Sixty years ago today, around 11:45 a.m., two UC Berkeley deans and a university police lieutenant approached Jack Weinberg, a graduate student in mathematics, who was soliciting funds at a table outside Sather Gate for a national civil rights group. Weinberg refused to leave or identify himself, leading to his arrest for trespassing. As he went limp in protest, police called for a squad car to remove him. Before it could drive away, however, students surrounded the vehicle, turning it into an impromptu rallying point. Within an hour, thousands had gathered around the car, which soon became a podium for 21-year-old philosophy student Mario Savio, who led the students into a massive sit-in at Sproul Hall.
Against this backdrop, journalists at California Monthly—California‘s predecessor publication—documented the events in exhaustive detail. About three months later, they would publish an issue entirely dedicated to the Free Speech Movement (FSM) titled “A Season of Discontent.”
Both a historical document—sections of which were added to Bancroft Library’s FSM Digital Archives—and an impressive piece of journalism, the February 1965 issue explores the political context of the times as well as the complex dynamics between students and university administrators. It traces the evolution of student activism at Berkeley from anti-war protests in the 1930s, through the relative quiescence of the war years and the so-called silent generation of the 1940s and early 1950s, to the resurgence of political activity in the late 1950s and early 1960s, particularly around civil rights issues. “The student revolt of the fall of 1964 seems less like a sudden explosion,” Max Heirich ’63, Ph.D. ’67, and Sam Kaplan, M.A. ’66, wrote, “and more like the natural outgrowth of eight years of expanding student political involvement.”
Today, the FSM movement is widely celebrated as a pivotal moment in the fight for civil rights, but some California Monthly editors viewed it differently. “The tragic events of the past few months here at Berkeley seriously jeopardize the effectiveness of this University as an educational institution,” wrote Editor Dick Erickson ’49, who himself was part of the Silent Generation, known for its traditionalist views and conformist attitudes. “Unfortunately, too many of these idealistic students and sympathizers have felt that their opinions were the only correct ones and, if necessary to achieve an immediate acceptance of their opinions, intimidation and the use of force were fully justified.”
Yet, despite their concerns, the editors recognized the historical importance of what was unfolding. Not only did they devote an entire issue to the Free Speech Movement, but they also appended a remarkably detailed chronology of the “three months of crisis.” The day-by-day, blow-by-blow timeline covered the period from Sept. 10, 1964, to Jan. 4, 1965. It was a departure from standard journalism but a valuable one, crafted by writers who seemed to understand that the information they gathered would be relevant for generations to come. At more than 36,000 words, it is as immersive as it is time-consuming. To mark the 60th anniversary of the FSM, California is sharing this much abbreviated sampling. We hope you find it edifying.
September 10
A letter authored by “a former student” [Brad Cleaveland ’59, M.A. ’62] called for an “open, fierce and thoroughgoing rebellion” on the Berkeley campus. Although the letter did not relate specifically to the “free speech issue,” it sounded the rallying cry for subsequent events:
“The University does not deserve a response of loyalty and allegiance from you. There is only one proper response to Berkeley from undergraduates: that you ORGANIZE AND SPLIT THIS CAMPUS WIDE OPEN!”
September 15
The Ad Hoc Committee to End Discrimination—led by former Berkeley student and SLATE [a political party formed by UC Berkeley students in 1958] founder Michael Myerson and by Tracy Sims, leader of the Palace Hotel demonstrations—announced plans to picket the Oakland Tribune for the third Friday in a row, and held a noon rally at the Bancroft and Telegraph entrance to the Berkeley campus.
“We don’t want to be armchair intellectuals. For a hundred years, people have talked and talked and done nothing.”
Jackie Goldberg ’65
September 16
1. Presidents or chairmen and advisers of all student organizations received a letter from Dean of Students Katherine A. Towle, dated Sept. 14, announcing that tables would no longer be permitted in the 26-foot strip of University property at the Bancroft and Telegraph entrance, and that advocative literature and activities on off-campus political issues also would be prohibited.
Berkeley Chancellor Edward W. Strong, in a report to the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate dated October 26, said:
“The situation was brought to a head by the multiplied activity incidental to the primary election, the Republican convention, and the forthcoming fall elections…. The situation would worsen during the political campaign, and steps should be taken at the beginning of the semester to assure use of the area in accordance with University rules.”
September 17
Representatives of 18 student organizations met with Dean Towle to point out what they considered to be the unfairness and purposelessness of the new enforcement policy.
The students insisted on their right, and “duty to society” to remain at their south entrance posts.
