Berkeley Free Speech Movement

 

    Although there are many definitions for social movements, one perspective to consider is that of Sidney Tarrow, who describes them as, “collective challenges by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interaction with elites, opponents and authorities” (1994: 3-4).  People in these social movements wish to give themselves and other people the freedom that we as American people have the right to have.  Free speech has governed the American way for the past two centuries.  Extending that ideal was the Berkeley Free Speech Movement; a social movement that helped give students, particularly those in college, their right to free speech.  It gave the oppressed students a political voice through various means of protest.  This movement came to be part of what was known as the student protest movement.  Events of this broader movement helped pave the way towards the free speech achieved by the students of the Berkeley Movement.

    Student protest has been in existence since the first college was born in the United States.  Since protest began, students have fought about countless issues spanning many diverse subjects.

They have been motivated to protest about issues ranging from the                                            

seemingly mundane matter of cafeteria food quality to more profound                                            

issues, such as abolition of slavery.  They have fought to improve                                             

conditions at their colleges and universities, and to maintain some                                              

control over curricular and housing arrangements (Van Dyke 1998: 28).

The first college protest was a staged walkout in response to the serving of rancid butter in the dining hall at Harvard University in 1766 (Johnston 1998:13).  As the importance of religion declined, brawls became more frequent.  Students became bored and, in turn, began neglecting their studies.  This neglect lead to the starting of fires, violent fights and excessive drinking which, more often than not, resulted in suspension.  Colleges attempted to stop rebellion by introducing student self-government; however, student government did not gain popularity until the Civil War.  Many different races became involved in student protest, especially at the University of California Berkeley, when fighting for civil rights began.  This movement made the students more involved in political rights and they began to use civil disobedience against university administration (Gales 1-2).  Eventually student government was used to work through the greatest cause of protest, in loco parentis, the principle that college administrators could take on parental control.  In loco parentis was one of the biggest protest causing issues at Berkeley.  Students felt that college administration had too much control over their lives.  As college newspapers came into existence, students were offered a new outlet through which they could expose their feelings; therefore, student protests did not occur as frequently.  However the punishment then became harsher for those who did rebel (Johnston 1998: 12-15).

            Radicalism was the inspiration for the formation of most college-based political organizations.  The anti-communist Red Scares of 1918-1919 brought additional radicalism to college campuses.  As the war started, students were not permitted to voice their anti-war views in campus press, which spurred more reason for protest, most likely due to the students feeling as though their freedom of expression was being limited. The first political organization for college students was the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, also known as ISS. Although ISS slowly disintegrated, it re-emerged at Berkeley in the 1960s, more than four decades after its first birth, and was one of the most influential radical organizations of the time period (Johnston 16).   Another type of organization was The National Student Federation of America (NSFA), which was founded in 1925.  The association emphasized students’ rights and worked to strengthen student government.  One historical event that inspired students to organize protests was the Great Depression, which caused more and more students to leave school without employment. 

            New York City’s three tuition-free campuses formed the National Students League (NSL) when newspaper distribution became blocked and the editor, along with ten supporters, was suspended.  The National Students League fought for students’ rights and economic “palliatives” with opposition to discrimination and the war.  Both of these organizations were greatly involved in the Berkeley Free Speech Movement (Johnston 1998: 16-18).

            In the early thirties, many men began to fear the draft due to the lingering chance of war.   In one poll taken at the time, it was discovered that 39 percent of American students were unwilling to go to war and another third intended to refuse unless the United States itself was invaded (Johnston 1998:19).  On the anniversary of the US’s entry into World War I, NSL held a National Student Strike Against War with 25,000 students.  This led the League for Industrial Democracy to come back into action prior to renaming the organization the Student League for Industrial Democracy (SLID).  In 1935 SLID merged with NSL to form the American Student Union (ASU).  In 1936 the ASU had an anti-war strike with 500,000 students (Johnston 1998: 16-19).  At this time Berkeley began striking “war and fascism” and held a strike every year until 1941 (Gale 1968: 2-3).

The fervor of campus-based activism disappeared around the time after Japan’s strike on Pearl Harbor during WWI.  The University of California Berkeley, along with many other schools, showed very little interest in politics during this time period.  Following the Second World War, the United States National Student Association passed a Student Bill of Rights saying that civil liberties and academic freedom should not be abridged on the basis of race, religion, or political views.  In the 1960’s the Student Peace Union solidified itself as the dominant campus peace organization.  In the same decade, SLID became the Students for Democratic Society and veterans formed the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (Johnston 1998: 18-24).  SDS and SNCC were two of the biggest organizations of this time period.  When the group began in 1963 it had only a few hundred members.  By 1968, the total number of members had grown to over 100,000 students (Gassert 2003: 138).

