University of Virginia Library

ACLU Meet Discusses Liberties

By Mike Russell
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

Students, becoming increasingly
aware of the real world outside the
limited environment of their University,
are now beginning to question
the apparent waiver of their
rights that was consistent with entrance
into the university of their
choice. Attempting to resolve the
questions surrounding the students
rights, the American Civil Liberties
Union sponsored a conference at
the University this past weekend to
publicize the new wave of thought
concentrating around student civil
Liberties.

University students, contrary to
the beliefs of some administrations,
do possess certain inalienable rights
that cannot be broached. Approaching
the topic from a position
of experience and knowledge was
the principal speaker of the day,
Michael E. Tigar, and Associate of
the Williams and Connolly Law
firm in Washington D.C. As a student,
Mr. Tigar was known for his
leadership in the Berkeley Free
Speech movement several years ago,
and presently the leading authority
on Selective Service Law.

He discussed the University's
law and its relations to civil authorities.
Throughout his speech, he
emphasized, that in a public university,
or for that matter, any
private college or university receiving
aid from the federal government,
the administration could not
levy rules that restrained the rights
of the students. If such laws existed
at a university, the student need
not obey them, even if he had
previously given his assent. Rights
that were guaranteed were free
speech, due process of law, privacy
etc.

Mr. Tigar spoke of the University's
role in co-operating with
local and other civil authorities by
commenting that the University
should not interfere in matters that
do not essentially concern the university.
This includes actions involving
drug usage, theft, and all
breaches of the law within the
sphere of the civilian authorities.
He argued that the university that
punishes the student for violating a
civil law, especially when that university
does it arbitrarily, is
harming rather than protecting the
student's interest. In many instances,
the student will be acquitted
by the authorities, that is
proven innocent, and the university
will already have expelled him.

Due process, was the other
major area in university regulatory
policy that is presently being neglected.
It is the common disciplinary
policy in most universities
that a student is guilty until proven
innocent. Students arrested by civil
authorities and booked are often
expelled by the university to induce
the civil authorities to drop charges.
The student is given little or no
chance at a defense, and when he is
allowed to defend himself or is
given the counsel of a law student
he and the law student face a board
of professionals, sometimes including
local attorneys.

A unidentified Professor in the
audience spoke on the informal
agreement between the university
and the local authorities that has
worked so well for so many years —
that is that the university takes care
of its own. In response, Mr. Tigar
commented that he didn't know of
any community of 9000 people
who had an "informal agreement"
with the authorities that had ever
been able to protect this agreement.
He also said that with the increase
demand for student rights, these
agreements would in all likelihood
break down.

The conference then devolved
into small workshops to discuss
various areas of student civil liberties.
Allan Ritter, an Assistant
Professor in the Government and
Foreign Affairs department, led the
workshop on Academic freedom. It
became immediately apparent that
this was not organized as a discussion
group, but as a lecture
opportunity for Mr. Ritter, who
spoke on the history of Academic
freedom, and why students don't
deserve it. He implied that the
purpose of the university was to
allow the faculty to spread knowledge,
and he was quickly made to
believe that the purpose of the
university was to train the student.
The group, working somewhat
around the thoughts of Mr. Ritter,
came to the conclusion that Academic
freedom should be uncontested
by the administration, and if
there was doubt as to its existence,
then the students should act to
insure that the freedom to learn
was guaranteed.

William H. Harbaugh, a Professor
of History led a workshop on
the legality of the University building
and maintaining files on students'
activities and the legality of
making these accessible to the authorities.
The result of workshop
was a resolution calling the
American Association of University
Professors to protest against and
not co-operate with the formation
of these files.

Due Process and the Honor
System was the subject of the third
workshop, led by Philip J.
Hirschop, chairman of the Legal
Panel of the Virginia ACLU. The
major outgrowth of this group was
that the Honor System in some
instances denies the student of due
process. This statement grew out of
the statement of Larry Altaffer, the
Chairman of the Honor Committee
that the primary duty of the Honor
Committee is deciding what constitutes
an honor offense. This was
interpreted as a violation of the due
process clause in the constitution,
which does not allow ex post facto
laws to be made. That is, a person
cannot be punished for an action,
unless it was clearly a violation of
the law before he committed the
act. By allowing the Honor Code to
be flexible they decide whether a
person has transgressed the law,
after he has committed the act.

After a lunch recess, the conference
reconvened for a speech by
William Van Alstyne, a professor of
Law at Duke University. He spoke
on the background of student civil
liberties, and traced their history
from the times when the university
acted in loco parentis, or in the
place of the parents and had wide
arbitrary powers. To a large extent
this was replaced by the contractual
agreement between the student and
university and today, this belief,
that the university can force any
contract it wishes on the student,
has been replaced by the Constitutional
theory of student rights.
He spoke of due process and said
that today, the university cannot
limit a student, "for his own good"
meaning that the university has no
jurisdiction over hours, sexual relations,
etc. Under the equal protection
clause he spoke of the
Honor System as a requirement for
entrance and continued education,
asking "How many students of the
University would be here if in the
admissions form they were asked if
they had ever lied or stolen anything
in their life?" He-said that
using lying and stealing as requirements
for continuing one's education
was rather ridiculous. He
ended by speaking of double jeopardy,
saying that separate sovereign
interests in the same student's
case, for example a theft, should
allow the authority with the greatest
interest in that student, and
only that sovereignty, to deal with
the offender.

The conference was closed with
a speech by the Dean of the Law
School, Monrad Paulsen, who spoke
on the Aftermath of Columbia.