DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1965-1967

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1965-1967

31858064848116_042

Huit Meets Arrested Students , Gets Loud Feedback 

Despite a wall of secrecy clamped down by the administration. The Daily Iowan has learned that students arrested in the Nov. 1 antiwar demonstration at the Union are being placed on conduct probation. 
  Students have been meeting with M.L. Huit, dean of students, in groups of 10 or 12, throughout the week. As of Wednesday night, more than half of the 86 students, who were part of a group of 108 persons arrested Nov. 1 and charged with disturbing the peace, had met with Huit and been placed on probation. Most of the 86 students involved have already been convicted of the charge in Police Court. 
    At a meeting late Wednesday afternoon in Huit's office, the dean and a dozen students engaged in heated argument for over an hour before Huit told the students that they were being placed on conduct probation for their part in the Nov. 1 obstruction of the Union " effective immediately " The probation is to last until June. 1 Huit's decision may be appealed to the student-faculty Committee on Student Conduct, the dean informed the students. 
   Huit opened the meeting by replying to a question posed by one of the students as to whether or not the nature and extent of the punishment to be meted out had already been decided. 
  Huit said that the decision had not already been made, but added that, " I have a pretty good idea what it will be."
   Responding to a comment by one of the students that the meeting of the meeting was unclear, Huit read from a letter sent to the students requesting their presence at the meeting.
  The letter reads in part:
   " In light of the information developed by this office ( the Office of Student Affairs) regarding the events of November 1. 1967, including the fact of your arrest, you are hereby charged with violation of Articles I and VII of the General Regulations of the University, as set forth in Chapter I of the Code of Student Life. . . "
    Huit declined on a question by Mike Lally, A4, Iowa City, to disclose what the information referred to in the letter was. 
   Randall Kleinhesselink , G, Hospers, asked Huit about an apparent discrepency in charges about Article VIII, which states that a student found guilty of " inciting to action or willfully participating in action resulting in destruction of property or leading to unauthorized group activities - i.e. raids on women's residences will be subject to dismisal from the University . 
    Kleinhesselink pointed out that "i.e." means "specifically" and cannot be misconstrued as to mean " for example," as does "e.g." Based on this, he said, it would appear that the students were being charged with conducting a pantry raid. 
  Huit said that such details were irrelevant and told the students that "details like that" could be presented to the appeals committee. 
   Mary Beth Lee, A4, Muscatine, questioned Huit about the wording of Article I which states that the University expects every student to conduct himself at all times and on every occasion in accordance with good taste and to observe the regulations of the University and the laws of the city, state, and national government that apply to matters of conduct." 
   Miss Lee asked Huit who determines what constitutes good taste. Huit said that he and his staff determined that "whenever we deal with students in matters like this."
   Asked if this was a moral judgement, Huit replyed that it was. " Moral judgments are always made," he said. 
    Later on during the meeting, when asked whether the University was making a moral judgment in punishing the students who had acted out of their own sense of morality in obstructing Marine Corps recruiters, Huit said that the University does not make moral judgments. 
   Another student asked whether the phrase in Section I concerning the laws of the city, state and national government did not constitute double jeopardy. The student argued that since he, and others, had already been convicted by the state for their part in the Nov. 1 demonstration, the University was placing them in double jeopardy by punishing them further. 
   Huit replied first that the double jeopardy charge was irrelevant: later, after more questioning by the students, he said that he had been advised by the University counsel that double jeopardy was not in effect in this instance. He also said that he had been advised by University counsel that due process of law was being the followed in his procedure.
    A student said that due process of law implied a trial or hearing, in which evidence is presented, prior to conviction and that the procedure being used by the University was in opposition to this. 
   Huit replyed that this was irrelevant and that, since the meeting was informal, due process need not be followed. He reminded the students that the meeting was not a court of law. 
   Asked why he had consulted University counsel if as he said," this is not a court of law," Huit said he had been advised by University counsel to consult University counsel. 
   Huit told the students that he had been advised to merely send a letter to them informing them of their punishment but, he added, " I deliberately and consciously decided to meet with all of you." 
   He told the students he felt "you should have an opportunity to express yourself even though it may not have any effect" on his decision. 
   Asked by David Pollen A3, Chicago whether he thought the war in Vietnam was immoral, Huit said " I don't believe any war is moral, I'm opposed to ward period."
   He went on to say that the morality of the war had nothing to do with the obstruction of the Union. " You've committed an offense against other students," Huit said. 
   Often during the meeting Huit expressed himself as being concerned with students. " If I was not concerned with students I could not be a good dean of students," he said. 
    Before Huit told the students that they were being placed on probation, he was asked if the decision he was about to announce had been made by himself, him and his staff independent of the central administration of the University. 
    " Yes, I'd like to make that clear," he said, indicating that the decisions had been made by him and his staff. 
    Then he read from a copy of a letter which, he said, would be sent to all students involved, informing them that by "reasons of violation"  of the charges, " you are placed on conduct probation effective immediately." 
    Explaining the meaning of conduct probation, Huit said that violations of University policies or regulations while under conduct probation, " may result in referral of those charges to the Committee on Student Conduct," and may lead to suspension or dismissal from the University. 
    Asked if referral to the committee was not possible even if a student were not on probation. Huit said that this was so but that referral would be more likely if the student were on probation. 
   The letter went on to say that the students were "specifically warned" that at any time while they were students at the University suspension or dismissal would be recommended should they violate University policies or regulations "by reason of obstruction or unlawful impediment of students or others."
   Huit said that while the letter did not spell this out, the warning applied only to violations on University property.   
    The dean then explained the procedures for appealing his decision to the Committee on Student Conduct. Most of the students present said they intended to appeal. 
   Meetings with arrested students are to continue today and tomorrow. Huit told the Di earlier in the week he would have no comment on the proceedings until Friday evening. 

