Wednesday, October 30, 1963
The University Takes Its Stand Against The Gag Law
UNC President William Friday
‘Em barrassment
I!
And Detriment 9
Statement by University Presi
dent William C. Friday to the
UNC Board of Trustees on Mon
day.
This is the first meeting of the
Board of Trustees since the Gen
eral Assembly adjourned in June.
A legislative year is always a
significant and interesting year
for the University. This one was
particularly interesting and signif
icant. A higher education bill in
corporating the recommendations
of the Commission on Education
Beyond the High School and a
special committee of the Board
of Trustees was passed giving ef
fect to a comprehensive plan for
development of facilities for pub
lic higher education and needed
broadening of educational offer
ings within the University. The
Biennial budget as finally approv
ed authorized substantial sums for
salaries, necessary equipment,
land, and buildings. Our faculty
nienibers and employees were
heartened by the Legislature’s ac
tion authorizing improvements in
the state retirement plan to pro
vide for a shorter vesting period
and increased retirement contri
butions and benefits. The trustees
as well as the administrative offi
cers and faculties have reason to
commend and thank the Gover
nor, the budgetary authorities,
and our legislators for these wise
and far-seeing actions.
Along with such measures of in
estimable benefit to the State
and to higher education, however,
the General Assembly of 1963
passed, on the very last day of
the session, a law of an alto
gether different character, effect,
and import. I refer to the law
passed on June 26 entitled "An
Act to Regulate Visiting Speak
ers at State Supported Colleges
‘Seriously Harm. The Entire State...’
Statement presented to the
UNC Board of Trustees Monday
by William B. Aycock, Chancel
lor of the University at Chapel
Hill.
In 1941 the General Assembly
of North Carolina enacted a
criminal statute (General Sta
UNC Chancellor William Aycock
and Universities.” The concern
that we feel in the University
about this measure and the basis
for our concern are known to
most of you from our discussions
in a series of informal meetings
with trustees and the notice tak
er, in the public press of expres
sions by many educational lead
ers and citizens. I wish to make
some observations on the measure
before this body so that my views
shall be quite clear. I shall ask
the Chancellors to speak also so
that they may state and you
may hear their views.
The bill (House Bill 1395), as I
have said, was passed into law on
June 26. The first knowledge that
I had that such a law was con
templated came to me at about a
quarter to three in the after
noon of June 25 when someone
heard a radio news report that a
law which would prohibit certain
persons from speaking at state
supported colleges and univer
sities had been introduced in the
House of Representatives that af
ternoon and, after brief discus
sion, passed under suspension of
the rules and transmitted by mess
enger to the Senate. By a tele
phone call I learned that the Sen
ate was about to be convened in
afternoon session. Mr. Weaver
and I drove immediately to Ra
leigh hoping to reach the Legis
lative Building in time at least
to apprise some member of the
Senate of the gravity of such an
action. By the time We reached
Raleigh the bill had already been
passed in the Senate, also under
suspension of the rules, and sent
to the Enrolling Officer. Even
then, after securing a copy of the
bill and seeing the difficulties that
it must raise, we made inquiry
as to whether the technical status
(Continued on Page 2-Bi
tutes 14-11, 14-12) making it un
lawful for “any person, by word
of mouth or writing, willfully
and deliberately to'advocate, ad
vise or teach a doctrine that the
government of the United States,
the State of North Carolina or
any political subdivision, thereof
shall be overthrown or over-
‘Handicap Could
Be Disastrous’
Statement on the North Caro
lina Law to regulate visiting
speakers at State-supported col-*
leges and universities, unani
mously adopted on Oct. 22 by
the faculty council of the Uni
versity of North Carolina at
Chapet Hill, presented to the
University Board of Trustees on
Monday.
We believe that those members
of the 1963 North Carolina Gen
eral Assembly who voted for
the statute banning certain
speakers at State supported in
stitutions did so because they be
lieved it to be in the best in
terest of the State. And, like
them, we are opposed to com
munism. Nevertheless, we have
the strongest objections to this
statute.
