UNC System Board of Trustees

Pages That Need Review

Volume 09: June 17, 1964–February 28, 1966

474
Page Status Needs Review

468

Sec. 3. No vehicle shall be driven in a direction opposite to that indicated by appropriate signs on streets, roadways, alleys, or driveways which have been designated as one way streets.

Sec. 4. When stop signs or signals are erected upon streets, roadways, or alleys of the campus, every driver of a vehicle shall stop at every such sign or signal, or at a clearly marked stop line, before entering the street or intersection except when directed to proceed by an officer or traffic control signals.

Sec. 5. When yield si.gns are erected upon streets, roadways, or alleys of the campus, every driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to opposing traffic before entering the street or intersection, except when directed to proceed by an officer or traffic control signals.

Article XII. "PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING FACULTY AND STAFF TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS" is amended as follows:

ARTICLE XII. PROHIBITED USES OF STREETS

Sec. 1. No person shall use the streets, roadways, parking lots, alleys, driveways, or sidewalks of the campus for the purpose of advertising any article, commodity, service or event by sign, poster, drawing, painting, or photograph, by crying out the same, or by using any loud speaker, musical instrument or noise-making device; provided, however, that the Administration may formulate and issue a policy regarding the broadcasting of musical or educational programs, or announcement of campus activities.

Sec. 2. No person, firm or corporation shall use the streets, roadways, parking lots, alleys, driveways, or sidewalks on the campus for the purpose of selling or offering for sale any article, commodity, or service; provided, however, that this section shall not be deemed to prohibit the selling or delivery of goods to dining halls or duly authorized selling agencies of North Carolina State; provided further, that this section shall not be deemed to prohibit the sale or delivery of groceries and other necessary household commodities to residents of housing projects operated or sponsored by N.C. State.

Sec. 3. The Administration shall have authority to cause the closing of any street, roadway, parking lot, alley, or driveway, or any portion thereof, on the campus when it shall appear necessary for the purpose of construction or maintenance work, or for the protection of pedestrians, or for special events. When such closing has been caused and when proper signs, barriers, or obstructions have been erected to give notice thereof no person shall willfully drive into or upon such street, roadway, alley, or driveway, or portion thereof, or break down, remove, injure or destroy any such sign, barrier, or obstruction.

Sec. 4 No person shall, without having legitimate business on the premises, loaf or loiter on any street, roadway, parking lot, alley, driveway, or sidewalk on the campus. This provision shall also apply to any area of the campus or to any building or structure

Sec. 5. No person, firm or corporation shall throw, dump, or place in any manner any paper, glass, trash, garbage, dirt, rubbish, filth, wood, boxes or any other articles or substances on any street, roadway, parking lot, alley, driveway or sidewalk of the campus or any place where such matter may be blown or washed or may fall upon such street or way; provided, however, that this section shall not be deemed to prohibit any construction or maintenance work.

Last edit over 1 year ago by alietheperson
479
Page Status Needs Review

473

that as the institution was changed very recently from a two-year, and then a four-year college of community type to one of University status, the chancellor we considered should be a person of national stature in the field of education from the standpoint of scholarly attainment and demonstrated administrative capability. One whose stature is such as to attract an outstanding faculty; a person experienced in the development and operation of a university; a person fully capable in every respect of leading the institution to the realization of its vast potential in graduate as well as undergraduate curriculum. And finally, a person young enough to serve in the capacity as Chancellor for at least ten years before reaching the mandatory requirement age of 65 years. Our efforts have been richly rewarded. We have been most fortunate in finding a person who meets all of the requirements and who is willing to accept the challenge of developing the Charlotte campus into a vital part of the University to the end that ultimately it will be on a level with the campuses at Chapel Hill, Greensboro and Raleigh.

"We now yield to President Friday so he may present his recommendation to the Board."

President Friday:

"Mr. Chairman, after receiving the report of Mr. Heath's Committee, I conferred with the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees and I am pleased to recommend with the approval of the Executive Committee the appointment of Dr. Dean W. Colvard as Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

"Dr. Colvard is a native North Carolinian. He was born in Ashe County on July 10, 1913. He is well-known to many people in this state through his long and highly significant service to North Carolina, and particularly N.C. State which he has served as a professor, department head, and dean between 1947 to 1960 when he became the President of Mississippi State University, the position which he now holds.

