September, 1970

DISSENT AND UNREST ON THE CAHPUS, 1931-1970

Dissent, unrest and disruption did not develop suddenly on The Ohio State

University campus in the spring of 1970, just after the peak of the Centennial Year.

Division of a sort might even be said to have had a beginning in the ouster of

President Walter Q. Scott in June, 1883. This was because of his failure to conduct

daily compulsory chapel as the Trustees had ordered, and because of his espousal of

nonconformist economic ideas as embodied in Henry George's Single Tax proposal.

The repercussions of the Scott ouster reached into the governor's office and

newspaper columns, But while he was permitted to "resign" shortly he did not regain

his job and he '"as not even accorded the courtesy of being named president emeritus

until 1909.

From time to time there was a division of opinion over compulsory military

training. At one early point even the legislature made it optional but this did not

last long. It was not until the 'Thirties that the anti-military movement grew to

real proportions.

In 1930-31 a number of issues came rapidly to a head. These were free speech,

compulsory drill, and the ouster of Professor Herbert A. Hiller, of Sociology.

Externally these matters were unrelated, but it was not long before those involved

in them found a certain amount of common ground. Unfor·tunately this was also a

time of. financial stringency because of the depression and many University services

were curtailed seriously.

The Free Voice, a dissident student weekly newspaper, appeared at 15th Avenue

and High Street in January, 1931. Since it was unauthorized it could not be peddled

on the campus side of High Street. It was small publication that sold for a nickel.

Among those on its staff were such later notables as Earl Wilson, the Broadway

columnist, and Ruth HcKenney, the author. Compared with publications a generation

-1-

FROH: The papers of James Pollard (RG 40/52/3) located at l4l-l92-3ab.

later, it was relatively mild in tone. Successor publications appeared in 1934 and

1935.

A major target, of course, was compulsory drill. This protest was more vocal

than effective. On the occasion of a major review on the Oval, hm<ever, some of

these dissidents "armed11with broomsticks mocked the event by parading behind the

co.mmandant and others receiving the review. The protesters also made their

objections vocal from the base of the Thompson statue at the head of the Oval.

The Miller ouster was something else. He was a nonconformist professor of

sociology who was either ahead of his time or unable to understand plain English,

or both. He was given leave of absence for the Spring Quarter, 1930 to go to India

but after some discussion among the Trustees it was understoo~ that President

Rightmire was to notify Miller that his contract would not be renewed for 1931-1932.

Rightmire '"rote Miller~ who was away, during the 1931 spring vacation to remind him

of· this fact. The word soon got around, the faculty was split - liberals vs

conservatives - and the administration, especially the Trustees, was criticized

severely. At an unprecedented Sunday meeting in the chapel, 132 faculty members

signed a protest against Miller's removal. It stood, although the Trustees after

meeting later with a faculty committee clarified the University's policy on tenure.

The scars from this battle over academic freedom were a long time in healing.

The next major issue arose following the adoption in September, 1951 of the

so-called speaker screening rule under which the president had to approve outside

speakers whose names had to be submitted to him for clearance at least 10 days in

advance of the issuance of the actual invitation to speak. This caused an

irnme~iate uproar and, eventually, the adoption of censure against the University by

the national A.A.U.P. Students were not so much involved in this, although the

hubbub was a long time in dying down and then only after the Trustees had modified

their stand considerably. -2-

At one point, in fact, an influential Trustee invited a senior faculty member

to his downtovm office and, in effect, asked the latter, "How do we get off the hook in

this?" The. speaker rule had been adopted after Professor Harold Rugg, of Columbia

University, had given affront by talks he had made on the campus that summer.

Rugg was accused of being un-American and a Board resolution condemned the invitation

to him as "not in accord with the traditions and objectives" of the University.

T\vo incidents in the early 1 Sixties proved that at times student feeling had

a low boiling point. In November, 1961 after Ohio State had won the Big Ten

football title and thus qualified for the Rose Bowl game, the Faculty Council voted

against letting the team go to Pasadena. This led to a major demonstration on the

campus and a march on the Statehouse by an estimated 7,000 students. It was said

that the "riot" cost the city up to $10,000 in damages and police overtime. Even

a glass front door on the Faculty Club was broken.

