DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970 | 1970-02-05 Daily Iowan Article: ""Student Senators To Attend Court""

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970

1970-02-05 Daily Iowan Article: ""Student Senators To Attend Court""

[missing beginning of article]
of two defense attorneys for Miller, attempted to establish ground rules for the hearing.
   Garfield told Blum that evidence entered during the hearing would be entered upon Garfield’s personal discretion, saying that he would allow more evidence than is the procedure of a normal trial situation.
   Blum also questioned Garfield’s appointment, calling him “improperly empowered because no students had been consulted on the appointment.”
   “If I did not feel it was proper for me to accept directives from the President I wouldn’t be here,” Garfield said.
   Blum then noted that in a normal trial situation and under a joint 1967 statement of the American Association of University Professors, students are entitled to a trial by peers if they so desire.
   “I move that such a trial be granted,” Blum said.
   “You know, if I could do what I’d like to do, I’d grant your motion, “Garfield replied.
   About 75 minutes of the afternoon hearing was taken up in testimony of the first prosecution witness, Campus Security Detective Kenneth Saylor. 
   During most of that time, prosecution lawyer John Larson, assistant to the President, spent 40 minutes establishing identification -- through Saylor -- of defendants in the hearing. 
   Saylor testified that he had been on duty Dec. 10, assigned to cover the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) rally in the Union Gold Feather Lobby.
   Saylor identified all of the defendants -- through pictures Larson entered into evidence -- with the exception of Miller, whom Saylor said he had seen at the rally and had seen leave the Placement Office later during the actual protests.

[in cursive writing] “Placement Hearing Cont. to Today”

[more missing info from article]
   Parrish, in cross examination, asked Miss Barnes whether it was her duty to make up Placement Office policy.
   “Yes, it is my responsibility. However, [missing words from article]
   whether she thought she could have done anything to stop the protesters.
   “No. They were being very obscene and disruptive,” she said.

Student Senators To Attend Court
By DIANA GOLDENBURG
A resolution asking Student Senate officers and "other interested students" to appear at the Placement Office hearings at 10:30 a.m today and state that they do not recognize the legitimacy of the court was passed at the Senate meeting Wednesday night.
   Scheduled to appear are Student Body Pres. Phil Dantes; Bo Beller, A2, Glencoe, Ill., executive vice president; Roy Cacciatore, A3, Freeport, N.Y., vice president, and Marc Baer, G. chairman of the Senate’s government restructuring committee. The Senate invited any other student senator interested student to attend the court session.
   The resolution passed 19 to 6 after about an hour’s debate on what role the Senate should have in the trial of seven persons charged with disrupting the University Placement Office last Dec. 10.
   Dantes, commenting on the resolution, said, “I hope it will not jeopardize any person on trial. I think (former Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Theodore) Garfield is a nice man, but is being used politically.”
   The Senate, in a second resolution, voted to set up “as quickly as possible” a trial of University Pres. Willard Boyd, and to appoint a Senate committee to facilitate the trial. The Senate did not specify any details of a trial or charges against Boyd.
   Discussion of the Placement Office trial dominated the meeting. Other proposals on the Senate’s action about the trial included:
   * A suggestion by Beller that any action taken be directed against Boyd rather than against Garfield’s court.
   * Urging women students who will have to appear in Garfield’s court for hours violations not to go and to let Senate hear them.
   Some discussion centered on this issue. Sen. Jerry Sies, corresponding student, Iowa City, encouraged women not to attend the court.
   “We owe some kind of obligation to these people,” he said, adding that it was the Senate that had encouraged women to violate dormitory hours. The Senate did this in an organized protest of ours last year.
   Howard J. Ehrlich, associate professor of sociology, who was unsuccessful in his attempt to appear on students’ behalf in the Placement Office trial Wednesday, urged the Senate to hold a trial of Boyd “with all propriety.”
   Perhaps, he said, the Senate could get Garfield, whom he termed a “judge for hire,” to preside at this trial.
   Ehrlich also urged that the Senate devise its own judicial system quickly and that it visit the Faculty Senate and ask why that body had not been taking action in the Placement Office trial.

Senate Oks Lower Age For Voters
   DES MOINES (AP) -- Voting and other adult rights for 19 and 20-year-olds finally cleared the first of three major hurdles in the Iowa Legislature Wednesday.
   But those who say they are interested in lowering the voting age called it a pyrrhic victory as the Senate decided not to insist on its amendment allowing 19-year-olds to serve in the Iowa House.
   The House defeated that change to the proposed constitutional amendment tacked on by the Senate earlier in the session. The upper chamber then approved the measure in the form insisted on by the House.
   That form provides for the lowered voting age plus all other adult rights.
   The entire measure must now be approved in identical form by the 1971 or 1972 session of the Legislature and then approved by a vote of the people.
   Some legislatures argued that the adult rights section of the proposal is a red herring designed to make the bill objectionable to the voters who must ultimately approve it.
   They said the measure should be presented to the voters in its original form providing only for the lowered voting age.
   That version of the measure was approved by the Senate in 1969. It was the House this session which added amendments which would allow 19 and 20-year-olds to marry, assume debts, sign contracts, purchase liquor, and enjoy all other adult privileges.
   All 17 Democrats voted against backing off from their amendment to let 19-year-olds serve in the House and they were joined by five Republicans.

