the sanctions by which this order can be kept. The prime duty of the faculty is to teach, and if one has to discipline a student it becomes more difficult, as every professor knows, also to teach him and his fellows. Thus, by mixing the proper functions of the administration and the faculty, the execution of both would suffer.

Faculty members, moreover, are notoriously unwilling to perform administrative tasks, and a striking example from this period of crisis indicates how inefficiently they are likely to carry out the duties they now demand should be turned over to them. In September, it will be recalled, one of the original causae belli was that eight students had been suspended for disobeying the new regulations; and some weeks later an ad hoc faculty committee was chosen by the academic senate to judge the suspended students. Like children with a new toy, the professors set up an elaborate new juridical procedure, which functioned with more protocol than any probation board hearing the cases of prisoners with a life sentence. But at its own discretion, following the request of the suspended students' lawyers, the committee decided to limit its jurisdiction to the period up to September 30, the date of the suspensions, ignoring the fact that on October 1 and 2 some of these same students had allegedly participated in the commandeering of the police car and the assault on policemen. It was like a parole board, in other words, that judged the nature of the offense and the way the punishment was imposed, but passed over the fact that the offenders had led a prison riot, destroyed prison property, and attacked prison guards.

There is no one reason why the academic senate voted for this resolution by more than 7 to 1. If I try to describe the motives of my colleagues, as I understand them, I shall of course be accused of impugning those motives. In defense, I note only that this large body of highly vocal men offered not a tittle of the high principles they now profess until they were goaded into this position by their radical students. When professors are taught by students, as when students bite policemen, one can reasonably perceive this situation as anomalous and look for unusual motives, in addition to the statements of principle that various members of the faculty have adduced for their stand. Some of the most important motives, either alleged or underlying, are the following:

CIVIL LIBERTARIANS

Free speech has hardly been an issue on the Berkeley campus in any direct sense, yet many faculty members have supported the free speech movement in response to the largely demagogic demand that its name implies. With respect to some, this contradiction may be the consequence of ignorance for in the welter of rumors and false statements, it was all too easy to lose one's way. Some of the faculty, however, including three law professors, interpret the constitutional right to free speech as guaranteeing "freedom of expression"; and one may express oneself, it was pointed out, not only by talking but also by acts-such as presumably, the occupation of a public building.

DEFENDERS OF CIVIL RIGHTS

That the radical students allegedly fight for civil rights is another important reason that the FSM garners support among the faculty. As Prof. Herbert MeClosky, the original author of the senate resolution, noted in an article in the Berkeley daily, a great many of the students "have shown themselves superior in courage and moral conscience by their activities on behalf of civil rights."

It so happens that I am in a fairly good position to judge the degree to which the faculty is seriously interested in supporting those who fight for civil rights. Last year my wife and I, with some assistance from a very few others, solicited funds from members of the university faculty and staff for the NAACP legal defense fund. This organization not only initiates legal cases on its own (including the crucial 1954 school-desegregation case before the Supreme Court), but also pays for about nine-tenths of the legal costs of the entire civil-rights movement, no matter which of the several organizations is involved. Contributions to the fund, thus, are a reasonable measure of meaningful support of civil rights. Unfortunately, we did not get anything like a 7-to-1 vote for our effort out of the faculty of about 1,700, only 181 contributed. In contrast, the $8,000 fee for the bail of the arrested students was oversubscribed in a day or two. One professor who tried to sabotage our campaign was highly vocal more recently in support of the FSM.

