Netherton reaffirmsresidence decisionChancellor Beadle promises students at the housing demonstration last month that hewill consider their petitions. The Dean of students’ report tothe Chancellor concerning re¬quired residence is printed below:Dear Chancellor Beadle:This letter is written to confirmthe recommendation I made atyour request concerning the stu¬dent petitions submitted to you onMay 19. I have drafted it not onlyas a report to you but also withthe intention that it be suitablefor release as a general explana¬tion to the campus of the issuesraised by the petition.The petition you now have inhand is the latest development ina discussion which has engagedthe campus intermittently sincelast October. In that discussiontwo issues have been central. Thefirst is the matter of the educa¬tional values of living in resi¬dence. Second is the question ofthe requirement qua requirement.That is, there has been discus¬sion of whether it is a good thing,in educational terms, for a student to live in residence and then, asa second point, whether such resi¬dence should be required. Opinionon these two points has covereda wide range, but the view whichhas had the greatest expressionof student support has been theone which favors a residentialcollege, but on a strictly volun¬tary basis. This is the positiontaken in point 5 of the petitionsubmitted to you, and also in anearlier petition circulated by KarlBemesderfer and Tyler Thomp¬son.It is a position that deservescareful consideration, emphasiz¬ing as it does the fact that wehave been very largely residen¬tial for some time, but then alsostressing the tradition of free¬dom which has been so importantin student life at this University.The tradition of freedom is im¬portant not only to the students,but to members of your staff,(Continued on page 44Chancellor George WellsBeadle has denied a studentrequest urging that “residencebe made voluntary after thefirst year.” Beadle stated that hesupports a report on the compul¬sory residence rule submitted tohim by John P. Netherton, deanof students.Beadle’s reply to the 600 sign-el's of a petition calling for aboli¬tion of the new rule, which pro¬vides that undergraduate men livein dormitories for two years,women for four, is printed below:14An open letter to the 600 stu¬dents who petitioned on May 19,1961, for revocation of the newundergraduate housing regula¬tions.(<On the day the petition unitsdelivered, I agreed to investigatethe matter and give you a replyas soon as possible. I have sincehad a full report from the Deanof Students Office and consider¬able discussion of the matter withfaculty and. students. I am nowsatisfied that there are no per¬suasive reasons to alter the deci¬sions which have been made bythe appropriate authorities.Though / am obliged to dissentfrom your views, / have thewarmest appreciation for the tra¬ditions which inspire them.I urge you to consider DeanNetherton's statement, which isbeing released to the Maroonwith this.George W. BeadleIn his report to Beadle, Nether¬ton stated that to comply with thestudent request to abolish the rule‘‘would be to abandon very realeducational gains to no purpose.”Netherton stated that studentfears that the residence rulewould lead to a loss of freedomwere unjustified, since studentsmay petition the dean of studentsto be excused from the require¬ment. (See the text of Netherton’sreport, printed below.)(Sixty-six students petitionedthis quarter to be excused fromthe requirement; 40 were granted,nine of these on a provisionalbasis.)Both Beadle and Netherton in¬dicated that their announcementsdid not mean that all evaluationof the residence requirement hasended. Said Netherton: “While itin true that much of the recentstudent discussion has been of anIncendiary, unprofitable nature,it is also true that discussion ofall rules and regulations is neverended at the University of Chi¬cago.”Netherton has often stated thathe can’t find no explanation forthe failure of students to fullyunderstand that the petitioningprocess prevents the rule from being improperly restrictive. Inhis report, the Dean stated thatthe Committee on petitions has“sought to determine whetherdenial would work hardship andwhether approval would involveunacceptable risk.”One member of student govern¬ment commented: “Previously wehave been told that the rule wasdesigned to prevent ‘extremely un¬stable’ students from moving intounsupervised