1
Section II
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1966
Founded February 23, 1893
VS. ti
MM
I
i
i!
I 1
A
Y
ear
r
Three-Judge Federal Court
Hears Gag Case Arguments
bpeal
Bssm
Stanfpv DlS C0Urt Jud2e Edwin M.
S anley has set Oct. 7 as the deadline for
tiling final briefs and depositions in the
speaker ban lawsuit.
This action will clear the -way for court
room hearings and eventual decision in the
case by a special three judge federal court
composed of Stanley, District Court Judge Al
gernon L. Butler and Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals Clement F. Haynesworth.
Attorneys for both the plaintiffs and the
defendants have been filing stipulations and
motions with the court since the suit action
was iniated in Greensboro March 31.
The plaintiffs, which include 12 active or
former UNC students, Marxist Herbert Apthe
ker and Frank Wilkinson, contend that the
1963 anti-communist speaker ban law as
amended places unconstitutional restrictions
on the rights to free speech and the freedom
to hear.
HISTORY OF LAW
The original law was passed on the day
before the close of the 1963 session of the
North Carolina General Assembly, and those
legislators who attempted to speak against
the law were ruled out of order.
The speaker ban prohibited members of
the Communist Party, persons who have'
pleaded the Fifth Amendment of the U. S.
constitution activities and persons who advo
cate the overthrow of either the U. S. or the
North Carolina constitutions from speaking at
state-supported institutions of higher learning.
The trustees of each institution were di
rected to enforce the law, and the Trustees
of the University of North Carolina issued a
directive ordering compliance with the law on
Julys, 1963.
The controversy surrounding the law con
tinued to increase until the 1965 General As
sembly ordered the formation of a special
study group, later known as the Britt Com- ,
mission, to hold hearings'" on the" speaker ban
law and recommend changes for it.
BRITT COMMISSION
The Commission recommended on Nov. 5,
1965, that the trustees of each institution be
given the authority and the responsibility to
adopt and publish rules governing the appear
ance of the three classes of speakers men
tioned in the original law, and further rec
ommended that the law be amended accord
ingly. The Britt Commission further recommend
ed a speaker policy for consideration by the
trustees of the various institutions, and this
policy was adopted verbatim by the UNC
Board of Trustees on Nov. 12, 1965.
The policy adopted expressed the trustee's
opposition to communism and totalitarianism,
and urged that appearances of communists
and subversives on campus should be "infre
quent and then only when it would clearly
serve the advantage of education."
The policy further provided that the ad
ministration and the trustees of the univer
sity would be held accountable for visiting
speakers and mandated the administration to
adopt rules and precautionary measures "con
sistent with the policy herein set forth."
The rules that the administration adopted
wculd be subject to approval by the trustees.
SPECIAL SESSION MEETS
On Nov. 17, 1965, a special session of the
General Assembly amended the speaker ban
law to require mac uie ui ui
stitution adopt rules regulating the three
classes of speakers mentioned in the old law.
Even the amended law didn't satisfy its
critics, who were still convinced of its un
constitutionality. The American Associaton of
University Professors issued a statement in
their publication the "AAUP Bulletin" that
said in part, "Institutional control of campus
facilities should never be used as a device of
censorship."
INVITATIONS ISSUED
On Jan. 3, 1966, two students who later
were to become plaintiffs in the suit, Gary
Waller and Stuart Matthews, invited Wilkin
son to speak at UNC-CH on March 2 and Ap
theker to speak on March 9.
Matthews and Waller are members of the
steering committee of the local chapter of
Students for a Democratic Society, and they
invited the two speakers to come under SDS
sponsorship.
The invitations were approved by former
Chancellor Paul F. Sharp and Consolidated
University President William C. Friday, but
no official action was taken.
Wilkinson, who is currently Executive Di
rector of the National Committee to Abolish
the House Un-American Activities Commit
tee, pleaded the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution in 1952 in refusing to answer
questions put to him by members of an un
American activities committee of the State
of California.
Aptheker is Director of the American In
stitute for Marxist Studies and is a member of
the Communist Party of America. He and
two other persons defied a State Department
order to travel to North Viet Nam last year.
V " '
A.
1
a--
ft
t . .
.-
1
Text By DTH Associate Editor
- j. w JohnGreenbacker .. ...