There are strong reasons for
believing that the statute is un
constitutional under both the
North Carolina- and the federal
Constitutions; but this is noTthb
place for a legal argument. We
recognize that the General As
sembly has the power, so long as
it stays within constitutional
limitations, to regulate the af
fairs of State supported institu
tions. including this University.
And, obviously, there must be
some regulations regarding the
use of University property. We
believe, however, that the As
sembly should not undertake the
regulation reflected in this sta
tute. A political body is far from
an ideal forum in which to regu
late such matters of educational
policy. The present attempt at
such regulation is most disquiet
ing to us and to university teach
ers everywhere. A legislature
which succumbs to this tempta
tion may soon go further and
enact statutes intended to strike
at other matters which it finds
distasteful. The statute is a step
toward substitution of politically
controlled indoctrination for rea
sonably objective education.
Regulation of speakers on the
c»mpus is best left, along with
other matters of educational pol
icy, to (he trustees, the admin
istration and the faculty.
To the extent that the legis
lative purpose may have been to
prevent advocacy of the over
throw of our government by
force, violence or other unlaw
ful means, the statute adds no
thing to existing law. Ever since
1941 such advocacy in a' State
owned building has been a crime
in North Carolina. The 1963 sta
tute goes much further. It under
takes to prohibit any person to
whom it applies from speaking
on any State supported campus
on any subject. Under this sta
tute it would not even be pos
sible to invite the Russian Am
bassador to come and speak
about the nuclear test ban treaty,
cultural exchanges, or the pre
sent differences between Russia
and China.
A doctor, scientist or other ex
pert from a foreign country is
banned if he is known to be a
member of the Communist Party
or to advocate the overthrow of
turned by force or violence or by
any other unlawful means.’’ Ibis
statute also prohibits the use of
any public building for such pur
poses. In 1953 the 1941 statute
was extended to outlaw certain
types of secret societies. The
officials of the University have
been aware of this statute since
the time it became law. I do
not know of any violation of this
1941 statute. Moreover, I do not
know of anyone who has know
ledge that this law has been ig
nored by the University. Clearly
if any person has such knowledge,
he is derelict in his duties as a
citizen so long as he withholds
such knowledge from those of
ficials charged with the enforce
ment of the laws of this State.
The 1963 Legislation 'H.B. 1395-
Chapter 1207 of the 1963 Session
Laws) goes much further than
the 1941 Act in that it prohibits
any person to whom it applies
from spiakmg on any State
supported campus on any sub
ject. Apart from this blanket
prohibition the statute is fraught
with uncertainties and ambigui
ties.
The 1963 Act by its own terms
does not impose any penalties
for failure to comply with its
provisions. However, 'General
Statutes 14-230 declares that: “If
any . . . official of any of the
State institutions . . . shall will
fully omit, neglect or refuse to
discharge any of the duties of
his office, for default whereof it
is not elsewhere provided that
he shall be indicted, he shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor.” Pre
sumably this latter statute ap
THE CHAPEL HILL WEEKLY
our Constitution—otherwise he
may speak, even if he is from
behind the Iron Curtain. Yet
the diseases of humanity, the be
havior of light rays and the
properties of hybrid corn pose
the same questions to the com
munist and the non-communist.
A university is a place where
anyone who may have useful
knowledge should be welcomed
as a visitor to share that know
ledge. By this statute, this Uni
versity is shut off from some
of those who possess it—perhaps
even prohibited from using the
services of scholars from foreign
countries who can go to other
universities under exchange pro
grams approved or encouraged
by our government.
Any American—scholar, scien
tist, doctor, lawyer, author, poet,
artist, or laborer—is banned if
he has invoked the Fifth Amend
ment in refusing to answer "any
questions, with respect to com
munist or subversive connections,
or activities, before any duly
constituted legislative committee,
any judicial tribunal, or any ex
ecutive or administrative board
of the United States or any
state.” He is banned though
there is no proof—and no other
basis for assuming—that he is a
communist or that he has ever
advocated the overthrow of our
Constitution. He is banned for the
sole reason that he has exercised
a right guaranteed to every citi
zen by the Constitution of the
United States—a right which
does honor to the Anglo-American
concept of justice and which, as
much as other single factor,
justifies our claim that our sys
tem of justice is superior to that
of the communist countries.
