May 16,1968

A DECLARATION OF CONFIDENCE IN COLUMBIA'S FUTURE

Like the rest of Columbia University, the Faculty of Law has suffered grave disruption during the past several weeks. We believe that the suffering was needless. Because disorderliness threatens to become respectable among some students, we who are teachers or administrators in Columbia Law School join now in declaring our confidence in the orderly processes of change in American universities as well as in the larger society of which universities are a part.

THE ALLOWABLE LIMITS OF "'CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Organized protest is an eminently allowable activity, protected by the Constitution itself against interference by public agencies. Within independent universities like Columbia it is sanctioned by long practice and deep intellectual conviction of its worth. The permissible means of expressing disagreement with existing laws or policies are not, however, limitless. The limits are overstepped when protesters seize buildings or physically restrain the freedom of personal movement, in order to manifest dissatisfaction.

We do not assert that every act of "civil disobedience" is reprehensible. One way to challenge the validity of a statute is to ignore its commands, undergo arrest and prosecution, and then argue that the law is unconstitutional.

We recognize, too, that in rare instances persons whose voices might otherwise not be heard at all may engage in concerted violation of an admittedly constitutional law in order to proclaim their disapproval of it. In that situation, the violators are prepared to pay the penalty for their disobedience, hoping thus to dramatize opposition to the operative policies. Having in mind the difficulties sometimes experienced in drawing attention to public issues and to dissenting views, we cannot condemn this form of civil disobedience in every conceivable circumstance.

The Columbia episodes at the outset did not involve civil disobedience, but an effort to impose opinions by force. Without ascertaining whether other students shared their thoughts about academic and social issues, a relatively small group of students sought to immobilize the University until their conceptions of sound policy were adopted. Tactics like these have nothing in common with principled opposition or with democratic processes. They represented attempted intimidation.

The force of reason rather than the force of massed bodies must be the reliance of those who wish to influence a community guided by intelligence, as is Columbia. Disrupting institutional proceedings is an impermissible substitute for rational persuasion. Using muscles instead of minds to express dissent has no place in the academic setting.

WE ARE CONFIDENT that American students will themselves recognize ,the unwisdom of attempting to gain goals by illegal force. Violence begets violence. It beclouds rather than illumines issues. No problem that confronts Columbia or other American universities is beyond the capabilities of men who use the tools education has given them.

THE ISSUE OF PRIVACY

One action of the trespassers who occupied the office of the President of the University deserves special attention because it reveals with singular clarity the extent to which historic ideals have been flouted. The President's correspondence files were examined, and letters removed from them have been publicized.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution declares: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." That provision of our Bill of Rights reflects the revulsion felt by Americans, no less now than in 1791, against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. Modem law upholds the right of privacy against destructive intrusions by private individuals as well as public officials.

But apart from any question of criminal law violation-and apart from the merits of the substantive issues, or the motivations of the persons involved-ransacking and publicizing the President's files must be condemned as a violation of basic decency.

WE ARE CONFIDENT that responsible students feel no sympathy with those who have so grossly misbehaved.

THE ISSUE OF POLICE ACTION

On April 30, Columbia students were forcibly removed from the buildings and offices in which they were resolute trespassers. The University requested the aid of the New York police only after the trespassers had repeatedly refused to depart. The trespassers insistently demanded capitulation to their demands and an unqualified "amnesty."

In the light of the facts as they are known to us at this time, we believe that the University did not act unreasonably when, at long last, it called for the help of law enforcement officers so that the work of this academic institution could resume for the benefit of its thousands of students, the innocent bystanders in this controversy.

During and after the removal operation various policemen 'apparently committed acts of needless violence. We deplore those acts and strongly support vigorous investigation into their occurrence, not only with a view to disciplining malefactors among the police, but also with a view to strengthening police administration in the future.

To our knowledge the University's requests and instructions - which were apparently reflected in the instructions given by high police officials-were directly aimed at forestalling the violence that later occurred. The deeds that have aroused campus indignation-an indignation we fully sharewere those of policemen who ignored their orders.

A broader question has been raised about the propriety of summoning the police at all. As to that, we hold the view that students are not a privileged class, free to break laws that rest upon the community at large. When internal efforts to terminate lawlessness have proved unavailing, an educational institution should not flinch from the necessity of summoning others to its assistance.

WE ARE CONFIDENT that excessive force used by individual policemen is not condoned by either Columbia University or the City of New York. Its aItogether deplorable occurrence should be investigated fully-without forgetting, however, that the possibility of police brutality was created in the first instance not by Columbia, but by unyieldingly lawless intruders into the University's structures.

THE ISSUE OF "STUDENT POWER

Underlying many disturbances on American campuses is the issue of "student power."

The appropriate role of students in formulating and administering academic policies deserves re-examination. We welcome an inquiry into the adequacy of existing mechanisms for expressing and considering relevant student views.

We remark, however, that some advocates of "student power" apparently seek the role of sole decider rather than adviser or even participant. Their opinions* they seem to think, must be adopted regardless of the weight of other opinions.

Without foreclosing further examination, we note now that students are markedly diverse in motivation', experience, and outlook. No tested means exists for ascertaining the true sentiment of students in a large university composed of many loosely federated divisions and faculties. Moreover, a student's career within a university is brief. Decisions that may seemingly meet some interest or need of the immediate moment may often be hurtful in the long term.

We strongly endorse the view that student opinions, whatever may be their tenor, should be known and properly considered. The efficacy of available means of assuring that consideration is now under intensive study.

WE ARE CONFIDENT that Columbia can and will find ways of strengthening decisional processes without converting them into perpetual mass meetings in which the loudest, not necessarily the wisest, counsels may prevail.

THE ISSUE OF DUE PROCESS

Much has been made recently of the University's allegedly deficient practices in disciplinary matters affecting students. Committed as we are to law and order, we unqualifiedly support the principles that underlie the concept of due process. Fair procedure and reasoned judgment are its operative elements. We unhesitatingly assert that the University should always accord its students due process. Reinforcing existing safeguards against mistaken decisions is highly desirable, and we pledge ourselves to help in their perfection. We remark, however, that abusiveness seems not to have been characteristic of past disciplinary actions despite the absence of elaborate procedures.

WE ARE CONFIDENT that all elements of Columbia share the desire for disciplinary methods whose fairness is beyond challenge. The creation of impeccable procedures is a task well within the University's competence.

Professors Robert Hellawell, Louis Henkin, William K. Jones and Michael Sovern, being involved in committee work for the University related to these recent events, have taken no position on the above statement.