People
who knew and worked with Charles E. Young, including John
Sandbrook, his former assistant, extol the man’s diplomacy and
belief in academic freedom. Following the appointment of a particularly
conservative Board of Regents by Gov. Reagan, an act many speculate
was a response to the academic freedom and activism of the campus,
all figurative hell broke loose May 5, 1970 following the dismissal
of Angela Davis. Entire police squads “lost their cool”
rounding up students as they swept the campus.
SDS:
"Resident Pain-in-the-Ass”
In
the interim between this event, resulting in the campus being
shutdown for two days, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) became
what Sandbrook describes as “the resident pain-in-the-ass.”
Though Sandbrook argues the group made important leaps by arranging
photo demonstrations of the war, tactics that many diverse groups
would imitate, their militancy became excessive.
Charles
E. Young Meets with Students
On
May 10, 1972, a day after the protest famously involving
Bill Walton, a group of around 150 students sat outside the Chancellor’s
office in Murphy Hall, insisting to speak with Young about the strike
arranged that day. By 5 pm, Young addressed the crowd. Young “expressed
his opposition to the strike and indicated his belief in its futility,”
(Daily Bruin, Volume No. LXXXVI No. 32, p. 1), though urged the “‘political
process.’” The Chancellor tried to mitigate by holding
an open session, asking what students were planning for the night.
The meeting was disrupted by what was described as a “shouting
match,” between the steering committee and students.
Young
expressed his own opposition to the war, particularly Nixon’s
involvement in its “escalation.” Nevertheless, SDS would
later describe the man’s actions as a “wave of repression.”
On
May 12, Young released a statement in the midst of a riot, printed
in the Daily Bruin, which demonstrates his diplomacy:
As
a result of actions occurring on campus today in response to concern
about escalation of American action in Southeast Asia, the
Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) was called, and 53 people, among
them an unknown number of UCLA students were arrested. I requested
the assistance of the LAPD, and although I regret the necessity for
having to do so, I do not believe that there was any alternative.
The reasons for this are, best stated by repeating, for those who
did no hear it at the time, the announcement I made to the assembled
demonstrators and on-lookers prior to the start of action by the LAPD.
The text of that statement is as follows:
I
am the Chancellor of UCLA. At about 1:30 I was advised by
the State Fire Marshal that a severe fire hazard existed as a result
of the barricades on all entrances and exits to Murphy Hall containing
flammable materials, and, in some instances, spilled gasoline. He
also advised me that unless the Los Angeles Police Department was
called, he did not believe we could provide adequate protection to
any fire-fighting crews which might be required, and, therefore,
that the City Fire Department could not provide us with fire protection.
This demonstration had, therefore, reached the stage where it not
only provided substantial interference with University activities,
but endangered the well-being of University students and staff. I,
therefore, direct all persons to leave this area immediately.
Obviously,
people who were not actively involved in the actions which
resulted in the calling of the police were caught up in the police
action and arrested. At the same time, many if not most of those who
were active in planning the actions in question were not apprehended.
All
of us at UCLA have sympathy with those innocent bystanders
who were subjected to force, were frightened and frustrated by actions,
the reasons for which they did not fully understand. Members of the
faculty and administration are assisting those arrested by appropriate
and effective means. I hope the members of this community will not
participate in any action that will further jeopardize the safety
and integrity of this campus, and I believe that there are ways to
express effectively one's position regarding the war that will not
have negative results.sympathy with those innocent bystanders who
were subjected to force, were frightened and frustrated by actions,
the reasons for which they did not fully understand.
Members
of the faculty and administration are assisting those arrested by
appropriate and effective means. I hope the members of this
community will not participate in any action that will further jeopardize
the safety and integrity of this campus, and I believe that there
are ways to express effectively one's position regarding the war that
will not have negative results.
“Business
as Usual”
Young
instituted the policy that UCLA continue to function despite the many
arrests on May 11, 1972, with few classes cancelled and almost
no evidence of the riotous behavior the following day. He also made
no academic dispensations for striking students: “‘If
people have the overwhelming conviction that they ought to do something
about ending the war, it shouldn’t make too much difference
whether they get a ‘C’ or a ‘B’ in a class,’”
(Daily Bruin, Volume No. LXXXVI No. 34, p.1). Young also expressed
that amnesty for those arrested for failing to disperse was “inappropriate”
at the time.
SDS
is Banned
On June 1, 1972, SDS received a letter letting them know their
organization had been suspended from sponsoring any activity
on campus. Incensed, SDS responded by posting flyers entitled “Young
Launches Wave of Repression” all over campus. The organization
makes a number of interesting claims:
•
Of the six violations detailed when asked why they
were suspended, they feel postering and megaphone regulations are
“insufficient grounds” for suspension.
•
They claim that the 14 individuals (3 from SDS) given
fines/suspensions “did nothing several thousand other people
didn’t do.”
•
Six students were apparently arrested in their homes
for “disturbing the peace, blocking traffic and creating a public
disturbance.” These students all came from groups, some from
SDS.