September 18
The 18 student organizations affected by the Bancroft-Telegraph controversy petitioned the Dean of Students for the use of the Bancroft-Telegraph area.
September 21
1. Dean Towle accepted most of the proposals submitted by the students on Sept. 18, but refused permission to advocate specific action and to recruit individuals for specific causes. Also prohibited was solicitation of funds and donations “to aid projects not directly connected with some authorized activity of the University.”
The students refused to accept Dean Towle’s concessions. Picketing, demonstrations and vigils would be conducted, they said, until satisfaction was obtained from the University. Jackie Goldberg, spokesman for the protesting groups, insisted:
“We don’t want to be armchair intellectuals. For a hundred years, people have talked and talked and done nothing. We want to help the students decide where they fit into the political spectrum and what they can do about their beliefs. We want to help build a better society.”
Dean Towle replied: “We have tried to be as fair as possible—but University policy is clearly stated in this area.” The non-advocative restriction is not directed specifically at students, Dean Towle explained. Even non-students invited to speak on campus are informed that on-campus advocacy of direct political or social action is prohibited.
2. Approximately 75 students held an all-night vigil on Sproul Hall steps.
“If you won’t take this as the official statement of the group, I think they’re (the administration) all a bunch of bastards.”
Mario Savio
September 22
The Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) Senate requested the Regents “to allow free political and social action to be effected by students at the Bancroft entrance to the University of California, up to the posts accepted as the traditional entrance.” The Senate motion also requested the privilege of soliciting funds for off-campus activity.
The ASUC Senate also began circulation of a petition to gather student grass-roots support, and discussed the possibility of the ASUC purchasing the disputed land and establishing it as a free speech area.
September 25
University President Clark Kerr condemned the student demonstrations:
“The Dean of Students has met many requests of the students. The line the University draws will be an acceptable one…. I don’t think you have to have action to have intellectual opportunity.”
September 29
1. Several tables were set up on campus at both Bancroft-Telegraph and in front of Sather Gate. Only one or two of the tables had the required permits from the University.
Dean Williams said: “Every effort will be made to remove those tables.”
2. Representatives of protest groups met at 10:30 p.m. to plan future action.
September 30
1. At noon, University Friends of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and Campus Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) set up tables at Sather Gate. Neither had permits from the Dean of Students Office. According to Mario Savio, SNCC spokesman, the student groups were denied permits because it was suspected that they would attempt to collect funds for off-campus political or social action.
University administration representatives approached each table, and took the names of those manning the tables. Five students—Mark Bravo, Brian Turner, Donald Hatch, Elizabeth Gardiner Stapleton, and David Goines—were requested to appear before Dean of Men Arleigh Williams at 3:00 p.m. for disciplinary action. That action triggered what was to become the first of the Sproul Hall sit-ins.
2. At 3:00 p.m.—under the direction of Mario Savio, Arthur Goldberg and Sandor Fuchs—more than 500 students and protestors appeared outside Dean Williams’ office. Savio, Goldberg and others stood on a narrow balcony outside the second floor lobby of Sproul Hall, shouting to passing students and those gathered on Sproul Hall steps, urging them to join the growing mass seated and standing outside the Dean of Students Office.
At 4:00 p.m., Dean Williams asked the original five students, plus the three demonstration leaders, to enter his office to discuss disciplinary action. None of the eight people summoned entered the Dean’s office.
Savio then announced that, since it appeared none of their demands had been met, that they would remain in Sproul Hall throughout the night.
3. At about midnight Chancellor Edward W. Strong issued the following statement:
“When violations occur, the University must then take disciplinary steps. Such action is being taken. Eight students were informed individually by a representative of the Office of the Dean of Students that they were in violation of University regulations and were asked to desist. Each of the eight students refused to do so. I regret that these eight students by their willful misconduct in deliberately violating rules of the University have made it necessary for me to suspend them indefinitely from the University.”
4. “I really don’t know what to say,” Mario Savio told the group of students sitting-in in Sproul Hall, when he heard Chancellor Strong’s statement. “If you won’t take this as the official statement of the group, I think they’re (the administration) all a bunch of bastards.”
As the evening progressed, the demonstrators continued their sit-in, lie-in, and representatives of the various political organizations supporting the “Free Speech Movement” (FSM)—the name born that evening—met to plan future moves.
October 1
The first Sproul Hall sit-in broke up at approximately 2:40 a.m., when demonstrators voted to leave the premises.
Several mimeographed fliers appeared on campus, calling for student and faculty support for the suspended students and announcing a “Free Speech Rally” at noon on Sproul Hall steps.
At approximately 10:00 a.m. two tables were set up outside Sather Gate, and one at the foot of Sproul Hall steps.