"He was educated in the public schools of North Carolina, at Berea College, the University of Missouri, and Purdue University where he received the Ph.D. degree in 1950 and an honorary doctor's degree in 1961.

"Dr. Colvard is a national figure in higher education. He is Chairman of the President's Council of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and he has been a member or officer of several of the major committees of this Association. He has been active in the work of the

Last edit over 1 year ago by alietheperson
480
Page Status Needs Review

474

American Council on Education, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the Southern Regional Education Board, the Mississippi Rhodes Scholarship Committee, and other educational agencies on the national and regional level.

"He is a member of the Board of Trustees of Berea College; he has been a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond; and is a member of Phi Kappa Phi, Blue Key, Omicron Delta Kappa, and other professional and honor societies.

"While he has been president, the enrollment at Mississippi State University has grown from 4,500 to 7,300 and graduate enrollment doubled. He developed a long-range plan for the development of the campus and a development program that has already accumulated assets of several million dollars.

"Dr. Colvard has worked overseas in Peru, Thailand, and in other countries as a consultant to our government and to private foundations, and has visited some twenty foreign countries in carrying out these and other responsibilities.

"He is a Presbyterian and has served his church as deacon and elder.

"Dr. & Mrs. Colvard have two daughters and a son; their dauther Carol is a resident of Raleigh.

"I am delighted to recommend this distinguished North Carolinian to you for appointment as Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte." Mr. Leath:

"Our Committee is highly pleased that our Board now has the opportunity to bring back a native son who has achieved distinction and is one of the most illustrious educators.

"Your Excellency, it gives me pleasure to nominate for the position of Chancellor of the Charlotte campus, Dean Wallace Colvard. "

The nomination by Mr. Leath was seconded by Mrs. Wilson, and Dr. Colvard was elected by unanimous vote. President Friday:

"Mr. Chairman, before inviting Dr. and Mrs. Colvard to come and appear before this Board, I want to make it clear that the Trustees who have been directly involved in this election and I all share deep appreciation for the outstanding work that Miss Cone has done in bringing the Charlotte campus to its present status. It is a magnificent achievement. We are equally clear in our desire to have the continuing benefit of her experience and ability in the

Last edit over 1 year ago by alietheperson
481
Page Status Needs Review

475

development of this campus of the University, and this desire has been made known to her. The offer that Miss Cone is considering is for appointment as a Vice Chancellor of the University at Charlotte and professorship in mathematics at an annual salary of $18,000. We believe that this appointment affords an effective means of retaining Miss Cone's demonstrated capacities in the service of the University.

"Miss Cone has stated that she wishes Dr. Colvard to have the opportunity to shape his own administrative staff. She and Dr. Colvard have had several discussions and Miss Cone has agreed to continue as Acting Chancellor until Dr. Colvard takes up his duties at Charlotte on a full-time basis within the near future. Dr. Colvard has also asked Miss Cone to assist him in the transition period once he is in residence and she has graciously agreed to do this.

"Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask Miss Cone to stand because I know everybody here wishes to express our appreciation to her. "

Miss Cone received a standing ovation.

Dr. and Mrs. Colvard were escorted to the Hall and were presented to the Governor and the Board by President Friday. They were warmly received.

Dr. Colvard then made the following statement:

"Governor Moore, members of the Board, President Friday, Miss Cone, my fellow educators who are here:

"I am sure that this is not the hour for a lengthy statement from a new chancellor, or perhaps anyone else, but I would like to take this opportunity if I may to express my deep gratitude to you for inviting us to North Carolina - back to North Carolina - in what we consider a most important educational assignment.

"As we have viewed the University of North Carolina at Charlotte we see an emerging institution; emerging on the basis of a foundation which has been very skillfully and diligently wrought by Miss Cone and her associates; emerging in a frame work which has been built by the study and careful thought of the trustees and the action of the Legislature. We see it emerging in an area of our state which is dynamic and going, and we see it emerging in an educational setting which is demanding more from higher education year after year, and certainly in a pattern of university education which can give assistance to a fledging institution.

