land special orders. I will not load my weapon except when authorized. I will fire when required to save my life or when returning fires. From your information that you received, was there an order given at Ohio for the weapons to be loaded? I understand it worse. Was there an order given at Ohio for the weapons to be fired at Kent? I do not know that, sir. General Wilson, do you have any evidence that since the deaths that Kent state that the procedures or orders of training of the National Guard in Ohio has changed in any way whatsoever? I have received no changes in their plans. As you know, at the present time, the legislature is investigating the action of Kent state. The grand jury is investigating that.

The Department of Justice is investigating that along with the FBI. And anything I give you would be personally hearsay, and I don't think that I should get into that. Is there anything that you would personally recommend in light of things that you know in Ohio? We have furnished to the states as well as the other states, the Army's plan for 19 days, 15, and certain changes that have been made to that, as I referred to in my statement. And I feel that all of the states, including Ohio, will follow those changes. Do you think, General, that the actions of an individual guardsman on a campus during a disturbance is to any extent affected by the National Climate Establish Bar, our National Leadership, in depicting students in various ways? I do not. Thank you. Student violence is the focus of the Commission inquiry. It's history on the campus, and the specter of its recurrence next fall, is the ever-present pressure working on the nine men on the dius, the president, and the country. But their involvement for the most part is intellectual. Others have been, and will be, on the firing line.

One of these is Harvard University president Nathan Pusy, who interrupted a vacation to come to Washington and testify. Dr. Pusy got his baptism of student fire in 1969 when his campus was literally taken over by 300 militant students. At that time, Pusy called in the police to restore order. This act precipitated a university-wide strike and much criticism of the president of the nation's oldest university. Do you have any misgiving, second thoughts or regrets about the consequences of your requesting the use of police on Harvard's campus in 69, 9, 8.69, and a subsequent deterioration of the community of Harvard, and the role that played in it, any role? Do you have any regrets, or would you have done it another way, or your response, that whole sequence of events? I mean, how do you feel about that now in retrospect? Well, I don't know if that's strictly relevant, but I'm perfectly willing to respond to that, if it's people.

I have said to an audience as many times in Cambridge, that if we were back exactly in that situation, at that time, I would do it that way again. I had also said, I hope to God, we would never be in such a situation, and I don't think that we're apt to be. I've said that at that moment in time, one had to make a guess as to whether or not calling the police in would shorten the period of disruption and get us back to our normal procedures more rapidly than the other way around. This is the kind of experiment which can never be conducted. There's just no way of knowing. I still believe that that was true. We thought about 2,000 people would follow what I think the stereotype response is to say, please awful people, everything was bad, therefore, and scream. I thought out of 15,000 students, most of them would see that the issue was not the police, it was the behavior of these students in university hall, and when you think that 13 or 14,000 of them were not throwing off balance, I think that shows that there was a good deal of reason. Now, I know that many of those thousand since that time have come to think it would have been better not to do it. I don't know what the evidence for that is.

The remainder of today's hearings were given over to three university presidents, whose constituency runs from Dr. Pussy's prestigious Ivy League School to a midwestern teachers university in a black southern school. All three institutions have suffered from some form of campus violence. All three used police force to quell the disturbance. All three are worried about a possible recurrence of violence next fall. Despite their history of disagreement with students, all three men are convinced that young people do have a role to play in the operation of the university. But the extent of that role is a question, and the fact that if students are going to participate, they also must assume a new responsibility. Dr. Pussy. We have, as I said on other occasions, or this view of the world as something that's contaminated and made that way by older people and earlier generations leads in the next step to a disrespect, even a hostility toward history and tradition and things that happened before. The past is clearly evil because it's created this a hard way of life. And the need, therefore, is to get liberated from the past, which inhibits and get on to the future and changes the thing that frees people.