In February, 1964 another demonstration follmved the arrest the day before of

a coed for jaywalking. She had gotten the ticket the previous quarter but never paid

it. The offense had occurred on High Street near 15th Avenue. The afternoon after

the arrest, when she \vas taken to the police station in a "paddy wagon", hundreds of

students began to gather near the intersection. They lined both sides of the street

shouting, "We'll win. We can't be beat. Where we want 1ve'll cross the street,"

along with "Red Rover, Red Rover. You kids cross over."

.Traffic came to a standstill at the rush hour.after radio news cars and TV

cameras arrived. It was said that 4,000 students lined one block of High Street and

filled the street. Nearly a score of trolley buses and as many autos were blocked by

the demonstrators. The disorder lasted seven hours.

Another 200 students paraded downtown to enter a protest at the police station.

Later seven students were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct. As an aftermath

-3-

''

two students were suspended from school and five.were put on disciplinary probation.

In May, 1964 some hundreds of students were drawn to the Oval for a civil rights

rally. There was an hour of speeches, folk-singin g and a march to the campus

postoffice to mail pleas to U.S. Senator Frank J. Lausche, of Ohio. It was said

that payment of $50 was required for police protection before the rally could be

held. But the police merely took some pictures and watched the faces of the croHd.

There were no incidents; in fact, a sand-lot soccer game went on nearby during the

rally.

In the spring of 1964 also, a weekly soapbox forum was held on the Oval near

Hayes Hall. Anyone was permitted to have his say. These peaceful dialogues, if

that is what they "'ere, served a purpose but they drew small crowds who stood or

lolled about on the grass. But there were no demonstrations and no disorder such as

occurred later.

Rumblings of discontent over the Speakers' Rule continued intermittently but

with no serious untoward incident until 1965. That spring a new group which called

itself the Free Speech Front staged t'·lD sit-ins in the Administration Building in

seven days. On April 28 that year an estimated 300 students began by sitting outside

President Fawcett's office. Some stayed all night. The Free Speech Front was not

recognized by th~ University but its spokesmen said this was their way of trying to

get the Speakers' Rule made unrestrictive, i.e., toothless. The Trustees, who that

month invited the Faculty Advisory Council to make suggestions on the problem, had

agreed to consider proposals to change the rule at their July meeting, but the

Free Speech Front said this was too late and wanted immediate action.

The demonstrators were peaceful. They even observed the cordoned-off aisles

that had been arranged on the second floor of the building and when their numbers

grew too large, 50 of them took up their vigil on the first floor. Late in the

evening all of the demonstrators went there. Outside the building some 200

-4-

picketers marched until well into the evening. More than a score of the demonstrators

spent the night there.

This Free Speech Front protest had begun with a rally on April 14 '"hen the group

demanded that the rule be changed within three weeks so as to require only 72 hours'

notification of the appearance of a guest speaker. But the next week, with a crm;d

estimated at 2,000, demand was made for immediate change in the rule. This

followed word of plans to invite Dr. Herbert Aptheker, national director of the

American Institute for Marxist Studies, and that he had been, in effect, banned

from the campus. The Students for Liberal Action had planned to have him on the

campus May 11 in an apparent test of the rule. But Vice President John E. Corbally

wrote to SLA's faculty adviser that Aptheker probably would not be permitted to

speak.

Agitation over changes in or abandonment of the Speakers' Rule continued.

On May 10 Aptheker spoke off campus but made no mention of the Speakers' Rule or

that he had been barred twice from the campus. The Free Speech Front vowed to

bring him back to the campus later in the month but President Fawcett warned its

leaders that if Aptheker spoke they would be "subject to disciplinary action."

On May 21 arrangements had been made for him to appear on the Oval 1-'here a

small platform had been erected. Then it rained. In the chapel, a graduate student

read from one of Aptheker's books borrowed from the library. Aptheker appeared from

back stage, stood briefly and then departed, escorted by State Highway Patrolmen.

He went directly to High Street where he entered a car and left. It was reported

that a telephone caller told the president's office he 1-'ould be there in 10 minutes

to shoot Aptheker. Again the Free Speech Front promised that Aptheker would return

in July but he did not.

Earlier (May 3) the Student Senate sponsored a rally on the Oval on the

-5-

Speaker's Rule issue. On May Day, May 6, the Free Speech Front arranged for a

teach-in with the twin objectives of protesting against the rule and "educating"

students as to "the best interests of the University." Six faculty members spoke

at hourly sessions in the chapel. On May 13, at their monthly meeting, the Trustees

declined to change their reconsideration of the rule scheduled for July. While

they were meeting, about lOO.faculty members picketed outside the Administration

Building. By mid-May pressure for a change in the rule and backing for Free

Speech Front had come from 21 student and five faculty groups, including a

petition signed by 428 faculty members, as well as support from Ohio ne,<'spapers

and even from students in other colleges.