[handwritten]
DI 11/30/67

Saving...

Huit Meets Arrested Students , Gets Loud Feedback Despite a wall of secrecy clamped down by the administration. The Daily Iowan has learned that students arrested in the Nov. 1 antiwar demonstration at the Union are being placed on conduct probation. Students have been meeting with M.L. Huit, dean of students, in groups of 10 or 12, throughout the week. As of Wednesday night, more than half of the 86 students, who were part of a group of 108 persons arrested Nov. 1 and charged with disturbing the peace, had met with Huit and been placed on probation. Most of the 86 students involved have already been convicted of the charge in Police Court. At a meeting late Wednesday afternoon in Huit's office, the dean and a dozen students engaged in heated argument for over an hour before Huit told the students that they were being placed on conduct probation for their part in the Nov. 1 obstruction of the Union " effective immediately " The probation is to last until June. 1 Huit's decision may be appealed to the student-faculty Committee on Student Conduct, the dean informed the students. Huit opened the meeting by replying to a question posed by one of the students as to whether or not the nature and extent of the punishment to be meted out had already been decided. Huit said that the decision had not already been made, but added that, " I have a pretty good idea what it will be." Responding to a comment by one of the students that the meeting of the meeting was unclear, Huit read from a letter sent to the students requesting their presence at the meeting. The letter reads in part: " In light of the information developed by this office ( the Office of Student Affairs) regarding the events of November 1. 1967, including the fact of your arrest, you are hereby charged with violation of Articles I and VII of the General Regulations of the University, as set forth in Chapter I of the Code of Student Life. . . " Huit declined on a question by Mike Lally, A4, Iowa City, to disclose what the information referred to in the letter was. Randall Kleinhesselink , G, Hospers, asked Huit about an apparent discrepency in charges about Article VIII, which states that a student found guilty of " inciting to action or willfully participating in action resulting in destruction of property or leading to unauthorized group activities - i.e. raids on women's residences will be subject to dismisal from the University . Kleinhesselink pointed out that "i.e." means "specifically" and cannot be misconstrued as to mean " for example," as does "e.g." Based on this, he said, it would appear that the students were being charged with conducting a pantry raid. Huit said that such details were irrelevant and told the students that "details like that" could be presented to the appeals committee. Mary Beth Lee, A4, Muscatine, questioned Huit about the wording of Article I which states that the University expects every student to conduct himself at all times and on every occasion in accordance with good taste and to observe the regulations of the University and the laws of the city, state, and national government that apply to matters of conduct." Miss Lee asked Huit who determines what constitutes good taste. Huit said that he and his staff determined that "whenever we deal with students in matters like this." Asked if this was a moral judgement, Huit replyed that it was. " Moral judgments are always made," he said. Later on during the meeting, when asked whether the University was making a moral judgment in punishing the students who had acted out of their own sense of morality in obstructing Marine Corps recruiters, Huit said that the University does not make moral judgments. Another student asked whether the phrase in Section I concerning the laws of the city, state and national government did not constitute double jeopardy. The student argued that since he, and others, had already been convicted by the state for their part in the Nov. 1 demonstration, the University was placing them in double jeopardy by punishing them further. Huit replied first that the double jeopardy charge was irrelevant: later, after more questioning by the students, he said that he had been advised by the University counsel that double jeopardy was not in effect in this instance. He also said that he had been advised by University counsel that due process of law was being the followed in his procedure. A student said that due process of law implied a trial or hearing, in which evidence is presented, prior to conviction and that the procedure being used by the University was in opposition to this. Huit replyed that this was irrelevant and that, since the meeting was informal, due process need not be followed. He reminded the students that the meeting was not a court of law. Asked why he had consulted University counsel if as he said," this is not a court of law," Huit said he had been advised by University counsel to consult University counsel. Huit told the students that he had been advised to merely send a letter to them informing them of their punishment but, he added, " I deliberately and consciously decided to meet with all of you." He told the students he felt "you should have an opportunity to express yourself even though it may not have any effect" on his decision. Asked by David Pollen A3, Chicago whether he thought the war in Vietnam was immoral, Huit said " I don't believe any war is moral, I'm opposed to ward period." He went on to say that the morality of the war had nothing to do with the obstruction of the Union. " You've committed an offense against other students," Huit said. Often during the meeting Huit expressed himself as being concerned with students. " If I was not concerned with students I could not be a good dean of students," he said. Before Huit told the students that they were being placed on probation, he was asked if the decision he was about to announce had been made by himself, him and his staff independent of the central administration of the University. " Yes, I'd like to make that clear," he said, indicating that the decisions had been made by him and his staff. Then he read from a copy of a letter which, he said, would be sent to all students involved, informing them that by "reasons of violation" of the charges, " you are placed on conduct probation effective immediately." Explaining the meaning of conduct probation, Huit said that violations of University policies or regulations while under conduct probation, " may result in referral of those charges to the Committee on Student Conduct," and may lead to suspension or dismissal from the University. Asked if referral to the committee was not possible even if a student were not on probation. Huit said that this was so but that referral would be more likely if the student were on probation. The letter went on to say that the students were "specifically warned" that at any time while they were students at the University suspension or dismissal would be recommended should they violate University policies or regulations "by reason of obstruction or unlawful impediment of students or others." Huit said that while the letter did not spell this out, the warning applied only to violations on University property. The dean then explained the procedures for appealing his decision to the Committee on Student Conduct. Most of the students present said they intended to appeal. Meetings with arrested students are to continue today and tomorrow. Huit told the Di earlier in the week he would have no comment on the proceedings until Friday evening. [handwritten] DI 11/30/67