DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970 | 1970-08-27 Daily Iowan Editorial: ""Trouble in the fall? Clarification, please--""

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970

1970-08-27 Daily Iowan Editorial: ""Trouble in the fall? Clarification, please--""

DI
Aug. 27, 1970

Trouble in the fall?
Clarification, please—
Along with Press-Citizen Managing Editor Bill Eginton, I had lunch yesterday with Iowa City Police Chief Patrick McCarney; Iowa City City Manager Frank Smiley; Jack Newman, chairman of the Chamber of Commerce's Committee on Social Concern; and Robert Engel, administrative assistant to University of Iowa Pres. Willard Boyd and committee member.
Eginton and I were there at the invitation of Smiley, who wanted to discuss with us the "misimpressions" left in the minds of many citizens and students about what is expected on campus this fall and about the recent purchase of weapons by the city police department.
News coverage of that purchase, along with coverage of testimony given at a hearing held to determine the status of the temporary injunction obtained by the city last May during the demonstrations that came in the wake of the invasion of Cambodia and the Kent State Massacre, has apparently created a good deal of concern in the minds of many Iowa Citians and the parents of many students at the university. There was no question of the accuracy of the coverage; it was only that it was believed that the coverage failed to convey a total picture.
At the August 6 hearing, officials were attempting to have the injunction made permanent. To justify tht request Iowa State Highway Patrol Capt. Lyle Dickinson predicted more disorder in Iowa City this fall, saying, "There's no question in my mind there'll be something going again."
McCarney testified that oral reports from informants from the Iowa Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) had led him to believe that as a result of activities on the part of dissidents, "the University of Iowa will be closed after the second week after it opens" in the fall.
Police Detective Ronald Evans testified that he had heard rumors that the fall disturbances will be "50 times worse" then those that occurred in the spring; and that those rumors, along with information he had gathered from the BCI, had caused him to arrive at a conclusion similar to that arrived at by McCarney.
But at the Wednesday luncheon McCarney said he did not expect the university to be closed in the fall. He said there are two informants — one paid, one unpaid —working on campus and that he thinks it will be an "entirely different ball game in the fall than in the spring."
And McCarney assured us that the purchase of the new equipment was not accomplished because of any expected disorders. He emphasized that the purchases were made only to replace old eqjuipment and to upgrade the capabilities of the force in those areas in which they had fallen behind. We were urged to take whatever action we considered appropriate in light of the information given us to allay fears that Iowa City is turning into an armed camp.
Okay — but there are a couple of problems, a couple of questions. If officials do not anticipate trouble this fall, why are they asking that the injunction be made permanent? If McCarney does not expect the university to be closed down this fall, why did he testify to the contrary in an effort to secure a permanent injunction?
If there is no cause for concern, if we are in good conscience to reassure students and parents of students at the university, why the injunction? And if there is really need for the injunction, is it fair to offer assurances to parents and students that no trouble is expected?
Tear gas is obviously designed for crowd control; it is rarely used to apprehend burglars. So either the police need tear gas because they expect troublesome crowds or they do not need tear gas because they do not expect troublesome crowds.
I don't pretend to know whether there will or will not be trouble. The answer depends upon far too many variables.
But I am sure the situation is in urgent need of clarification, and small tete-a-tetes with the press cannot provide that clarification. To attempt clarification in that manner is only to further obscure the issue.
And I am sure a public statement about the situation would do much to alleviate the confusion in people's minds. A statement by Smiley and McCarney in which they flatly discussed what they anticipate would be more effective than trying to play in two ball parks at the same time (to use one of McCarney's own metaphors).
They cannot assure people on one hand and frighten them on the other. They cannot have things both ways.
—Leona Durham

Saving...

DI Aug. 27, 1970 Trouble in the fall? Clarification, please— Along with Press-Citizen Managing Editor Bill Eginton, I had lunch yesterday with Iowa City Police Chief Patrick McCarney; Iowa City City Manager Frank Smiley; Jack Newman, chairman of the Chamber of Commerce's Committee on Social Concern; and Robert Engel, administrative assistant to University of Iowa Pres. Willard Boyd and committee member. Eginton and I were there at the invitation of Smiley, who wanted to discuss with us the "misimpressions" left in the minds of many citizens and students about what is expected on campus this fall and about the recent purchase of weapons by the city police department. News coverage of that purchase, along with coverage of testimony given at a hearing held to determine the status of the temporary injunction obtained by the city last May during the demonstrations that came in the wake of the invasion of Cambodia and the Kent State Massacre, has apparently created a good deal of concern in the minds of many Iowa Citians and the parents of many students at the university. There was no question of the accuracy of the coverage; it was only that it was believed that the coverage failed to convey a total picture. At the August 6 hearing, officials were attempting to have the injunction made permanent. To justify tht request Iowa State Highway Patrol Capt. Lyle Dickinson predicted more disorder in Iowa City this fall, saying, "There's no question in my mind there'll be something going again." McCarney testified that oral reports from informants from the Iowa Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) had led him to believe that as a result of activities on the part of dissidents, "the University of Iowa will be closed after the second week after it opens" in the fall. Police Detective Ronald Evans testified that he had heard rumors that the fall disturbances will be "50 times worse" then those that occurred in the spring; and that those rumors, along with information he had gathered from the BCI, had caused him to arrive at a conclusion similar to that arrived at by McCarney. But at the Wednesday luncheon McCarney said he did not expect the university to be closed in the fall. He said there are two informants — one paid, one unpaid —working on campus and that he thinks it will be an "entirely different ball game in the fall than in the spring." And McCarney assured us that the purchase of the new equipment was not accomplished because of any expected disorders. He emphasized that the purchases were made only to replace old eqjuipment and to upgrade the capabilities of the force in those areas in which they had fallen behind. We were urged to take whatever action we considered appropriate in light of the information given us to allay fears that Iowa City is turning into an armed camp. Okay — but there are a couple of problems, a couple of questions. If officials do not anticipate trouble this fall, why are they asking that the injunction be made permanent? If McCarney does not expect the university to be closed down this fall, why did he testify to the contrary in an effort to secure a permanent injunction? If there is no cause for concern, if we are in good conscience to reassure students and parents of students at the university, why the injunction? And if there is really need for the injunction, is it fair to offer assurances to parents and students that no trouble is expected? Tear gas is obviously designed for crowd control; it is rarely used to apprehend burglars. So either the police need tear gas because they expect troublesome crowds or they do not need tear gas because they do not expect troublesome crowds. I don't pretend to know whether there will or will not be trouble. The answer depends upon far too many variables. But I am sure the situation is in urgent need of clarification, and small tete-a-tetes with the press cannot provide that clarification. To attempt clarification in that manner is only to further obscure the issue. And I am sure a public statement about the situation would do much to alleviate the confusion in people's minds. A statement by Smiley and McCarney in which they flatly discussed what they anticipate would be more effective than trying to play in two ball parks at the same time (to use one of McCarney's own metaphors). They cannot assure people on one hand and frighten them on the other. They cannot have things both ways. —Leona Durham