DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Iowa City Oppressed Citizen, September 4, 1970 | 1970-09-04 Iowa City Oppressed Citizen Page 6

Transcribe
Translate

Iowa City Oppressed Citizen, September 4, 1970

1970-09-04 Iowa City Oppressed Citizen Page 6

[[Illustration text]]
REGENTS RULES
STUDENT POWER
[[Handwriting]]
PAGE 6 DIG THIS
High Mom!
sound like fun? 
GET IT ON?
[[Text]]
The Iowa State Board of Regents this summer bowed to the wishes of reactionaries throughout the state and nation and took the law into their own hands.
The result is the ball-and-chain document circulated to the student body in mid-August aimed at stopping university protest and called the Uniform Rules of Personal Conduct.
Included in the circulation was a letter by Boyd giving his interpretation of the rules: a curb of unlawful dissent, "an elaboration of existing Regential rules," and free expression as indispensible elements of academic life."
Furthermore, the document includes a clause proudly stating that the rules "shall be construed so as not to abridge any person's constitutional right of free expression of thought or opinion...." But a look at the rules themselves shows some restrictions clearly inconsistent with these smokescreens. For example, section 4 reads: "The president of the university is authorized to bar from the campus any student or member of the faculty or staff who, in the president's judgement, has committed an act of misconduct...and whose continued presence on the campus constitutes a clear and present danger to the orderly processes of the university."
The first subsection after this ordains that such a barring order may be made "without prior hearing and may permit access to the campus for such limited purposes as attending or teaching classes..." Other things, more constructive things, can be done. But it is not surprising to note that the regents refused to take event he smallest step. The section of the proposed document that concerned itself with communication was scuttled by the board in less than fifteen minutes.
Portions of section 4 violate not only the due process protection of the university's Student Bill of Rights, but also trample upon constitutional rights of due process and trial by peers, plus the basic tenet of the Anglo legal system--innocence until proof of guilt.
Obviously dictators have nothing to lose through the use of such rules. Even if someone finally scrapes up enough money to haul them to court, the Regents got a good chance of coming out on top and can lose little more than the pride they pretend to have even if they lose in court.
Legalistic knitpicking out of the way, there is still an even more serious threat here. For what are laws but a reflection of a communities norms? Thus for non-community members to attempt to regulate the personal lives of the members of this community is crass, presumptive and immoral. This is not to say that this university should be an ivory tower. It is rather to say that when two conflicting sets of norms are forced to confrontation, as was the case in May, the solution is not for the more powerful or authoritarian to squelch the other--as the Regents are trying in true Third Reich style.
Intentional curtailment of norms coming from the moral basis of a significant number (most estimates of the May strike ran at or more than 5,000 participants) of a separate community can be called nothing else, by definition, than blatant repression.
There should be little surprise that the regents have acted as they have. A group of political appointees cannot be expected to have allegiance to any other principles than legalistic dogma, and bowing to "social pressure" (being the big business bigots).
Obviously these once-a-month vigilante laymen have no other logical choice than to respond to their own kind: like the president of Iowa City Chamber of Commerce for whom students showed particular animosity last spring, and like the state legislators. The board constitutes an outdated (vintage 1857), understaffed, bureaucratic excuse for governors--that is if one thinks of governors as fair and legitimate and humane. All of which is hardly likely on the part of either the board or the administration; these are the people that say sitting in the street is violence but paying for ROTC killers training is not. These are the people that say the new rules are little different from the old, yet a reading of the new ones shows that a student could, depending on the "judgement of the president," be suspended for a year for sneezing too loudly in class.Arbitrary? Intimidating? These are the same people that thrive in the community in spite of the injustices they have promoted.
These are the people-the Boyds. Vernons, Huits and Heffners, who throw 250 of the community in jail and the next month mouth their "regret" as they simultaneously slap together rules aimed at trashing the rest of us.
- bart thorne -

Dear Compatriot:
You and your lady are cordially invited to attend the 183rd United States Constitution Anniversary Dinner Sunday Noon Sept. 20, 1970 in Iowa Memorial Union, Iowa City, Iowa under the joint sponsorship of Iowa State Society and Herbert Hoover Chapter Sons of the American Revolution.
Justice Harvey Uhlenhopp of the State of Iowa Supreme Court, an appointee of Governor Ray and a distinguished jurist, will be guest speaker.
Daughters of the American Revolution, Children of the American Revolution and members of other patriotic bodies and fraternal groups, local public officials, business leaders and their wives and families will be among those attending the Anniversary Dinner.
A delicious dinner will be served by the University Food Service at $2.90 a plate. Reservations may be made by returning the enclosed card not later than Thursday, September 20.
Sincerely yours,
George M. Sheets
President
The United States  Fla in Ever Place where Iowa People Live and Gather
IOWA STATE SOCIETY
SONS OF THE
AMERICAN REVOLUTION

Saving...