We do not believe that speak
ers visiting our campuses have
created serious danger to the
State or its youth. The wise and
great men who wrote into our
Constitution a guarantee of free
soeech were fully aware that
the privilege can be abused. For
tunately, they were also aware
that the danger to a free society
from abuse of free speech is not
nearly so great as the danger
from attempting to curtail or
suppress free speech. We devout
ly believe, with them, that error
is far more likely to be enshrin
ed by legislative fiat than by un
trammeled debate in a public
forum.
The new statute reflects a fear
regarding the strength of our
democratic institutions which we
do not share. Freedom of dis
cussion on the campus has made
few if any converts to commun
ism. Over all the years, we doubt
that even one of the very small
number of student communists
was induced to become a Party
member by speeches on the cam
pus. More probably, student
communism has resulted from a
tragically irrational reaction to
inequities and injustices in our
society. The rare student com
munist either was already such
before he arrived, or would pro
bably have become a communist
(Continued on Page 2-B)
plies and, if so, the 1963 Visiting
Speakers Law is a criminal
statute.
On the surface this Act appears
to be a simple one to enforce.
But to one charged with the
duty of enforcement it is quickly
evident that it is worded in ex
tremely vague terms in almost
every particular. A few selected
examples will illustrate the vag
ueness of the Act.
1. What is meant by a "known
member of THE Communist
Party? American Communist
Party only? Communist Party of
Great Britain? France? Italy?
Etc? Does it include all citizens
of Russia whether or not they
are members of the Party? Does
it include all citizens in the
Russian Bloc?
2. “Known" by what means?
Judgement of a court? Admis
sion? Reputation? Accusation by
some official body? Accusation
by some unofficial body or in
dividual?
3. Section (B) “Is known to ad
vocate the overthrow of the con
stitution of the United States or
the State of North Carolina.”
This section does not specify by
force or violence. Does it include
“overthrow” by peaceful means?
If so, would it include those who
advocate radical changes of our
government through political ac
tion? For example, proposals for
the establishment of a Super
Supreme Court.
4. Section <C> involves persons
who have pleaded the Fifth
Amendment in specified circum
stances. Is this section similar
(Continued on Page 4-B)
UNC-G Chancellor Otis Singletary
‘Discriminatory
And Unnecessary ’
Statement to the University
Board of Trustees presented
here Monday by Otis A. Single
tary, Chancellor of UNC at
Greensboro.
While it is neither necessary
nor desirable toy me to take up
much of your' time here this
morning, I do want to endorse
the sentiments already express
ed by my colleagues and to add
a brief statement of my own
reasons for opposing the recent
ly enacted law "to regulate visit
ing speakers" on the campuses
of state-supported institutions of
higher education.
It is my basic contention that
there are many and good rea
sons for opposing this bill. If
for no other reason, one would
be justified in opposing it be
cause of the way it was passed.
I refer specifically to the veil of
secrecy which enshrouded it and
the denial to interested parties
of the right to be heard on the
merits of the issue. One might
also be justified in opposing it
because of the way it was writ
ten. Vague, imprecise language
makes the bill difficult to ad
minister at best and impossible
to administer with effectiveness.
These objections, however, are
essentially technical in nature
and do go to the heart of the
matter. I believe that there are
far more pertinent and more
meaningful reasons for opposing
it.
I object to this bill because it
is discriminatory in nature. It
singles out one specific group—
the academic element in our
society and unjustly points the
finger of suspicion in their direc
tion.
I object to this bill because it
is unnecessary. It is a matter
of record that there are laws
already on the statute books
dealing with this matter. These
laws are being complied with.
I object to this bill because it
is detrimental to the University’s
posture in the academic world.
History shows time and again
that universities oan only be
damaged when the state exer
cises direct influence upon it to
the point of limiting freedom of
inquiry and expression.
I object to this bill because it
is destructive of faculty morale.