Last edit over 1 year ago by alietheperson
487
Page Status Needs Review

481

At the same meeting, by formal vote, the faculty requested the undersigned, constituting the Facuity Advisory Committee, to appear before the Executive Committee and present the faculty's position.

The Faculty resolution speaks for itself. We strongly endorse it. There has been no opportunity to submit for formal faculty approval the addidonal thoughts expressed herein. They are consistent with the resolution and we believe that they are shared by an overwhelming majority of the members of our faculty, but they are not submitted as official faculty statements.

It is imperative that the Aptheker invistation not be cancelled. The administration, the faculties and the students have joined to affirm their dedicated adherence to the principle of freedom of expression. The Trustees cannot disregard that stand without doing incalculable - and irreparable - harm to the University.

We recognize that Communists, once in power, suppress freedom of expression; and that Communsts out of power use that freedom in an attempt to gain enough power to destroy it. There is, however, no present danger that speeches by American Communists, on or off campuses, will propel them to power. If the Trustees act to suppress freedom of expression, such action is in line with Communist, not with American tenets; and by such action the Trustees, in the name of preserving freedom, will have destroyed it. The death of freedom is a profound tragedy, whether the trigger is pulled by a Communist or by a Trustee.

With virtual unanimity the faculties of all great American colleges and universities believe that freedom of expression is a vital necessity both for excellence in higher education and for the preservation of American democracy. It is the cornerstone upon wh ch our country was founded and has been built - and nowhere should th s be recognized more readily than in North Carolina, where our forebears refused to ratify the Constitution of the United States until it was accompanied by the Bill of Rights.

This great American right of free expression should alone be enough, if properly presented and proudly defended by the Governor and the Trustees, to convince North Carolinians that the Aptheker invitation should stand. But these are subsidiary considerations which are also most persuasive.

(l) Authorized spokesmen for private universities and colleges, in and out of this State, have repeatedly made it clear that it is their policy to allow freedom of expression, and that they have no substantial fear that controversial speakers will hoodwink their students into subversive thoughts and activities. Surely students on State-supported campuses are in no greater need of protection than students at Duke, Wake Forest and Davidson.

(2) One of Aptheker's companions on the trip to Hanoi - a member of the Yale University faculty - was recently allowed to state his views on a nationwide news telecast by CBS. So far as we know there has been no move to ban CBS telecasts from our campuses, nor do we know of any North Carolina listeners who were inspired by his remarks to emulate him. Should the Trustees of the University be more timid then those responsible for the operations of a commercially oriented broadcasting system?

(3) An invitation to speak on the Chapel Hill campus has been issued to the founder of the John Birch Society (who is, incidentally, an alumnus). This is conclusive proof that our advocacy of freedom of expression is not motivated by any desire to promote the cause of the radical left.

(4) A speaker banned from the campus may appear elsewhere in Chapel Hill - as happened while the speaker ban legislation was in effect. If such safeguards as panels, question periods and faculty chairmen are necessary or desirable, they obviously cannot be then guaranteed by the Trustees or by any University authority. Nor is it in the least feasible to backstop a campus speaker ban by prohibiting students from attending off-campus functions. Indeed, the campus ban is most likely to increase the off campus attendance. In this respect, a Trustee speaker ban actually enhances rather than minimizes any danger that students may be mislead into Communist sympathies.

(5) This last-mentioned danger is minimal in any event. It is true that ideas remain, as hey have always been, the most explosively dangerous of all the inventions of civilized man. But the modern college or university student is not more gullible than his elders, and he is not easily misled by speakers with axes to grind. (Who can speak more authoritatively about this than we, whose ideas have been efficiently ignored by generations of students?) The best possible way to insure that a student with normal intellectual curiosity

Last edit over 1 year ago by alietheperson
489
Page Status Needs Review

483

in the faculties of the University. When Trustees take action which weakens these faculties, they do great damage to the future of North Carolina - damage no less harmful because unintended. For this, in a very real sense, Trustees taking such action must answer to their children and grandchildren and to generations yet unborn.