apartments. Yet, ifpetitions will not be granted un¬less to do otherwise would ‘workhardship,' this means that stu¬dents who are stable enough towithstand dormitory life will notbe allowed to leave the dormseither.”The rule has been a source ofcontroversy among faculty andstudents since its announcementlast August.In the fall of 1957 the old resi¬dence rule, requiring studentsunder 18 to live in the dormito¬ries, was changed to a one-yearresidence requirement. LastAugust James E. Newman, as¬sistant dean of students, issued abooklet to all entering students,announcing the extension of therule to two years for men andfour years for women.Also listed in the booklet wasa new rule requiring men to wearcoats and ties and women to wearskirts at served meals in the resi¬dence halls. Consultation betweenNewman and Lyles Kay of Resi¬dence Hall and Commons on themechanics of served meals beganlast fall. (To date there have beenno served meals with requireddress.)When the residence rule wasfirst announced, Newman statedhe was in favor of the regulationsbecause he believed students wholived in apartments “dropped out”of the University twice as oftenas those living in dormitories.Dean of the College Alan Simp¬son later added his reasons forthe rule. “The justification,” hesaid, “lies in (1) the values of aresidential life per se, (2) theconditions of our neighborhood,and (31 the expectation of betteracademic performance.”Student opposition to the ruledeveloped in the fall quarter. AMaroon editorial was directedagainst it late in September. TheInter-fraternity council formallyprotested it in an open letter tothe administration early in Octo¬ber. Two weeks later residents ofEast house, the largest under¬graduate men’s housing unit oncampus, voted against compul¬sory residence. In November Stu¬dent government (SG) passed aresolution opposing the require¬ment Some students claimed that thetiming of the rule violated studentrights as guaranteed in Sectiontwo of the Student bill of rights.Section two guarantees “theright of students to a concisestatement, before entering theUniversity ... of their contrac¬tual rights, obligations, and re¬sponsibilities pertaining to educa¬tional and extra-curricular activ¬ities, and University housing.”In January, the women’s resi¬dence halls took action, withGreen, North, West, and Kellyhouses expressing general oppo¬sition to the requirement.Later in January a suit ques¬tioning the legality of the rulebefore the Student-faculty-admin¬istration court was announced. OnMay 19 the Court heard the case.It has not yet announced its deci¬sion.On February 23rd Dean Nether¬ton defined the requirement in aspeech before the College Faculty,and proposed consultation withstudents on the mechanics of itsadministration.Three days later a petition wascirculated in the residence halls,asking the adoption of a “volun¬tary” residential college.In April the first official meet¬ings of students with the Admin¬istration were held to discuss the '«/-) vmechanics of the rule’s adminis- ’ hSd/^beeiOr estimated previously,tration. The house presidents and 'the SG consultant board on hous¬ing discussed possible criteria forthe petition plan for exemptionfrom the rule. However, after twomeetings the students refused toconsent to compulsory residenceeither implicitly or explicitly.Mr. Netherton stated that hewould judge the petitions “lib¬erally.” The students felt that hehad rejected all possible objec¬tive criteria, and thus left the peti¬tion machinery “hopelessly sub¬jective.”Concurrently with the meetingsof the Student Committee on Resi¬dential Policy, a Faculty Commit¬tee on Residential Policy was an¬nounced, including Donald Meikle-john (chairman), Gilbert White,Ole Kleppa, Herbert Gochberg,and John Cawelti.After the second meeting of theStudent Committee, the membersdrafted a letter to the Faculty Tv/y weeks later, the First-yearcouncil s«®t a similar letter to itsconstituents, mentioning that newstatistics on dropout indicated the“dropout difference” by residencewas considerably less than hadbeen estimated previously.The next day the statistics ap¬peared in the Maroon. TylerThompson fourth year student inthe College, had made a study ofdropout in the class of 1962.Thompson concluded that withthe small difference in figures andthe difficulties of casual interpre¬tation, there was no statisticaljustification for the residencerule. James Davis, senior