ANTIENCLAVISTS AND PSEUDOENCLAVISTS

In the long struggle to establish and maintain academic freedom on European and American campuses, one of the key principles has always been to protect the university from direct political pressures. The board of regents that has ultimate control over the University of California, thus, is in fact a fourth branch of the State government, not directly responsible to the executive, the legislature, or the judiciary; and from before the First World War until the recent events, the regents also did not intervene in the immediate operations of the university. It was in order to separate the university from the political arena that university personnel (faculty and staff as well as students) were prohibited from engaging in political activities on campus. This was the intent of the administrative regulations that the FSM successfully attacked: students were permitted freely to advocate political positions but not to "mount" political activities. Now that this distinction has been abandoned, and particularly if the university indeed becomes officially indifferent to whether the students based in its facilities break the law to gain their political ends, it would be absurdly naive to hope that these attacks will be made along a one-way street. The volume of mail to the Governor's office about the Berkeley crisis, I am told, is the largest in California's history, and by more than 9 to 1 it is hostile to the FSM and its faculty supporters. If the radical right portion of the electorate intervenes-say, by an initiative to change the constitutional structure of the University of Californiathe danger to one of America's great institutions of higher learning would be serious.

There is no consensus among the faculty majority on whether the university should remain an enclave, and if so in what sense. In a composite document distributed by Prof. Jacobus ten Broek, for example, we are explicitly informed that "a university is no longer an isolated enclave in which the members are content to exchange ideas among themselves and to train their successors * 串串 What is learned on the campus is not remote from life, but must be made central to life." On the other hand, in the words of Prof. Carl E. Schorske, "The primary task of the university [is] teaching, learning, and research-not political activity. Our students, however, are citizens, and should enjoy the right to political expression and activity on the campus * **. Illegal acts or expression should be punished by the law; offenses against the university community should be punished by the university." The consequence of this stand, of course, is that police must come on campus to effect the control that the university refuses to exercise. Yet many of those who advocated this division of function also have held to the traditional position that police have no right on a university campus.

ROMANTICS

Under this catchall heading one finds the Nobel laureate who rushes momentarily from the laboratory to sign a manifesto or issue a pronunciamento, the professor of English who is apt at referring to Milton's "Areopagitica" or Thoreau's "On Civil Disobedience" but has never read Lenin or Trotsky, those who orate on constitutional guarantees in the abstract but with no attention to how the campus has been operating in this respect, the sizable number who flirted with communism in the 1930's or supported Wallace in the 1940's and whose middle-aged blood courses faster at the recollection of those seemingly simple fights of good against evil.

ADMINISTRATION HATERS

One of the amazing minor elements of the Berkeley crisis is what one finds under any stone that the radical students have lifted. In supposedly serious explanations of why they have voted for the senate resolution, my colleagues have pointed out that the quarter system is being foisted on us by the administration, that we faculty voted against a parking fee but are forced to pay it anyway, but-in a hundred instances the administration has been wrong and inefficient. Between two of the recurrent crises over the FSM, the academic senate met to consider a completely unrelated case of academic freedom and passed-correctly, in my opinion-a resolution in "condemnation" of the chancellor and president for their handling of it. A number of Berkeley professors have publicly voiced their gratitude to the FSM for conducting a more general fight than the faculty had been able or willing to undertake. The usual anti

pathy between administrators and professors is not enough to explain such a sentiment: on the other campuses of the university, the divisions of the academic senate voted to support the administration rather than the Berkeley faculty.

ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTERS

Paradoxically, some of those who voted for the resolution may have been influenced by their loyalty to the administration. Some time before the meeting of the senate, the department chairmen were convened and told that the resolution had the backing of President Kerr; and most of them apparently returned to their departments to report this to their colleagues. From a carefully worded statement read on the floor of the senate, one could infer in the context of the prior events that the president supported the resolution, even though this was not explicitly stated.

Vari

There is now considerable doubt whether this information was correct. ous rumors are circulating among the faculty, and the president-the only person who knows the whole truth-has chosen not to clear the air by telling it. President Kerr apparently knew that his name was being falsely used to garner support for a resolution with which he disagreed, but he decided not to inform his faculty of this at their meeting because he feared that he would be booed again, as he was at the meeting in the Greek theater. The manipulation of the vote if that is what it was-was completed by a parliamentary device to cut off debate. The most important decision the academic senate has ever made was completed on the basis of what may have been false information, and with no opportunity even to hear some of the counterarguments.

