Students Hit Lecture Rules As Speaker Bannings Fall Off

Bannings of outside speakers from universities has been a much rarer occurrence this year than in the past. Michigan, which experienced a rash of banning last year, has not been able to change the machinery which brought them on, but has not yet suffered from that fact. Other colleges have by now become familiar enough with the list of "leftist" speakers to make sure no one invites them.

Three a Crowd at UCLA

The vice-presidential candidate of the Socialist party addressed students of UCLA off campus last October after university authorities had barred him from participating in a political debate.

Samuel Friedman, the candidate, was banned with the statement "it is not deemed advisable to invite Mr. Friedman to speak on campus at this time." Although supposed to debate representatives of the Republican and Democratic parties, Friedman, according to the statement, was "not considered of equal stature" to them. UCLA authorities assumed they could have a well-rounded debate without Friedman's presence.

Michigan Easing Dies

Hopes of changing the University of Michigan's speaker-banning machinery, which had barred four men from speaking at the University last year died hard in early December when the Student Legislature plan to liberalize the Lecture Committee was rejected. The Legislature blamed its failure, in part, on the interference of the campus Young Progressives "who threw a monkey wrench in the negotiations," by raising the speaker issue at a critical time.

Opposition to the Lecture Committee, which screens all proposed speakers for subversive affiliation, crystallized last year over the Committee's widened interpretation of "objectionable" speakers. Originally the Committee was set up to determine in advance whether a particular speaker would violate the law, which reads, "during such meetings there shall be no advocracy of the subversion of the government of the United States nor of the State." The Committee's original policy was to label "objectionable" only avowed Communists, and thus keep them from speaking at Michigan. The newer controversial Committee interpretation of "objectionable" speakers was widened and now includes anyone who belongs to organizations on the Attorney General's list.

The plan proposed by the Student Legislature would have done away with the prior Committee investigation of a speaker. Instead, the sponsoring student group would be held responsible for the maintenance of the by-law. Infractions would be judged by a Joint Judiciary group after the meeting.

The Legislature-Committee negotiations floundered on the insistance of the majority of Committee members that a change in the existing machinery could only take place if students were willing to abide by the Attorney General's list in choosing speakers. This plan was rejected by students.

During the negotiations the issue was not completely quiet, although there were no more bannings by the Lecture Committee. Intwined with almost all speaker difficulties were the Young Progressives.

Check-off List

In December some sixty students, after being checked off against a guest list at the door, heard Howard Fast speak in the off-campus Unitarian church. The meeting was again sponsored by the Young Progressives. The YP's discarded their original plan to hold the meeting on campus when the Lecture Committee did not receive the Progressive's petition in time to act.

The lateness of the petition was partly caused by Erich A. Walter, Dean of Students, who normally receives and forwards all such petition immediately to the Committee. But in the YP case, Walter announced he would hold the petition until the Progressives "explained" what action they had taken to carry out the "recommendations" made in an investigation of the organization last year.

He was urged by the Student Activities Committee to forward the petition, as the YP's were still a recognized group under the University, and should not be denied their rights. The Student group also promised another investigation of the YP's activities.

The Lecture Committee was unable, however, to meet before the scheduling of Fast's talk.

In April, unable to obtain the 30 signatures necessary to continue, the Young Progressives closed shop. With the closing of the Young Progressives, the organization most prominent in inviting "objectionable" speakers, the issue has finally quieted down at Michigan. And the finality of the Administrative rejection of any change, has effectually closed the issue at the administrative level.

Timidity at Harvard

In an unusual, self-censoring move by a student group the Harvard Law School Forum canceled a scheduled April debate featuring the left-wing novelist Howard Fast. The Forum topic, "Communism in Hollywood," was changed to "Limitations on Free Expression." Fast finally spoke at Harvard, under the auspices of the Harvard Liberal Union, but only after Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. '38 had denounced student timidity in a letter to the Crimson, undergraduate newspaper.

The Law Forum explained its action in a letter to Fast, regretting "that after all the trouble we have put you to, we are compelled to tell you that we cannot present the original forum program as we had planned. As you doubtless understand from the newspapers, putting on such a program at this time would not only embarrass, but hurt, several people connected with the University."

Schlesinger's letter to the Crimson pointed out that the students in this case had acted on their own initiative without "hints from the faculty. It is a stirring commentary," he continued, "on the courage of this new generation that the faculties and governing bodies of a University should be more in favor of free speech than the students."

The day after the appearance of Schlesinger's letter in the Crimson, the Harvard Liberal Union announced its sponsorship of Fast in a debate on the Korean issue. About a hundred people attended, and the consensus after the debate was that Fast had been soundly drubbed.