DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970 | 1970-12-16 IowaCity Press-Citizen Editorial: ""No Cause for Comfort""

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970

1970-12-16 IowaCity Press-Citizen Editorial: ""No Cause for Comfort""

IOWA CITY PRESS-CITIZEN
Editorial Page
Wednesday, December 16, 1970 

No Cause for Comfort
There are several ways of looking at the incident last Wednesday at the University of Iowa which culminated in a recruiter for the Defense Intelligence Agency cancelling scheduled interviews. None of them offers much cause for comfort. 
One way of course is that the rally and sit-in outside the UI Placement Office pointed out again the continued extent and depth of opposition to the Vietnam War plus recruiting to support such military efforts. 

Another conclusion some might draw from the incident is that protesters went beyond demonstrating opposition to prevent recruiting by an agency of the Department of Defense. This line of reasoning might continue to the conclusion that the military effort of the U.S. was hampered by the action, that the cause of peace was furthered and that of war set back . 

( In connection with these viewpoints, it must be noted that the university through Robert Engel, assistant to President Willard L. Boyd, declared that it "was prepared to provide him ( the recruiter) with an  opportunity to hold interviews." The recruiter reached his decision to cancel scheduled interviews and to leave the campus without consulting UI officials.)

But there are other ways of seeing the incident, too, and each person's conclusion  inevitably is colored by the particular bag of prejudices he carries around in his mind. 

One of these other ways is that a small minority of persons, 200 of a university enrollment of more than 20,000, interfered with the rights of other students by actions which led to the cancellation of the interviews. 

It's possible to look upon this incident too, as an instance in which the federal government in the person of the recruiter who left the campus yielded to a small group of persons. or perhaps it was the university which yielded, although, since the issue did not appear to come to a head this may be less accurate.

All of these viewpoints contain something of the truth. None is the whole truth. Taken together they don't equal complete truth. 

What the exposition of them does more than anything else is to illustrate once again the depth of the division of cruel, seemingly interminable war has brought to this country and to demonstrate how reactions to events are colored by that war and those divisions. This is not a reassuring judgment.

Rules Bring Problem
The investigation which the university has launched into the incident of last week points to a further difficulty, a difficulty which has its origins in the regents' rules of conduct adopted last summer precisely to curtail such actions. One can't help feeling that the intent of the regents' rules was broken, and the rules themselves badly bent, if not broken.

What the regents' rules do, as do any codifications of regulations, is to set out specifically what forms of conduct and unacceptable and what penalties may be imposed for them. But the misconduct must be specified and procedures described with legal niceties carefully observed. 

And this, of course, is what the university administration has to do if it determines that it can and should take disciplinary action under the regents' rules against those involved. It might have been more practical, even more just, to proceed in the old way under the university's and the community's general powers to preserve order.

Saving...

IOWA CITY PRESS-CITIZEN Editorial Page Wednesday, December 16, 1970 No Cause for Comfort There are several ways of looking at the incident last Wednesday at the University of Iowa which culminated in a recruiter for the Defense Intelligence Agency cancelling scheduled interviews. None of them offers much cause for comfort. One way of course is that the rally and sit-in outside the UI Placement Office pointed out again the continued extent and depth of opposition to the Vietnam War plus recruiting to support such military efforts. Another conclusion some might draw from the incident is that protesters went beyond demonstrating opposition to prevent recruiting by an agency of the Department of Defense. This line of reasoning might continue to the conclusion that the military effort of the U.S. was hampered by the action, that the cause of peace was furthered and that of war set back . ( In connection with these viewpoints, it must be noted that the university through Robert Engel, assistant to President Willard L. Boyd, declared that it "was prepared to provide him ( the recruiter) with an opportunity to hold interviews." The recruiter reached his decision to cancel scheduled interviews and to leave the campus without consulting UI officials.) But there are other ways of seeing the incident, too, and each person's conclusion inevitably is colored by the particular bag of prejudices he carries around in his mind. One of these other ways is that a small minority of persons, 200 of a university enrollment of more than 20,000, interfered with the rights of other students by actions which led to the cancellation of the interviews. It's possible to look upon this incident too, as an instance in which the federal government in the person of the recruiter who left the campus yielded to a small group of persons. or perhaps it was the university which yielded, although, since the issue did not appear to come to a head this may be less accurate. All of these viewpoints contain something of the truth. None is the whole truth. Taken together they don't equal complete truth. What the exposition of them does more than anything else is to illustrate once again the depth of the division of cruel, seemingly interminable war has brought to this country and to demonstrate how reactions to events are colored by that war and those divisions. This is not a reassuring judgment. Rules Bring Problem The investigation which the university has launched into the incident of last week points to a further difficulty, a difficulty which has its origins in the regents' rules of conduct adopted last summer precisely to curtail such actions. One can't help feeling that the intent of the regents' rules was broken, and the rules themselves badly bent, if not broken. What the regents' rules do, as do any codifications of regulations, is to set out specifically what forms of conduct and unacceptable and what penalties may be imposed for them. But the misconduct must be specified and procedures described with legal niceties carefully observed. And this, of course, is what the university administration has to do if it determines that it can and should take disciplinary action under the regents' rules against those involved. It might have been more practical, even more just, to proceed in the old way under the university's and the community's general powers to preserve order.