At approximately 11:45 a.m. Deans George S. Murphy and Peter Van Houten, with University Police Lieutenant Merrill F. Chandler approached and spoke to a man who was soliciting funds at the Campus CORE table at the foot of Sproul Hall steps. The man, later identified as Jack Weinberg, a former student, refused to identify himself or to leave the table. Lieutenant Chandler arrested the man for trespassing. Weinberg went limp. Instead of carrying Weinberg into police headquarters in Sproul Hall, University police moved a police car into the area where students were gathering for the noon rally, intending to remove Weinberg by auto.
The crowd chanted “Release him! Release him!” About 100 students promptly lay down in front of the police car, another 80 or so sat behind it. Mario Savio removed his shoes and climbed on top of it, urging the gathering crowd to join in.
By noon, about 300 demonstrators surrounded the immobile police car; by 12:30 p.m., several thousand students were crowded around the car—which became the focal point and rostrum for the next 32 hours of student demonstrations.
Weinberg remained inside the captured police car throughout the two-day demonstration. He was fed sandwiches and milk through an open window.
Charles Powell, ASUC President, took Savio’s place atop the stranded car:
“I can see now that your cause is just,” Powell said. He asked that, instead of a mob scene in Sproul Hall, only he and Savio enter the building to meet with Dean Williams.
Dean Arleigh Williams referred them to Chancellor Strong, with whom they discussed the problem. Chancellor Strong refused Savio’s demands. He said the University would not give in to pressure, the suspensions would stand, and that a meeting was possible only if the demonstrations ceased.
At approximately 2:30 p.m., Savio suggested the demonstrators force their way into Sproul Hall, in order to hinder operations of the Administration there:
“I recommend that 500 of you stay here around this auto and others join me in taking our request back to the deans.”
Savio then led about 150 students into Sproul Hall, where they sat outside the Dean of Students Office.
At about 4:00 p.m., the demonstrators inside now numbered about 400, voted to pack solidly in front of the door to the Deans’ office, and not allow anyone out. Deans Peter Van Houten and Arleigh Williams were trapped within the office by this maneuver.
At 6:15 p.m., 45 minutes before the scheduled closing, campus and Berkeley police officers began closing the front doors of Sproul Hall. Angered, about 100 of the approximately 2000 students outside Sproul Hall charged the doors, packing them to prevent their closing. Two police officers were pulled to the floor; one lost his hat and shoes (which were returned to him as he escaped into the building) and was bitten on the leg.
At 11:15 p.m. small groups of anti-demonstration demonstrators began converging on the mall from all directions, swelling the crowd to about 2,500. At this point, the demonstration degenerated into a shouting, singing, swearing and egg throwing contest. The demonstrators sang “We Shall Overcome!” The anti-demonstration forces shouted “Mickey Mouse!”
October 2
“Let us agree by acclamation to accept this document. I ask you to rise quietly and with dignity, and go home.”
Mario Savio
Sproul Hall was locked, except for one police-guarded door at the South end through which those with legitimate business inside could pass. The entire mall area was littered with sleeping bags, blankets, books, and the debris of the all-night vigil.
At 4:45 p.m. police officers began marching onto the campus. Some 500 officers, including over 100 motorcycle police, were on hand by 5:30 p.m., some armed with long riot sticks.
At approximately 7:20 p.m., the crowd was informed that an agreement had been reached, and that the protest spokesmen were en route from University House to present it to the demonstrators.
At 7:30 p.m., with President Kerr and Chancellor Strong watching from the steps of Sproul Hall (the crowd was unaware of their presence), Mario Savio mounted the flattened roof of the police car to read the agreement. [Students have to stop their protests, a committee will be set up to discuss campus political rules, no charges will be pressed against the arrested protesters, and student activities can continue under university regulations.]
At 7:40 p.m., Mario Savio said:
“Let us agree by acclamation to accept this document. I ask you to rise quietly and with dignity, and go home.”
President Kerr said: “Law and order have been restored without the use of force.”
October 4
California Governor Edmund G. Brown pledged to maintain law and order on University campuses and asked President Kerr to prepare, “as soon as possible,” a full and complete report on the student demonstration.
President Kerr described the situation as “highly complicated…. Students with left-wing and right-wing political orientation are more active than ever before.”
October 5
1. Protestors held a noon rally, claimed victory and voiced their approval of Friday evening’s agreement. Approximately 1000 students gathered in the mall between Sproul Hall and the Student Union to listen to the protest speakers.