In summary of the above it is plain that a crisis has arisen. Crises fall for the courage and wisdom to find solutions which preserve fundamental principles. The principle at stake in this crisis is freedom of expression in the context of high quality advanced education. The Covernor of this State and the Trustees of this Universi y have no higher responsibility Lhan to accept this principle, act forthrightly upon it, and stoutly defend that action. If - which we most seriously doubt - a majority of the people of North Carolina is currently opposed to such action, it is only because the issue is not clearly understood. The Governor and the Trustees have it within their power to lead a substantial majority to understanding and approval - and even if this were subject to greater doubt than we feel, they are under an inescapable duty to make the attempt.

This statement was adopted by the Chancellor's Faculty Advisory Committee in its meeting on February 6, 1966.

The Faculty Advisory Committee:

Bernard Boyd Henry P. Brandis James R. Gaskin James L. Godfrey Cecil Johnson Eugen Merzbacher Joseph C. Sloane William Wells George E. Nicholson, Jr., chairman

February 7, 1966 Respectfully submitted for the Committee Eugen Merzbacher, Secretary

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY STUDENT GROUP

Governor Moore and members of the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees:

I am Paul Dickson, III, President of the Student Body of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I am from Raeford, North Carolina. I have served in the Air Force for almost four years, ten months of that time in South Vietnam.

I am honored by this opportunity to present the views of the University Student Body on such vital topics as academic freedom and free speech. I which to speak specifically on two points this afternoon. The first is Dr. Herbert Aptheker's proposed appearance on our campus and the second is the procedures proposed to you for regulating speakers on our campus.

Ladies and gentlemen, our colleges and universities must serve as an open forum for different views and opinions, no matter how unpopular or divergent, and guarantee to all members of the academic community the right to hear all sides of issues. We know that you realize that only through the critical examination of alternatives can the accumulated knowledge of society be advanced.

Student Government through its executive agency the Carolina Forum has always tried to present all points of view. We feel that we have the responsibility to the University to present all points of view - from the extreme right to the extreme left. We feel that you share our views and realize the importance of this matter to the educational community. I would like to point out the speakers we have presented since April of 1964:

Governor Ross Barnett of Mississippi Governor Averell Harriman, Assistant Secretary of State Mr. Herbert Philbrick, noted counterspy agent of the F.B.I. The Honorable Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr. , Undersecretary of Commerce Ambassador John Kenneth Galbraith, prominent diplomat, economist

Last edit over 1 year ago by alietheperson
490
Page Status Needs Review

484

Mr. Hugh H. Hefner, editor and publisher of PLAYBOY Mr. Richard Harkness, NBC news commentator The Honorable Hale Boggs, majority whip of the U. S. House of Representatives The Honorable Charles Longstreet Weltner, member of the U. S. House of Representatives and member of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities Major L. P. McLendon, distinguished N.C. public servant Peter B. Young, noted N.C. News Analyst for WRAL-TV Mr. Floyd B. McKissick, chairman of the Board of the Congress of Racial Equality.

I would like to list those who will appear this spring: 1) Robert Welch 2) Possibly Russell Long 3) Fulton Lewis, III

Here are some of the individuals we have tried to get to come to the Carolina Forum:

William Buckley, editor of the NATIONAL REVIEW Mr. Dean Burch The Honorable Richard Daley The Honorable Everett Dirksen The Honorable Arthur Goldberg The Honorable Harry S. Truman The Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey The Honorable Richard Nixon The Honorable Adlai Stevenson The Honorable J. Edgar Hoover Dr. Martin Luther King Mr. George Meany Mr. James Reston Mr. Edward P. Morgan The Honorable George Wallace The Honorable Barry Goldwater The Honorable Nelson Rockefeller The Honorable William Scranton Mr. James Hoffa Mr. Walter Reuther The Honorable Robert Kennedy The Honorable Edward Kennedy The Honorable George Romney The Honorable Russell Long The Honorable Robert McNamara The Honorable Bill Moyers The Honorable Earl Warren Mr. Robert Welch The Honorable Dwight D. Eisenhower

This represents only a small fraction of the invitations which we have issued.

Continuing our policy of presenting all viewpoints we have extended an invitation and received an acceptance from Dr. Herbert Aptheker to participate in a panel discussion on March 9th on the Carolina Forum. This invitation was extended by the Student Government and the DAILY TAR HEEL.

