A look at the speakers policy
(This is the first of a two-part series on University Speakers Policy.—the Editor)
By ANDY MILLER Assistant City Editor
President Norman Topping ruled out the possibility of having Communist speakers on campus Nov. 6, 1962.
Since then, students have continually been trying to redefine the traditionally conservative USC speakers policy.
A major victory was scored on Nov. 17. 1965, when Dr. Herbert Aptheker, unofficial historian of the American Communist Party, came to campus to speak. Dr. Aptheker came during Negro History Week, sponsored by the Great Issues Forum.
“We wanted to take a look at him in a nonpolitical way,” Dr. Dorothy Nelson, dean of the Law Center and former chairman of the Great Issues Forum, said.
Thus Dr. Aptheker came not as a Communist, but as a Negro historian. Dr. Aptheker was the first speaker to come under the present speakers policy, adopted June 2. 1965. by the Board of Trustees.
Under the previous policy no Communists were allowed to speak on campus, since past university presidents felt that persons outlawed as Communists under Supreme Court ruling should not be permitted to speak on college campuses.
Until June of 1965, there were no written guidelines — no formal speakers policy.
“The policy had the effect of greatly increasing opportunities for programming on campus on a variety of topics,” Dean of Students Paul Bloland said.
The present policy originated from a study by the Student Activities Committee. The policy section of the speakers policy was approved by the Board of Trustees; the administrative procedures were not.
“Anybody has the right to request a change of policy, although some appropriate representative channel is the logical way in which policies and practices are reviewed,” Bloland said.
Until last November students seemed to be generally satisfied with the policy. The most recent attempt to change it came last fall when the ASSC Executive Cabinet voted to test the speakers policy to its fullest extent. If it proved inadequate they would consider proposals to better meet the needs of the students.
The cabinet pledged to take steps to see how the policy could be interpreted. It planned to submit a list of speakers to the administration for test approval. A list was never submitted.
The committee put itself resolutely behind a statement made by Wilber Bender, a dean at Harvard, in 1949. which is the basis of that school’s present policy.
The statement affirms the university’s faith in the “maturity and intelligence of our students” and the “strength of our free and dynamic American democracy.”
The statement allows any recognized student group to sponsor any speaker in a university building wherever they can find room. ASSC President Taylor Hackford said he and the cabinet considered the statement to be the best possible philosophy for a speakers policy.
But in a report submitted to the ASSC Executive Cabinet, the committee merely explained their interpretation of the present speakers policy, and suggested that no new policy be adopted at that time. The report stated:
“Any student at the University of Southern California may speak at any time and any place on this campus so long as he does not disrupt classes.
“The criteria used when considering whether to allow a speaker on campus is whether he has a sufficient educational contribution to make, and the program must be in control of a student and faculty member.
“The current policy regarding speakers, distribution of literature and solicitation of funds was approved March 14, 1966. Since that date there have been no instances of which a proposed speaker program has failed to obtain necessary approval.
“It is the recommendation of the committee that students of the University of Southern California utilize this policy to its fullest potential. In the event that the current policy proves to be inadequate, then this committee will consider proposals that will better meet the needs of the students.”
The report, in essence, repeated the stand of the administration, expressed by Bloland.
Bloland said no speakers have been rejected for any reason other than technical. Reasons for rejection have been mainly that the sponsoring organization did not turn in the form “Request to Invite Off-Campus Speaker” 10 days before the date of the speech.
It was rumored that in the spring of 1965 the name of Dorothy Healey, an official in the American Communist Party, was rejected. However, the AMS Council voted to rescind her invitation before it reached Bloland.
“A review of the record will prove that the policy has been effective in providing student organizations an opportunity to sponsor the speakers they want.
“It has added immeasurably to the campus extracurricular life.” Bloland said.
Bloland defended the 10-day request period.
“There are certain kinds of speakers we could handle tomorrow’. But there are speakers w’ho require preparation time. You have to consider a number of things — receptions. facilities, security problems, checks drawn in advance for payment.
“You don't casually invite a major, controversial speaker. A much greater degree of planning is needed. Sometimes the 10-day period is not enough. If Martin Luther King is coming, we can insist that we have those 10 days or more,” Bloland said.