studydirector of the National OpinionResearch Center, called Thomp¬son’s study “a very careful pieceof work.”In the next two weeks Dean ofundergraduate students GeorgePlaye submitted new statistics ondropout since October 1960. TheCommittee expressing their next week Playe announced thatdoubts about compulsory residence, and sent a copy to everymember of the College Faculty.Two weeks later, the First-yearcouncil sent a similar letter toits constituents, mentioning thatnew statistics on dropout indi¬cated “dropout difference” by res¬idence was considerably less than a Committee on Attrition (drop¬ping out), chaired by himself andincluding Russell Thomas,Charles O’Connell, and HughLane, was making a study ofclasses since 1958. Playe said thenthat “the fact that students livein apartments doesn’t alone ex¬plain their dropping out.”Vol. 69 —No. 73 University of Chicago, June 6, 1961 «3Spfeo31Faculty opinion surveyedby Caldon SmithInterviews by students withfifty members of the College Fac¬ulty produced no comments thatthey wished to have attributed tothem.However, the interviewers esti¬mate that a quarter of the facultymembers contacted are for therule, a quarter are still makingup their minds, and over half areflatly against it. It was noted thatthe faculty possesses at best anadvisory vote on this issue, as itis not clear whether this is an “educational matter” or an “ad¬ministrative matter.”Opinion for the rule breaksdown into three areas: the phys¬ical dangers of the neighborhood,the unattractiveness of “a certainstudent group” in the neighbor¬hood, and the “right” of the Uni¬versity to pass the regulation.No faculty member would statehow he would vote if the issuecame up in a College Facultymeeting. Some of those who listedthemselves as undecided stressedthat the neighborhood is danger¬ous “no matter where you live”that the student group in questionis “not so unattractive, and thateven if it is, it is not clear that theUniversity should destroy it.” Onefaculty member said, “WhenKimpton said that Chicago at¬tracts every queer kid in the na¬ tion, he was talking about intel¬lectuals. Even if the kid is queer,or abnormal by social standards,he often does brilliant work hereand maybe there should be aplace for him. Most of the gi’eatmen of history have had theiridiosyncrasies.”Some opinion against the ruleis that the Dean of Students of¬fice has “bungled it from start tofinish,” that it is “paternalismpure and simple,” and “unneces¬sary.”No faculty member contactedbelieves that the statistics ondropout played a part in the for¬mulation of the new requirement.A few of the fifty believe thedorms possess innate educationalvalue; a lesser number believethat apartments possess moreeducational value.GWB should lead UniversityLast May 19 Chancellor Beadlestood on the steps of the Adminis¬tration building and promised 600students that he would reply totheir petition requesting the adop¬tion of the principle of a “volun¬tary” residential college. We ap¬plaud the Chancellor for the goodfaith and sincere interest he hasdemonstrated in making and keep¬ing that promise.We cannot, however, applaudthe substance of his reply. In fact,we feel that Beadle’s action stemsfrom a principle which will pre¬vent the University from attain¬ing fully the benefits of Beadle’sleadership. As we interpret theevents of the last two weeks, weare led to conclude that Beadlein effect chose to follow ratherthan to lead.After the Chancellor acceptedthe students’ petition, he askedthe Dean of the College and theDean of students to submit a re¬port to him concerning the histo¬ry and philosophy of the compul¬sory residence rule. This report was submitted by Dean of stu¬dents John P. Netherton. The re¬port represented the opinions ofthe dean of the College, the deanof students, and their staffs. Bea¬dle’s reply to the petitioners mere¬ly refers them to Netherton’sstatement He also states that“there are no persuasive reasonsto alter the decisions which haveb$on made by the appropriate au¬thorities.” In view of the manystatements in support of studentfreedom and responsibility whichthe Chancellor has made to agreat number of College students,we view the Chancellor’s reply asan endorsement of due adminis¬trative process, the concept ofdelegation of responsibility ratherthan as an endorsement of theprinciple and practice of the com¬pulsory residence rule. This en¬dorsement is at best overly mod¬est, and