By a vote of 5 to 3, the Trustees, in effect, retained the Speakers' Rule at

their July 8 meeting when they rejected propsed changes recommended by President

Fawcett. These had the support also of the Faculty Advisory Committee and other

groups. The decision brought more criticism of the University and of the Board.

But at their September 14 meeting at Wooster, the Trustees agreed to two major

changes in the rule. One was that recognized student organizations could invite

guest speakers to the campus for addresses after consultation with and approval of

their faculty advisers. This relieved the president of having to decide which

guest speakers were or were not in the "best interest" of the University. And

where situations were "attended by extreme emotional feeling," the Faculty Advisory

Committee was to be responsible for the orderly and scholarly conduct of such

meetings but it was not to choose the speaker or his subject. This time the vote

was 4 to 3.

Aptheker, previously banned from speaking on the campus, was the first

outsider to speak there under the modified rule. Under auspices of the Students

for Liberal Action he spoke October 18 in Hughes Hall auditorium. His topic was

-6-

"Marxism and Freedom." The hall, seating 384, was filled, with about 100 others

outside. After he read his paper, Aptheker took part in a question-and -answer session.

Dr. Richard Mall, of Speech, chaired the meeting and Dr. Paul Craig, then of

·Economics, was given the last 10 minutes before the announced closing hour of 10 p.m.

He spoke but purposely did not try to rebut Aptheker. Ground rules for Aptheker's

talk were set up by the Faculty Advisory Committee since he came under "the

extreme emotional feeling" provision.

Students took part in another kind of demonstration early in October, 1967 in

sympathy with striking non-teaching employes of the University. On the morning of

October 5 the union stationed about 100 :pi.ckets at 13 points on the campus. The

University got an injunction against the strike which the strikers ignored.

Negoti.ations were resumed October 8 (Sunday) bet,veen the union and the strikers who

wanted a wage increase and improved benefits. The next day the union voted to go

back to work, agreement having been reached on the major points.

About 700 students were said to have gathered at the 15th Avenue entrance to

the campus on the first day of the strike and another 500 or more the next day in

apparent sympathy with the strikers. On the whole they were quite orderly although

a special Columbus police riot squad appeared each evening and some 20 arrests were

made. There were even charges of police brutality. President Fawcett·warned students

not to assist the strikers in view of the court order to halt the strike. But

after the strike the president, in his report on the affair to the Trustees at

their October 11 meeting, commended the students "for the calmness they maintained

during the course of the strike and for the services they rendered." Vice President

Corbally reported that inquiry was being made to determine whether students arrested

during the demonstrations had broken University rules. Similar strikes occurred at

Ohio and Capital Universities.

-7-

Student militancy began to take other forms in the winter of 1968. This ,.ms

partly to protest the presence on the campus of Marine Corps recruiters and

representatiyes of firms such as the Dow Chemical Company making war supplies

(napalm) for the Defense Department. This kind of thing '"as occurring also on

other campuses. This type of demonstration was tied in with growing opposition and

resistance to United States involvement in the war in Vietnam.

On January 22 some 50 peace demonstrators gathered in the lobby of the main

library to protest the presence of United States Marine Corps recruiters. On the

first day there was no trouble but on the second the protesters blocked the aisle

to the recruiters' table. This was in violation of the rule requiring demonstrators

to keep a path open to the recruiting tables. The next day (January 24) the protest

broke out in Denney Hall, where violence occurred for the first time. This

resulted when several male demonstrators traded punches with a man who allegedly

kicked a female protester in the face.

A dialogue of sorts which in two years was to reach mass proportions and result

in extreme violence began in January, 1968 also. On February 1 about 60 Negro

students called at the office of Dr. John T. Bonner, Jr., executive dean for student

relations, to discuss greivances ~fblack students on the campus. In a 90-minute

meeting they submitted a list of eight improvements they desired: more Negroes on

the faculty, courses in Negro history, an end to discrimination by off-campus

landlords, more Negroes in administration especially counseling, recognition of

"Negro History Week" and "Brotherhood \Veek," more Ohio Union music of the kind

preferred by Negroes, and so on.

