DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970 | 1970-06-03 Report: ""Campus Tensions -- A Report on Iowa and Elsewhere"" Page 4

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970

1970-06-03 Report: ""Campus Tensions -- A Report on Iowa and Elsewhere"" Page 4

-4-
External
These causes are viewed as being racism, military industrial complex, poverty and hunger, imperialism and the third world, police state, economics oppression, remoteness (for students) from power, misplaced priorities, Vietnam and materialism.
The Committee then formulates ten ideas for consideration, the first of which asks for "no repressive legislation. The fundamental responsibility for order and conduct on the campus lies with the university community."
Probably if the President had given serious consideration to these ideas, the alleged communications gap which, in effect, caused the events of May, would have been less explosive.
2. Report of the American Bar Association Committee on Campus Government and Student Dissent
This report was drawn up by a fifteen-member blue ribbon commission and released by A.C.E., May, 1970. Some excerpts are as follows:
The universities have responded to the disruptive disturbances and to the underlying student unrest in various ways. Internal disciplinary actions, the use of police or national guard, the use of court injunctions and criminal prosecutions have, in different circumstances, been used by various institutions to cope with disorders. In a substantial number of institutions there have been substantive institutional changes in response to the underlying merit of student grievances, from relatively minor changes in procedures to fundamental overhauls of academic programs, disciplinary machinery, and institutions of government. In some institutions, provision has been made for increased participation of students at various levels of university authority, including membership on the Board of Trustees. At other institutions, a careful consideration of the issue has resulted in a determination that the principle of administrative accountability is preferable to representation of all segments of the academic community in the decision-making process.
The reaction of higher education to campus unrest has not dispelled public concern. Student disruptions have already resulted in legislation in approximately one-half of the states and in the Congress, with additional legislative proposals now under consideration. The courts are reviewing university disciplinary actions and procedures in unprecedented numbers. Alumni and the citizenry in general are demanding that order be maintained, while students continue to protest over the allegedly slow pace of institutional reform.
The danger to higher education is apparent if violent disturbances continue to interfere with the educational missions of our institutions of higher learning or if numbers of our academic communities become more alienated from the universities and society of which they are a part. The importance of the orderly functioning of our universities is too great to tolerate the number and kinds of

Saving...

-4- External These causes are viewed as being racism, military industrial complex, poverty and hunger, imperialism and the third world, police state, economics oppression, remoteness (for students) from power, misplaced priorities, Vietnam and materialism. The Committee then formulates ten ideas for consideration, the first of which asks for "no repressive legislation. The fundamental responsibility for order and conduct on the campus lies with the university community." Probably if the President had given serious consideration to these ideas, the alleged communications gap which, in effect, caused the events of May, would have been less explosive. 2. Report of the American Bar Association Committee on Campus Government and Student Dissent This report was drawn up by a fifteen-member blue ribbon commission and released by A.C.E., May, 1970. Some excerpts are as follows: The universities have responded to the disruptive disturbances and to the underlying student unrest in various ways. Internal disciplinary actions, the use of police or national guard, the use of court injunctions and criminal prosecutions have, in different circumstances, been used by various institutions to cope with disorders. In a substantial number of institutions there have been substantive institutional changes in response to the underlying merit of student grievances, from relatively minor changes in procedures to fundamental overhauls of academic programs, disciplinary machinery, and institutions of government. In some institutions, provision has been made for increased participation of students at various levels of university authority, including membership on the Board of Trustees. At other institutions, a careful consideration of the issue has resulted in a determination that the principle of administrative accountability is preferable to representation of all segments of the academic community in the decision-making process. The reaction of higher education to campus unrest has not dispelled public concern. Student disruptions have already resulted in legislation in approximately one-half of the states and in the Congress, with additional legislative proposals now under consideration. The courts are reviewing university disciplinary actions and procedures in unprecedented numbers. Alumni and the citizenry in general are demanding that order be maintained, while students continue to protest over the allegedly slow pace of institutional reform. The danger to higher education is apparent if violent disturbances continue to interfere with the educational missions of our institutions of higher learning or if numbers of our academic communities become more alienated from the universities and society of which they are a part. The importance of the orderly functioning of our universities is too great to tolerate the number and kinds of