Mario Savio, stated that “although the whole war is far from over, we have won the biggest battle.” That battle, he explained, was to gain “jurisdictional recognition” from President Kerr of a faculty-student-administration committee to negotiate the “free speech” issue.
2. Chancellor Edward W. Strong turned the cases of the suspended students over to the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct, in accord with the agreement between the demonstrators and President Kerr. Unfortunately, as the Chancellor found out—and everyone soon knew—there was no “Student Conduct Committee of the Academic Senate,” as specified in the agreement.
Chancellor Strong also announced appointments to the faculty-student-administration Study Committee on Campus Political Activity.
October 6
The FSM Steering Committee protest Chancellor Strong’s “unilateral” appointment of the Committee on Campus Political Activity without consulting the demonstrators.
President Kerr had agreed to accept recommendations from the demonstrators, and failed to do so, according to protest leaders. The protestors also claimed Chancellor Strong’s action put them in a position of inequality, since, they claimed, ten of the Chancellor’s appointments were opposed to the students’ position.
During the ASUC Senate meeting, Commuter-Independent Representative Ed Wilson charged that the Administration had failed to live up to the spirit of Friday’s agreement.
October 7
The Committee on Campus Political Activity held its first meeting. Ten FSM spokesmen appeared, presented a statement condemning the Committee as illegally constituted and asked it to disband, then left. The statement read, in part:
“As the duly elected representatives of the Free Speech Movement (FSM), we cannot in good conscience recognize the legitimacy of the present meeting.”
October 15
Agreements were reached with the FSM, the Administration, the Regents and the Study Committee, and were announced to a meeting of the Academic Senate by a communication from President Kerr and Chancellor Strong, both of whom were attending the Board of Regents meeting at Davis.
President Clark Kerr, during a news conference following the Regents meeting, reiterated his belief that some of the demonstrators “had Communist sympathies.”
October 16
The FSM Steering Committee issued a statement at 12:30 a.m.:
“The FSM has every hope that the negotiations which we are entering into with the administration can be productive. However, we hope that President Kerr’s attack upon us is not an indication of an unhealthy attitude with which the administration is entering these negotiations.”
October 18
The FSM Executive Committee nominated its representatives to the Committee on Campus Political Activity: Mario Savio, Bettina Aptheker, Sydney Stapleton, and Suzanne Goldberg.
October 25
The Ad Hoc Academic Senate Committee on Student Suspensions (known as the Heyman Committee) requested that the eight suspended students be reinstated during the course of the Committee’s hearings.
October 26
Chancellor Edward W. Strong refused the Heyman Committee’s request for reinstatement of the eight suspended students.
The FSM Steering Committee stated:
“If the administration refuses to acknowledge the right to advocate off-campus political and social action, we shall have to consider action as well as talk.”
October 28
The Committee on Campus Political Activity considered a recommendation that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution be the only policy regarding political expression on campus. The recommendation was introduced by FSM representative Sid Stapleton. Although the Committee did not adopt Stapleton’s motion, Mario Savio expressed pleasure with the proceedings. However, Savio said, if the Committee did not adopt the First Amendment as the only policy regarding speech on campus, “we will have to consider more direct action.”
November 2
The FSM Newsletter strongly criticized Chancellor Strong and President Kerr, made several references to possible “direct action.”
ASUC President Charles Powell deplored the tone of ultimatum which permeated the Newsletter:
“The leaders of FSM must realize that if they wish the recommendations of the committee to be seriously considered by Chancellor Strong, the recommendations will necessarily need strong support of the entire committee, and threatening the committee with subtle hints that future demonstrations will ensue is definitely not the wise course to take.”
November 4
A letter bearing the typewritten name of Clark Kerr was introduced by FSM as “documentary proof” that the Administration “had been drafting legislation without waiting for the report of the Committee on Campus Political Activity.” The letter dealt with University rules and were dated October 13, 1964.
President Kerr said the letter bearing his name had been prepared by a staff member; he disagreed with it and never signed it.
Between 50-60 picketers took part in a demonstration on Sproul Hall steps.
What the FSM is asking, in effect, is that the Administration cease to be an administration.
Warren Coats, University Young Republicans (UYR) President
November 5
The Committee on Campus Political Activity continued to debate a faculty proposal introduced by Earl Cheit, professor of business administration, during yesterday’s (Wednesday, Nov. 4) meeting. The debate centered around phrases which the Administration claims are necessary to protect the University, but which the students contend would give the University the right of “prior restraint.”
The committee adjourned for an hour while Kadish, Kidner and Attorney Malcolm Burnstein attempted to find suitable phraseology acceptable to all three factions. They returned with this amendment:
“If, as a direct result of the advocacy on the campus, acts occur in violation of U.S. or California laws, the University should be entitled to take appropriate disciplinary action against the speakers and their sponsoring organizations, to the extent that the person or organization can fairly be found to be responsible for the unlawful acts.”
