Free Speech Movement veterans, historians respond to the Occupy Cal events

Protesters filled Sproul Plaza Wednesday afternoon for the Nov. 9 Day of Action.
Anna Vignet/Senior Staff
Protesters filled Sproul Plaza Wednesday afternoon for the Nov. 9 Day of Action.

An appeal to the UC administration to restore Berkeley’s free speech tradition

We the undersigned Free Speech Movement (FSM) veterans and historians remind the UC administration that the university’s emergence as a center of free political expression on campus began in 1964 when the Free Speech Movement’s free speech principles were adopted by the UC Berkeley division of the Academic Senate in its historic Dec. 8 resolutions. Those resolutions affirmed the “content of free speech or advocacy should not be restricted by the university.” The resolutions established that there would be no restrictions on campus political expression but only on “time, place and manner,” meaning protests cannot interfere with classes or interfere “with the normal functions of the university.” The administration’s unilateral ban on tents and on a peaceful encampment on the lawn alongside Sproul Hall  (that neither interfered with classes nor prevented the “normal functions of the university”) clearly encroached on the free speech rights established by the Dec. 8 resolutions. In other words, the UC administration’s confrontational actions violated the university’s own free speech principles and policies, encroaching upon Berkeley’s historic free speech traditions.

This act of political repression threatens to return UC Berkeley to the pre-FSM era in which speech was freer off campus than on campus. Indeed, today there is greater free speech in New York’s Zucotti Park — where the dissident Occupy Wall Street encampment has been allowed to continue for months — than on the Berkeley campus. The fact that there is greater personal freedom in a park in Manhattan than on a public university campus in Berkeley should be a mark of shame for this administration. The fact that the UC administration chose to enforce its ban on a non-violent student encampment by inviting on to campus armed police and county sheriffs who violently attacked unarmed students is an affront to the very mission of the university.

We urge the University of California administration to cease and desist its violations of the Dec. 8 resolutions, to forswear and abandon all future use of police violence against law-abiding students and faculty, and to restore the campus to its historic free speech traditions.

— Bettina Aptheker, Robert Cohen,  Susan Druding, Barbara Garson,  Jackie Goldberg, Lynne Hollander, Colleen Lye, Anita Medal, Gar Smith, Barbara Stack, Lee Felsenstein (more names may be added)

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • UCMeP

    Why Occupy Cal when you can Mockupy Cal?
    http://ucmep.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/mockupy-cal/

  • Anonymous

    You FSM senior citizens are having a collective “senior moment”.  You fought for free speech but not free sleep.  Camping, sleeping, urinating, and fornicating in public are not forms of protected speech.  For you to include camping as free speech merely cheapens the legacy of your historic movement.

    • Bob

      Does the word “Jack Ass ” Ring a bell ? You do not have a clue!

  • Drsthesis

    Guest – what makes you think Berkeley is any different today? The response to the College Republican’s bake sale a month ago reinforced your point: UC Berkeley students, staff and faculty only support free speech when that speech is agreeable. All else is “condemned.”

    • http://profiles.google.com/aclancy547 Andrew Clancy

      Interesting. As far as I know, administration did not prevent the bake sale from occurring…unless the College Republican “pay what you can afford” bake sale I walked past a month or so ago was a mirage.

      I don’t know what “response” you’re talking about that infringed upon anyone’s right to free speech.

      And, last I checked, “condemning” actions or viewpoints or urging one action in favor of another neither violates anyone’s rights nor qualifies as a legitimate reason to blanketly condemn three groups of people.

  • Guest

    As I recall the 1960′s, the so called “Free Speech” movement believed in free speech only for those who agreed with them.  Dare to disagree with them and you were shouted down, or worse.

  • Anonymous

    #Solidarity! #Occupy, #OccupyEverything!

    • Ho Ho Ho

      #hashtags! #don’t! #workhere!