DTH Photos By Ernest Robl
And Jock Lauterer
The Executive Committee of the Board of
Trustees met Jan. 14 and adopted a policy
which required that speakers 'ailing within
the three classifications in the ban law present
, their views at a meeting chaired by a facul-l
ty member where questions may be asked by
the audience and that the opportunity to re
but the speakers be offered.
These three stipulations may be envoked
by the chancellor at his discretion.
On the same day; SDS President James
McCorkle, Jr. reserved Memorial Hall for the
two dates on which Aptheker and Wilkinson
were scheduled to appear.
The Executive Committee of the Board of
Trustees metJan. 28 in the Governor's office
in Raleigh to discuss the pending appear
ances of Aptheker and Wilkinson.
On Feb. 1, Student Body President Paul
Dickson, DTH Editor Ernie McCrary and
Carolina Forum Chairman George Nicholson
HI joined the SDS leaders in inviting Apthe
ker to campus.
MOORE'S SPEECH
That same day, Governor Dan Moore cut
short his vacation to issue a statement to the
press in which he announced his intentions to
FRANK WILKINSON, who pleaded the F32i
Amendment in a California loyalty hearing
contemplates the wall which barred him from
speaking on the UNC campus last March 2.
call a special meeting of the Executive Board
of the Trustees to meet Feb. 7 to determine
whether Aptheker and Wilkinson would be
able to speak.
"When the Executive Committee met last
Friday to consider this matter, I make it
clear to the Committee that I did not think
it should permit these persons to speak on the
University campus," Moore said in the state
ment. "It should be obvious to everyone that the
invitation under consideration was made in
an effort to create controversy for the sake
of controversy and not for any legitimate ed
ucational purpose," he said.
Moore's statement was followed by a week
of intense activity on campus which included
mass meetings and demonstrations. ;y. uw
A telegram was sent to Moore Feb. 7 on
behalf of the student body urging him to up
hold the principles of academic freedom and
free speech and support the invitations.
The telegram quoted Voltaire's famous
statement, "Although I may disagree with
what you say, I will defend to the death your
' right to say it." "
The executive committee heard testimony
that day from students, faculty members and
administrators supporting the invitations, but;,
it voted . to deny speaking privileges to . Ap
theker and Wilkinson. V
The executive committee further suspend
ed all invitations to speakers coming under
the speaker ban law until a full meeting of
the trustees could be held to adopt a formal
resolution governing visiting speakers of that
nature. ; .
MASS MEETING HELD
The next day a mass meeting was held on
campus in Murphey Hall to form a special
group known as the Committee for Free In
quiry. Dickson was elected chairman of the steer
ing committee of this group.
Student Legislature met Feb. 10 and pass
ed a resolution in favor of free speech at the
University and endorsing the Aptheker invi
tation, i
Throughout the rest of February the Com
mittee for Free Inquiry continued to hold pub
lic meetings on campus, and many speeches
and recommendations were presented for con
sideration by the trustees.
Then Student Body President Paul Dickson is
shown behind Wilkinson as he introduces
the speaker to the curious crowd.
POLICY ADOPTED
On Feb. 28 the entire Board of Trustees
met to consider proposed speaker policies.
The trustees eventually adopted a policy
that included all of the restrictions recom
mended by their executive board Jafi. 14,
and added further provisions.
The most important additional provision
specifically gave the chancellor of each insti
tution the power to approve or deny any in
vitation to speakers falling under the three
classifications of the speaker ban law ac
cording to his own discretion, ;
After the adoption of this speaker policy,
ten student leaders sent a letter March 1 to
then Acting Chancellor . J. Carlyle Sitterson
requesting that Aptheker and Wilkinson be
allowed tovspeak'on the; two original dates;, v
v These ten students, which included Dick
son, McCrary, Waller, Matthews, Nicholson,
Carolina Forum Executive Director Bob Pow
ell (who has since been elected Student Body
president), Di-Phi Society President John
Greenbacker, Carolina Political Union Chair
man Eric Van Loon, YMCA President Jim
Medford and YWCA President Eunice Milton,
are all now plaintiffs in the current lawsuit.
SPEAKERS DENIED
After consultation with faculty, administra
tion and student leaders, Sitterson decided
March 2 to deny speaking privileges to Ap
theker and Wilkinson.
