Newspapers / Fayetteville State University Student … / May 12, 1971, edition 1 / Page 6
Part of Fayetteville State University Student Newspaper / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
PAGF 6...THF VOICE...MAY 12, 1971 - CAMPUS BILL OF RIGHTS RECOMMENDED ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦—* Chicago, 111, March 14. The Carnegie Commis sion of Higher Education proposed yesterday adop tion of '‘Bills of Rights and Responsibilities” for members of American colleges and universities, and suggested new guide lines for campus respon ses to dissent and dis ruption. At a press briefing here on a report to be publish ed by McGraw-Hill in Ap ril, Dr. Clark Kerr, the Commission’s chairman, said the Commission found that, in recent years, American campuses have been in “the greatest tur moil in all of their his tory.” Dissatisfaction and disaffection that re flect concerns for many current problems in American society and many problems faced by the colleges persist, and are expected to be pre sent on campuses for the foreseeable future. The Commission’s new report is addressed principally to the students, faculties, trustees, and administra tors of die nation’s cam puses, and recommends procedures designed to assure that dissent and protest on campuses be expressed in constructive ways and in accord with the principles of a free society. Specifically, the report recommends these three steps: 1. Adoption, campus by campus, of “A Bill of Rights and Responsibili ties for Members of the Institution,” A model bill is suggested. 2. Development by each campus of effective mea sures for consultation and contingency planning in the event of disruptive emergencies. In particu- lar,the Commission says, *‘a campus is not and can not be a sanctuary from the general law, and thus, must relate more con sciously and effectively with the police than it did in earlier periods.” 3. Creation by each campus of effective judi cial procedures: Consid eration of using external panels and persons, and of the general courts for certain types of cases is suggested. One of the difficulties in dealing with "campus unrest”, the Commis sion reports, is that the American public seems to show limited tolerance for mass protest activi ties, even when they are within the bounds of the law. The Commission report distinguishes be tween dissent and dis ruption and proposes that responses to events on a campus be based on this distinction. The Commissiondefines DISSENT as: “Individual or organized activity which expresses griev ances held against, or changes desired in, so ciety, or a campus, or both. The activity is car ried on within the limits of the democratic pro cesses of freedom of speech, assembly, and petition. Dissent may be more generalized than around a single grievance or remedy and may have an ideological base. It of ten includes proposed solutions as well as com plaints.” The Commission’s re port says that dissent “lies at the foundation of a university,” and that “organized dissent and protest activity within the law, are basic rights which must be protected on the campuses — as they should be for all cit izens everywhere.” DISRUPTION is defin ed by the Commission as: “Activity which is not protected by the First Amendment and which in terferes with the rights of others. Whereas dis sent relies on persuasion, disruption is based on co ercion and sometimes violence.” The report says that disruption “is utterly contradictory to the values and purposes of the campus, and to the processes of a demo cratic society... It must be morally condemned and met promptly by the efforts of the campus and, when necessary, by appli cation of the general law.” Society’s reaction to instances of coercion and violence should “be undertaken only with re ference to those specific individuals and groups who engage in them,” the report says. “A campus as a whole, a system as a w^iole, or higher edu cation as a whole, should not be penalized.” The Commission calls upon the campuses to re form themselves and to develop their own rules and procedures to protect dissent and prevent and control disruption. To this end, the Com mission recommends that members of each campus endeavor to agree on a bill of rights and respon sibilities applying equal ly to faculty, students, administrators, staff and trustees. “Too often, in the past,” the Commis sion says, “facultymem bers have set rules for the students but not for themselves; or trustees have set rules for the faculty but not for them selves. We believe the time is appropriate for certain rights and re sponsibilities to be ap plied equally to all mem bers of a campus.” The Commission’s bill treats with rights and re sponsibilities simultan eously “for one person’s rights are only effective as other people recog nize them and accept re sponsibility to guarantee them.” It also establishes the principle that the great er the privileges of mem bers of the institution, the more responsible they should be for maintenance of high standards of con duct and an environment conducive to extending, sharing, and examining knowledge and values. This applies particularly to faculty members with tenure and to trustees. In its review of emer gency situations on cam puses, the Commission found that (1) grievance procedures are often too slow or nonexistent; (2) rules governing protest activities have often been unwise or imprecise or both; (3) too many mem bers of the campus have been reluctant to give up “the myth of uninterrupt ed serenity,” and thus too few campuses have thought through the hand ling of emergencies; (5) the view that a campus is some kind of sanctuary from the law has been held “for too long by too many;” (6) police rela tions have been treated on an arms-length basis that encourages improvisa tion, rather than accepted as an essential part of campus life, as they are elsewhere in the society; (7) and campuses have of ten failed to consider temporary closure as a last resort in situations of clear danger of vio lence to persons or pro perty. The report recom mends that in cases of nonviolent disruption,to the extent possible, procedures internal to the campuses be used initial ly, and that nonviolent actions be met by respon ses which do not use phy sical force. But violent actions involving injury to persons or more than in cidental damage to pro perty should be met im mediately by enforce ment of the law, using internal and external personnel to the full ex- (7) and campuses have of ten failed to consider temporary closure as a last resort in situations fo clear danger of vio lence to persons or pro perty. The report recom mends that in cases of nonviolent disruption,to the extent possible, procedures internal to the campuses be used initial ly, and that nonviolent actions be met by respon ses which do not use phy sical force. But violent actions involving injury to persons or more than in cidental damage to pro perty should be met im mediately by enforce ment of the law, using internal and external personnel to the full ex tent necessary. The Commission urges that significant actions which could be construed as violations of the gen eral law be handled by the outside courts. On the campus, the Commission suggests the appointment of ombuds men to handle complaints made by faculty, students, or administrators infor- mally.If an ombudsman’s recommendations are not accepted, the case at is sue could go to a campus hearing officer for more formal investigation of the facts before a pro visional decision is reached; a member of the campus community could bring charges to the hear ing officer. Campuses might also consider ap pointing “campus attor neys” to prosecute cases of alleged violations of campus rules. If solutions recom mended by the hearing of ficer are not accepted by parties to a case, the matter should be refer red to some higher tri bunal. The Commission suggests that in cases which could result in su spension or dismissal,the tribunal might be com posed partially or totally of persons external to the (Continued on page 11) THE LAST POETS: THIS IS MADNESS When the Last Poets’ first album was released last year we had to stomp our feet into the ground and hold fast against indignant distributors, skeptical editors and confused retailers — all of whom were thrown back by the unusual musical form and its ac companying language. The only thing on our side was the fact that every one who looked past the shadow of the album’s heavy- but-justified language recognized the album as among the significant and communicative recordings ever made. As it were, after the initial brunt, channels open ed up and the album quickly shot up the charts (where it stood for over nine months) thanks to excited »vord-of-mouth on the street level, honest references Ln print, and a little help from friends (like Mick Jagger, who included ‘WAKE UP NIGGERS’ in ‘PER FORMANCE,’ and Jimi Hendrix, who wrote and record ed the radio spots). Because of the language most of the cuts couldn’t get airplay; the total number of spins were few. THIS IS MADNESS is the Poets’ second album. It is also Douglas’ first release through Columbia Re cords’ distribution. Most of the cuts on this release can be played; the first album by the Poets dealt exclusively with Black situations — it was a record by Black poets for Black people — on this second LP the Poets focus their insights into America - at- large. We believe that ‘This Is Madness’ is a particularly positive album, and animportantone.lt makes people think. It confronts. It challenges. And it uses the record medium like it should once-in-a-while be used. — KBS
Fayetteville State University Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
May 12, 1971, edition 1
6
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75