Now, that view and the view of older people just don't jive. And I think that the basic root of the tension is right there. And I don't know that there's going to be an easy answer to it. Now, I think a further part of the explanation, something must be kept in mind is this, that all of us, young and old, have forgotten that young people are young. But the young people have forgotten it because they're so terribly serious and earnest and they feel that they are called upon to set all these evils right. That is, they're called on to assume a responsibility for which it's perfectly clear they could not possibly have had adequate preparation nor have had the experience to qualify them to discharge that responsibility. And we have forgotten their young because we somehow inclined to think that they may have found some fresh insights that see the problem more correctly than we do that there is a some kind of revelation that's come to them that other generations of

which other generations have been deprived. And then here I have to qualify that because we forget that these people are young at a time that is peculiarly difficult for anyone to work his way through and to understand more difficult, I think, than the situations that many earlier generations have had to cope with. And I think we must make perfectly clear, scutelously clear, that dissent and the expression of dissent must be accepted on university communities. But the faculty especially have a responsibility to try to help young people and members of their own bodies to understand what is implied in academic freedom, how we develop the concept, how we won this great good, how with what great difficulty,

what a precarious achievement it is and how easily destroy it's great importance for learning and scholarship and for the advance of civilization. And then the faculties must learn too that not all of their members really share this faith that there are now and faculties, people who are willing to spend academic freedom as an outmoded concept, something that's part of this restricting past that gets in the way of emancipation and freedom, that its concept is outlived its usefulness, instead I think of being, seems to me, the very essence of the academic life and learning.

Well, I don't know what we do with the people who would like to use the university as an instrument to promote revolution, but there are such people, few in number fortunately, but they're there, and faculties will have to recognize that and find ways in their own ways of coping and restraining their influence. I said we have to really establish an exciting, attractive learning, this certainly is part of it, and then I think we have also to get a little clearer about where the word democracy is applicable and where it isn't and to have more respect for knowledge and for informed opinion and has been demonstrated in recent years. That is the young people have the idea that if you get a thousand or five thousand or six thousand people together and they all want something that then this is necessarily right and good.

I've used the old story again and again to try to illustrate this point about the children in the nursery school and they have a rabbit and the question is what's the rabbit sex? How do they talk about how they could resolve this and finally the little girl says let's vote. Well now that idea has been so widespread so long and we have to come again to see that knowledge is relevant. That information, respect for evidence, ability to reason correctly, to try to at any rate, this all these things have to be reestablished. How we cope with the worldwide feeling of frustration and anxiety and fear is much too big problem for anybody to cope with seems to me that there will have to be some kind of new infusion of spirit in society. I don't know where that's going to come from nor do you. Certainly the young people are right in saying they don't want any phony kinds of spirit or pretence here. This has to be the genuine thing and in time that will have to be given and I guess we'll have to wait till it is.

Well that's as much as I want to say and I'll respond now to your questions. Well it's good deal and we appreciate it sir and particularly in view of the fact that we've interrupted your regular procedures this summer and know that there are a few of any people in the country that's had more experience with this problem and also may I make a personal comment I'm grateful that you followed the charge that has been made to us because quite frankly this is obviously what we must do and there have been although we've had very fine witnesses. There's been relatively little of that either questions of Dr. Q C S Jim. Dr. Good deal of the testimony that's been given to the commission is dealt with student dissatisfaction with the present structure and organization of universities. Do you feel that the students should participate in the governance governance of the university and I mean in the decision making process more than they do presently and if you do.

Could you explain to the commission how that could be accomplished. Well in the general answer yes or no I suppose the answer is yes but here again you take lots of qualification. You'd have to look at a specific campus and a specific situation and there's so great differences among them that you can't answer this just that easily. I would say it's very important not to confuse the roles of the governing boards of the faculties and of the students. I think that these you can't just put these together in some kind of mush. They have different responsibilities and different roles to play and that must be understood and kept distinct. After that qualification then I think the more association, communication, participation there is the better and I think most places are now finding ways where students can participate and where they have this kind of informed knowledge I'm talking about and their insights can be of enormous value.

Just to think because a person is young that he therefore should be on the governing board of an institution I think is sheer nonsense. Yes general. Doctor we've had at least two witnesses who have indicated the design ability of a change in the years that would be an individual would follow in attaining an education. One witness indicated I believe that it would be good to have a national service type operation in which a student would upon finishing high school would spend some time perhaps to age 22 before he went to a college or to a university. Another individual witness talked about Antioch college where apparently students go to school for one quarter they work for another quarter and then they go back to school.