Six days after the meeting with Bonner, nearly a score of Negro students

conferred with Dr. Corbally, provost and academic vice president. This had to do

with the objectives outlined to Bonner. Their chief complaint was that there were

-8-

too feH blacks in administration and teaching and a disproportionate number in Hhat

they called menial posts. Corbally said he Hould HOrk "Hith appropriate

administrators to see that action is taken instead of just looking into the

situation." He called the discussion Hith the blacks "excellent."

Police arrested 11 persons January 31 after a group failed to break up a

demonstration against Navy recruiting in Hamilton Hall. Dean Richard L. Meiling

(Medicine) asked them to leave the college office. When they did not do so

Security Officer Marion Curry cited the Ohio trespass laH and ordered them to leave.

Some did but police moved in and made the arrests. THo more Here added Hhen they

ignored orders to get away from the bus holding those arrested. President Fm•cett in

a statement called the police action in full accord with Univeristy policy, noting

that the matter was under the jurisdiction of the civil courts.

On February 7 when Navy recruiters appeared in Hitchcock Hall protesters

staged a "mill-in." This time instead of sitting-in they milled around the recruiters'

table. Eleven were arrested when they first ignored a request and then orders to

leave. The same trespass law was invoked against them.

When DoH Chemical recruiters came to Denney Hall on February 22, the protests

took a neH form. This time there Has no violence but among the 50 Hho demonstrated

a feH carried scorched dolls and a rubber face mask resembling President Lyndon

Johnson. They also HOre black crepe paper armbands and had a black pl~•ood coffin.

About 15 other students began an "anti-peace" demonstration in a dormitory Hith a

sign which read, in part, "Kill for peace," Hhen members of the Committee to End the

War in Vietnam tried to pass out anti-Har literature.

The arrests brought pleas from faculty members that the trespass charges against

the students be dropped. President FaHcett Has asked to name a committee to formulate

policies as to the arrests. He complied February 20 by appointing a 13-member

committee on Rights and Responsibilities. There had been a rally on the Oval,

-9-

meatmhile, to protest the arrests.

On March 6 about 100 Negroes, representing the Black Student Union, met with

University officials, including Dean Bonner and others, in Stillman Hall. The

blacks charged the University with racism. The administration pledged renewed

support toward ending discriminatory practices on the campus. In view of what was

to come a month later, it is significant that John Evans, a student, was moderator

of the'-meeting.

April, 1968 proved to be a momentous month on the campus. Early that month

unsigned handbills appeared proclaiming, in part, "RALLY - OSU - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10 -

OVAL- IT'S TIME STUDENTS ARISE- CONFRONT THE SICK SOCIETY- WAR- RACISM­

EDUCATIONAL DEHUMANIZATION." Intelligence sources said the backers, allegedly

connected with the leftist Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), were seeking an

attendance of 10,000, including students from other Ohio colleges, at the rally and

that violence might result. There were also emotional overtones because of the

recent assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. On April 9 classes were dismissed

until 4 p.m. to let those interested take part in memorial exercises for Dr. King.

University authorities began to consider also what to do to protect buildings and

property.

By Wednesday morning, April 10, the Admi~istration Building was in a state of

security with guards at each door. Visitors had to identify themselves and state

their business before they could get in. Students were told to come back the next

day. The tighter security was ordered by the State Highway Patrol, incidentally,

and not by University officials.

About 100 students gathered at noon on the Oval. Shortly they moved to a

spot opposite the Administration Building. Toward 1 p.m. other students helped to

swell the gathering to about 500. Meanwhile, some 900 National Guardsmen were

-10-

standing by at the State Fair Grounds with 100 State Highway Patrolmen at Mershon

Auditorium.

At the rally a number of speakers recited the "transgressions" of the

University. When it '"as reported they had been locked out of the Administration

Building, the throng moved to the sidewalk immediately in front of it where there

was more protest speaking. A sophomore read a list of five "demands": dropping

charges against those arrested earlier at Hitchcock Hall, enforcement of open

housing rules for off-campus housing, no use of off-campus police to stop student

disturbances, the University was not to compel students to live in dormitories, and

an inquiry into complaints by Sociology faculty of alleged coercive policies there.

Word came from President Fawcett that he was willing to confer with students

at any time. But he emphasized that he was "not going to conduct the business of

the University on the Oval or at a rally." Three "spokesmen" for the protesters

went into the building to present the "demands" to University officials. Out front

a tussle followed when one group tried to lower the flag in front of the building

to half staff and another sought to raise it to fu:J,l-staff and gathered at the base

of the pole to protect the colors. Not long afterward a hard shower came up and

the crowd melted away.

