At Berkeley in the Sixties: The Making of an Activist

3 Politics and the University

casual glance, however, it appeared that the real campus border was at the posts where the red brick ended. By the time I graduated in 1965, the placing of the pillars and the bricks would have important political consequences because most people assumed that the land twenty-six feet into the campus belonged to the City of Berkeley. It was in this area that the student political groups put up their tables, sold buttons and literature, and passed out lea®ets announcing events. The university rules forbade them to do these things on campus. The ten feet of public sidewalk at Bancroft and Telegraph was too narrow for the many groups wanting to solicit students. Their presence would have created too much congestion if restricted to its width. Thus, it was a convenient ¤ction to assume that all the red bricks were on public property. Students coming on campus each day passed the political groups and could stop to browse but were not stopped by them. Nestled between the city and the campus was 1,000 square feet of political space which nourished the student marketplace of ideas. 3 Politics and the University The university administration had long trod a ¤ne line between the academic tradition of full and free inquiry and the pull of the public purse. Article IX, § 9 of the state constitution declared that the University of California was to be “entirely independent of all political or sectarian in®uence and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its Regents and in the administration of its affairs.” This clause was put into the 1879 constitution to shield the university from the political turmoil that embroiled it in the 1870s, which led to a legislative investigation and resignation of the president in 1874. But an institution funded primarily Politics and the University l 11 by a political body—the state legislature—and largely populated by intelligent , educated citizens could never be free from politics. It would continue to be a political hot spot subject to repeated legislative threats and investigations.1 The drafters of Article IX, § 9 intended that the twenty-four members of the Board of Regents would set policy for the university without regard for the push and pull of political currents. Sixteen were appointed by the governor for 16-year terms, and eight were ex of¤cio Regents by virtue of other of¤ces they held. They re®ected the important political, economic, and social interests within the state. In 1964, “members of the Board of Regents either headed or served on the boards of directors of 38 major corporations in the state and the nation.”2 While they did provide stability and also encouraged sizable donations from wealthy Californians , they did not render the university apolitical. The legislature could not govern the university directly, but it did approve the budget, sometimes using this power to express its views on how the taxpayers’ money was spent. Members of the legislature attacked the work of the university and the activities of its faculty and students as one way of raising their political pro¤les and scoring points with their constituencies. The reigning belief was that college students were still children in need of adult supervision, which would be provided by the campus administration in loco parentis (in lieu of the parents). Consequently , the administration was often held responsible for what its students did off, as well as on, campus. During the 1930s, a small strata of student radicals formed political organizations at the university. Some were openly communist or socialist. Others, such as the Social Problems Club, were led by Communists, though anyone could join. These groups mobilized students for a variety of protests. In 1934, they supported the labor strikes that convulsed the Bay Area. In 1935, they led 4,000 Berkeley students in a nationwide strike against war, in which 175,000 participated. These actions “badly frightened” the Regents. Concerned that student radicals scared the public and provoked the legislature, President Sproul began a personal anticommunism campaign “to reassure the public its University was in safe hands.” He adopted, with the approval of the Regents, a series of rules and policies to limit or prohibit use of the campus. Regulation 17 put control of all university facilities under the president. Regulation 5 allowed each campus administration to decide who was quali¤ed to be on campus, in any capacity. These were used to keep Communists out. Sproul also initiated an intelligence network to gather...