FSM TOLERATORS

In various ways, faculty members have condescendingly depreciated the importance of "the students" or, as they are typically designated in this context, "the kids." Thus, Professor McClosky tells us in the article already quoted that "many of us have forgotten that the so-called rebels and dissenters are our * *. Some own students-young men and women of quality and intelligence * have disobeyed the law, but they are not criminals. A few are passing through youthful flirtations with revolutionary political movements." Or Prof. Joseph Fontenrose, in a similar vein, termed the all-night illegal occupation of the administration building "harmless loitering after hours," passing over the fact that its purpose, in Savio's words, was "to bring the university to a grinding halt."

FSM SUPPORTERS

As in the student body so also in the faculty, this was originally a small minority, but an active and vocal one. One assistant professor, for example, has spoken at a number of FSM rallies, where on one occasion he termed Kerr the Mao Tse-tung of the United States. When Kerr spoke at the meeting in the Greek theater, it was he who led the booing claque. One might suppose, in the abstract, that such behavior is unbecoming a member of the faculty; but in fact it constitutes a kind of moral tenure, following the pattern in Mary McCarthy's novel, "The Grooves of Academe." The protection of academic freedom is so absolute at a campus like Berkeley that political irresponsibility may actually cancel a negative judgment based on academic mediocrity.

In

Together with its other successes, the FSM also was given increasing support from some of the faculty. Some 250 professors, for example, signed a petition to the judge trying the arrested students, asking that the cases be dismissednot as a matter of expediency or mercy, but "in furtherance of justice." this perspective, it is the students who did not break the law who were at faultin their lack of courage, or lack of sufficient concern about civil rights, or whatAnd as we have seen, the acting chancellor has neither supported nor opposed this view that the sit-ins were justified.

ever.

CONFORMISTS

Once the organizing group, centered in the departments of political science, sociology, English, and philosophy, had got their steamroller moving, the pres I know a beginning sure to go along with the majority was all but irresistible. assistant professor who disagreed with the majority; he was able to maintain his integrity only by remaining at home and avoiding all unnecessary contacts

with his fellows. He was squeezed between virtually all the senior members of his department above and most of its graduate students below. Those faculty members who came out in public support of one or another of the FSM demands have been bathed in warm approbation, administered by both their students and in many cases their own teen-age offspring. The punishment of faculty who openly oppose the FSM, on the other hand, is unpleasant. In my department, the students have sunk to the level of writing scurrilous comments on the walls of the men's room about one of the main faculty opponents of the FSM. (Fortunately, the worst that I can report is that, the day after the senate vote, a professor of adult education whom I have known for years cut me dead on campus.)

MUNICHMEN

If I had to weight the significance of the various factors that contributed to the capitulation to the FSM, I would list fear as the most important. The FSM was holding a gun to the heads of the faculty, and if we yielded the threat might go away. The debate in the senate was simultaneously broadcast to a vast throng of students outside, which cheered or booed each of the speakers. After the meeting, one of the professors who had dared speak for amending the resolution was accosted outside the building, and one of the FSM leaders asked him, "How much did they pay you for that?"

A few days after the meeting, a colleague told me, with some chagrin, "I was the Halifax to Professor X's Chamberlain. What do we do now?" My reply was, "Since you cast me in the role of Churchill, I also predict blood, sweat, and tears." As I write, all the plans offered by the administration and by the new emergency executive committee of the academic senate have one feature in common appeasement. Berkeley has still to learn that when one feeds a totalitarian body its appetite increases. "Peace at any price" may lead to a temporary lull, as it did at the end of last semester; but in the longer run it leads to no peace at a higher price.

Mr. PossoNY. Thank you very much. I think that gives a very valuable and very able summary of the Berkeley problem.

Mr. SOURWINE. May I add, Doctor, is this a copy of something published, or a memorandum?

Mr. PossoNY. It is a memorandum which I received inside the university. I am not entirely sure what the precise status of this document is, but I believe it has been published in an eastern university magazine.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know this was prepared by Professor Petersen?

Mr. PosSONY. Yes; to the best of my knowledge.

I would also like to put in an article of the New York Times on the Sino-Soviet estrangement. The title is "Peiping's Estrangement" and it has a bearing on some of the present agitation on Vietnam. Mr. SOURWINE. Will you connect it up later?