On April 12 the list of "demands" was answered at a special news conference

called by Dr. Fawcett. Vice Presidents Cor bally and Carson, and Dean Bonner also

took part. On trespassing Dr. Fawcett noted that University policy permitted

divergent views. He pointed out that no one had been arrested until after being

warned. He added that the administration would continue to seek better campus law

and order policies. Bonner said that all residence halls and Buckeye Village apartments

were completely integrated and the University had created an office to help students

file protests against off-campus segregation.

-11-

As to compulsory dormitory housing, Carson recalled that in the early 1Sixties

students complained about the housing shortage and the newer dormitories were built

to meet this need. The only way to pay for such facilities was from rental income

and the University had to be sure enough rooms were rented to meet revenue bond

payments. On the policing issue he observed that the Univeristy had only 32 men on

its force. This was inadequate to protect the campus in an emergency which was ,.,here,

by statute, the State Highway Patrol came in. On the ·sociology department, Corbally

held that the procedures used "were within the grounds of academic decision" and his

office had found no irregularities.

For a while it looked as though a major confrontation had been avoided. Then

came Friday, April 26 when some 75 members of the Black Student Union, in effect, took

over the Administration Building for five hours and held Vice President Carson and

two secretaries prisoner. This incident began at 9 a.m. The situation was complicated

at noon when 75 anti-Vietnam protesters, mostly white, surged onto the first floor

of the building. It was the blacks, hm;ever, who took over control of the building,

even to wiring the outside doors shut with coat hangers and pasting newspapers

inside the doors so that no one on the outside could see in.

The issue involving the blacks arose from complaints arising from an incident

on a campus bus two nights before. Four Negro girls allegedly were talking loudly on

the bus whose driver asked them to stop. When they did not do so, they were put off

the bus and campus police were called. The next day the Negroes said they were kept

out of the campus police station when they called to complain about the bus incident.

Complaint was then made to Vice President Carson who agreed to discuss the matter <dth

a committee of five the follm;ing morning, April 26.

At 9 a.m., the hour set, 41 Negro students filled Carson~s office. He was told

that he could not leave and was denied the use of his telephone. The blacks declared

they would stay until the employes in question - the bus driver, police officer, and

an administrative official - were fired and the University apologized for the

-12-

incident. The protesters hung a sign, "Black Teach-in" from the south windmo- of

Carson's second-floor office.

At first not many 'wrking on the first and third· .. floors of the building were

aware of what was occurring on the second floor. President Fatvcett ·was in

Cleveland attending a meeting. He was apprised of what was going on and flew home

but did not get into the building. Some workers who left the building at noon were

unable to get back upon their return. During the afternoon some personnel were

permitted to leave by the doors but others had to use a window in the men's rest

room to get out.

Vice President Corbally and three dmmto'm Negro leaders entered the picture in

an effort to negotiate the matter. Ultimately Corbally and Carson, on behalf of the

University, agreed to five points to end the dispute: charges against the bus driver

and ca1npus policeman would get special handling and in the meantime they would not

have contact with students; a"review panel would be created to hear the testimony

and would include representatives named by the Black Student Union (BSU); the

administration would provide the Lantern with a statement the following week on the

various programs undertaken by the University to deal with black student problems;

the University agreed to enlarge its efforts to insure "that these black students do

not face" the unique problems confronting them; an office to deal with their

problems would be in operation by May l. Dr. Fawcett said later these matters had

been under discussion prior to the bus incident.

Inside the building, meanwhile, the Negroes controlled the doors and would not

let the white protesters onto the second floor or into the office '"here the

negotiating was under way. They asserted that the issue was racism and they did not

want it confused with the anti-,o-ar matter. There were reports also that 100 State

High,o-ay Patrolmen were standing by at the State Fair Grounds and that 40 Columbus

-13-

police were held overtime in case they were needed.

About 5:30 p.m. the Negroes began to leave the building, shouting that they

had won their demands. At that point TV cameramen were admitted to the building

but not newspaper photographers. In the only scuffle earlier a camera ,.ms taken

from a TV cameraman who was shooting footage of a Black Student Union spokesman.

This film was removed and destroyed.