at worst administrativelyunsound.Beadle was chosen as the Uni¬versity’s seventh head officer aft¬er a prolonged and arduoussearch. He was selected by a care¬ful and critical committee to lead the University of Chicago throughan extremely critical period. TheUniversity’s future success de¬pends quite obviously upon hisphysical and intellectual strength.Since this is the case, we do notunderstand the Chancellor's deci¬sion to adopt the Deans’ explana¬tion of the current policy. If thecompulsory residential policy cre¬ated and communicated less thanone year ago satisfactorily ful¬filled all existing needs, would stu¬dents have wasted so much timeand energy attempting to com¬municate their dissatisfaction?Are their anti-administration re¬actions so stereotypic? We thinknot.We do think that an administra¬tor should be able to coordinatethe ideas and activities of his fel¬low workers. We do agree that anefficient administrator must beable to delegate responsibility.But we cannot agree that deci¬sions concerning an issue so ob¬viously important to the presentand future climate of this institu¬tion should bo delegated in thismanner.LetterDean’s statement Vague, general’Dear Editor:The Dean’s report is nothingbut a vague, general statement.The Dean does not set any reason for his action; he only states thathis action is the correct one. Hedoes not answer the questionsraised by the students’ protest. He says that his co-opertaion withthe students shows that he desiresthe “spirit of freedom” and thatstudent petitions are denied onlyin cases of unacceptable risk.What is the “spirit of freedom”of which the Dean has spoken?This report, as the Dean’s pastdealings with the students indi¬cate, says that the “spirit of free¬dom” means onlv the following:The Dean will permit students tothink they are free if he does notobject to their activity. That theDean holds this view of studentfreedom is obvious from his state¬ments about the Student-Faculty-Administration Court. He feelsthat the Court may only consideractions against him when he doesEditor-in-chiefKen PierceBusiness manager Advertising managerWilliam G. Bauer Raymond A. MitchellEditor emeritus Neal JohnstonProduction editor Avima RuderNews editor Jay GreenbergFeature editor Faye WellsNational news editor Gene VinogradoffPolitical news editor Ron DorfmanCulture editor Dorothy SharplessSports editor Chuck BernsteinCadfly editor Robert Strozier, Jr.Copy editor » John JuskeviceSecretory to the editor Carole QuinnCollege editors Laura Godofsky, Judith ShapiroCalendar editor Donna BergCo-Photography coordinators Al Berger, Dan AuerbachCirculation manager Nate SwiftBusiness office manager Joan HelmkinClassified manager Maurice ZeitlinSubscription manager Phil HydeLegal advisor Harry KalvenEditorial staff: Michael Bates, Alix Cremelin, Betsy Ebert, Gary Feldman,M. P. Fleischer, Caryle Geier, Suzy Goldberg, Art MacEwan, Mike Rivard,Ronnie Rosenblatt, Mike Shakman, Irene Sidor, John Steed.Photography staff: Sam Leinhardt, Don Lyon, Ston Slater, Pete Stenn, DougThornton, Sam Zapler.Sports staff: Mike Canes, Max Liberies.The Maroon is issued every Friday during the school year and intermittentlyduring the summer quarter, by students of the University of Chicago. Inquiriesshould be sent to the Chicago Maroon, Ida Noyes Hall, 1212 E. 59th street,Chicago 37, Illinois. Telephones: MI 3-0800, extensions 3265 and 3266. Distributedwithout charge on campus. Subscription by mail $3 per year. Of ice hours: 3 to 6Monday through Friday. Deadline for calendar material: 4 pm Tuesday for thefollowing. Deadline for advertising and editorial material: 3 pm Wednesday forthe following Friday.All unsigned editoidal matter on this page represents the official opinion ofthe Chicago Maroon editorial board. Signed editorial material represents theindividual opinions of the authors.UPS signifies University Press service, maintained by the National Studentassociation.SG Flight OpenSeats are still available on the Student government flight toEurope which leaves from Chicago July 25, landing in London.The flight leaves Paris September 4 on the return journey. In¬terested persons are advised to call ext. 3272 after 2:30 pmimmediately.Wy: wwm,: * - ,>• -.v**'A i&f' > giCHICACO MAROON June 6, 1961mm not object to the *actions beingbrought. He believes it irrelevantwhether he has violated studentfreedom or not.Has the Dean really cooperatedwith the