Congress and College Turmoil

AS MILITANT action by students hit campuses from Harvard to Berkeley this spring, harried college administrators, looking over their shoulders to Capitol Hill, were worried that the "student unrest" would prove to be a spur for repressive legislation--against students, and perhaps indirectly, against the universities themselves. While the final legislative results are not in, it does appear, however, that the Congressional reaction to campus commotion has thus far been surprisingly mild.

Congress has, of course, not evidenced any great affection for campus rebels. Well aware of how most of his constituents regard students who seize buildings and throw out administrators, many a Senator or representative has arisen in his chamber, delivered a scathing speech against SDS members, and perhaps introduced a bill which would -- as two such proposals provide -- withdraw all Federal aid from any campus where disorders occur, or from colleges which fail to carry out research deemed important to the national security. At the same time, three Congressional committees have held lengthy hearings on student unrest:

* The Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee, chaired by Sen. John L. McClellan (D-Ark.), subpoenaed information on student militants from various colleges. In the course of its hearings on SDS, the McClellan Committee proudly revealed a list of leading figures in SDS, most of whom had already been well-publicized by the media of their respective areas. The McClellan Committee has since moved on to an investigation of the Black Panthers and other black militants.

* The House Internal Security (formerly the Un-American Activities) Committee, headed by Rep. Richard H. Ichord (D.-Mo.), has spent several weeks holding hearings at such campuses as George Washington and Kent State to investigate the activities of the militant students organizations on those campuses.

* The House's Special Subcommittee on Education, chaired by Rep. Edith Green (D.-Ore), continued hearings it began last fall on campus disturbances. Most of the testimony before the Green Committee came from leading college administrators and faculty, including Harvard's President Pusey, and Seymour Martin Lipset, professor of Government and Social Relations.

DESPITE these hearings--and the innumerable Congressional Record pages which individual members of Congress filled with attacks on student militants--virtually none of the "anti-riot" bill introduced this session have yet made much headway in Congress.

The measure which seemed to have the best chance of passage was relatively mild compared to some of the measures in bills introduced. This bill--introduced by Rep. John N. Erlenborn (R.-Ill.) and strongly supported by Rep. Green as an alternative to more stronger bills--would have required any colleges recelving federal funds to file with the Commissioner of Education its rules for on-ampus behavior and the maintenance of order. In an effort to gain more support, it was later amended so that colleges would only have to draw up such rules, and show them to the commissioner on request.

Yet even the amended version of the bill was bottled up in committee last Tuesday. It certainly did not make the rapid progress which many college administrators, including President Pusey, feared any anti-student bill would make this year.

The relative moderation to date of Congressional reaction to campus tumult may, in part, be due to a belated realization that repressive legislation is an inadequate and perhaps even counter-productive response to university problems. In a report on college unrest sent to President Nixon on June 17, a group of 22 Republican Congressmen said that:

Perhaps our most important and pressing conclusion is that rash legislative action cutting off funds to entire institutions because of the action of a minority of students would play directly into the hands of those hard-core revolutionaries. Legislation which treats innocent and guilty alike inadvertently confirms extremist charges that "establishment" is repressive ad indifferent to citizen needs and concerns. We must not put ourselves in the position of aiding the handful of anarchists.

The report acknowledged that larger social problems such as the Vietnam war and the condition of urban American were important factors leading to college disturbances. The Congressmen--two of whom spent some days at Harvard interviewing students. Faculty and Administrators--also voiced strong support for what has come to be known as "university restructuring," to increase the responsiveness of universities to student concerns. The report, which was released just before hearings on the Erlenborn bill began, probably helped to swing some Republican Congressmen on the Green subcommittee against the bill.

CONTRARY to the expectations of many, the Nixon Administration has also been urging Congress to exercise caution when dealing with bills relating to campus disruptions. Arguing that college administrators are best qualified to deal with disturbances, Nixon, HEW Secretary Robert Finch, and Commissioner of Education James E. Allen Jr., have all spoken out against measures which would cut off Federal aid to universities hit by disruptions. Though Attorney General John Mitchell has argued for stronger measures, the Administration's only new proposal on colleges has been one which would allow universities to apply for Federal restraining orders against students who interfere with the operation of the institutions.

While those who remember the Nixon of the 1950's might be surprised at this relatively lenient attitude, it does fit well with the image with his Administration is trying to project--one stressing orderliness and expertise in administration, as well as moderation in all things. In addition, Nixon almost surely recognizes that universities--unlike Southern school districts--do provide services which are immediately useful to the Federal government. Besides hurting education in general and students in particular, cutting off Federal aid to universities would also lessen the flow of expertise from academia to government.

This lack of White House support has undoubtedly helped to slow the progress of strong anti-university bills, but it might not have been as effective were it not for the fact that college administrators themselves--in their testimony before Congress as well as in their actions this spring--have been trying to assure Congress that colleges have no intention of allowing disruptions of their operations.

In a telephone interview less than two hours after police cleared University Hall, President Pusey said that one of his main reasons for authorizing the police action was the demonstrate that new repressive laws were not needed to deal with events such as those at Harvard. "We must keep order on our own campuses," he said, and went on to state that, if colleges failed to do so, other bodies, such as the Congress, would take on the task. Later, in his testimony before the Green subcommittee, Pusey engaged in what was perhaps a bit of verbal over-kill, saying that colleges administrators' "wills and resolves are strengthening," and that "the new barbarians will be repulsed."

While many Harvard students would no doubt have preferred at least some continuation of the "new barbarianism" in University Hall to the police action which ended it, Harvard's action--and similar actions on other campuses this spring--have probably helped, at least in the short run, to reassure Congress and to lessen the chances of passage of repressive legislation.

The present Congressional moderation, however, may not last very long. The crucial test will probably come late this summer, when college-related appropriations bills come up for hearings. Tacking on riders to appropriations bills is one of Congress's favorite means of action, and the technique will undoubtedly be tried on college bills this year.

The only college-related appropriations bill thus far passed by both houses is that of the NASA. As approved, this bill contained an "anti-riot" amendment first passed with several bills in the last session of Congress. The amendment calls for cutting off aid to any student who has disrupted operation of a college. Determination of what constitutes disruption is, however, left to the colleges, who have not been particularly anxious to enforce the provision. To date, no aid has been cut off under such amendments, although they have been in existence for over a year.

Relieved that nothing stronger had been attached to the NASA bill, one Harvard administrator recently commented, "I think it's a good sign--I hope." Just how good a sign it is, and how long-lived Congress' moderation on campus disturbances is, should be clearer by the time appropriations hearings are over. The final result may depend largely on how strongly the American public as a whole is feeling about "college unrest." If voter sentiment is highly anti-student, Congress--which can be extraordinarily sensitive to public feeling on certain issues--may well throw moderation to the winds, and replace it with tougher legislation.