The Board of Trustees met in special evening session April 30 to discuss the

April 26 Administration Building takeover. Acting Chairman John W. Bricker said

the meeting had been "called to consider any action which might be taken in light

of the tragic and illegal occupation" of the building the previous Friday. Two

matters were to be considered: "What shall be done with those '"ho violated their

responsibilities as citizens and illegally trespassed upon this property to the

infringement of the rights of others; and to consider suggested rules and

regulations to be presented by President Fawcett."

Dr. Fawcett said that in his view "This kind of lmvlessness cannot be

condoned." He then presented three rules pertaini~g to such conditions which the

Faculty Council had approved unanimously in special session that afternoon. The

rules, having to do with group disruption, individual disruption, and the creation of

a committee on discipline, were referred to a Board committee consisting of three

attorney-members. In further action, the Board directed Dr. Fawcett and the

administration "to immediately make an investigation as to the conduct of all and

every person who participated in the events of last Friday ,.,ith the idea that after

the investigation has been completed appropriate action can be taken so that any

pers~:m involved will have an opportunity for a full and fair hearing and trial.

Further that such action may result in such discipline as appears appropriate under

the circumstances after such a hearing."

-14-

At the May 9 Board meeting, Dr. Fm;cett reported relative to the April 26

11 seizure11 that "We are proceeding in accord T.-,rith the direction of the Board and \vith

the rules of. the University."

A related issue which developed involved Assistant Professor David E. Green,

of History, who allegedly burned his draft card in an 11 a.m. class. He gave as his

reason for doing so the assassination of Dr. King. Green was in his first year in

the department and did not have tenure~ But he injected himself into the race issue

by taking part in demonstrations in front of the Administration Building and by

giving an address in Hitchcock Hall on "Racism and the Student Community." As an

aftermath of this a local TV cameraman was manhandled and beaten there. For this

several black students were arrested later. Green's case was investigated by a

faculty committee and his contract was not renewed. He spoke later in other classes

after sympathizers contributed to a fund for him.

Other related developments in the tempestuous April-May period were:

The Administration Building continued under State Highway Patrol Guard.

On May 2 it was announced that the annual. R.O.T.C. review would be moved

to the intramural athletic fields. The decision stood in the face of mounting

pressure to drop the event but when the time came two days of heavy rains

canceled the review.

As of May 3, president Fawcett set up a 5-member faculty and staff committee,

with Macrion L. Smith, associate dean of Engineering as chairman, to conduct hearings

on April 26 takeover.

John S. Evans, leader of the Black Student Unfon, was arrested by F.B.I. agents

May 10 on a charge of failing to report for induction.

The Franklin County ·grand jury began an inquiry into the April 26 takeover to

determine whether it '"a.s warranted in taking action. It visited the Administration

-15-

Building and called 14 witnesses.

Nine students were found guilty of trespassing May 16 in Columbus municipal

court growing out of the February 7 anti-Navy recruitment demonstration in

Hitchcock Hall. On May. 30 they drew 15-day workhouse sentences, $35 each in fines

and $35 in costs. In .. April similar findings were made against students involved in

the Hamilton Hall trespassing incident. For two students the workhouse sentence

was dropped and cut to three days for· the other seven.

A tragic but unrelated event at the time \Vas a fire May 22 on the 11th floor

of Lincoln Tn~ver, one f{J the twin high rise dormitories, in which t~<o co-eds died.

It was officially determined that it Has a case of arson involving another

freshman co-ed who was later committed to Lima State Hospital.

On the last day of May the county grand jury returned secret indictments

against 34 black students involved in the April 26 takeover of the Administration

Building. T~<elve counts were placed against each, including unlawful detention,

conspiracy to abduct,blackmail, and making menacing threats. Evans, the Black

Student Union leader, was the first of the accused to be taken into custody. The

president of the Columbus N.A.A.C.P. chapter called the indictments "selective law

enforcement in its most brutal form." The Black Student Union held a public meeting

in St. Philip's Episcopal Church to air its side of the controversy.

Meam<hile the Ad Hoc Majority for Law and Order had been organzied. After the

grand jury action this group presented President Fm<cett with a petition with 800

signatures asking that the 34 indicted students be dismissed from the University.

The bus driver and campus policemen accused of mistreating the four black women

students earlier in the spring were cleared of all charges and were reinstated.

