Special speaker ban issue, volume 13, number 4

"Big Lie" Technique Directed at UNC

Smear Campaign Approaches Crisis

Answers To Some Of The Gag Law Charges

Although we can deplore the falseness and the evil in the organized attack upon the University, there is something to admire in the sheer. power and effectiveness of the propaganda campaign launched by our foes.

Not since Joseph Goebbels masterminded the Nazi propaganda efforts before and during World War II has there been such a use of the "Big Lie" technique. The false and twisted accusations now rampant in North Carolina, and directed against the University and in favor of the Speaker Ban Law, are enough to make a Goebbels and a Hitler jump with glee.

"Make the lie big enough and it will be believed." That is the hallmark of the Nazi propaganda.

"Repeat the lie. Tell it over and over. Repetition makes it stick." In North Carolina today, leading supporters of the speaker Ban Law display a shocking familiarity with the tools and paraphernalia of Fascist and Communist propaganda.

Flooding North Carolina, too, are the tricks in the arsenal of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

One newspaper, editorially friendly to the University, declares "The image of the University is tarnished."

It would be more accurate to say that the image of the University has been smeared.

Technicians of the Big Lie and the Smear, as presently employed against the University, can be counted off.

1. The public of North Carolina is behind the Speaker Ban Law. If a referendum were held today, it would go overwhelmingly for the Gag Law and against the University.

Reply: That is not borne out by available facts. Despite the pressure exerted by enemies of the University on the Legislators and in spite of organized letter-writing campaigns by pro-Gag Law groups, there is evidence that the major sentiment in the State is opposed to the Speaker Ban Law and in favor of academic freedom and free speech in the University. One newspaper in a large North Carolina city last week conducted a poll; it was discovered that 68 per cent of the people didn't know or didn't care about the law. Of those showing an interest, the persons against the law far outnumbered the ones in favor of it. In a debate before a civic club in a sizeable North Carolina city last week, two members engaged in the pros and cons of the Speaker Ban Law; at the conclusion, a vote was taken, 50 to 30 against the Gag Law. Assertions that the public of North Carolina is largely for the Gag Law have gone unchallenged. Even those who are opposed to the law have been willing to assume the mass of people of North Carolina are against the University and for the Gag Law. It is more appropriate to say that the knowledgeable public opposes the law and supports freedom in the University.

2. The University has lost touch with the people of the State. There is a communications problem affecting the flow of information between the University and the people of North Carolina, and a curtain between the University and the Legislators.

Reply: These are the phrases of the propagandists who are themselves distorting the meaning of free speech. The enemies of the University have themselves attempted to stir up the people of North Carolina and to pressure the Legislature. The University maintains good public relations with the press and other news media and through them with the public of North Carolina. The specious cry of "lack of communications" is phony and contrived. There is no need for the University to re-design its image to provide an appearance that would be pleasing to Jesse Helms, to Hoover Adams, to Col. Henry Royall. The University at Chapel Hill is already a University of stature and is behaving in the way a University should act; in opposing the Speaker Ban Law and in saying so in the strongest terms possible, we are only acting in a manner in which any self-respecting University should act. We cannot do otherwise. The University has not lost touch with the people of the State. Neither have the people of the State lost touch with the University. It is not the Linage of the University that needs changing. What is needed is to clear the air of smoke screens. If any changes are required, changes are needed in the deliberate and astigmatic representations being made against the University by its enemies.

3. The University should not provide a platform for Communist speakers.

Reply: This eye-catching slogan is devious. It puts the friends of the University in a position of saying "We do want to provide a platform for Communists." The truth is that no faculty member and no student wants to make the University a central forum for Communist propaganda. But we do want to be an arena of free speech and discussion. The University is anti-Communist. Faculty and students and administrators are opposed to communism. Communism is not the issue at all. The issue is free speech. Students have the right to hear-to listen to all shades of opinion. The danger of Communist conspiracy is well known and recognized. We should not be afraid to hear their doctrines. It is proper to see, hear, and debate the enemy. "Let truth and falsehood grapple" - and let students, witness the struggle and participate in it, so that they may be stronger in character and loyalty as free men and women.

