Speakers Hit UCal Administration; Term Political Action Central Issue

"The Berkeley administration has been characterized not only by ineptitude, but by sheer stupidity," David S. Landes, professor of History, charged at yesterday's RGA meeting.

Landes, a former member of the Berkeley faculty, went on to define the central issue involved in the controversy raging at the University of California. "The entire protest is concerned with organizing political action on campus," he said. "There is no question of free speech involved."

The same point was made earlier by Edward S. Germain, a past president of the Berkeley student body and a third year law student here. Germain, who identified himself as a "middle-of-the roader," accused the Berkeley administration of making two major mistakes.

"Prohibiting political activity on the small area of sidewalk in front of the campus was comparable to eliminating parietal hours at Harvard," he said. He added that the administration had not realized the difference between "clarifying an existing situation and removing a privilege to which students feel they are entitled."

Another Mistake

The second mistake, according to Germain, occurred in November. Then, four student leaders of the protest, who had been told earlier that "not disciplinary actions would be taken" for their involvement in various controversial incidents were sent a letter informing them that "action would be taken against them in the near future for their participation."

The third speaker, David Armor, another past president of the Berkeley student body, discussed the history of the administration's relation to political student activity since 1956.

"The University of California was established constitutionally as an institution independent of the state legislature," he said. He explained that the basic purpose of this relationship was to keep the legislature from having any control over the University.

Unfortunately, Armor continued, the original arrangement grew to be a twoway relationship, with the University being defined not only as the administration, but as faculty and students also.

The situation eventually led to "administrative paranoia about political activity through fear of losing its independent status," Armor said.

He closed by agreeing with Germain and Landes that the "sticky point" in the whole situation was the question of whether students should be free to engage in political action, and not the issue of "free speech."