Early in June, as spring final exams began, some 120 persons, including some

faculty, protested the indictments against the 34 black students by picketing in

front of the Administration Building. This was under the sponsorship of a newly

-16-

formed Ad Hoc Committee for Faculty Responsibility. During the demonstration group

spokesmen conferred with President Fawcett. Discussion centered on off-camlpus

housing discrimination, civil rights, and creation of an office to deal with

minority students' problems.

The next fe"' months were comparatively quiet. This may have been partly

because it was summer and _partly because for the time being there ,;as no further

active agitation. At their July ll meeting, the Trustees approved new rules

governing student discipline. These were based upon a report by a special Board

committee consisting of Trustees Bricker, Ketterer and Shocknessy. They had been

presented first to special meetings of the Faculty Council and the Board on April 30.

There were new rules on gorup and individual disruption. The third rule

spelled out the functions and authority of the standing University Committee on

Discipline. Under the group disruption rule no students were to "enter or remain"

in any building or facility or upon University land where not authorized or even

where authorized "after being notified to depart therefrom" by proper University

personnel. Nor was any student to join with others to commit or perform any act

"intended to disrupt any authorized program, operation or function of the University"

after having been so advised by authorized campus personnel. Nor was he to join with

others to "detain, hold, intimidate, injure or threaten to injure or coerce" any

University officer or faculty or staff member "in the pursuit of his University

duties," or to seize, damage or threaten to damage campus buildings, facilities or

lands. The pE>nalty for this after appropriate hearing, was suspension or expulsion

with or without.criminal prosecution.

Any individual student found to have been engaged in any of the foregoing acts

was "to be subject to penalty including expulsion" as might be determined by

University authorities empm;ered by the Trustees to impose discipline, "with or

-17-

without prosecution in the civil court."

The discipline committee '"as to consist of six members named by the president

and be made up of four faculty members, one student and an administrator. It was to

"hear on first appeal" student discipline cases v1here an appeal was taken by an

appropriate University official or by a student from any disciplinary action by any

proper authority but only in cases where the original penalty was suspension,

dismissal or expulsion. The committee.was to have original jurisdiction over cases

of alleged student violation of the disruption rules on "charges brought by

authorized University personnel - police, staff or faculty - and was to "determine

whether such rules have been violated." Upon a temporary hearing it could order

immediate suspension pending a full hearing. The student was to have due notice of

the charges against him with an opportunity to defend himself.

At this same meeting President Fawcett reported on the status of the 34 students

charged with having taken part in the April 26 Administration Building "lock-in."

He said that disciplinary action had been taken against eight, of whom two had been

dismissed for academic failure and two had withdra,,rn from the University. The records

of the other four had been "tagged" to prevent their readmission without special

consent of the chief student personnel officer. Of the remaining 26, 10 had been

dismissed for academic reasons and five had withdrawn from the University. Their

records had been "tagged" also. Under long standing University rule none of these

names were disclosed.

On July 11, meanwhile, the Trustees upon the recommendation of President

Fawcett, had dismissed Assistant Professor David E. ~reen. A special faculty

committee had investigated Green's activities and had found that he had burned his

draft card in class and was guilty of other questionable activities, including a

"serious lack of judgment." Despite this, the committee recommended that Green be

-18-

put "on probation in a disciplinary sense." Dr. Fa.,cett declined to go along "ith this,

and recommended that Green, under the rules, be let out after a year's notice unless

the Board voted other.,ise. The Board unanimously passed a motion that Green be

discharged, "effective immediately." In time a fund VTas raised for him and during

the next school year he appeared before some classes of other faculty members. There

seemed to be no rule against this.

At an ad hoc faculty committee meeting, a resolution proposed the establishment

of a student-faculty sponsored professorship for Green. Another called for a

petition to ask Dr. Fawcett to reverse a decision to dismiss eight students involved

in the April take-over of the Administration Building. A third sought amnesty for

the dismissed students, re-employment of Green, and urged that the ne" disruption

rules approved in July be rescinded.

In September, President Fawcett stressed the fact that the University tmuld

respect the right to engage take part in peaceful protests. But he emphasized

that demonstrations inside campus buildings must be looked upon as disruptive and as

violating the new rules on student behavior adopted. in July. "We cannot permit dissent

that is a facade for the disruption of the "ork of the University," he said. "Rallies,.

picketing and other peaceful demonstrations out-of-doors "ill be permitted as long

as participants do not block the entrances to buildings or interfere with the

free movement of other persons.n

After a 6-month study, the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities in October

presented a report "ith 53 recommendations. The 13-member committee consisted eleven

from the faculty and administration, plus tt<o students. In addition, it had five

adjunct student members. On student and faculty attitudes, the committee commented:

"What many students seem to "ant more than anything else is rights M_ well as

responsibilities." Twenty-eight recommendations had to do with a judicial code and

concurrent jurisdiction.

