University of Virginia Library

Open Letter To University Community

On Thursday, December 11, 1969, the University community witnesses events
which were inconsistent with the principles of freedom of expression and dissent as
they should exist in a healthy academic environment. The occasion was the address
by Deputy Attorney General Richard Kleindienst sponsored by the Student Legal
Forum, a non-partisan group of Law Students which exists for the purpose of
inviting interesting and provocative speakers of all political persuasions to share
their ideas which those of us who form the University. The purpose of this letter is
to record the abhorrence which the Legal Forum feels for the irrational and
immature conduct of a small number of the overflow crowd, and to explain the
further action that will be taken.

When the leaders of the Student Legal Forum became aware that disruptive
devices might be used during Mr. Kleindienst's speech, we requested and received
from the University, through the Office of Student Affairs broad decision-making
authority for dealing with any disturbances. In effect, the Forum was permitted to
decide not only what constituted a provocative or serious situation, but also to
determine what remedial action should be taken. The powers granted to the Forum
pursuant to President Shannon's Memorandum of September 4, 1969, were not
only appropriate, but also, we feel, reflected an enlightened and progressive
approach by the University. Accordingly, ground rules were developed, and because
of the hostile attitude displayed by some of those in attendance, were read by a
member of the Forum to the audience prior to the introduction of the speaker.

The ground rules included a prohibition of signs displayed within the audience
in a manner designed to disrupt the speaker, of verbal interference with the speaker,
and of other like conduct. It was explained to the audience that Mr. Kleindienst was
prepared to respond to questions following his prepared remarks, and that at that
time it would be appropriate for any members of the audience to make their views
known. Every attempt was made by the Forum to give a fair opportunity to all of
those present to communicate any views they wished to Mr. Kleindienst or to
others present. At the same time, however, an effort was made to give Mr.
Kleindienst the same opportunity.

These rules were deliberately and childishly violated by certain members of the
audience. Such conduct is clearly incompatible with the atmosphere of free
exchange of ideas that must exist in order for the University to remain, and to
become, a viable force in our society. Such McCarthy-era tactics of a few immature
students can prevent organizations like the Legal Forum from attracting speakers of
differing views in the future. Much more importantly, however, such tactics can in
time stifle the very dissent which they are supposed to exemplify. Progress in a
democratic society results from the competition of ideas, ideas which are freely
expressed and which depend for their acceptance upon rational communication and
debate rather than the strong-arm tactics of disruption and disintegration.

The Student Legal Forum thus recognizes that it has a responsibility to the
University community to reduce the likelihood that such incidents will be repeated
in the future. In discharging this responsibility, the Forum has collected and
examined the available evidence, and believes it would justify the initiation of
disciplinary action. While the Forum has been urged to undertake such action by
many members of the University community, it has determined not to do so on this
occasion in the belief that the appropriate sanction in this particular instance
should not exceed censure and a warning not to engage in such conduct in the |