Mario Savio, speaking for the student representatives, claimed the compromise amendment would, in effect, give the University the right of prior restraint, as it leaves interpretation of unlawful acts up to the University. The students were not in favor of the amendment.
The meeting adjourned.
November 7
Frank Kidner, University dean of educational relations and an Administration representative, offered an amendment to the faculty motion which read:
“If acts unlawful under California or Federal law directly result from advocacy, organization or planning on the campus, the students and organizations involved may be subject to such disciplinary action as is appropriate and conditioned upon as fair hearing as to the appropriateness of the action taken.”
Dean Kidner’s amendment failed. The Administration representatives voted affirmatively, the faculty abstained, and the students voted negatively.
The student representatives then offered this amendment:
“In the area of first amendment rights and civil liberties, the University may impose no disciplinary action against members of the University community and organizations. In this area, members of the University community and organizations are subject only to the civil authorities.”
The student amendment was defeated, with the Administration and faculty voting negatively.
When it was obvious the committee could not reach agreement, Professor Cheit proposed the committee report agreement on points two through seven of the faculty recommendations, and that the students and the faculty prepare a statement of the nature of their differences and present it to Chancellor Strong and the University community.
Mario Savio agreed to make the disagreement public, but he indicated he did not agree that point one was the only point of disagreement.
It was decided that no action would be taken until everyone agreed.
November 8
The Free Speech Movement issued the following statement:
“We feel that we must lift our self-imposed moratorium on political activity because the committee is already deadlocked over the issue of political advocacy and appears headed for a long series of radical disagreements…. The FSM believes that the University is not a competent body to decide questions concerning civil liberties, especially since it is subject to strong political pressure. Because students’ rights have great political impact as well as legal significance, the courts should be the only body to decide upon them.”
November 9
1. The following statement by Chancellor Edward W. Strong appeared in the Daily Californian:
If the FSM returns to direct action tactics, this will constitute a clear breach of the agreement of October 2. Students and organizations participating will be held responsible for their actions.
The FSM held a rally on Sproul Hall steps at noon, the first such activity since the October 2 agreement.
Steve Weissman, Graduate Co-ordinating Committee representative to FSM, said that if the police attempt to arrest the students, the graduates will refuse all cooperation. He added that such an action might be cause for a strike by the teaching assistants and the faculty.
2. The following statement was issued jointly by President Clark Kerr and Chancellor Edward W. Strong this evening:
“FSM has abrogated the agreement of October 2, and by reason of this abrogation, the Committee on Campus Political Activity is dissolved.”
We shall now seek advice on rules governing political action on campus from students through the ASUC and from the faculty through the Academic Senate.
When you go in, go with love in your hearts.
Folk singer Joan Baez
November 10
Graduate student protestors continued defiance of University regulations on the steps of Sproul Hall. Savio said: “The administration is on the horns of a real dilemma. They must either take all of us or none of us.”
The Dean’s office took no official notice of the violations, nor was any effort made to obtain names of those manning tables. The demonstrators obligingly sent a list of their names to the Dean’s office, however.
November 16
1. Tables again appeared on the steps of Sproul Hall for solicitation of funds and recruitment of members. FSM spokesmen said the tables would remain on the steps all week.
November 17
1. Tables again appeared on Sproul Hall steps. No attempt was made to remove them.
The FSM Newsletter stated “the illegitimate tables will remain until they have become legal, through repeal of the restrictive rulings.”
November 18
1. The Free Speech Movement announced plans for a mass vigil during Friday’s Regents meeting in Berkeley. The FSM Steering Committee also issued an open letter to the Regents, requesting permission for FSM leaders to appear before the Board.
President Kerr indicated the Regents would rather not have anyone speak, but would review written proposals.
2. Sanford Elberg, dean of the graduate division, called a meeting of all University teaching assistants. According to Elberg, the meeting was “to clear up the various aspects of the free speech issue.” Faculty members of the defunct study committee and FSM representatives addressed the meeting, but it was “not intended to be a debate,” Elberg said. About 450 students attended the meeting in Pauley Ballroom.
Earl F. Cheit, professor of business administration, and Henry Rosovsky, professor of economics, explained the controversial faculty position in regard to student discipline. According to Cheit, the proposals drastically limit the power of the University to discipline students. Under the proposals, students cannot be punished until they have received “a fair hearing” from a faculty committee.