•
SDS believed it was singled out due to its demands for Young
which including abolishing ROTC and the “business as usual”
policy.
•
SDS denied that they tried to prevent the “racist” professor
Arthur Jensen of Berkeley to speak.
•
SDS was banned the day William Shockley was defended
by the administration to speak “unopposed.” Thus SDS asserted
UCLA defended “racist theorists” while infringing on their
right to “organize.”
•
They claimed the homes of SDS leaders from another
Los Angeles college that were shot up may have been targeted by the
LAPD.
Excerpt
from p.8 from "Young Launches Wave of Repression"
What
emerges from this list of violations is that the administration has
taken the extreme and drastic step of banning "until further
notice" a student organization simply because it placed
posters in the wrong places on the campus. Of course, we hardly think
that these feeble charges are the real reasons which caused the banning
of SDS. The fact that they appeared two weeks after the banning suggests
that the administration attempted to dream up a case against SDS after
it decided to ban it, not before. In our opinion, SDS was banned because
of the strong role it played during the strike and the continued opposition
to the UCLA administration which SDS has displayed.
SDS's
Slow Disappearance
SDS
ban from UCLA was part of a trend throughout campuses, especially
in California. A combination of a conservative Governor and the group’s
growing desire to anger and incite rather than effect change were
the two major factors for their disfavor at campuses.
Actions
taken by SDS became more inflammatory: blocking ROTC, hounding
speakers, and basically whining to the school anytime they did anything
wrong, it became clear that they were merely dramatizing their cause
to piss people off.
Earlier,
SDS had seen members split into even more radical factions
such as the Weather Underground, the Worker-Student Alliance, and
the Revolutionary Union. So the death of an organization whose principles
of participatory democracy and direct action had diminished into juvenile
stunts and self-promotion was due. Their ultimate goal for a "working-class
revolution" was just a bit heavy handed.
With
the sputter of SDS’s last gasp, student activism as
a whole effectively became less dangerous and radical, congruous with
the apathy many observe in modern University students.
People
who knew and worked with Charles E. Young, including John
Sandbrook, his former assistant, extol the man’s diplomacy and
belief in academic freedom. Following the appointment of a particularly
conservative Board of Regents by Gov. Reagan, an act many speculate
was a response to the academic freedom and activism of the campus,
all figurative hell broke loose May 5, 1970 following the dismissal
of Angela Davis. Entire police squads “lost their cool”
rounding up students as they swept the campus.
On
May 10, 1972, a day after the protest famously involving
Bill Walton, a group of around 150 students sat outside the Chancellor’s
office in Murphy Hall, insisting to speak with Young about the strike
arranged that day. By 5 pm, Young addressed the crowd. Young “expressed
his opposition to the strike and indicated his belief in its futility,”
(Daily Bruin, Volume No. LXXXVI No. 32, p. 1), though urged the “‘political
process.’” The Chancellor tried to mitigate by holding
an open session, asking what students were planning for the night.
The meeting was disrupted by what was described as a “shouting
match,” between the steering committee and students. 
As
a result of actions occurring on campus today in response to concern
about escalation of American action in Southeast Asia, the
Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) was called, and 53 people, among
them an unknown number of UCLA students were arrested. I requested
the assistance of the LAPD, and although I regret the necessity for
having to do so, I do not believe that there was any alternative.
The reasons for this are, best stated by repeating, for those who
did no hear it at the time, the announcement I made to the assembled
demonstrators and on-lookers prior to the start of action by the LAPD.
The text of that statement is as follows:
I
am the Chancellor of UCLA. At about 1:30 I was advised by
the State Fire Marshal that a severe fire hazard existed as a result
of the barricades on all entrances and exits to Murphy Hall containing
flammable materials, and, in some instances, spilled gasoline. He
also advised me that unless the Los Angeles Police Department was
called, he did not believe we could provide adequate protection to
any fire-fighting crews which might be required, and, therefore,
that the City Fire Department could not provide us with fire protection.
This demonstration had, therefore, reached the stage where it not
only provided substantial interference with University activities,
but endangered the well-being of University students and staff. I,
therefore, direct all persons to leave this area immediately.
All
of us at UCLA have sympathy with those innocent bystanders
who were subjected to force, were frightened and frustrated by actions,
the reasons for which they did not fully understand. Members of the
faculty and administration are assisting those arrested by appropriate
and effective means. I hope the members of this community will not
participate in any action that will further jeopardize the safety
and integrity of this campus, and I believe that there are ways to
express effectively one's position regarding the war that will not
have negative results.sympathy with those innocent bystanders who
were subjected to force, were frightened and frustrated by actions,
the reasons for which they did not fully understand. 
•
SDS believed it was singled out due to its demands for Young
which including abolishing ROTC and the “business as usual”
policy.
SDS
ban from UCLA was part of a trend throughout campuses, especially
in California. A combination of a conservative Governor and the group’s
growing desire to anger and incite rather than effect change were
the two major factors for their disfavor at campuses.