Yes I think in an effort to combat a spirit of boredom which some and frustration which they found to be existence on college campus. And of course the design ability of big changes in the system of education that's currently we're following here in the United States. Here comes an example of my equivocation I think I would object to the notion that there can be any single right way of structuring this. There are so many different kinds of young people and what we need is a variety of pathways for them.

There is a brilliant young fellow at the age of 14 or 15 that's brilliant enough to come on to a university and should go right straight on through to his PhD without any eruption at all. And there are many other people that don't fit that most of them don't fit that category. I think that before we got involved in these difficulties because of the draft and all in recent years we had found that many young people were dropping out midway in the college career and doing something else and coming back afterwards. And almost every case of that kind that I had an opportunity to observe it was a good thing it was a wise decision and the effect was noticeably good. The person had been going through a desultari kind of performance not knowing just why he was there went out and then when he comes back a year or two years later with more experience in some sense of how this does relate to the world outside then they begin to run true. And I would hope that we can have possibilities for people to come in and out of the system at different stages but I wouldn't want if we could avoid just some one single regimented way of saying everybody must go to college.

You figured that the draft has had some effect in keeping students in college that don't really want to be there very much and is added to whatever boredom there seems to be in university. A few years ago several occasions said that I did not think this was a serious factor. I must say I've changed my opinion on that. I think the evidence is that it has had the effect of keeping quite a number of people in college and university and graduate schools who otherwise would have gone out had different kinds of experiences and that's part of our problem. I'm going to use this question that sounds much too crude. Is that such a thing as intellectual irresponsibility? Well, I guess the answer to that is surely it. Does it exist on university faculty?

Well, perhaps let's say it's a pretty general scattered around in human beings. How can it be minimized? I don't know. I really don't know. That this comes to a basic ethical concern at one point but more than that I think there has to be a new sense of excitement in learning and the great teacher feels this himself and it's just so vivid by his activity that the other student catches it and feels that's right and proper. Now, all of us in our time have such teachers and felt that it's very difficult for that kind of teacher. It's been difficult these years for him to keep his confidence because the world seems to be moving in a different direction and this kind of person is not terribly sympathetic to diverting the interest of the university to the outside world of solving all the problems of the cities and that kind of thing. One has to have find a balance through here. You need both kinds of teachers.

I just wish the good lord would produce thousands more of these inspiring teachers for our campuses and that would finally solve this problem. One clarity, I have a clarification I'm looking for you in your comments about how do we maintain academic freedom. You may I gathered some emphasis that this you felt was something that the faculty could especially take more activity upon. Are you saying that in terms of both problems that might occur with academic freedom, either the desire to politicize the university or possibly outside or inside repression? Is this why you think the faculty should have more responsibility and question this effort to preserve it? In both of those instances, I think the faculty has to take more responsibility. There are members of the faculty now who definitely want to politicize the university and they think the university is not doing its job unless it's leading the revolution or the restructuring of society and so off.

And these people see the statements made by people like myself and others regarding academic freedom as some kind of a device to frustrate or progress and would not concede that it is a sincere belief that all sorts of views should be tolerated. They don't think that and they've gotten themselves in a state of mind where there is a right way now and if you don't believe that or don't see that, you're stupid and if you see it, you've got to get on with it. And that leads very quickly to this place where they become very intolerant of others and that's showing up on campuses. There is a right way of looking at each problem and the fellow who doesn't see it that way is suspect. That's why I think they have to make clear and get clear in their own minds. What a mistake and notion is yes and young people to see it.

