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 5

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970

1970-06-03 Report: ""Campus Tensions -- A Report on Iowa and Elsewhere"" Page 5

- 5 -
disruptions that have become commonplace. At the same time, there is a risk that certain efforts to maintain order may themselves be excessive and may indirectly contribute to disruptions infringing upon rights of students within a university freely to express their dissent and to be dealt with fairly when chafrges of misconduct are asserted against them. (Underlining mine.)

   The Commission sought to formulate principles and procedures that would insure freedom for dissent, while preserving the order required for those endeavors that constitute the reasons for the eggs extents of universities. This formulation was divided into:

   a. Protection of Freedom of Expression

   b. The Maintenance of Order with Justice

   Under a), consideration is given to the First Amendment freedoms students hold as citizens. These freedoms include freedom of association, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of the press and freedom of the classroom.

   It is probably true that with the present public reaction, relatively few people would emphasize students’ rights to these freedoms. The Commission sets forth the obligations and rights of institutions of higher education:

   In addition, institutions of higher education have a serious obligation to protect the operation of the university from disruption and to protect the members of the academic community and all others authorized to use their facilities from harassment and coercion. Modes of speech or assembly that are manifestly unreasonable in terms of time, place, or manner may be forbidden by clear and specific university rules. Such rules are a condition rather than a limitation of freedom within the university. Thus, demonstrations, speeches or assemblies that are disruptive because they are staged in a manner that congests access our passage, or due to their noise or location, and expressions imposed on semi-captive audiences or offensively upon unwilling third parties may appropriately be forbidden.
   The Commission postulates that searching self-evaluation, the identification of valid grievances, and prompt attention to institutional shortcomings provide the most effective assurance for the maintenance of order. As in other fields of endeavor, prevention is to be preferred over therapy.
   An excellent review of appropriate university disciplinary procedures is contained in the report. Such questions as these are asked:

   What should be contained in codes of conduct?

   What about double jeopardy?

   What rights must be accorded to students under due process?

   What about the use of interim suspension?

   How can effectiveness of disciplinary procedures be measured?

Saving...

- 5 - disruptions that have become commonplace. At the same time, there is a risk that certain efforts to maintain order may themselves be excessive and may indirectly contribute to disruptions infringing upon rights of students within a university freely to express their dissent and to be dealt with fairly when chafrges of misconduct are asserted against them. (Underlining mine.) The Commission sought to formulate principles and procedures that would insure freedom for dissent, while preserving the order required for those endeavors that constitute the reasons for the eggs extents of universities. This formulation was divided into: a. Protection of Freedom of Expression b. The Maintenance of Order with Justice Under a), consideration is given to the First Amendment freedoms students hold as citizens. These freedoms include freedom of association, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of the press and freedom of the classroom. It is probably true that with the present public reaction, relatively few people would emphasize students’ rights to these freedoms. The Commission sets forth the obligations and rights of institutions of higher education: In addition, institutions of higher education have a serious obligation to protect the operation of the university from disruption and to protect the members of the academic community and all others authorized to use their facilities from harassment and coercion. Modes of speech or assembly that are manifestly unreasonable in terms of time, place, or manner may be forbidden by clear and specific university rules. Such rules are a condition rather than a limitation of freedom within the university. Thus, demonstrations, speeches or assemblies that are disruptive because they are staged in a manner that congests access our passage, or due to their noise or location, and expressions imposed on semi-captive audiences or offensively upon unwilling third parties may appropriately be forbidden. The Commission postulates that searching self-evaluation, the identification of valid grievances, and prompt attention to institutional shortcomings provide the most effective assurance for the maintenance of order. As in other fields of endeavor, prevention is to be preferred over therapy. An excellent review of appropriate university disciplinary procedures is contained in the report. Such questions as these are asked: What should be contained in codes of conduct? What about double jeopardy? What rights must be accorded to students under due process? What about the use of interim suspension? How can effectiveness of disciplinary procedures be measured?