Page 8
Black Ink
February 28, 1985
, BSM Began With Demands Got Results
Movement has found that UNC is guilty of denying equal educational opportunities
to minority group members of the local community, the State of North Carolina and
the nation at large.”
To right some of the wrongs that the University had engaged in, the group had
come up with 23 demands. They included special admissions for Black students; an
African and Afro-American Studies Department; an Office for a Dean of Black
Students; Blacks on the Board of Admissions; student activities fees funding for the
young BSM; and better treatment of non-academic employees.
In fact, these weren’t the first demands the militant organization had made
since its inception in November 1967.
Disappointed with the campus NAACP, the top Black students at the University
had decided that a new organization should voice their views. For a month and a
half, the Student Legislature— the antecedent of the Campus Governing Council-
bad delayed passage of a Black student recruitment bill.
Finally, after suggesting that the program be funded with $820 of student ac
tivities fees, the bill had been defeated on Nov. 15. Outraged, 54 Black students had
met that night and elected Dobbins chairman along with a group of central commit
tee members (Ben Spaulding, Juan Cofield, Reginald Hawkins, Jr., William Polard
and Ike Battle).
Dobbins had said at the time, “We’re going to be more of an action group than
the NAACP ever was.”
The NAACP took a back seat for the
first time since 1962 when it began on
campus.
The immediate BSM goals included
getting a full credit Negro history course
with a Black man teaching it; getting fun
ding for the BSM from Student
Legislature; supporting Black candidates
for Student Legislature seats; and
agitating for the University to hire more
Black faculty members.
The goals seemed elementary and
without teeth—despite the organization’s
rhetoric. Even the first demonstrations by
the group had seemed more ceremonial
than anything else to the white students
who had happened upon them.
Feb. 15, 1968, found BSM members
in the streets of Chapel Hill marching as
part of a statewide protest of police slay
ings of three Black college students in
South Carolina. They had even burned an
effigy of South Carolina Governor Robert
McNair on Franklin Street.
But the first real test had come April
6. Martin Luther King Jr. had lain dying
on the balcony of a cheap motel in Mem
phis, Tenn. The assassin—a white man.
The angered Black students marched
to Franklin Street and back. They bought
mini Confederate flags, soaked them with
lighter fluid and burned them in front of
Kappa Alpha house—the fraternity that
most represented the Old South.
On April 9, the non-academic
employees along with the Black students
took a day off from work at the urging of
the BSM the Black workers could not be
found at their work stations that day. The
Daily Tar Heel staff writer who described
the strike said it crippled the dining ser
vices that day.
The BSM had shown it+iad power—
and it would use it.
The Dec. 11 demands should never
have come as a shock to the University
administration as far as they were con
cerned. And the Black students weren’t
going to wait very long for an answer.
On Dec. 14,40 Black students invad
ed South Building-much like an invasion
of the Old South by Union forces. For 30
minutes, they demanded to hear from Sit-
terson, who as on Dec. 11, was
unavailable. Claiborne Jones once again
met with them. Dobbins wasn’t pleased.
“The Chancellor obviously doesn’t
feel that the situation is critical enough to
meet with us and do something,” Dob
bins told the Daily Tarheel. “It’s obvious
that we’re going to have to show him that
these demands are urgent.”
“We don’t make any demands that
we can’t follow,” he said. “We got ac
tions for any demands that we make.”
Sitterson finally acknowledged
receipt of the demands. However, it
would be February before he would
answer.
Nevertheless, the demands were get
ting responses from other places. The
University’s Faculty Council, after six
months of preparation, had come out Jan.
6 with four recommendations to the
University Administration—all addressed
in the 23 demands: a centrally directed ef
fort to increase the proportion of Blacks
on campus; a talent search for qualified
Blacks; an experimental program to get
any student who would do well at the
school, yet could not meet the academic
admission standards; and a Black assis
tant director in both the departments of
student aid and admissions.
In addition, the American Associa
tion of University Professors had pledged
support of the BSM and its demands.
Then, Jan. 23, the Chancellor beat
his self-imposed deadline for responding
to the BSM by a week; he issued a
19-page statement in answer to the
BSM’s demands.