Many attending the meeting were critical of Chiet’s statement. Students questioned the ability of the University to grant students “a fair hearing.” “The only institution which guarantees citizens a fair hearing is a civil court of law,” one of the students said.
November 20
A mass student rally on Sproul Hall steps, encouraged by folk singer Joan Baez, preceded a “peaceful mass pilgrimage-demonstration” by more than 3,000 persons. Following a noon rally on Sproul Hall steps, the majority of the gathering quietly marched across campus, led by a banner declaring “Free Speech,” to sit on the lawn across Oxford Street from University Hall while the Regents met this afternoon.
The Regents approved recommendations submitted by President Kerr and Chancellor Strong. Six of the suspended students received suspensions from Sept. 20 to date. Arthur Goldberg and Mario Savio, demonstration leaders, were placed on probation for the rest of the semester, in addition to the suspensions.
FSM leaders immediately denounced both the Regents and President Kerr for having “ignored” the Heyman Committee recommendations and FSM’s own recommendations in presenting the matter for Regents’ consideration.
November 30
Chancellor Edward W. Strong rejected FSM demands that the new charges against Mario Savio and Arthur Goldberg be dropped.
“Free Speech” enthusiasts held a rally on the UCLA campus. An FSM spokesman claimed “strong FSM movements” now exist and are planning action on Univeristy campuses at Santa Barbara, UCLA, Davis, and on other Southern California college campuses. The spokesman predicted “some statewide action will be taken this week.”
December 1
The FSM demanded the University fulfill three major requests:
- Disciplinary action initiated against FSM leaders Mario Savio, Arthur Goldberg, Jackie Goldberg and Brian Turner, resulting from the demonstrations of Oct. 1 and Oct. 2, be dropped.
- Present rules on political speech be revised so that only the courts regulate the content of political speech. All regulations which “unnecessarily restrict” political activity be repealed.
- The Administration refrain from further disciplining of students or organizations for political activity.
If the Administration did not meet their demands within 24 hours, FSM said, “direct action will follow.”
The FSM and its leaders from the start declared the police would have to haul them out. They are now finding that, in their effort, to escape the gentle discipline of the University, they have thrown themselves into the arms of the less understanding discipline of the community at large.
UC President Clark Kerr
December 2
1. Approximately 1,000 persons—students, some faculty members and non-University persons—packed four floors of Sproul Hall following a huge rally in the plaza between Sproul Hall and the Student Union.
Leading the mass sit-in Mario Savio said:
“There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even tacitly take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machines will be prevented from working at all.”
Folk singer Joan Baez told the demonstrators: “When you go in, go with love in your hearts.”
Then, as Joan Baez sang “We Shall Overcome,” the demonstrators filed through the right-hand main entrance to Sproul Hall, up the main stairway and—as the first and second floors filled—on up the inside stairways to the third and fourth floors.
As the sit-in developed, the University closed all offices in the building, except Public Information and the Business and Finance departments. Employees were sent home.
Most of the demonstrators contented themselves with singing folk songs, playing cards or studying. Folk singer Joan Baez, seated in a second floor hall, slept part of the afternoon.
As the evening wore on, and possibility of arrest or other administration action appeared to lessen, protestors watched movies (“Laurel and Hardy,” “Operation Abolition”), attended “Freedom School” classes in stairwells and open areas, sang, attended Hanukkah services, danced, played cards, studied, talked (“This may be a lark now, but we may regret it.”), or slept.
Joan Baez left at approximately 11:00 p.m.
Hallway lights were turned off and by 1:00 a.m., most of the demonstrators had settled down for the long night ahead.
2. The University Young Republicans student group formally withdrew from the FSM tonight. UYR President Warren Coats stated:
“What the FSM is asking, in effect, is that the Administration cease to be an administration.”
“Because the FSM has refused to use the right channels and have the patience to use the right channels, the majority of this campus community doesn’t support the actions of this body of individuals.”
Charles Powell, Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) president
December 3
Beginning at 3:05 a.m., Chancellor Edward W. Strong, assisted by a portable “bull horn,” delivered a terse message to students assembled on each of Sproul Hall’s four floors:
“May I have your attention? I am Dr. Edward Strong, Chancellor of the Berkeley campus. I have an announcement. This assemblage has developed to such a point that the purpose and work of the University have been materially impaired. It is clear that there have been acts of disobedience and illegality which cannot be tolerated in a responsible educational center and would not be tolerated anywhere in our society…. I urge you, both individually and collectively, to leave this area. I request that you immediately disperse. Failure to disperse will result in disciplinary action by the University. Please go.”
Outside the building, approximately 635 uniformed police officers had been assembling for nearly an hour.
