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 17

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970

1970-06-03 Report: ""Campus Tensions -- A Report on Iowa and Elsewhere"" Page 17

- 17 - 

ACTIONS IN OTHER STATES AND BY STATE LEGISLATURES

At least 37 of the 47 Legislatures that met during the calendar year 1969 considered legislation related to campus disorders. Measures were enacted in 20 states including Iowa. measures were defeated, vetoed or ruled unconstitutional in 10 states. The Michigan Report, sent earlier to the Board, outline the actions taken in these 47 state legislatures. Generally legislation fell into the following areas:

1. Comprehensive anti-riot legislation with specific reference to college campuses. 
2. Anti-trespass laws.
3. Denial of financial aid to students involved in disorders. 
4. Bans on possession of firearms and Molotov cocktails on college campuses. 

It is important to note at this point that the legislative sanction of reducing appropriations for educational institutions that are involved in campus disorders was not used to any great extent during either the 1969 or 1970 legislative sessions. However, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges points out that the climate and attitude toward higher education is generally not perceived as being favorable at this time. There are still some states, however, where a minority of legislators is trying to understand what is motivating students so they can deal constructively with them. The report cautions that one of the great fears that those in the university community should have is of legislation that bypasses various university boards and committees. It is fair to state that most bills enacted to date do not go that far. Continued campus disruption and continued perceived failure of those in charge to take appropriate measures to control the situation could lead to legislature repression of its state universities. 

The Board was furnished the booklet entitled " Constructive Changes to Ease Campus Tensions" issued by the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. One only has to glance at this booklet to realize that the problem of campus disruptions, and the attempt by universities to deal with campus disruptions and build up a feeling of trust on the campuses, is a procedure that is now involving virtually every state institution in the nation. The suggestions contained in the booklet or measures which other states have undertaken are under intensive study by this office. Those which seem to warrant further study will be examined closely regards their effectiveness in maintaining campus calm. 

The "Constructive Changes" booklet is divided into several parts which provides a check-list of issues which the Board might consider to ascertain whether it is doing everything possible to build up a feeling of trust with the students and the various constituencies on its campus. Development in other states regarding student participation in governance, student membership on committee, participation on search and screening committees appear to be no more innovative than what is going on at present within Regents institutions. The Board should explore ways to become better informed on student ideas and desires as a part of its overall consideration of campus unrest.

Saving...

- 17 - ACTIONS IN OTHER STATES AND BY STATE LEGISLATURES At least 37 of the 47 Legislatures that met during the calendar year 1969 considered legislation related to campus disorders. Measures were enacted in 20 states including Iowa. measures were defeated, vetoed or ruled unconstitutional in 10 states. The Michigan Report, sent earlier to the Board, outline the actions taken in these 47 state legislatures. Generally legislation fell into the following areas: 1. Comprehensive anti-riot legislation with specific reference to college campuses. 2. Anti-trespass laws. 3. Denial of financial aid to students involved in disorders. 4. Bans on possession of firearms and Molotov cocktails on college campuses. It is important to note at this point that the legislative sanction of reducing appropriations for educational institutions that are involved in campus disorders was not used to any great extent during either the 1969 or 1970 legislative sessions. However, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges points out that the climate and attitude toward higher education is generally not perceived as being favorable at this time. There are still some states, however, where a minority of legislators is trying to understand what is motivating students so they can deal constructively with them. The report cautions that one of the great fears that those in the university community should have is of legislation that bypasses various university boards and committees. It is fair to state that most bills enacted to date do not go that far. Continued campus disruption and continued perceived failure of those in charge to take appropriate measures to control the situation could lead to legislature repression of its state universities. The Board was furnished the booklet entitled " Constructive Changes to Ease Campus Tensions" issued by the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. One only has to glance at this booklet to realize that the problem of campus disruptions, and the attempt by universities to deal with campus disruptions and build up a feeling of trust on the campuses, is a procedure that is now involving virtually every state institution in the nation. The suggestions contained in the booklet or measures which other states have undertaken are under intensive study by this office. Those which seem to warrant further study will be examined closely regards their effectiveness in maintaining campus calm. The "Constructive Changes" booklet is divided into several parts which provides a check-list of issues which the Board might consider to ascertain whether it is doing everything possible to build up a feeling of trust with the students and the various constituencies on its campus. Development in other states regarding student participation in governance, student membership on committee, participation on search and screening committees appear to be no more innovative than what is going on at present within Regents institutions. The Board should explore ways to become better informed on student ideas and desires as a part of its overall consideration of campus unrest.