students? IPs voice criesyes; his actions say no.L He did not confer with thestudents prior to the promulga¬tion of the New Residence Re¬quirement.2. When I requested permissionto see the Chancellor to discussthe Residence Requirement, theDean refused to arrange such anappointment.3. The Dean failed to submit areply to my complaint and Briefuntil two and a half hours beforethe SFAC was to meet.4. When I discussed the casewith the Dean, prior to my bring¬ing the ease before the SFAC, theDean called me -‘uncooperative”for bringing the ease.To the Dean Student-Facultycooperation means students coop-eratin.g with him, but not his co¬operation with the students.The Dean has said that peti¬tions are refused in eases of un¬acceptable risks. If there are ra¬tional criteria, why has not theDean stated them? Why have stu¬dents with B-— averages been re¬fused permission to live outsidethe dorms? Is the reason the factthat they are girls?There is lacking in the Dean’sreport any clear reasoning whichcan possibly justify the New Resi¬dence Requirement. Why has theDean failed to give his criteria?Is there no reason, or is heafraid? If he is not afraid, I chal¬lenge the Dean to appear beforethe students and submit to alltheir questions with more thanvague general statements.Fred Cohn, attorney forthe plaintiff in theSFAC housing case One sunny morning not too long ago . . .Ml.. UC administrators were surprised to find GOO students literally perehed on their doorstep. However, by 2 pm thefind population was once again evenly distributed throughout the quadrangles, commented dean of students JohnNetherton, “It certainly is a beautiful duy.”"Maintain open society" Most students are(Continued from pa#e 1#who are, most often, its guardiansin fact.We take great pride in the free¬dom of the Maroon, in the varietyof speakers who appear on cam¬pus, in the many forms in whichresponsibility is delegated to stu¬dents to regulate their own af¬fairs, in the absence of a stultify¬ing spirit of conformity amongfaculty and students alike.This has been an open societyand it is imperative that we main¬tain it as sueh. We must bear inmind at the same time the insti¬tutional responsibility to definethose experiences which facilitateeducation and to avoid thosewhich do not. One clearly estab¬lished element of our educationalpolicy is that residential life isthe most conductive to the kindof education we wish to offer;we have also clearly determinedthat in some cases, living out ofresidence actually is an impedi¬ment to education. Our problem,then, has been to emphasize theimportance of residence in a waywhich preserves the spirit of free¬dom.We have done so through therequirement and the petitioningprocess. If we had simply im¬posed a requirement, it seems tome that student fears of loss offreedom would be justified. Butfrom the first announcement ofthe policy, we have made clearthat exceptions were not only pos¬sible. but expected.Through the regulation westress the importance of life inresidence as part of a Universityof Chicago undergraduate educa¬tion, and we gain automatic con¬sultation with students who wishto live out of residence. This pro¬vides useful information in itself,and also enables us to work sys¬tematically to avoid the kinds ofsituation that have occurred inthe past in which “apartmentlife” has been injurious to stu¬dents.At the same time, through thepetitioning process, we recognizethat all of life does not fit into apattern, that all of our studentsdo not have the same needs, anddesires, and we make apartmentliving possible for those who havea sound preference for it. TheCommittee on .Petitions recentlyconcluded its action on the peti¬tions presented this year. The cri¬terion in general has been this:In each individual case the com¬mittee sought to determine wheth¬er denial would work hardshipand whether approval would in¬volve unacceptable risk.As you know, some four-fifthsof the petitions were granted. Itis clear that in the future, whensecond and third year womcSi arepetitioning, their relative senior¬ity and the experience they havealready had in the Houses shouldand will have considerable weightin favor of approval.I believe that our task has beento make possible the success of asound educational policy in a waywhich preserves the spirit of free¬dom. This, in my view, is bestachieved through the regulationand the petitioning process- Thesafeguards to freedom