At 3:45 a.m., California Governor Edmund G. Brown issued the following statement:
“I have tonight called upon law enforcement officials in Alameda County to arrest and take into custody all students and others who may be in violation of the law at Sproul Hall.”
It took 12 hours to clear the building. Any demonstrator was free to leave the building at any time, before his arrest. Those who insisted on remaining in the building were arrested.
Each arrested demonstrator was given the choice of walking or being dragged. Some walked; most “went limp” and were dragged.
FSM spokesmen, including leader Steve Weissman—who “escaped” out of a window—claimed the demonstrators were being clubbed, kicked, had their arms twisted, hair pulled, etc.
3. Later in the afternoon, President Clark Kerr issued a statement condemning the demonstration and the FSM:
“The FSM and its leaders from the start declared the police would have to haul them out. They are now finding that, in their effort, to escape the gentle discipline of the University, they have thrown themselves into the arms of the less understanding discipline of the community at large….”
December 4
1. Demonstration leaders and others arrested yesterday and released on bail appeared on campus wearing large white “V’s” on black backgrounds and attended a huge noon rally on Sproul Hall steps. More than 5,000 persons jammed the plaza and many lined the balconies and Dining Commons roof to hear protest leaders and faculty members condemn Governor Brown, The Regents, President Kerr, Chancellor Strong and the police.
2. The student strike continued through the day, with picket lines at campus entrances and construction sites.
5. ASUC President Charles Powell issued the following statement during a news conference this afternoon:
“Because of the fact that the issues have become muddled and because the FSM has refused to use the right channels and have the patience to use the right channels, the majority of this campus community doesn’t support the actions of this body of individuals. The campus community would support proper channels—the only two remaining channels which are available—but sit-ins, strikes, and arbitrating bodies are not going to bridge the gap which divides this campus.
Education and the normal processes of learning are of utmost importance here, and the FSM regards itself as being able to decide for everyone else on this campus that their demands are more important than the basic purpose of this University. I maintain that such disregard of others’ rights to an education on this campus if it continues will have serious consequences.
Our world-renowned faculty members will leave, large numbers of students will change campuses having done poorly in courses here for lack of the proper atmosphere, and legislative influence from Sacramento is threatening more and more the autonomy of the University of California. Destroying the political autonomy of the University would be a disastrous consequence, and along with the other reasons which I have stated, make the FSM continual demonstrations and tactics completely invalid and unwanted.”
“Anything that is illegal in the community at large is still illegal on the campus. The question is: Should the University impose more restrictions on its students in the area of political activity than exists in the community-at-large? The Senate said: No.”
Joseph Tussman, chairman of the philosophy department
December 7
1. At 11:00 a.m., approximately 16,000 students, faculty members and staff gathered in the Greek Theatre for the unusual convocation ceremonies.
2. Prior to the Greek Theatre meeting, Mario Savio conducted a heated argument backstage with Professor Scalapino. Savio demanded an opportunity to address the Greek Theatre meeting. Scalapino, who served as meeting chairman, told Savio that the meeting was “structured” and, as such, was not an “open forum.” He refused Savio’s request to speak.
During the meeting, Savio sat approximately 15 feet from the edge of the stage. As President Kerr spoke, he shook his head and muttered “Hypocrite!” A reporter asked Savio if he was going to speak. Savio nodded and said, “I’m going to speak.”
As President Kerr neared the end of his remarks, Savio rose and walked to the far left (south) end of the Greek Theatre stage, mounted the stage, and stood there for two or three minutes while President Kerr completed his remarks. At the conclusion of the President’s address, Chairman Scalapino moved to the rostrum and announced the meeting’s adjournment.
Simultaneously, Savio moved rapidly across the front of the stage to the rostrum, clutching a scroll of paper in his hand. As he reached the rostrum, two University police officers grabbed him and pulled him away from the rostrum. Savio was dragged through the center rear stage entrance and into a small room at the south end of the backstage area used by performers.
As Savio was being held at the south end of the Greek Theatre, Arthur Goldberg pleaded with President Kerr to release him at the north end. Kerr agreed, and, it was announced Savio was not under arrest, that he would be allowed to speak.
Surrounded by well-wishers, Savio told the crowd he merely wanted to announce an FSM rally at noon in front of Sproul Hall (President Kerr had personally given permission for this rally, so that the protestors could discuss the terms of the new agreement).
3. Nearly 10,000 persons jammed the plaza between Sproul Hall and the Student Union at noon. They rejected, by acclamation, the proposals announced by President Kerr less than an hour earlier.