Mr. PosSONY. Only by implication.

Senator DODD. It may go in.

(The newspaper article referred to follows:)

[From the New York Times, Apr. 29, 1965]

PEIPING'S ESTRANGEMENT

EVIDENCE OF A DRIFT TOWARD ISOLATION ON VIETNAM SEEN IN

RED CHINESE PRESS

(By Seymour Topping)

NEWS ANALYSIS

HONG KONG, April 28.-This morning's Peiping newspaper documented what analysts here describe as the drift of Communist China toward international isolation on the Vietnam issue.

The estrangement may even apply to North Vietnam, which is balking at Peiping's uncompromising opposition to a negotiated settlement of the Vietnamese

war.

The Soviet Union was the principal target on Peiping's front pages. A statement accused the Soviet Union of collaborating with the United States to frustrate the Vietcong insurgence.

This sweeping castigation also took in all Communist countries and parties adhering to the Soviet ideological doctrine.

The news given greatest prominence was a statement last Saturday by Prince Norodom Sihanouk, Cambodian Chief of State, in which he demurred at using an international conference on his country as a forum for discussions on Vietnam. This is a propaganda technique that Peiping has employed in working against the Soviet proposal for a conference on Cambodia. The proposal has been accepted by Britian and the United States and approved in principle by North Vietnam.

Asians, including those who are friendly to the Chinese Communists, have been thrust into making a comparison between U.S. willingness to talk peace and Peiping's aloofness.

Today many of those Asians saw in their newspapers or heard on their radios the statement by President Johnson offering to talk peace unconditionally with any government. They also saw or heard Peiping's denunciation, of the President as a "hatchetman" and its attack on the Soviet leaders for suggesting that Mr. Johnson was a sensible man.

The Chinese Communists insisted in their statement that the Vietnamese insurgents must fight until the U.S. forces were completely defeated and compelled to withdraw. Only then, the statement added, should they embark on any peace talks. The Soviet suggestion, which is implied in Moscow's more flexible attitude toward negotiations, that the Vietnamese Communists may be able to obtain at the conference table what has eluded them on the battlefield, was dismissed by Peiping with the assertion that peaceful coexistence with the United States was impossible.

In its statement last night, Peiping spurned the Soviet appeal of last Thursday for "united action," which would have strengthened Communist military and diplomatic backing for North Vietnam. This would suggest that Communist China has higher priorities than those assigned to their comrades in Hanoi, the North Vietnamese capital, and to the Vietcong in South Vietnam.

Analysts here cite two explanations of Peiping's demand for a protracted war although the Vietnamese Communists might find a negotiated settlement more advantageous at this time.

Ideologically, a U.S. military debacle in South Vietnam is required to confirm the Chinese Communist thesis that armed revolutionaries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America can win regardless of U.S. military power.

As for Chinese Communist national interests, there would be less advantage obtainable from a graceful, negotiated U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, since this would leave other American positions in Asia relatively unimpaired.

Frustrated by the lack of the military means of ejecting the U.S. presence from such adjacent areas as Taiwan, Okinawa, and Thailand, Peiping sees in Vietnam an opportunity to unhinge, by psychological means, the entire U.S. position in East Asia.

Peiping has not concealed its belief that disaster in Vietnam might swing U.S. opinion toward abandonment of the containment policy.

This is discussed today in an editorial in Jenmin Jih Pao the party organ, devoted solely to the decisive role that U.S. public opinion may play in the Vietnam struggle.

The editorial asserted that mounting opposition in the United States to the Government's policy for Vietnam was a "sword aimed at the heart of the John

son administration."

Mr. PosSONY. I am sure that you have seen the article by Richard Armstrong in the Saturday Evening Post of May 8, entitled "Explosive Revival of the Far Left," which I think gives a very good summary of some of the things that are going on and inside here, there is an article by a man called Philip Luce entitled "Why I Quit the Extreme Left," and I think these two pieces are pertinent to the inquiry here.