University of Virginia Library

Constitutional Rights Best Preserved Through Orderly Change

(Continued from p. 2)

In March, Professor John H. Bunzel, of San Francisco
State College, whose views are unpalatable to some
student activists was drowned out in a flood of shouts and
questions in his classroom.

At a conference on "World Problems and American
Change" on March 22, 1969, Arthur J. Goldberg, former
Supreme Court Justice and United States ambassador to
the United Nations, was shouted down by about 30
youngsters who dumped the head of a pig on the
speaker's table.

Fundamental to the very nature of a free society is the
conviction expressed by Mr., Justice Holmes that "the
best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself
accepted in the competition of the market." When men
govern themselves they have a right to decide for
themselves which views and proposals are sound and
which unsound. This means that all points of view are
entitled to be expressed and heard. This is particularly
true in universities which render great services to society
when they function as centers of free, uncoerced,
independent and creative thought and experience.
Universities have existed and can exist without bricks and
mortar but they cannot function without freedom of
inquiry and expression.

For these reasons, the American Civil Liberties Union
has from its very inception, defended free expression for
all groups and all points of view, including the most
radical and the most unpopular within the society and the
university. To abandon the democratic process in the
interests of "good" causes is to risk the destruction of
freedom not just for the present but for the future, not
just for our social order but for any future social order as
well. Freedom, the world has learned to its sorrow, is a
fragile plant that must be protected and cultivated.

We speak out of faith in our conventional wisdom —
commitment to the principles of free expression
embodied in the Bill of Rights — principles which are still
essential, exhilarating, dynamic and even revolutionary.
Free expression, academic freedom, habeas corpus, due
process of law, and other liberties painfully won after
centuries of struggle are worth preserving and extending.

It is well to remember, too, that violence and the
threat of violence may be used in "bad" causes as well as
"good" causes. They were employed by the Nazis in
Germany and by Hungarian fascists to shut down
universities or oust particular faculty members or
students. They were used in the attempt to block the
admission of James Meredith to the University of
Mississippi and to block integration widely across the
South. And there are those who today would use these
methods to destroy our universities, not to reform them.

There are dangers, too that violence and the threat of
violence will breed a counter-violence and backlash that
will defeat or set back the very objectives student activists
seek to serve and lead to repressive counter-measures.
Already under federal law enacted in 1968, any student
convicted of a crime or regarded to have seriously violated
college regulations, may be declared by the college
authorities ineligible for two years to receive federal
scholarships or loans. Under legislation enacted in 1969
any student convicted of a crime related to a campus
disorder may not receive federal loans or scholarships.

In addition, no less than eighty bills are before the
California legislature, and the New York legislature
recently adopted a law intended to curb campus violence.
At least 18 other states have campus control measures
under consideration. Colorado has enacted a law which
imposes fines of $500 and jail sentences of a year for
those who interfere with the normal functioning of a
college or university.

We are opposed to these measures. Their imposition is
not likely to quiet down but rather to inflame further the
unrest. Many of them are vague and would superimpose
severe financial penalties in addition to punishment
already provided by law. Their thrust often would be
effective only against the poor. What is more, they
threaten the traditional autonomy of academic communities
to govern themselves. We are pleased that
President Nixon has publicly recognized that the
maintenance of order on campus "is fundamentally the
task and responsibility of the university community."
That function is more likely to be achieved if
accompanied by orderly change.

We believe that the discussions between open-minded
trustees and students which brought changes at the
University of Pennsylvania set an admirable example.
Similarly, we commend the experimentation in shared
governance at Antioch College and Richmond College of
the City University of New York. In general, we are
convinced that universities must draw upon the whole
academic community — trustees, administrators, faculties
and students — to effect desirable changes. Where existing
processes are inadequate or unrepresentative, creativity
and imagination must be summoned to the task of
developing new mechanisms for peaceful communication
and decision-making that will prove responsive to just
demands.

Let us recognize, finally, that some student activists
have been moved by conscience to use extraordinary
means in the belief that ordinary means have failed to
build a just and equal society and secure peace. We in
America have the burden of changing and adapting our
social institutions and policies to demonstrate that we
have the capacity and will to redress the evils of our social
order.