Our faculties are made up large
ly of men and women who have
by-passed the practical world
with its emphasis upon material
gain in favor of the more mod
est but no less demanding world
of thought. They are people who
like to teach, or they would not
be doing it. They like to study,
to do research and in some cases
to write books that often times
bring fame but seldom bring for
tune. They are people with in
quiring minds, minds that range,
minds that are free. They do not
want and will not long tolerate
UNC-G Faculty Statement
Resolution adopted at meeting
of Faculty Council of The Univer
sity of North Carolina at Greens
boro on October 22, and present
ed to Board of Trustees on Mon
day.
Be it resolved that the faculty
of the University of North Caro
lina at Greensboro endorse the
position taken by the President
and Chancellors of the Univer
sity of North Carolina and the
Executive Committee of the
Board of Trustees in protesting
the building of fences/ around
their minds. These people value
intellectual freedom above all
else and once they become con
vinced that it is being denied
them, they will move to places
where this valued freedom will
be assured them. Such a mi
gration can only be disastrous
to a university for Gresham's
Law also operates in the aca
demic' world.
I object to this bilj because of
its air of condescension toward
our students. It is only natural
that they react with resentment
to the pointed implication that
they are completely lacking in
any powers of discernment or
discrimination. They see with
more clarity than you might
suspect the curious situation
whereby this bill has. been given
support even from graduates of
the University of North Caro
lina men and women who en
joyed the privilege of attending
ah unfettered university and
who most certainly did not, in
the process, become subversive
themselves but who are some
how unwilling to extend that
same privilege to today’s stu
dents. Believe me when I say
that the irony of this situation is
not lost upon them.
But most of all, ladies and gen
tlemen, I object to this bill be
cause, unwittingly or not, it
strikes at the very heart of the
University, at its basic mission
its inescapable responsibility
to seek the truth. If it is to
discharge this responsibility
with reasonable effectiveness, it
is imperative that the Univers
ity investigate every area of hu
man knowledge. I need hardly re
mind you that only a free univer
sity can so function.
It is my personal opinion that
the University of North Carolina
has been a great institution not be
cause it has been the freest. Its
traditional freedom grew out of
the fact that it has been relatively
well protected, as any true uni
versity inevitably must be, from
the pressures of prevailing fads
and from the rapidly-changing
and often times capricious cur
rents of public opinion. I be
lieve that this protection has
historically been provided by
this Board of Trustees; and I
further believe that this service
stands as one of the most im
portant ones that the Board has
rendered.
Believing these things to be
true, I urge you ladies and gen
tlemen to take whatever action
you deem most appropriate to
regain that which has been lost
through this legislation and to
restore to the University of
North Carolina that enviable de
gree of freedom that has been
its proud heritage in days past
and which remains the indispen
sable condition for its contained
preeminence.
the passage of “an Act to Regu
late Visiting Speakers at State
Supported Colleges and Univer
sities,” an<j in seeking the repeal
of this measure at the earliest
passible moment.
And be it further resolved that
this faculty declare its conviction
that this Act will result in the
restriction of academic freedom,
freedom of speech, and freedom
of information, and that it is
not in keeping with the tradition
al educational goals for. which
the University of North Carolina
has been so justly noted.
‘Our Efforts Will
Be Frustrated...
Statement presented Monday
to the University Board of
Trustees by John T. Caldwell,
Chancellor of North Carolina
State.
Passage of House Bill 1395
produced immediate reaction on
the Raleigh Campus. In less than
a week the Faculty Senate pass
ed a strong resolution express
ing ‘‘concern" and "alarm” ov
er passage of the act.
A university faculty is an ele
ment of extraordinary import
ance and value to a society. Its
feelings and reactions are a pro
duct of centuries during which
universities have become cen
ters of intellectual freedom and
discourse. Our faculty, like eny
other first-rate university facul
ty, hold convictions about in
tellectual freedom, convictions
which they do not wish to see
violated. Furthermore, they
have felt a great pride in be
ing a part of a university which
maintains freedom for the mind.
They do not want to be em
barrassed in tiie world of uni
versities by having to submit
to restrictions which detract
from their pride.
The apprehensions of this fac
ulty on the effect of the Speak
er Ban Act have already been
borne out.
CASE J.