Saving...

[missing beginning of article] of two defense attorneys for Miller, attempted to establish ground rules for the hearing. Garfield told Blum that evidence entered during the hearing would be entered upon Garfield’s personal discretion, saying that he would allow more evidence than is the procedure of a normal trial situation. Blum also questioned Garfield’s appointment, calling him “improperly empowered because no students had been consulted on the appointment.” “If I did not feel it was proper for me to accept directives from the President I wouldn’t be here,” Garfield said. Blum then noted that in a normal trial situation and under a joint 1967 statement of the American Association of University Professors, students are entitled to a trial by peers if they so desire. “I move that such a trial be granted,” Blum said. “You know, if I could do what I’d like to do, I’d grant your motion, “Garfield replied. About 75 minutes of the afternoon hearing was taken up in testimony of the first prosecution witness, Campus Security Detective Kenneth Saylor. During most of that time, prosecution lawyer John Larson, assistant to the President, spent 40 minutes establishing identification -- through Saylor -- of defendants in the hearing. Saylor testified that he had been on duty Dec. 10, assigned to cover the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) rally in the Union Gold Feather Lobby. Saylor identified all of the defendants -- through pictures Larson entered into evidence -- with the exception of Miller, whom Saylor said he had seen at the rally and had seen leave the Placement Office later during the actual protests. [in cursive writing] “Placement Hearing Cont. to Today” [more missing info from article] Parrish, in cross examination, asked Miss Barnes whether it was her duty to make up Placement Office policy. “Yes, it is my responsibility. However, [missing words from article] whether she thought she could have done anything to stop the protesters. “No. They were being very obscene and disruptive,” she said. Student Senators To Attend Court By DIANA GOLDENBURG A resolution asking Student Senate officers and "other interested students" to appear at the Placement Office hearings at 10:30 a.m today and state that they do not recognize the legitimacy of the court was passed at the Senate meeting Wednesday night. Scheduled to appear are Student Body Pres. Phil Dantes; Bo Beller, A2, Glencoe, Ill., executive vice president; Roy Cacciatore, A3, Freeport, N.Y., vice president, and Marc Baer, G. chairman of the Senate’s government restructuring committee. The Senate invited any other student senator interested student to attend the court session. The resolution passed 19 to 6 after about an hour’s debate on what role the Senate should have in the trial of seven persons charged with disrupting the University Placement Office last Dec. 10. Dantes, commenting on the resolution, said, “I hope it will not jeopardize any person on trial. I think (former Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Theodore) Garfield is a nice man, but is being used politically.” The Senate, in a second resolution, voted to set up “as quickly as possible” a trial of University Pres. Willard Boyd, and to appoint a Senate committee to facilitate the trial. The Senate did not specify any details of a trial or charges against Boyd. Discussion of the Placement Office trial dominated the meeting. Other proposals on the Senate’s action about the trial included: * A suggestion by Beller that any action taken be directed against Boyd rather than against Garfield’s court. * Urging women students who will have to appear in Garfield’s court for hours violations not to go and to let Senate hear them. Some discussion centered on this issue. Sen. Jerry Sies, corresponding student, Iowa City, encouraged women not to attend the court. “We owe some kind of obligation to these people,” he said, adding that it was the Senate that had encouraged women to violate dormitory hours. The Senate did this in an organized protest of ours last year. Howard J. Ehrlich, associate professor of sociology, who was unsuccessful in his attempt to appear on students’ behalf in the Placement Office trial Wednesday, urged the Senate to hold a trial of Boyd “with all propriety.” Perhaps, he said, the Senate could get Garfield, whom he termed a “judge for hire,” to preside at this trial. Ehrlich also urged that the Senate devise its own judicial system quickly and that it visit the Faculty Senate and ask why that body had not been taking action in the Placement Office trial. Senate Oks Lower Age For Voters DES MOINES (AP) -- Voting and other adult rights for 19 and 20-year-olds finally cleared the first of three major hurdles in the Iowa Legislature Wednesday. But those who say they are interested in lowering the voting age called it a pyrrhic victory as the Senate decided not to insist on its amendment allowing 19-year-olds to serve in the Iowa House. The House defeated that change to the proposed constitutional amendment tacked on by the Senate earlier in the session. The upper chamber then approved the measure in the form insisted on by the House. That form provides for the lowered voting age plus all other adult rights. The entire measure must now be approved in identical form by the 1971 or 1972 session of the Legislature and then approved by a vote of the people. Some legislatures argued that the adult rights section of the proposal is a red herring designed to make the bill objectionable to the voters who must ultimately approve it. They said the measure should be presented to the voters in its original form providing only for the lowered voting age. That version of the measure was approved by the Senate in 1969. It was the House this session which added amendments which would allow 19 and 20-year-olds to marry, assume debts, sign contracts, purchase liquor, and enjoy all other adult privileges. All 17 Democrats voted against backing off from their amendment to let 19-year-olds serve in the House and they were joined by five Republicans.