The reply was less than favorable to
the Black organization, it began: “The
University cannot, in policy or practice,
provide unique treatment for any single
race, color or creed. To do so would be a
step backward, and the University should
set its sights on a better future.”
The individual answers went down
hill there. Sitterson either replied that the
problems were being studied or they had
been addressed. Typical of the rejections
and explanations in the reply was that to
the idea of an African and Afro-American
Studies Department.
Sitterson wrote that the Institute for
Research in the Social Sciences, the An
thropology Department, English Depart
ment, Sociology Department and
Political Sciences Department offered
such courses.
As for the financial aid question, Sit
terson simply said the University was
always looking for more money; to the
hiring of a Black admissions officer came
the reply that the Chancellor’s office
wasn’t in change of such hiring; and to
the non-academic employee treatment
demand—the University had already take
steps to alleviate problems.
The reaction was immediate—and
only a fraction of it came from the BSM.
The Greensboro Daily News, Durham
Morning Herald and Charlotte Observer
all praised the Chancellor’s reply as level
headed and rationally motivated.
The Daily News was most insulting
to the BSM and its demands: “We are
glad that Chancellor Sitterson was not
sidetracked by the emotionalism of the
December 11 “demands.” He has set the
right tone for this discussion—firm, but
calm and concilliatory. ...”
The BSM certainly wasn’t happy
about the reply.
“We support the BSM” signs could
be seen bouncing above the heads of 200
students and faculty members as they
marched single file through the campus
and down Franklin Street on Feb. 6. The
march ended in South Building—after 10
minutes of milling around, the marchers
emptied the building.
The UNC Graduate Student Associa
tion joined the BSM in its criticism of the
Chancellor’s reply. In addition, the DTH,
the Southern Student Organizing Com
mittee and the New University Con
ference joined to support the BSM.
As a backlash, to the sudden radi
calism on campus, Grainger Barrett, a
UNC student announce the formation of a
Hayakawa Society, after the famed con
servative California legislator.
Dobbins, nevertheless, said, “We
don’t intend to back down.”
He added: “We would like to have
the support of white students, but we are
going to do our own thing regardless.”
The Black students were not looking
to back down. To give themselves the
militant look, they began wearing
rawhide belts with .50 calibre machine
gun shells.
They also offered the Chancellor un
til Feb. 21 to answer them fully ... or
else.
On Feb. 19, the Chancellor issued a
statement: “The Black Student Move
ment is an officially recognized organiza
tion.”
Governor Robert Scott added his
own advice to the student-chancellor
disagreement: Scott would not hesitate to
send the Highway Patrol and National
Guard units to campuses.
But, the BSM would not have a
chance to have a show down over the 23
specific demands. On Feb. 23, 17
University food workers decided that
they wanted the day off and would keep
taking the day off until their pay was
raised.
The BSM, in its demands, had called
for better conditions for non-academic
employees; the BSM had obligated itself
to helping the workers.
* * *
Over the next few years, however,
almost all of the demands were met. The
first was a special admissions project
begun in the fall 1969. By fall 1971, one-
third of the Black students on campus
were “special admissions” students with
good academic potential.
The next demand to fall was African
and Afro-American Studies Curriculum
Department demand. On April 19, 1969,
the Committee on Afro-American and
African Studies Curricula suggested that
the University add 23 courses in Black
studies.
Professor G.B. Cleveland, chairman
of the committee, said, “The idea has
been discussed, before, but the BSM
demands got things moving.”
In less than two years, the BSM was
also receiving student funding. In addi
tion, Black faces soon could be seen in
administrative offices as well as in front
of classrooms—albeit in very small
numbers.
Of the 23 demands, 85 percent were
met within five years. The rest, by
nature, lost priority status. For example,
one demand was that the Student Union
director be fired for misleading the BSM
about procedures for collecting money
for a Stokely Carmichael lecture on cam
pus. The director didn’t remain with the
University long after the demands were
made.
When the 1971 academic year began,
the students on campus found the BSM
less politically and community-oriented,
and more campus-oriented. It by no
means, had arrived—but the BSM initia
tion period seemed over as the organiza
tion turned to governing responsibilities.
Fastbreak
Mexican Delivery
Restaurant
Next to A&P on Airport Road
968-0033
Buy One NACHOS
PLUS Get One FREE
Expires 3/15/85
not valid with any other offer