“We’d rather have a 10-day period than get caught with a major program on our hands with no preparation.
“The policy we have now provides student organizations an opportunity to schedule speakers that interest them. The Great Issues Forum makes certain that we present a variety of views.”
Bloland did, however, mention two parts of the policy that are somewhat inadequate.
He said the choice of words in Section One of the policy statement is “probably unfortunate.”
The paragraph reads: “The University is not a public forum and the foregoing policy is not intended to. nor shall it be construed as establishing the University or any portion of its campus as a public forum.”
The official interpretation is that, as a private university, speeches are limited to students, staff, and faculty.
He also said that Section Four of the policy statement is “open to a variety of interpretations.” The section says that no person shall be permitted to speak who cannot reasonably be expected to meet the “University’s tradition of excellence in education.”
(Tommorow — an exploration of the view that student leaders hold concerning the policy. Is the complaint concerned with the policy, or with the philosophy behind it?)
University of Southern California
Mayor Lindsay to speak on urban problems today
NEW YORK MAYOR JOHN LINDSAY	VOL. LIX
A history of public service	-
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1967
NO. 42
As mayor, as congressman and as public citizen, John V. Lindsay of New York has lived with the city.
Born in New York City and educated in the Ivy League. Lindsay served briefly in the Navy before returning to the Yale School of Law\
In 1952 he was elected president of the New York City Young Republican Club, in 1958 he won his first of four elections to the House of Representatives, and on Jan. 1, 1966.
he wras sworn in as the 103rd mayor of the City of New York.
Lindsay, who will speak in Bovard Auditorium at 10 a.m. today on the topic, “Can We Make Our Cities Liveable?” has found his life dedicated largely to this one question.
After his election he helped found the National Coalition, a group of more than 1,000 leaders in business, labor, education, religion and communications, formed to direct more pri-
vate efforts to the task of rebuilding American cities.
In the summer of 1967 President Johnson named Lindsay vice-chairman of the National Commission on Urban Disorders.
The commission wras assigned the responsibility of determining the causes of past violence in the cities and finding means of prevention in the future.
University Senate kills short semester plan
GIRLS START WORK ON HOUSE DECORATIONS Mary Larimer, Pat Murphey and Denise Floryan make additions to exhibits
Shouts of kill' will resound as Big Game frenzy hits campus
By CHRIS BRUECKEL
A. proposal for an alteration in the academic calendar was defeated yesterday at the monthly meeting of the University Senate at the Faculty Center.
The proposal suggested that the academic year be changed from two 17 week semesters—15 class weeks plus final examination periods—to two 14 to 15 week semesters—including final examination periods.
With such an academic calendar, the fall semester would begin in early September and end at the beginning of Christmas vacation, thus eliminating the “lame-duck” session after Christmas.
The spring semester would commence in early January and end in mid-to-late April.
The period from May to September would be used for a continuation of summer sessions, special institutes, workshops, short courses, seminars and optional third semesters.
John Elliott, asociate professor of economics, and a member of the Senate Committee on Academic Planning said. “The proposed change would be mild, so a workload change would be only as mild. It says it is not so radical, simply a modest approval that USC needs. If in two or three years it works out. fine.
“The proposal has an advantage in completing the first semester before Christmas.” Conrad Wedberg, director of admissions, said.
“However, this plan would eliminate many transfer students and reduce the number of students accepted as freshmen. This would mean teacher salary changes.”
“A summer session in May is unrealistic. It would reduce summer enrollment.”
Several members of the Senate voted against the proposal on the
grounds that they had not had time to read and study the document thoroughly. It has not yet been determined whether the plan will be resubmitted.
A second proposal concerning fiscal relations between the schools and colleges of the university, with specific reference to the question of the subsidization of “deficit-creating” schools from the economic resources of “surplus-creating” schools, was referred to next month’s meeting after the Senate voted to have the wording of the question changed.
The proposal focuses upon relations between budgets and income directly attributable to the schools and college, such as tuition, fees, contracts, and restricted gifts.
A member of the New York City, New York State and American Bar Associations, Lindsay also serves on the Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York City, the YMCA Board of Advisors and the Board of Directors of the New York City Mission Society.