Professor Robinson, of our
Department of Genetics and Di
rector of our Institute of Biolog
ical Sciences, was informed by
a colleague in the School of
Medicine at Chapel Hill early
in the spring that the distin
guished scientist, J. B. S. Hal
dane, would possibly be avail
able for lectures in this area in
the fall. Dr. Haldane is one' of
the world's most honored scien
tists and is now attached pro
fessionally to the Genetics and
Biometry Laboratory of the
Government of Orissa in India.
In a recent issue of the Wall
Street Journal the editor of the
Journal referred to Him as "the
distinguished British philosopher
scientist.” (This piece was re
printed in the October 14th is
sue of the U. S. News and World
Report.) Correspondence ensued
between Dr. Robinson and Dr.
Haldane in which Dr. Haldane
indicated possible subjects with
which he would deal in his lec
tures here. They were of a
highly technical and scientific
character and represented think
ing at the leading edge of knowl-
N. C. State Faculty Statement
Statement of the Faculty Sen
ate at North Carolina State,
presented to the University
Board of Trustees on Monday.
The Faculty Senate expresses
its profound concern over the
implications of the legislative
enactment of June 26, 1963, “An
Act to Regulate Visiting Speak
ers at State-Supported Colleges
and Universities," which bans
appearances of certain categor
ies of persons on the campuses
of state-supported educational in
stitutions.
This enactment represents an
intrusion of a law-making body
into a sphere of responsibility
normally delegated by the Leg
islature, through the Board of
Trustees, to officials and facul
ties of institutions of higher
learning.
t '<■'**> - t >.„v >' >» - v.-!?'"V', x'k* ’ '- Uk'i ™„,
lap
State Chancellor John Caldwell
edge in (genetics and the appli
cation of 'mathematics and sta
tistics to research in genetics.
Meantime, however, House Bill
1395 had become law. Interpre
tations were not immediately
available. Nevertheless the law
raised an inevitable question about
the legality of the invitation of
Dr. Haldane.
Dr. Haldane had been chair
man of the Editorial Board of
the Daily Worker in England
from 1940 to 1949. This would
not necessarily make him a
"known member of the Com
munist Party,” but suggested it
so strongly that one of the scien
tists at Chapel Hill assumed he
must be a member and properly
raised the point in a letter to
the University Administration,
bemoaning the fact that we un
doubtedly would not. be able to
have him and calling attention
to the "predicament” which
would "make both the State
and the University a laughing
stock in the academic world.”
Professor Robinson had no al
ternative but to write Dr. Hal
dane a dignified and sympathetic
letter asking the necessary ques
tion: "If I could have a reply
at an early dote regarding your
present status with the Com
munist Party, I will know how
to proceed with our plans.” Dr.
Haldane’s reply was no surprise.
He stated:
"I absolutely refuse to an
swer your question as to my
membership of the communist
party. This is a matter of
principle. The Soviet Union
does not ask whether intend
ing scientific visitors are
members of the Swatantra or
jan sangh parties here, or of
trie conservative party in Eng
land, ... 1 am perieetty will
ing to sign a declaration that
while in North Carolina I will
make no statements in public
or private on political or eco
nomic matters. But in the in
terests of others less fortun
ately situated than myself, I
re use to answer the ques
tion you put to me. ... I
have been granted a visa by
your consul in Calcutta, who
was most polite, asked no
questions, and was told no
lies. Your Federal Govern
ment realizes that persons may
be communists, anarchists,
polygamists, or what you will,
but that their opinions on
scientific matters may be of
(Continued on Page 4-B)
It constitutes a restriction on
the free exchange of knowledge
and opinion that is absolutely
essential to the educational pro
cess.
_ It establishes a dangerous pre
cedent, since any assumption of
responsibility assigned to the
administration of the University
may be extended to a greater
degree of control over the in
ternal affairs of the University.
For these reasons, the Faculty
Senate views this legislation
with genuine alarm. We urge
the Board of Trustees, the full
Board of Trustees, and the
Board of Higher Education to
take appropriate steps toward
bringing about the earliest pos
sible reconsideration and repeal
of this legislation.
Page 1-B