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 15

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970

1970-06-03 Report: ""Campus Tensions -- A Report on Iowa and Elsewhere"" Page 15

- 15 -

attempted. Both on-campus and off-campus offenses may involve institutional as well as civil penalties. Students often object to institutional sanctions that are in addition to civil ones for the same act. The ABA states that there is no legal basis to the claim of double jeopardy in such cases.

The institutions should recognise the possibility, however, of injustice resulting from the imposition of multiple sanctions for the same conduct. In cases where the university proceeds after state action had taken place, consideration should be given by the university to any prior state punishment in determining the appropriateness of the university sanction. However, these matters are addressed to the discretion of responsible officials and do not give rise to any right of immunity from a different or additional finding or sanction made by the body that has initially delayed its exercise of jurisdiction. 

Also clearly involved here is the public feeling that the university acts as a sanctuary to lawbreakers. This feeling should be put to rest once and for all by a specific policy statement. Along with a statement that the campus is not a sanctuary should be an examination of matters which should appropriately be tried by civil authorities, those cases which should be tried by the institution, and those in which joint action is needed.

The adequacy of present Iowa law in keeping off campus those persons who are there primarily to create disruption is another matter which needs discussion. The Iowa trespass laws appear to be inadequate in this regard since some overt act must be committed before an individual can be charged with trespass. The Mulford Act, passed in 1965 by the State of California, made it a misdemeanor for any person who is not a student or officer or employee of a state college or university and who is not required by his employment to be on the campus to refuse a campus official's request to leave if it reasonably appears to the official that the person is committing any act likely to interfere with the peaceful conduct of the university. Is legislation of this nature needed in Iowa? Do the Iowa trespass laws in general need revision with clear applicability made to the state universities?

SITUATIONS OF GENERAL CAMPUS DISORDER

Regardless of the actions taken by the Board or the  institutions, further serious campus disorders may occur. Detailed contingency plans for such occurrences should be drawn up with the roles of the various persons and entities clearly defined. For example, who should be responsible for determining and declaring a state of emergency on a given campus? Do certain normally accepted activities become prohibited during this period? If so, what are they?

The Chancellor of the University of California at Santa Barbara declared a state of emergency and listed sanctions. Are such sanctions desirable and should they become part of Board policy?

It appears that an extremely important consideration during such disorder is a clear determination of whether the institution can control the situation, using internal security forces, or whether the situation is such that external agencies need to enter the campus. If external agencies enter, what agencies are involved and in what order? Who is in charge of a multiple force and who is responsible for calling

Saving...

- 15 - attempted. Both on-campus and off-campus offenses may involve institutional as well as civil penalties. Students often object to institutional sanctions that are in addition to civil ones for the same act. The ABA states that there is no legal basis to the claim of double jeopardy in such cases. The institutions should recognise the possibility, however, of injustice resulting from the imposition of multiple sanctions for the same conduct. In cases where the university proceeds after state action had taken place, consideration should be given by the university to any prior state punishment in determining the appropriateness of the university sanction. However, these matters are addressed to the discretion of responsible officials and do not give rise to any right of immunity from a different or additional finding or sanction made by the body that has initially delayed its exercise of jurisdiction. Also clearly involved here is the public feeling that the university acts as a sanctuary to lawbreakers. This feeling should be put to rest once and for all by a specific policy statement. Along with a statement that the campus is not a sanctuary should be an examination of matters which should appropriately be tried by civil authorities, those cases which should be tried by the institution, and those in which joint action is needed. The adequacy of present Iowa law in keeping off campus those persons who are there primarily to create disruption is another matter which needs discussion. The Iowa trespass laws appear to be inadequate in this regard since some overt act must be committed before an individual can be charged with trespass. The Mulford Act, passed in 1965 by the State of California, made it a misdemeanor for any person who is not a student or officer or employee of a state college or university and who is not required by his employment to be on the campus to refuse a campus official's request to leave if it reasonably appears to the official that the person is committing any act likely to interfere with the peaceful conduct of the university. Is legislation of this nature needed in Iowa? Do the Iowa trespass laws in general need revision with clear applicability made to the state universities? SITUATIONS OF GENERAL CAMPUS DISORDER Regardless of the actions taken by the Board or the institutions, further serious campus disorders may occur. Detailed contingency plans for such occurrences should be drawn up with the roles of the various persons and entities clearly defined. For example, who should be responsible for determining and declaring a state of emergency on a given campus? Do certain normally accepted activities become prohibited during this period? If so, what are they? The Chancellor of the University of California at Santa Barbara declared a state of emergency and listed sanctions. Are such sanctions desirable and should they become part of Board policy? It appears that an extremely important consideration during such disorder is a clear determination of whether the institution can control the situation, using internal security forces, or whether the situation is such that external agencies need to enter the campus. If external agencies enter, what agencies are involved and in what order? Who is in charge of a multiple force and who is responsible for calling