DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Friends of Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) clippings, 1965-1966 | 1965-03-03 Daily Iowan Article: "Non-Violence Defended, Scored"

Transcribe
Translate

Friends of Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) clippings, 1965-1966

1965-03-03 Daily Iowan Article: "Non-Violence Defended, Scored"

Established in 1868   10 Cents Per Copy   Associated Press Leased Wire and Wirephoto

Civil Rights Debate
Non-violence or violence in the civil rights movement was the topic of a debate held Tuesday night in the House Chamber of Old Capitol building. Debaters are, Laird Addis, left, assistant professor of philosophy, and John Huntley, right, assistant professor of English. Ed Spannus, A4, Elmhurst, Illinois, acted as master of ceremonies. —Photo by Marlin Levison

Non-Violence Defended, Scored
The University of Iowa Friends of SNCC sponsored a debate Tuesday night on the merits of non-violent resistance in the present civil rights movement.
Laird C. Addis, assistant professor of philosophy, and John Huntley, assistant professor of English, were the featured participants in the debate.
Huntley is the chairman of the Mississippi Support Project, an Iowa City-supported program of aid to Negroes in Mississippi.
Huntley, the first to speak, defended non-violent resistance.
In his opening statement, he said that "non-violent action is a means to an end." He qualified his statement by adding that it is not, however, a means to all ends or the only means to an end.
He said that to be successful, non-violent action must be used in a certain situation and by certain peiople with specific goals in mind.
Those using non-violent action, he said, must be mature, emotionally disciplined, patient and able to sacrifice temporary comfort for the fulfillment of long-range goals.
He said the leaders of non-violent resistance movements "gravitate to the top," because of their ability to hold out against the temptations of temporary bodily pleasure.
Addis rebutted by saying that those who reject physical violence do so for one of three reasons.
Some, he said, reject violence because they think it is "religiously or morally wrong." Others, he added, reject it because "they know intuitively that good cannot possibly come from evil."
Still others, he said, reject violence because "historical experience shows that good cannot come from such behavior."
Addis said the first reason is invalid because it denies that "human welfare is the goal of political action." The second, he said, is "not particularly true."
Addis said the third reason for rejecting violence is invalid because "history proves that good does come from evil or violence." He cited the Chinese and Cuban revolutions as proof of this statement.
"Liberals could probably cite the American Revolution as an example of this also," he said.
After the formal debating period, Addis and Huntley received questions from the audience.
Edward W. Spannaus, A4, Elmhurst, Ill., was master of ceremonies.

Saving...

Established in 1868 10 Cents Per Copy Associated Press Leased Wire and Wirephoto Civil Rights Debate Non-violence or violence in the civil rights movement was the topic of a debate held Tuesday night in the House Chamber of Old Capitol building. Debaters are, Laird Addis, left, assistant professor of philosophy, and John Huntley, right, assistant professor of English. Ed Spannus, A4, Elmhurst, Illinois, acted as master of ceremonies. —Photo by Marlin Levison Non-Violence Defended, Scored The University of Iowa Friends of SNCC sponsored a debate Tuesday night on the merits of non-violent resistance in the present civil rights movement. Laird C. Addis, assistant professor of philosophy, and John Huntley, assistant professor of English, were the featured participants in the debate. Huntley is the chairman of the Mississippi Support Project, an Iowa City-supported program of aid to Negroes in Mississippi. Huntley, the first to speak, defended non-violent resistance. In his opening statement, he said that "non-violent action is a means to an end." He qualified his statement by adding that it is not, however, a means to all ends or the only means to an end. He said that to be successful, non-violent action must be used in a certain situation and by certain peiople with specific goals in mind. Those using non-violent action, he said, must be mature, emotionally disciplined, patient and able to sacrifice temporary comfort for the fulfillment of long-range goals. He said the leaders of non-violent resistance movements "gravitate to the top," because of their ability to hold out against the temptations of temporary bodily pleasure. Addis rebutted by saying that those who reject physical violence do so for one of three reasons. Some, he said, reject violence because they think it is "religiously or morally wrong." Others, he added, reject it because "they know intuitively that good cannot possibly come from evil." Still others, he said, reject violence because "historical experience shows that good cannot come from such behavior." Addis said the first reason is invalid because it denies that "human welfare is the goal of political action." The second, he said, is "not particularly true." Addis said the third reason for rejecting violence is invalid because "history proves that good does come from evil or violence." He cited the Chinese and Cuban revolutions as proof of this statement. "Liberals could probably cite the American Revolution as an example of this also," he said. After the formal debating period, Addis and Huntley received questions from the audience. Edward W. Spannaus, A4, Elmhurst, Ill., was master of ceremonies.