December 8
1. Joseph Tussman, professor of philosophy and chairman of the philosophy department, summarized the Senate’s resolution.
“Anything that is illegal in the community at large is still illegal on the campus. The question is: Should the University impose more restrictions on its students in the area of political activity than exists in the community-at-large? The Senate said: No.”
For Mario Savio, the Senate action was a perfect birthday present. Savio turned 22 today.
In a statement, issued soon after the Senate had adjourned and entitled “Happiness is an Academic Senate Meeting,” FSM said:
“Our efforts have finally succeeded, and our protest has been vindicated. We regret having been forced to undertake controversial actions to begin a dialogue. The actions have weighed more heavily upon us than upon any others in the academic community. We hope that the dialogue which has at last begun will continue and increase, and that the success of this dialogue will mean that such actions will never again be necessary.”
2. Charles Powell, ASUC President, evaluated the ASUC Senate’s role in the “free speech” controversy:
“Overall, we’ve missed the boat. We have in many ways been inadequate in dealing with the free speech problem.”
3. The University Board of Regents considered the Academic Senate’s resolution at its next meeting, December 17 and 18, in Los Angeles.
December 18
1. The University Board of Regents, meeting in Los Angeles, did not accept the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate’s proposed solution to the “free speech” controversy.
2. Free Speech Movement leaders were unhappy with the Regents’ action.
Mario Savio declared the Regents’ “horrendous action” marked a “tragic day in the history of the University.”
January 2
An emergency meeting of the Board of Regents named Martin Meyerson, dean of the College of Environmental Design, as “Acting Chancellor” for the Berkeley campus, replacing Edward W. Strong. Strong was granted a leave of absence “to recuperate from his recent illness.” Meyerson’s appointment was effective “immediately” and was for an “indefinite” period.
January 3
Acting Chancellor Martin Meyerson issued two statements. His second statement, issued later in the day, set down provisional rules for political activity on the Berkeley campus:
“For political activity during this interim period, the following rules will cover those matters of greatest concern during the next few days:
1. OPEN DISCUSSION AREA: Until final plans can be developed for a suitable alternate discussion area, the Sproul Hall steps are available for temporary use for this purpose at the noon hour and between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. Suitable voice amplification will be provided by the University.
2. TABLES: Student organizations may set up tables in the following areas between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
- (a) At the Bancroft and Telegraph entrance.
- (b) At the Golden Bear Restaurant area, east of the low concrete wall.
- (c) At the North Gate and Tolman Hall areas, and between Kroeber Hall and the Law Building.
- (d) Student organizations may receive donations, distribute literature, recruit members, and engage in the sale of such items as buttons, pins, and bumper stickers at the tables. Publications of a student organization may be sold at the tables.
- (e) Posters or placards identifying the sponsors are to be attached to the tables and other posters may also be attached.
January 4
The Free Speech Movement held its first legal rally on the steps of Sproul Hall at noon.
Between ballads sung by folk singer Joan Baez, FSM spokesmen expressed dissatisfaction with the proposals of the Committee of Academic Freedom, denounced the new rules for campus political activity, and announced a pending “investigation of the Board of Regents” under the auspices of the American Federation of Teachers.
Discussing the appointment of Acting Chancellor Meyerson, Mario Savio said:
“The important comment is that the person is nowhere near as important as the pressures on the person from higher up. His statement yesterday was hopeful. He seems to understand the situation, whereas the previous Chancellor (Strong) did not.”
***
POSTSCRIPT: The events of 1964 were just the beginning of a tumultuous period of youth rebellion that would reshape the campus and the nation. In 1967, University President Clark Kerr, a villain to most FSM participants despite being a liberal reformer, was unceremoniously fired by then-newly-elected Governor Ronald Reagan, who won the election in part on a campaign promise to “clean up the mess at Berkeley.” Shortly after, People’s Park became a flashpoint between students, locals and the university in a real estate battle that has stretched almost to the present. Nationwide, opposition to the war in Vietnam was to become a galvanizing issue for young Americans, culminating in the massacre at Kent State University on May 4, 1970, when National Guard troops opened fire on unarmed student protesters, killing four and injuring nine. Of course, student protest is still very much a part of university life and each new generation finds cause to rally when, as Savio put it, the operation of the machine becomes too odious to bear.
Today, the FSM is considered an essential part of Berkeley’s identity and culture. Visitors to campus can visit the “Mario Savio Steps” at Sproul Hall or meet at at the Free Speech Movement Café in Moffitt Undergraduate Library, and sip coffee under walls adorned with photographs and quotes from the movement, or wander outside to read newspapers from around the world, the front pages of which are blown up and displayed there daily.