Harold Sponberg has been president of Eastern Michigan University since 1965. The school has a student body of about 19,000. In the spring of 1970, the school underwent five days of severe confrontations in the wake of our Cambodian invasion and Kent State. There was severe property damage and about 170 students were arrested. Dr. Sponberg was asked about how he handled this last problem. You've got any advice for us or for other colleges or universities in actual occasion? Well, in our situation, we carried on endless dialogue, endless conversation, endless discussion of the issues at hand which were pretty much within the university dealt with participation on the governing board, dealt with the non-renewalism contract. We knew all of some contracts for some individual props and some general concerns about involvement in campus decision making such as advisory committee to all departments and so forth.

Which has been going on for some time. It has been 100%. But this is an operational development to which the administration has addressed itself over a period of time to move toward this involvement. Yet having the responsibility of the academic leadership to indicate the quality of the program that is being offered shared discussion and later conclusions or decisions to be made out of that discussion has been the process we've been trying to work toward. Sometimes, however, the dialogue is terminated by some of the people who either do not want to have the demands fully met or they do not want to see any progress being made. And I think that speaking as a president, the boundlessness of the patience of myself and others is a very important element in this whole matter and how the commission can prescribe that as a suggested goal and objective to be attained as a result of your findings. I'd have to share with Dr. Pussy the fact we need to revitalize the whole teacher learning continuum and to make the knowledge live.

Whether this will satisfy all of the students or not, I don't know because I'm highly conscious of the impact of the external issues of the day as they affect the thinking and feelings of the students. And it makes the task of course very difficult, but the comments I made here in the conclusions are some elements of our university support that develop the or create the environment for tension and it is with great regret that some of those support allocations were reduced so much. In this year that it hinders our program especially for the culturally and economically deprived students to move forward because our enrollment in education today and our type of school continues rising. It does not level off as some universities have we expect three more years of significant growth and then there will probably be some decline. And so I'm hedging a little bit on what can be done but the internal governance of the university can certainly be improved and has to be in order to get this involvement.

But I do not I'm not so naive Mr. Chairman is to think that because that involvement does occur across the campus in great frequency will necessarily minimize the thrust of some individual people both on and off campus. Or emphasize that some of the campus tension unrest and violence will remain regardless of what the establishment does. He blames this on the actions of a hardcore group that's committed to destroying our society. He added that no amount of reason or change short of destruction will satisfy this group. If they don't see it happening any other way. One of his statements and largest worries is that this indoctrination in the necessity for violence is taking place now in colleges, high schools, and junior high schools. One of you referred to those who you feel are trying to destroy our society. And you said the indoctrination is taking place in colleges, high schools, and junior high schools.

Who is responsible for this indoctrination? I would say that it is individuals who are connected with revolutionary movements who come into the schools. And I'm speaking in a rather specific sense because I have a son in elementary school and a daughter in junior high school and a son in the university. To give and I've also moved out into the field to high school commencements and other workshops with students. And these are individuals who want to develop the philosophy of tearing down the country and not being supportive of what we consider as a dynamic democracy or republic we know as a country. Are these faculty members at these various levels? No, these are basically non-students. They're people who hang around the edges of campuses who don't go to any school and who are revolutionary type non-students who fan and feed their own students in support. Would you also say a word about the political activities of universities and their faculties?

How do you feel about the politicizing of the university and where, anywhere, are the limits on political activities of university staffs and teachers? Well, I would start out with a premise that the professor ought to teach that subject and to that group as he was employed or the department determines he shall do. As far as political activities outside the campus, he is free to do that as he would be as any other citizen would be. If we find that professors are not using the classroom for the purpose of teaching the courses that were designed, I think the university has an obligation to correct that so that it does represent integrity of the courses that are offered. As I answered Mr. Scranton, I don't want you to conclude that the course should not be renovated, revised over a period of time and have dynamic curricular change. Your physics courses today aren't the same as the work 10 years ago or 15 years ago.

But I think the integrity of the classroom is the matter that concerns me and if it's used as a forum to politicize or radicalize the university or the students, I think that's wrong. I refer to your response to Dr. Countham's question in which you mentioned the revolutionary non-students who are engaged in indoctrination exercising in high schools, junior high schools. Do you have any idea of who supports the financial aid, the revolutionary non-students types? No, I don't. Jim, Dr. would you care to identify any groups? SDS, YSA, and I'm speaking from my experience, who are quite active in our area.