-19-

The conunittee rendered six judgments, as follows: "1, We expect an accentuation

of student demands for attention to their educational interests and for participation

in making policies governing their educational institutions; 2, We expect that our

prescrip~ ions, if timely, are time-limited; 3, He expect the rise of student participatiOI

to be accompanied by continuing conflict; 4, Nor can we expect that any current

resolution of the power struggle on our campus will be a permanent one; 5, We expect

the increasing introduction of public-interest criteria into the governance of

private or quasi-public institutions; 6, He expect the demonstrations are here to

stay as a valid, acceptable mode of expression."

That fall Vice President John T. Mount (Student Affairs) announced the

readmission of one of the eight black students dismissed for their part in the

April 26 takeover. The earlier decision was reversed because of "mitigating

circumstances." It developed that the student in question had stopped in the

Administration Building out of curiosity and had left before the lock-in occurred.

Permission for him to re-enter t<Tas on the reconunendation of the discipline

committee. The appeals of six other students were denied although Mount said he

would hear their applications again at a later time depending upon circumstances.

Earlier (June 30) a common pleas judge, assigned from outside Franklin County, gave

suspended sentences to 22 of the 34 black students who had taken part in the April,

1968 Administration Building takeover. Felony charges against them had been dropped

but all 22 had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges. Cases against 10 other students

were dismissed, leaving two pending. One of these students was in the Armed Forces

and the other out of the state. Of those getting suspended sentences, 16 were put

on two years of informal probat·ion and t<Tarned. They had pleaded guilty to charges of

making menacing threats and of trespassing. They got 60-day suspended sentences, and

t<Tere put on "informal probation," and warned. Six t<Tho pleaded guilty to trespassing

-20-

received 10-day sentences, suspended, were put on probation and warned. All 22

signed an apology to Vice President Gordon B. Carson whom they had held captive the

day of the takeover.

In October an estimated 200 students took part in a "Moratorium Vig:Ll" in front

of the Administration Building. Relay teams of students read the names of Ohioans

killed in V ietnam. That afternoon they joined others in a march to the Statehouse.

The march was orderly and the marchers chanted "peace, love, freedom, happiness"

and "peace now." This followed by two days a day-long teach-in in the Ohio Union,

sponsored by the Student Assembly.

A hint of what was to follow some months later occurred in December, 1969 when

a proposed march on the R.O.T.C. building fizzled. The affair was sponsored by the

Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a left wing group. It had arranged for

speeches at noon on the Oval. The march ended after other students objected to the

Students for a Democratic Society move and a few fist fights followed. About 50

students were involved on each side. Significantly, Professor David Kettler,

Political Science, was faculty advisor for Students for a Democratic Society. He was

to figure prominently in later events climaxing in the violent demonstrations of

April-May-June.

Events of March and early April, 1970 cast the shadows of what was to come.

Then, after several seeks of preliminaries, from what began as a mild demonstration,

violence and disruption such as the campus had never knmm erupted April 29. They

lasted intermittently until the end of the Spring Quarter. They began on a major

scale barely a month after the University formally observed its centenary. It was

forced to close from May 6 to 19, but disorder flared after the reopining.

In the meantime, the city imposed a curfew, the Lantern ceased publication while

WOSU and WOSU-TV went off the air. Some 5,000 National Guardsmen and hundreds of

-21-

.,

State High~<ay Patrolmen and Columbus police were brought onto the campus to restore and

maintain order. Several hundred arrests ~<ere made.

The worst confrontations were at 11th and Neil Avenues where demonstrators

at first closed the campus gates there,and on High Street from 11th Avenue north

~<here scores of campus and shop windows were broken and some stores looted. In one

week ther·e ~<ere several score campus fire alarms and fire bombs thrmm with fires in

Townshend, Hayes and Lord Halls and elsewhere. Tear gas was used freely. For a

time faculty and staff personnel had to sign into and out of buildings.

But the· story of those days of trouble, disruption, violence and attempts to

bring order out of chaos is left for someone else to piece together. The fore part

of what has been outlined above might be said to make up the major events leading up

to the educational tragedy of April-May-June, 1970 on the Ohio State campus.

-22-