He has written articles on urban affairs for Harper’s, the Atlantic Monthly, the Saturday Evening Post, the Saturday Review and the New York Times Magazine. He is also the author of the book, “Journey Into Politics.”
Lindsay’s speech, the fourth Great Issues Forum presentation this year, will be followed by a question-and-answer period in Bovard and a reception in the Hall of Nations later in the day.
He will also speak tonight at Legion Lex, support group for the School of Law.
The sound of KILL will echo throughout the campus as Troy Week activities hit a fever pitch with the second of five pre-game rallies this afternoon and the final house decorations lasting throughout the night.
Knights and Squires are continu-
ing their 24-hour guard duty around Tommy Trojan in anticipation of a UCLA attack late this week, and plans are being finalized for tomorrow evening’s torch parade, rally, bonfire and street dance in Hoover Park.
Yell King Rusty Jordan will lead the cheers today at 3 p.m. at the Bovard practice field, and tomorrow at 2:30 p.m. for the freshman game in the Coliseum, at 5 p.m. at the practice field and at 8 p.m. at the bonfire.
Jordan and his cohorts will fall into step behind the Trojan Marching Band, at the head of the torch parade set to leave Woody’s parking lot at 7:55 p.m. tomorrow.
“In just two days the Trojans will play for the championship of the college world,” Jordan said.
“But that really doesn’t matter much when you consider the Rose Bowl and the city championship.
“You may be working on house decorations or just wandering around wondering if the team will win. But don’t worry about that, worry about yourselves. The team will be as prepared as they can be, but you're the only ones that can show school spirit.
“You’re the only ones that can give them a little something extra beyond all their preparation.
“Do you w'ant to be in the Coliseum late Saturday afternoon yelling ‘We want the team’ and going berserk? Do you want to beat UCLA?
“Then think about it. And be at the rallies this week.”
University Avenue and 28th Street will have rallies of their own tonight, as nearly 40 individual groups finish this year's house decorations in time for the judging at 3 p.m. tomorrow.
The awards for the best entries will be presented at the Hoover Park bonfire before the Canned Heat start the street dance.
ROOTERS RULES TO BE ENFORCED
Trojan Knights and Squires will be on extra alert at the game Saturday to strictly enforce regulations for admittance to the rooting
section.
All students sitting in the section must have on white shirts or blouses, carry their I.D. cards and have an activity book.
TYD POLL RESULTS
Viet war called mistake
A majority of students polled by the Trojan Young Democrats believe that the presence of the United States military in Vietnam is a mistake, yet do not feel the U.S. should withdraw from Vietnam.
An overwhelming majority disagreed with the way the administration is conducting the war in Vietnam, and did not feel that the U.S. should escalate the war.
Senator Robert Kennedy barely polled more votes than Nelson Rockefeller in the presidential poll. Richard
Nixon ran third and President Johnson was fourth.
f
Almost an absolute majority said that if they were voting in an election today, they would consider a candidate’s stand on the Vietnam war important.
Presidential results were: Kennedy, 94; Rockefeller, 87; Nixon, 68; Johnson, 43; Gov. Ronald Reagan, 38; Sen. J. William Fullbright, 32; Sen. Mark Hatfield, 31; Gov. George Romney, 28; Barry Goldwater, 20; Sen.
Eugene McCarthy, 18; Rev. Martin Luther King, 15; Gen. James Gavin, 13; Sen. Charles Percy, 11.
Others receiving votes were Mayor Sam Yorty, Sen. Thomas Kuchel, Mayor John Lindsay, Sen. Wayne Morse, former Governor George Wallace, William F. Buckley and Harold Stassen.
Ninety-five voters were undecided.
Steve Beidner, TYD president, said the Vietnam issue was by far considered the most important in the upcoming primary. Other prominently mentioned issues included crime, civil rights and taxes.
“I was very glad to see that those questioned almost unanimously indicated they would consider a candidate’s stand on Vietnam in the vote,” he said.
“In our modem era of Hollywood-styled, no-issue candidates, it is encouraging to see that the students and faculty consider more substantive matters to be as important as commercialism.”
i