And while we have a very small group of students so motivated on our campus, the assist that we receive from off-campus people is very significant. But now I don't want you to draw the conclusion, Mr. Mayor, that this absolves our own student leadership from exercising a judgment and action that will contribute to the well-being of the university. But it's a fact. The third college president to speak today is the president of a relatively small southern black school that has had a large amount of trouble. In May of 1967, before Dr. Sawyer became president, one policeman died and two other police officers and a student were injured by snipers as the police were leaving the campus after a small confrontation. An hour later, 600 police arrived back at the school and started shooting after the students resumed demonstrating. Since Dr. Sawyer came to the school, there have been some intense moments, but no more violence.

The question is, how did he do it? Dr. About two years ago, you had on your campus a confrontation between the police and some of your students that resulted in shots being fired, rest being made. However, thereafter, in particularly last spring, when the rest of the country was the rest of the campuses around the country were facing from turmoil, you did not have any serious events on your campus. Could you describe for the commission the events of two years ago what steps you took after those events and in your opinion, why you did not have similar events in the last spring? Immediately upon arrival on the campus on July 11, 1968, we engaged faculty, students, staff members, alumni, community leaders in some dialogue away from the campus. We went on a retreat for about two and a half days.

And what we were really concerned with was how can we move the program of the university to the point where the student, the learner, with his particular requirements beyond his intellectual needs. And he could be the center and we can subordinate our particular special interests with the hope of bringing some relief to the problems that bothered him. I think a sincere and honest attempt was made there and more than delineating any particular devices or procedures, I think what we got across was the fact that we are indeed interested in you as the center of the university. Now from that point, we began to alter procedures, alter practices, in line with the learning requirements, which I again insist on substantial, so that the student was genuinely convinced that we were sincere in our efforts to do something about how he dealt.

Now this has been our posture since July 11. Now I think this perhaps in the main is responsible for not having any serious disruption, but I would be very quick to add that there's a strong element of luck in this whole business. Because one thing happening on another campus can have a special attraction to a group of considerable influence on your own campus and just because the box score doesn't include us today, we might have to do something to get in there tomorrow. Do you change anything with relation to the local police discussions that you're having with the local police?

I don't know that it represented a change, but I went to the leadership of the community in front. The day is after I got a board and we had some frank discussions about the university and what we were hopeful of in terms of university community relations and we agreed upon some minimum things that we would observe. And we have observed those has been good faith on both sides and this has contributed unquestionably to the stability of the situation. At an informal news conference at the conclusion of the day's hearings, it was announced that additional ones would be held in Washington next Thursday and Friday and in Jackson, Mississippi and at Kent State University on later dates. The afternoon news conference was called and answered a many press request for the commission itself to evaluate its work thus far.

And commission reports notably the Kerner commission and the commission headed by Milton Eisenhower, which covered violence in the United States fairly extensively. There has been very little action on those reports. Do you have any reason to believe that there will be any more action or any swifter action on your report? Let me make two comments which part of which are not an answer to your question but are background to it. First of all, with regard to the Eisenhower and the Kerner and other good reports that have come out, I don't think they have been as ineffective as some people say they have been. For example, with regard to the Eisenhower one, I noticed quite a change in television programming. Likewise, with regard to the Kerner report, I think it at least was effective in giving blacks in this country a better hope by telling it like it is that there was some realization in this country that it is like that. Of which they may not have thought have been the case before from a commission of that standing.

Secondly, and this does pertain directly to us, both of those reports, as you will remember, were addressed to the public at large and special parts of it to special groups. It was therefore very easy to not follow them if you did not wish to because when X doesn't follow his part of it, then why should I do mine? Ours will be different in that respect. It will be directed to the President of the United States giving him information which we believe and actions and recommendations that he can do in this national crisis. So that it would be literally in his lab. We think this is important because first of all this is a national crisis. It is not occurring on every campus in the country and it is not even occurring in every community where there is a university.