In a statement issued that. day, Sitterson
said, "The Executive Committee of the Board
of Trustees on Feb. 7, 1966, cancelled the
scheduled appearances in March, of Mr.
Frank Wilkinson and Mr. Herbert Aptheker.
"Consequently, even though prior to the
executive committee action I recommended
that the earlier invitation should be approved,
I regard the executive committee's action as
in effect binding in these two instances," he
said,
WILKINSON ARRIVES
On the afternoon of March 2, Wilkinson
and Dickson met a rally of students on the
edge on the campus near Graham Memorial
and Dickson announced that Wilkinson would
attempt to speak at Carroll Hall that evening.
When Wilkinson arrived on campus and
(Continued on Page 4)
1963 Speaker Ban
The General Assembly of North Carolina do en
act: - -;
Section 1. No college or university, which re
ceives any State funds in support thereof, shall per
mit any person to use the facilities of such college or
university for speaking purposes,.who:
A) Is a known member of the Communist Party;
B) Is known to advocate the overthrow of the
Constitution of the United States or the State of North
Carolina;
C) Has pleaded the Fifth Amendment of the Con
stitution of the United States in refusing to answer
any question, with respect to Communist or subver
sive connections, or activities, before any duly con-
i stituted legislative committee, any judicial tribunal,
I or any executive or administrative board of the Unit
ed Mates or any state.
Section 2. This Act shall be enforced by the Board
of Trustees, or other governing authority, of such col
lege or university, or by such administrative person
nel as may be appointed therefore by the Beard of
Trustees or other governing authority of such col
lege or university.
Section 3. All laws and clauses of laws in con
flict with this Act are hereby repealed.
Section 4. This Act shall become effective upon
its ratification.
In the General Assembly read three times and
ratified, this the 26th day of June, 1963.
1965 Amended haw
Use of facilities for speaking purposes. The
board of trustees of each college or university which
receives any state funds in support thereof, shall
adopt and publish regulations governing the use of
facilities of such college or university for speaking
purposes by any person who:
1) Is a known member of the Communist Party;
"2)' Is known to advocatehe overthrow of the
Constitution of the United States or the State of North
Carolina;
3) Has pleaded the Fifth Amendment of the Con
stitution of the United States in refusing to answer
any question with respect to Communist or- subverT
sive connections, or activiteies, before any duly con
stituted legislative committee, any judicial tribunal,
or any executive or administrative board of the Unit
ed States or any state.
Enforcement of article. Any such regulations
shall be enforced by the board of trustees, or. other
governing authority, of such college or university, or
by such administrative personnel as may be appoint
ed therefore by the board of trustees or other gov
erning authority of such college or university.
1966 Trustee Rules
In order to provide the Chancellors with an op
portunity to exercise the responsibilities imposed
upon them by trustee regulations respecting visiting
speakers, the following procedures shall be observed
prior to extending an invitation to any visiting speak
er covered by G.S. 116-199 and 200.
1. The officers of a recognized student club or
society desiring to use University facilities for a visit
ing speaker shall consult with the club's faculty ad
visor concerning the proposed speaker.
2. The head of the student organization shall sub-
(Continued on Pare 5)
. MM iM -i. , i .-ii-
Petitions Presented, -Speakers. Turned Back: The Ban At UNC
I
? " -v. i
i .TO
X si 7 -v
,V 1
6
r
T7 f
2: -
X
. tir l- 1
Ml Q;
i !l r:: 7 tLST A
? i.
nr.ut k-S
, rot i
1 A I " ' il' r- V.- A
. - v J
r'Y-. pl, ,
X -X j N5tl
vwxmSIS RIARUHiSD qctly across tie
A THOua -- UNC prsident William C. Friday fol
campus to theeethig of the Committee for Free Inquiry
lowing an evenm Dr0 testing the banning of two controver
to present a peuuon y
UI spetlen. u. M It. FrUay wis rta Stelen. IS m o er f p, Z " i, .ranament In front of GraMm lb.
President Paol Dickson after recelv the petition. But des- eLumont A Saf scent place a week mo-rial wSn Beaumont prevented him from speaking.
pite the petition, and numerous Student protest meetings, on Wilkinson flank Beaumont, a similar J"" -
the evening of March 2, Campus Security Chief. Aiur Peati- later when Beaumont tmed away Herbert Apuie
V
s T"