inherent inthe petitioning process have notyet, it seems to me, been fully ap¬preciated by the student body.As we all gain experience withit. and students see how it actu¬ally works, I am confident thatthey will better understand itsproper function. Similarly, ourprocedures themselves can ofcourse be refined and improved inthe light of experience. With thesethoughts in mind, I have advisedyou that for us to accede to thepetitioners’ request would be toabandon very real educationalgains to no purpose.In concluding, I should like tomake two supplemental points.First, a great task at this stagei« th* history of the Collegeseems to me that of making oursthe best residential college pos¬sible. As you know, I am com¬mitted to this goal, with the fullconcurrence of the Dean and Fac¬ulty of the College. I trust thatin the coming year the studentbody, as individual and throughtheir representative agencies, willalso address themselves to thistask.In the second place, I note thatsome of the statements whichhave gained a certain currencyin the housing discussions haveraised fears about a “trend” ofrestrictions on student freedomand responsibility. In fact, thetrend is in the reverse direction.For the first time m the historyof Government, the ExecutiveCommittee has this year been inregular communication with theDean of Students in a way thathas been useful to all concerned.Unanimously, eleven administra¬tive officers have agreed at myinvitation to work regularly withthe Student Consultant Boards;the effort the administration hasput into this excellent new sys¬tem devised by Government hasat least equalled the student ef¬fort this year.The President of the Govern¬ment and the NSA chairman wereinvited to explain those organiza¬tions to the entering class in Ori¬entation week, the latter for thefirst time in history. The Dean ofStudents has supported NSA andthe cause of responsible studentgovernment in a variety of waysnew this year.The Government’s requests con-eerning the Bookstore have been received and taken under consid¬eration by the Committee of theCouncil of the Senate — the firstofficial communication that hasever passed between these twobodies. The Maroon readershipsurvey has been a oollaboi'ativeundertaking by the newspaper,the National opinion research cen¬ter, and my office. The dean hasspent many hours with the SFACourt in an attempt to help clari¬fy its status and bring it intowhat should be a respected anduseful role in the life of the cam¬pus. The list could be prolonged.None of these gradual steps to¬wards increased student responsi¬bility is in itself epoch-making.Cumulatively, they are verymeaningful. It is a much more dif¬ficult task for student leaders towork patiently to make them thebasis for further progress thanK is to lead debates on such ex¬citing but false issues as threat¬ened censorship of the Maroon, asecret intention to extend thefour-year requirement to men,and others equally unreal thathave lately been mentioned.An aim of all the best Americancollege students these days is stu¬dent-faculty collaboration outsidethe classroom in furtherance ofthe highest academic purposes.Collaboration is a two-way effort,and is impossible without somedegree of mutual trust. Youngpeople who accept such positionsas those held by the sponsors ofthe petition and demonstration as¬sume a truly impressive respon¬sibility to fulfill their importantand delicate function in a waycalculated to improve that truston both sides.John P. Nefkerto* disappointed in GWBby Lmm GodofobyAlthough a few studentswere pleased by ChancellorBeadle’s announcement thatthe administration would liketo keep the compulsory residencerule in effect, most of those quest¬ioned by the Maroon expresseddisappointment because the rulewas not revoked or altered.Len Friedman, president of Stu¬dent government, commented, “Itis indeed unfortunate that the ad¬ministration has decided not toenforce the residential college forwhich the student expressedpreference.“The decision has and will cre¬ate antagonism among studentsthat will prohibit the administra¬tion’s system from coming into ef¬fect. I don’t think it’s unusualthat the administration has ad¬opted means contradictory to itsends.”A 17-year old first-year studentwho will spend next year in Westhouse said, “I’m not really toosurprised. Although I might liketo get out in my fourth year, ifthey’re granting petitions, it’snot so serious (as long as they’llgrant mine.)”Terri Ray, who also will spendher second year in West housenext year said, “It’s rather unfor¬tunate the administration cannotsee its mistake and admit it’swrong.