[[Illustration text]] REGENTS RULES STUDENT POWER [[Handwriting]] PAGE 6 DIG THIS High Mom! sound like fun? GET IT ON? [[Text]] The Iowa State Board of Regents this summer bowed to the wishes of reactionaries throughout the state and nation and took the law into their own hands. The result is the ball-and-chain document circulated to the student body in mid-August aimed at stopping university protest and called the Uniform Rules of Personal Conduct. Included in the circulation was a letter by Boyd giving his interpretation of the rules: a curb of unlawful dissent, "an elaboration of existing Regential rules," and free expression as indispensible elements of academic life." Furthermore, the document includes a clause proudly stating that the rules "shall be construed so as not to abridge any person's constitutional right of free expression of thought or opinion...." But a look at the rules themselves shows some restrictions clearly inconsistent with these smokescreens. For example, section 4 reads: "The president of the university is authorized to bar from the campus any student or member of the faculty or staff who, in the president's judgement, has committed an act of misconduct...and whose continued presence on the campus constitutes a clear and present danger to the orderly processes of the university." The first subsection after this ordains that such a barring order may be made "without prior hearing and may permit access to the campus for such limited purposes as attending or teaching classes..." Other things, more constructive things, can be done. But it is not surprising to note that the regents refused to take event he smallest step. The section of the proposed document that concerned itself with communication was scuttled by the board in less than fifteen minutes. Portions of section 4 violate not only the due process protection of the university's Student Bill of Rights, but also trample upon constitutional rights of due process and trial by peers, plus the basic tenet of the Anglo legal system--innocence until proof of guilt. Obviously dictators have nothing to lose through the use of such rules. Even if someone finally scrapes up enough money to haul them to court, the Regents got a good chance of coming out on top and can lose little more than the pride they pretend to have even if they lose in court. Legalistic knitpicking out of the way, there is still an even more serious threat here. For what are laws but a reflection of a communities norms? Thus for non-community members to attempt to regulate the personal lives of the members of this community is crass, presumptive and immoral. This is not to say that this university should be an ivory tower. It is rather to say that when two conflicting sets of norms are forced to confrontation, as was the case in May, the solution is not for the more powerful or authoritarian to squelch the other--as the Regents are trying in true Third Reich style. Intentional curtailment of norms coming from the moral basis of a significant number (most estimates of the May strike ran at or more than 5,000 participants) of a separate community can be called nothing else, by definition, than blatant repression. There should be little surprise that the regents have acted as they have. A group of political appointees cannot be expected to have allegiance to any other principles than legalistic dogma, and bowing to "social pressure" (being the big business bigots). Obviously these once-a-month vigilante laymen have no other logical choice than to respond to their own kind: like the president of Iowa City Chamber of Commerce for whom students showed particular animosity last spring, and like the state legislators. The board constitutes an outdated (vintage 1857), understaffed, bureaucratic excuse for governors--that is if one thinks of governors as fair and legitimate and humane. All of which is hardly likely on the part of either the board or the administration; these are the people that say sitting in the street is violence but paying for ROTC killers training is not. These are the people that say the new rules are little different from the old, yet a reading of the new ones shows that a student could, depending on the "judgement of the president," be suspended for a year for sneezing too loudly in class.Arbitrary? Intimidating? These are the same people that thrive in the community in spite of the injustices they have promoted. These are the people-the Boyds. Vernons, Huits and Heffners, who throw 250 of the community in jail and the next month mouth their "regret" as they simultaneously slap together rules aimed at trashing the rest of us. - bart thorne - Dear Compatriot: You and your lady are cordially invited to attend the 183rd United States Constitution Anniversary Dinner Sunday Noon Sept. 20, 1970 in Iowa Memorial Union, Iowa City, Iowa under the joint sponsorship of Iowa State Society and Herbert Hoover Chapter Sons of the American Revolution. Justice Harvey Uhlenhopp of the State of Iowa Supreme Court, an appointee of Governor Ray and a distinguished jurist, will be guest speaker. Daughters of the American Revolution, Children of the American Revolution and members of other patriotic bodies and fraternal groups, local public officials, business leaders and their wives and families will be among those attending the Anniversary Dinner. A delicious dinner will be served by the University Food Service at $2.90 a plate. Reservations may be made by returning the enclosed card not later than Thursday, September 20. Sincerely yours, George M. Sheets President The United States Fla in Ever Place where Iowa People Live and Gather IOWA STATE SOCIETY SONS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION