Monthly Archives: January 1968

1968.01.15: Protestors testify at SCC hearings (UCLA Daily Bruin)

Screen Shot 2014-05-21 at 10.15.15 PMUCLA Daily Bruin, January 15, 1968

Protestors testify at SCC hearings 

By Irene Cardenas and Jeff Perlman
DB Staff Writers

More than 100 spectators crowded into the small room where five student demonstrators appeared before the Student Conduct Committee (SCC) in a day long hearing Saturday.

Disciplinary action against the students, if any is to be taken, will be determined by Chancellor Franklin D. Murphy, who is expected to receive the SCC’s recommendations later today. 

Charged by the University with misconduct in what the prosecution termed a “disruptive sit-in” against Dow Chemical Co. at the Placement Center last November are Joan Anderson, Gary Coutin, Sandi Herbert, Dan Lund and Jerry Palmer.

Donald Reidhaar, assoc. counsel for the UC Regents, presented photographs and testimony  by UCLA administrators and campus police officers as evidence against the students.

Associate Dean of Students Charles McClure and Donald T. Gottesman, associate dean of student activities, testified that they repeatedly told the demonstrators that they were in violation of University rules and regulations and had asked them to leave the Placement Center.

Campus Police Chief Boyd Lynn and two officers, William Gilmore and Richard F. Thomas, appeared as witnesses. Officer Gilmore testified that when he asked one of the accused, “Will you leave now?” . . . The reply was “No.” Similar accounts followed regarding the other demonstrators.

The five students were defended by Assoc. Law Prof. Leon Letwin, Asst. Law Prof. Lawrence G. Sager and Law Prof. Richard A. Wasserstrom. In hi opening statement Sager said, “The important thing is not what the five students before you today and several hundred students on the campus did, but why they did these things.”

After cross-examining the prosecution’s witnesses, the defense had each of the five explain their actions. Lund testified that the one regulation book that cites the violation he is charged with was not made available to him, although two weeks before the demonstrations he “attempted to secure all information on regulations” at the Dean of Students office.

The SCC, which held this unusual open hearing, consisted of Chairman William Warren, professor of law; Prof. Harry Buchberg, engineering, Prof. Louis Grandi, engineering, Prof. Robert Tusler, music, Dean of Women Nola Stark, Dr. Robert S. Berns, psychiatrist in consultation, Eddie O’Connor, graduate student representative, and Donald Deutsch, undergraduate student representative. 

1968.01.14: UCLA Holds Open Hearing for Five Accused in Melee (L.A. Times)

Download .pdf version: 1968.01.14 — UCLA Holds Open Hearing for Five Accused in Melee (Leon)– LA Times 1968.01.14 -- UCLA Holds Open Hearing for Five Accused in Melee (Leon)-- LA Times_Page_1 1968.01.14 LAT--UCLA Holds Open Hearing for Five Accused in Melee_Page_2Melee Melee.2 Los Angeles Times, January 14, 1968

UCLA Holds Open Hearing for Five Accused in Melee

BY CHARLES BILLINGER
Times Staff Writer

An unusual full-dress public hearing for five UCLA students facing disciplinary action for their part in demonstrations last November against Dow Chemical Co. was conducted on the Westwood campus Saturday.

The daylong hearing, complete with “defense” and “prosecution” attorneys, was a departure from the customary college and university behind-closed-doors disciplinary procedures. No verdict is expected before Monday.

It is generally accepted that the open hearing procedure will signal a major change in handling disciplinary action, not only on the UCLA campus but at other colleges and universities.

Facing charges Saturday before the Student Conduct Committee were Joan Anderson, Sandy Hebert, Dan Lund, Jerry Palmer and Gary Coutin.

Considers Charges Serious

Dean of Students Byron H. Atkinson considered the charges against the two young women and three young men serious enough to possibly warrant suspension or dismissal from UCLA.

The five students were generally charged with taking part in what Atkinson’s office called a “disruptive sit-in” against Dow recruiters at the Student Placement Center and having to be forcibly removed from the center by campus police.

Palmer, a key figure in the demonstrations was additionally charged with exhorting others to take part in disruptive activities at the center, with leading a demonstration, with participating in the burning of an effigy, and with unauthorized use of a loudspeaker system outside the center.

In his opening comments at the session attended by about 80 spectators, Asst. Prof. Lawrence G. Sager, one of three members of UCLA’s law faculty serving as legal counsel for the five students, declared: “The important thing is not what the five student before you today and several hundred students on the campus did, but why they did these things.

“These students were acting in protest of the presence on this campus of Dow recruiters. We believe it is most important you understand why they did so.”

He said the “behavior of the students can only be understood in the context of the deep and abiding moral convictions which prompted it and with an appreciation of what they hoped to accomplish by that behavior.”

Sager insisted that the students “through their acts have not impaired this university. They have not disrupted the functions of the university. Prof. Richard A. Wasserstrom and Acting Associate Prof. Leon Letwin were the other two defense attorneys.

Donald Reidhaar, associate counsel for the UC regents assigned to UCLA matters in handling the case for the prosecution, contended the students staged a disruptive sit-in after being asked to leave the Student Placement center.

William Warren, professor of law and chairman of the eight-member Student Conduct Committee, said members of the committee, composed of six faculty members and two students, would take the matter under advisement and report their decision to Chancellor Franklin D. Murphy and to the students

1968.01.11: Students Facing Disciplinary Action Will Get Open ‘Trial’ (L.A. Times)

Download in .pdf format (and/or view image and text below): 1968.01.11 — Students Facing Disciplinary Hearing Will Get Open Trial — LA Times

1968.01.11 -- Higher Res- Students Facing Disciplinary Hearing Will Get Open Trial -- LA Times_Page_1 1968.01.11 -- Higher Res- Students Facing Disciplinary Hearing Will Get Open Trial -- LA Times_Page_2 1968.01.11 -- Higher Res- Students Facing Disciplinary Hearing Will Get Open Trial -- LA Times_Page_3

Los Angeles Times, January 11, 1968

Students Facing Disciplinary Action Will Get Open ‘Trial’

5 at UCLA Win Their Demand for Unprecedented Public Hearing Over Dow Chemical Demonstrations

BY NOEL GREENWOOD
Times Staff Writer 

Five UCLA students facing disciplinary action for their part in demonstrations against Dow Chemical Co. have won their demand for a full-dress public “trial” that will break university tradition.

There is general agreement on the Westwood campus that the event could signal a major change in UCLA’s way of handling disciplinary action, especially in cases that do not qualify as routine.

Will Appear Saturday

The five students, Joan Anderson, Sandy Hebert, Dan Lund, Jerry Palmer and Gary Coutin, will appear before the Student Conduct Committee Saturday at 9 a.m. in the opera workshop room of Schoenberg Hall.

“This is an absolute first for this one,” said Dean of Students Byron H. Atkinson.

Not only will it be the first open hearing ever held by the committee, it will be the first time adversary-type proceedings have been held by the committee – complete with “defense” and “prosecution” attorneys.

Most of the credit for the tradition breaking is being given to three members of UCLA’s law faculty: Prof. Richard A. Wasserstrom, Asst. Prof. Lawrence G. Sager and Acting Associate Prof. Leon Letwin. The three, after being asked by the accused students to help, pressed the demand for an open hearing with legal counsel – and now find themselves in the role of defense attorneys.

The series of maneuvers began in November after 13 students were summoned by the Dean of Students Office to face disciplinary action in the wake of the Dow demonstrations.

Atkinson acted on eight of the cases, administering such penalties as disciplinary probation and reprimands. But he considered the remaining five cases serious enough to possibly warrant suspension or dismissal from UCLA. Following customary procedure when such severe penalties are possible, he forwarded the five cases to the Student Conduct Committee, headed by Prof. William D. Warren of the law faculty.

Open Hearing

The 10-man committee (five faculty members, three from the administration, and two students) is advisory to Chancellor Franklin D. Murphy. Normally, it handles cases in closed hearings and although students have had the right to legal counsel for the past three years, only once has a lawyer appeared with an accused student. The committee was prepared to handle the Dow cases in the same manner – until the three professor-lawyers began submitting their demands. After conferences with the three lawyers, the committee voted to open the hearing, to postpone it so an adequate defense could be prepared, and granted a series of motions that have led to the trial-like situation.

Other Charges

The five students are generally charged with taking part in what Atkinson’s office calls “a disruptive sit-in” against Dow recruiters at the Student Placement Center and having to be forcibly removed from the center by campus police. Palmer, a key figure in the demonstrations, is additionally charged with exhorting others to take part in disruptive activities at the center, with leading a demonstration, with participating in the burning of an effigy, and with unauthorized use of a loudspeaker system outside the center.

The three lawyers agree their interest in the Dow cases is threefold:

1–They question whether students whose cases are handled in the customary manner by the Student Conduct Committee are being accorded due process.

2–They argue that the university regulations allegedly violated have been ill-defined by the university (none, they offer, specifically appear in the UCLA student handbook or· general catalog).

3–They are concerned that beyond campus rules, questions of moral and individual responsibility as applied to the Dow demonstrators be fairly evaluated.

Prosecutor Named

The case for the “prosecution” will be handled by Donald Reidhaar, associate counsel for the UC regents who is assigned to UCLA legal matters.

Both sides agree the major question is whether disciplinary actions can continue to be a university administrative matter or whether they are subject to the theories of law in the outside world.

Atkinson, who says the Dow hearing has caused his office to take a long-range look at the entire process, sees two possible developments, neither of which he is particularly enthused about.

Separate Bodies

One would be to set up two separate disciplinary bodies on campus, one for routine violations and the other for more serious questions.

A second approach would be to follow the lead of state colleges and let serious violations be handled by local courts outside the campus.

Image

1968.01.08: Protestors to appear Saturday for conduct committee hearing (UCLA Daily Bruin)

ucladailybruin48losa_0055

1968.01.08: Protests to appear Saturday for conduct committee hearing (UCLA Daily Bruin)

1968.01.08- Protests to appear Saturday for conduct committee hearing (UCLA Daily Bruin)

1968.01.05: Demonstrators’ Trial discussed today (UCLA Daily Bruin)

1968.01.05 Demonstrators’ Trial discussed today — Leon