“I like the dorms, but you don’thave to force people into them tocreate a residential college.”Sherwin Kaplan, a second yearstudent who was president ofEast house and who will be living in a« apartment next year, saidhe was “extremely sorry that theUniversity hasn’t seen fk tochange its mind.”Kaplan feels that “all studentshave the right to be given achance to live on their own.”Bruce Vermazen, present sta¬tion manager of WUCB, said thatthe ruling was what he expected.“As an apartment dweller,” thefourth year student said, "Rdoesn’t mean much to me, but asa student, I think it’s sad.”“The dorms are terrible,” hesaid. “Anybody that can live inthe dorms for more than twoyears has a damn strong stom¬ach. Anyone that can put up withthe noise and the bad food isstronger than I.”Vermazen continued, sayingthat the safety offered to girlsby living in the dorm is useless.“Even if they live in the dorms,the girls still live in Hyde Park.”A first-year resident of Cham¬berlin house in Burton Judsoncourt approved the administra¬tion’s decision because he felt theresidence requirement would cur¬tail loose and wild living thatcharacterized apartment dwellers.He was especially glad that thefirst year girls who come herenot responsible enough to liveon their own will be protectedby the University. He thoughtparents especially would appreci¬ate the residence requirement.One of the four students whocursed when asked about Bea¬dle’s statement, finally said herreaction was “decidedly unfavor¬able.”Rally held for Freedom Ridersby Ron DorfmanOh Lord, deep in my hea/rt1 will not yield;We shall overcomeSomeday.This is the song, and t h eprayer, of the student non-vi¬olent movement. It was sungThursday night by some 500residents of Woodlawn with anintensity of feeling and a strengthof conviction which demonstratedthat the Freedom Riders, whomthey were honoring, had the dedi¬cated support of the Negro com¬munity and its most basic insti¬tutions, the churches.The occasion was a meeting ofthe Temporary Woodlawn Organ¬ization (TWO) to salute the cour¬age and devotion of the six Free¬dom Riders who are now in Chi¬cago building support for theirmovement. Four of the six areSouthern Negro students; theother two are a Jewish professoremeritus from Detroit and hiswife. All of them were on the firstbus to test the Supreme Court’sdecision outlawing segregated fa¬cilities in the terminals of inter¬state bus lines; all of them suf¬fered violence from racist mobsin Birmingham, Anniston, andMontgomery.The crowd gathered in a large,brick-walled hall in St. Cyril’sCatholic church at 64th andDante. The walls were coveredwith placards bearing the namesof the International Ladies’ Gar¬ment Workers union, the UnitedSteelworkers of America, theAFL-CIO committee on politicaleducation, the Woodlawn Pastors’alliance, and other groups.Most of the speakers were con¬cerned with attorney generalRobert Kennedy’s call for a “cool¬ing off period” for the freedomrides. Dr. Walter Bergman, for¬merly a professor at Michiganstate university and a UN diplo¬mat in Germany, was scathing inhis denunciation of Kennedy. Heand his wife have dedicatedthemselves to the non-violentmovement, and were passengerson the first “freedom bus.” Hewas several times severely beatenby Southern mobs.“The attorney general has calledfor a cooling off period,” he said,“but the American conscience has been in a deep-freeze since thedays of Abraham Lincoln. No, Mr.Kennedy, it isn’t time to cool off;it’s a time to boil. ... I inviteyon to take a bus ride in theSouth with your fellow cabinetmember, Richard Weaver, theworld’s greatest authority on pub¬lic housing. . . .” (Weaver is aNegro.)Bergman excited his audiencewith a proposal for massive di¬rect action. “In 1961 we are goingto celebrate the Declaration ofIndependence,” he proclaimed. “Iam asking for more than moneyhere; I am asking for people toride to freedom. I am asking forpeople to be the guests of theState of Mississippi in Jacksonjail. It isn’t a nice place, but youhave the best company in theworld there. . . .