We feel that Dr. Aptheker is qualified as an academician having received his doctorate degree from Columbia University. He is also the author of some 17 books.

We disagree with the point of view which Dr. Aptheker represents and we find his illegal trip to Hanoi particularly distasteful. But we would respectfully contend that he should be allowed to speak at the University. We don't think that any person should be refused his right to speak at Chapel Hill or anywhere else in America because of his political affiliation or background - no matter how distasteful it might be.

As I have said, I have served my country in South Vietnam and I feel that I have a good understanding of our constant and growing struggle with Communism.

Last edit over 1 year ago by alietheperson
492
Page Status Needs Review

486

North Carolina has given you the responsibility of upholding the ideas of a free University. We have faith in your guidance and in your ability to keep our University one of the finest educational institutions in the country.

As students we have expressed our united opinion on this matter and with confidence we leave this decision to you.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are no traitors among us. This student body at Chapel Hill is America, it is Tar Heel, it is loyal and patriotic. When we are called by our country, we shall answer, even in the cannon's mouth.

We ask only the right to listen and to inquire, the opportunity to make our own judgment of the rights and wrongs, the direction and the goals of our generation. Thank you.

Paul Dickson, III President, Student Body, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. February 7, 1966.

STATEMENT OF DR. NATHANIEL RODMAN FOR GROUP OF YOUNG FACULTY MEMBERS

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I represent a concerned group of younger faculty at the University of North Carlina at Chapel Hill. To begin with, I want to make it clear that we support fully the position of the administration - that is, the Chancellor and the President and the position of the general faculty, as they have been presented.

Our major concern regards the effects of the decision of this Committee on the intellectual resources and growth of the University, particularly during the next decade or so. These years will be the most productive ones of our careers in teaching and research.

We need to anticipate an environment of free inquiry which will attract and retain scholars - both teachers and students - of the highest calibre at our University. It is only in this kind of environment that we can achieve our own goals, namely the best teaching and research of which we are capable. Only thus could we provide that service to the State of North Carolina for which literally the University exists and for which we were hired. We have great pride in the present stature of the University, and we earnestly desire that this stature be maintained.

Maintenance of this high stature requires intellectual controversy, which is essential to the educational process. The evolution of the present visiting speaker issue raises the question in our minds and in the minds of our students as to whether intellectual controversy will be allowed at our University. It is our firm conviction that if such controversy is not allowed the University will decline in the sense that it will no longer be a true university.

The state of the current issue also raises the question as to whether the Board of Trustees has confidence in its faculty and students. Such confidence is imperative if we are to be effective in using controversy in the educational process. That is, without the Board's confidence we cannot effectively utilize opportunities for intellectual controversy.

Irrespective of why the invitation to Dr. Aptheker was issued, any statement of a position together with the subsequent discussion could and should be as educational experience. It is our responsibility to make it so, and we will do that - but we must first have the opportunity to do it.

TWO MOTIONS PASSED BY THE FACULTY SENATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY AT RALEIGH AT A SPECIAL MEETING ON FEBRUARY 4, 1966

The Facuity Senate of North Carolina State University at Raleigh supports in principle the resolution concerning visiting speakers passed by the General F acuity of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on February 3, 1966:

Last edit over 1 year ago by alietheperson
493
Page Status Needs Review

487

"The freedom to hear is a precious traditional right guaranteed to all Americans by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This freedom is fundamental to the purposes of the University, an institution dedicated to the pursuit of truth.

"We urge the Board of Trustees to recognize the right of all members of the academic community including authorized student groups to invite and to hear all speakers of their choice consistent with proper administrative regulations.

"The faculty endorses the affirmative recommendations of the Chancellor and the President regarding the appearance of Mr. Herbert Aptheker as a visiting speaker on March 9. "

Resolution passed by the General Faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill F ebruary 3, 1966.

The Faculty Senate of North Carolina State University urges the speedy enactment of procedures to enable the chancellors to exercise their responsibilities respecting invitations to visiting speakers covered by General Statues Chapter 116, Article 22.

RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE ACADEMIC POLICIES COMMITTEE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO

February 5, 1966

We reaffirm the University of North Carolina's traditional and essential role in the pursuit of truth. To this end, we believe that the University, consistent with proper administrative procedures, must provide a forum for the divergent views that constitute a basic challenge for our times. In a democracy it is essential that all ideas be examined in public debate.

This Committee, elected by the UNC-G faculty, therefore, endorses the recommendation of the President of the University of North Carolina regarding the appearance of Mr. Herbert Aptheker as a visiting speaker at UNC-CH on March 9, 1966.

RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE GENERAL FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY AT CHARLOTTE

RESOLVED, that this faculty concur in the resolution of the General Faculty of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill of February 3, 1966, and request that the Chapel Hill Faculty Advisory Committee report this concurrence to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of the University of North Carolina.

RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the General Faculty of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte transmit by certified mail a copy of the previously passed resolution to the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of the University of North Carolina.

STATEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL CHAPTER OF THE STUDENTS FOR A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY

Since a large number of incorrect statements and misquotations have appeared in the press concerning UNC-SDS's invitation to Herbert Aptheker and Frank Wilkinson to speak on the campus at Chapel Hill this spring, SDS is releasing the following statement to help straighten out the facts.

1. It has been stated by several papers that SDS in inviting these men to speak, is attempting in some way to challenge the University administration and the Board of Trustees. The assumption here is that the administration and the Board of Trustees will or should be opposed to the appearance of Aptheker and Wilkinson. Persons who make this assumption forget that the administration and the Board of Trustees took a consistent stand for freedom of speech and academic freedom throughout the speaker ban controversy.

Last edit over 1 year ago by alietheperson
494
Page Status Needs Review

488

2. It has been incorrectly reported that Frank Wilkinson, head of the National Committee to Abolish the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC), could not have spoken in Chapel H 11 when the speaker ban law was in effect because he had taken the Fifth Amendment. The fact is that he took the First Amendment and only the First Amendment before HUAC.

3. People have questioned our motives in inviting these men to speak. We invited both Wilkinson and Aptheker to speak because these men articulate important stands on basic issues facing our society. We issued the invitations because we believe their presence will generate serious debate and discussion. Both speakers have assured us in writing that they are happy to have questions from the floor following their addresses, in accordance with the well-established academic tradition.

/s/ Roy James McCorkel, Jr. President, UNC-SDS.

The entire problem was discussed at great length. Several motions and resolutions were offered and withdrawn.

Governor Moore stated that he had not attempted to dictate to the Executive Committee and did not expect to. He did, however, reserve the right, as Chairman, to express his views.

President Friday reviewed the situation as he sees it and presented for approval of the Committee certain rules and regulations to govern invitations to visiting speakers who come under the Speaker Ban Bill. They are as follows:

VISITING SPEAKER POLICY

On November 12, 1965 the Board of Trustees adopted the following visiting speaker policy:

The Trustees recognize that this Institution, and every part thereof, is owned by the people of North Carolina; that it is operated by duly selected representatives and personnel for the benefit of the people of our state.

The Trustees of this Institution are unalterably opposed to Communism and any other ideology or form of government which has as its goal the destruction of our basic democratic institutions.

We recognize that the total program of a college or university is committed to an orderly process of inquiry and discussion, ethical and moral excellence, objective instruction, and respect for law. An essential part of the education of each student at this Institution is the opportunity to hear diverse viewpoints expressed by speakers properly invited to the campus. It is highly desirable that students have the opportunity to question, review and discuss the opinions of speakers representing a wide range of viewpoints.

It is vital to our success in supporting our free society against all forms of totalitarianism that institutions remain free to examine these ideologies to any extent that will seve the educational purpose of our institutions and not to the purposes of the enemies of our free society.

We feel that the appearance as a visiting speaker on our campus of one who was prohibited under Chapter 1207 of the 1963 Session Laws (The Speaker Ban Law) or who advocates any ideology or form of government which is wholly alien to our basic democratic institutions should be infrequent and then only when it would clearly serve the advantage of education; and on such rare occasions reasonable and proper care should be exercised by the institution. The campuses shall not be exploited as convenient outlets of discord and strife.

Last edit over 1 year ago by alietheperson
Displaying pages 71 - 80 of 275 in total