But it has occurred enough in enough places so that it is national in scope. And we have been asked to present to him a report. We think it is important that since he is the national leader in a national crisis that this should be addressed in that way. And it will be done unless the commission changes it mine that way. If this after witness has suggested to this commission that it might turn out to be a placebo that it might do more harm than good, if one its report is not hard hitting and two, the recommendations are not implemented. Do you have any personal fear on that score in either direction? Not fear, concern. I have had no indication from the administration that they are going to ignore the report. It will be very serious if they did. I would agree with that description of our possibilities. Would you like to see the report confine itself to things that commissioners think could be done or would you make recommendations?

Would you like to see recommendations that perhaps are not practical from the standpoint of being implemented immediately? No, I think we have to make very practical specific recommendations. And the commission has decided to make recommendations to the president specifically. I think what we recommend to him must be practical and concrete. What if you said end the war as Senator Kennedy suggested? Well, that is not necessarily impractical but that is a judgment that has to be made. Mr. Chairman, are you disappointed at all after the last three days in the fact that real recommendations have been forthcoming from the witnesses? Yes, I am disappointed to a degree. I would like to have seen more specific recommendations said so incidentally in a couple of questions but not especially surprised because after all, each individual witness was asked to present his thinking about it. I would like to present his thinking about our particular charge and was not aware of what anybody else might say.

So there was obviously some repetition which happens in all open hearings of this sort. I was however very happy about how much they addressed their testimony to the problem and didn't get off into extraneous rhetoric. I think the most worthwhile information that we received at this point has been from students and from college administrators. Probably the least worthwhile has been from those areas of officialdom that have testified. Anybody else got an answer to that question? I heard of you with chief or her in that the testimony from the students has been a particular interest.

I would hope that soon we will have testimony from faculty too that strikes me as an omission so far. I think there has been a reluctance or defensiveness on the part of people that represent bureaucracies or institutions to level with the commission. I think they have been vague in their answers, have been almost shifty to the point that the questions were not responded to at all. Specifically including or referring to the testimony this morning by the chief of the National Guard Bureau, did that especially affect you? I would include him in a two yes. The role of the media and instances of campus violence was a subject for discussion both at the hearings and at this afternoon's news conference. Where it was suggested that perhaps newsmen might also be called on to testify.

What specifically happens next on the campus is of course the main reason for the hearings. And today both President Pusey of Harvard and President Sawyer of Texas Southern were asked if they anticipate a worsening of the crisis on the campus this fall. First President Pusey. I'm sure we're going to have him. But just what they'll be I don't know. We took a or at least I and some of my close associates decided that we wouldn't in these recent weeks sit down and try to get in our own minds to precise us to just what the problems were going to be because we thought the longer one delayed towards September the more accurate once predictions would be clearly the question of the election and all that which looms so terribly large. And they will recur and lead to lots of discussion and conceivably to frustrations and activities I don't know and anything can happen out of this in these situation at any moment that's just not going to go away in a hurry. I think our students at the moment can best be characterized as as hopeful but with the realistic degree of pessimism very little has happened in this country.

Since the outbreak on our several campuses I think back in six to six to really get at the heart of the problem as I have attempted to summarize and give very little. If we would take a factor of let's say two to one in terms of the the provision of resources for program develop if there were two to one in 1966 I think it would be perhaps six to two or even greater. Because the compensatory support has not come and these very fundamental programmatic issues that I have raised continue and ending three days of concentrated discussions among administrators at our university.

And this is directly related to your question about prospects for the fall I wish I could be very hopeful but as I see it we're in for a really tough year. It was another day of almost never never land testimony at the third session of the commission the dream like quality came from the calm measured tones of the adult witnesses completely lacking in the urgency shown by the students. It was almost as though the so called generation gap had walked into the hearing room and been put on exhibit. At some point both groups are going to have to make their trip through the looking glass and make contact with reality we can only hope the hearings will help this is David Proud and Washington good night.

This concludes our coverage of this series of hearings of the presidential commission on campus unrest. Crisis on the campus was a production of national educational television. This is the public television network nationwide distribution of the preceding program is a service of the corporation for public broadcasting.

So, today is a casting.