“I am in Chicago to set up anUnderground Railroad. . . . Theyoung people will come from theiruniversities and travel the roadto freedom!” This brought Berg¬man a standing ovation.Mrs. Bergman, w'hite-haired andmeek, spoke after her husband.She recounted the details of theride from Washington to Mont¬gomery, noting the absence ofcooperation from the police andother Southern authorities in pro¬tecting them from the mobs.“I want to tell you,” she said,“about six days of terror such asI’ve never known. . . . But it wasmore than worthwhile. If it hadtaken our lives and the lives ofall the Freedom Riders to awakenthis nation to its great respon¬sibility, we would have felt thatwe had lived.“This has given me the feelingthat there isn’t anything I couldbe asked to do for this causethat would be too much.“So many wonderful peoplecannot be downed,” she concluded.The Freedom Riders had beenintroduced to the audience bySterling Stuckey, Midwest repre¬sentative of the Congress of Ra¬cial equality (CORE). Stuckeypraised the students as the “spir¬itual offering of Harriet Tubman. . . Frederick Douglass, and Wil¬liam Lloyd Garrison,” and as cor¬rectives to the “long period ofchicanery in the halls of Con¬gress . . . and betrayal by Negro and white intellectuals.”David Dennis, a slim youngman of 20, told the audience that“the Supreme Court can handdown all the decisions in theworld, but it is we who must im¬plement those decisions.” Dennistoo decried the “cooling off peri¬od” suggested by the attorneygeneral. “We’re not going to letit ‘cool off,”’ he said. “We callout to each and every individualin the United States to stand be¬side us and fight. . . . We willmarch across this land as broth¬ers.”The Rev. U. B. Blakely, of theFirst Presbyterian church, cameto the rostrum after Dennis andappealed to the meeting to con¬tribute to the establishment inChicago of a “training school” innon-violence and a parade ofbusses into the South. “The Free¬dom Ride is not a free ride,” hepleaded, “please give till it hurts.”The crowd, composed primarilyof Negro families living in Wood¬lawn, apparently took him at hisword. They contributed upwardsof $500, with pledges for more.One white Woodlawn business¬man pledged his entire week’sprofits to the campaign.A representative of the UC Stu¬dent government received enthu¬siastic applause when he an¬nounced that UC students wouldcontribute $100 to the freedomriders as a result of campus-widesolicitations last Thursday andFriday. The UC contribution willbe channeled through the StudentNon-Violent Coordinating com¬mittee in Atlanta.The clergy was very much inevidence throughout the meeting, and several ministers made ad¬dresses from the platform.The Rev. Arthur Brazier of theApostolic Church of God ridiculedthe “educational approach” to in-tegi’ation by observing that Gov¬ernors “Patterson, Talmadge, andBarnett are all educated men.”Brazier condemned “certainlarge Chicago dailies.” and by in¬ference Walter Lippman, TheNew York Times, and Robert Ken¬nedy for demanding the “coolingoff period.” Brazier contendedthat what the papers were in ef¬fect asking was that the Negronot take advantage of favorablecourt decisions, thus allowing hisconstitutional rights to fall intodestitude.Rev. S. M. Hart, of Mt. CalvaryBaptist church, prayed for thesalvation of the Southei’n peopleand for victory through love overbigotry and intolerance.During a question period, Dr.Bergman was asked by a youngNegi'o in the audience, who saidhe went to “the white man’sschool,” whether he (Bergman)thought that white Southernerswould acquiesce in integration“within two years.” Bei'gman re¬plied that he thought not, but that“long before two yeai’s are up allSouthern whites will be forcedto respect the Constitution of theUnited States.”The meeting closed with thestudents leading the audience inthe singing of “We Shall Over¬come:”Oh, Lord, deep in my heartI will not yield;We shall overcomeSomeday.Freedom Riders speakTwo participants in the Alabama “Freedom Rides” will speaktomorrow at 7 pm in Ida Noyes hall. Isaac Reynolds, a 26-yeat-old student from Detroit, will describe the Freedom Rideisexperiences in the South, and Dr. Walter Bergman will discussthe philosophy of Freedom Rides. Bergman will also explain usplans to set up a Freedom Riders school (training volunteersin the ideas and techniques of non-violent protests) in Chicago-The discussion is being sponsored by Student government, reUniversity chapter of the National Association for the Advancment of Colored Peoples, and the Friends of NUT (New Uni¬versity Thought).—CHICAGO MAROON June 6, 1961