The University of California Berkeley was the epicenter for the decade’s student activism.  At one time, no political activity was allowed on the Berkeley campus.  Gradually the school became more liberal and communist speakers were allowed on campus.  However, it was illegal to use the campus for the advocacy and organization of any political actions or the collection of funds for political purposes.  Students found a way around this by coming together on a strip of land outside of campus in order to organize their ideas.  On September 16, 1964 student organizations were informed that the use of this land was illegal.  The students were outraged and ignored the limitations, and on September 30 set up illegal tables outside of the administration building.  Eight students were suspended indefinitely, five for setting up tables and three for leading what would be known as the first Sproul Hall sit-in.  That night the Free Speech Movement (FSM) was created.  The next day, October 1, 1964, Jack Weinberg was arrested for setting up a table with political literature in front of the Sather Gate campus entrance.  Police believed that he was on the property illegally distributing political material.  Students showed a great deal of support for their peer by surrounding the police car and holding the officer at bay for 32 hours (Heineman 2001: 106-107).  The events that took place over this three-day period were the foundation for what would be known as the Free Speech Movement.

            Students led another Sproul Hall sit-in after Weinberg’s arrest.  Over 500 police officers tended to the campus, yet the students did not leave until an agreement with Clark Kerr, the academic chief of the University of California, was completed.  The agreement made stated that:

1.      Students would give up all forms of illegal protest against university regulations.

2.      The University would not press charges against Weinberg.

3.      The length of suspension for the three students would be re-evaluated.

4.      A new committee representing students, faculty, and administration would immediately be set up to make recommendations on the rules relating to political behavior on the campus (Gale 1966:1-5).

Clark Kerr did not support the use of brute force and believed that all disputes could be arbitrated.  However, Kerr lacked the support of his faculty.  The faculty believed that the FSM was an organization that advocated drug abuse, group sex, and “nihilism” (Heineman 2001: 107).

            On November 20, the Board of Regents met and decided that the students were now fighting for the right to organize illegal acts on the campus, free from university disciplinary action.  The board decided to reinstate the suspended students and the FSM demonstrations began again because the committee no longer considered new rules for political activity.  Students began to hold daily noontime rallies on the steps of Sproul Hall, and graduate students formed their own pro-FSM group.  Teaching assistants threatened to strike.  On November 27, newsletters were sent to the leaders of the Free Speech Movement during the arrest of Weinberg, summoning them to appear before the relevant committee.  Students felt that they had been betrayed, as the agreement made with Kerr had been disregarded and approached the administration with an ultimatum.  They demanded that action against students involved in the police car incident be dropped and  that rules be revised so that only the courts could have the right to take action on political speech.  The students also demanded that members in organizations for political activity could no longer be disciplined by the school (Gales 196:1-5).  The administration was given 24 hours to comply with the demands.

            On December 2, the FSM held a huge rally in Sproul Hall including a 1,000-person sit-in.  Mario Savio, a FSM leader that equated free speech with civil rights and attacked the entire American political system, led the rally. Over 800 people were arrested, 590 of them being students and 89 being teaching or researching assistants.  Since the administration did not meet the FSM’s agreement, there were pickets to block campus entrances and a strike of teaching assistants throughout the days that followed. The Berkeley Division of Academic Senate passed a resolution stating, “The content of speech or advocacy should not be restricted by the University. Off-campus political action shall not be subject to University regulations.  On-campus advocacy or organization of such activities shall be subject only to such limitations as those imposed under Section 2” (Gales 1966: 1-5).

            After the agreement was made, the battle over free speech was not over.  The Board of Regents had decided to support the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.  The FSM did not feel that their resolution had been met.  Later that year, nine people, only 3 of them being students, were arrested for displaying the word “fuck” on a poster around campus.  A few rallies caused the Regents to become outraged.  They wanted Kerr to expel all of the students involved.  Kerr and his new Chancellor could not handle the pressure of all of the demands and came close to resigning.  The nine students were taken to court.  All of the students arrested for the rally in Sproul Hall on December 2nd were tried in the spring.  Some of them were put on probation and fined, while the leaders were sentenced to time in jail.  The FSM slowly disappeared and was replaced by anti-Vietnam groups.  Even though the FSM disintegrated, the Berkeley students still made a difference.  Students could now speak freely by setting up tables, holding meetings, and raising money.  Years later a grant was made by an alumni in honor of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement (Freeman 2004: 1178-1182).   

            The Free Speech Movement contained many elements similar to those of early student protests.  From these examples, it is clear that the only way to take successful action is to find a common problem amongst the oppressed student body and gain support to achieve victory as a united community.  The common adage of “strength in numbers” can certainly be applied to these protests created by students.  The Free Speech Movement at the University of California at Berkeley is no exception to this idea. The group of students who helped to create this movement instilled hope in students who felt as though their personal freedoms were being limited and encouraged them to break down the walls that were blocking them and achieve whatever goals that they had set out to reach. 

            Still in survival today, these protest groups should not be silenced, but instead respected, as prime examples of the great American tradition of freedom of assembly and expression.  The people, such as the students of the FSM, made decisions to destroy any establishment that was considered to be oppressive.  The establishment in this segment of history was the University of California at Berkeley, but tomorrow, it could happen within one’s own backyard.  Once the people of a determined group such as these have a goal, they can become a force not to be reckoned with, as seen by the valiant efforts made by the students of the University of California at Berkeley.