4. Communism and its danger on the campus is the reason why the Speaker Ban Law was enacted.

Reply: It has been shown abundantly that race, politics, demonstrations and other factors unrelated to Communism are the real reasons why the Gag Law was passed. Crying "communism" is only the means for popularizing the campaign. It is obvious beyond the shadow of doubt that the Speaker Ban Law was brought about because of (1) The Civil Rights marches in 1962 and 1963, particularly the demonstrations in front of the Sir Walter Hotel in Raleigh where most of the legislators were staying, (2) The political campaigns of 1960 and 1964, wherein Beverly Lake lost both times, but remains politically potent because of his balance-of-power swing of support in the second democratic primary run-off of 1964. There are other factors, such as political log-rolling and swapping of votes in the General Assembly, but those are the two prime reasons.

5. Loss of accreditation is no real threat to the University, and the State can set up its own accreditation agency.

Reply: That is the silliest one of all. The University as a whole not only faces loss of accreditation, but the individual professional schools ultimately will be endangered by their own national accrediting agencies in the decline that follows. It is significant that most of those who say accreditation does not matter have allegiance to some college or university other than the University at Chapel Hill. Perhaps many of these would be pleased to see Chapel Hill torn down, brought down in size and distinction comparable with some of the rival colleges in North Carolina; after the destruction of what we now know to be a strong University of North Carolina, all colleges and universities in the State could start over again on a more equal basis.

6. Patriots such as those now fighting in Viet Nam are for the Speaker Ban Law. Those opposing the Speaker Ban Law are less patriotic. Veterans should support the Gag Law. Professors are against the Speaker Ban Law; therefore, they are not as loyal as those who support the Gag Law.

Reply: There is no connection between fighting in Viet Nam, or fighting in World War I or II, or the Korean War, and in being for or against the Speaker Ban Law. The number of faculty members at Chapel Hill who have fought in these wars, and have been in combat, is proportionately higher than for the public of North Carolina at large, and larger than the national average. Among the faculty at Chapel Hill who have declared themselves against the Speaker Ban Law are veterans who have been in combat. They have been decorated for valor and for bravery in action. They have paid in blood to show their patriotism and have

(Continued on Page 2)



The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is the prime target in the attack upon the state-supported colleges and universities of the State. The main shafts of misrepresentation have been directed at Chapel Hill. This issue of The University Report is dedicated to alumni, faculty, parents of students, and friends of the University who are being urged to make their voices heard in defense of free speech.

Birchers, K.K.K., Super-Patriots, Racists Converge in Attacks Upon University

Who's got it in for UNC?

Links in the chain of evidence are coming into focus.

Big Lie practitioners and smear artists include:

Racist politicians.

Exploiters of their war veteran status. A few distinguished citizens who consent to be interviewed and quoted-anonymously.

And now-added to that undistinguished list is another: The Ku Klux Klan.

The KKK is passing around petitions -in favor of the Gag Law, and against the University of North Carolina.

The foes of the University are loud, aggressive, oily, and-to be fair-smart, skillful, shrewd.

They have succeeded in immobilizing a large body of North Carolinians who actually are against the Speaker Ban Law, but have been too timid to speak out.

Our enemies are adept in the strategy of advising non-action. They have convinced many who are friends of the University that silence may be the best policy. They have threatened those who speak up. Criticism will be knocked down, they declare, with a law in 1967 that is worse than the present Gag Law.

The Winston-Salem Journal asks editorially: "Where are the friends of the University of North Carolina? . . . Where are the alumni of the University at Chapel Hill? . . ."

Perhaps the friends and alumni of the University are out there ready to be called!

In the crisis of the last two years there is one voice-or series of voices-that have not been silent. These are the voices of the editors of newspapers. The press is overwhelmingly for the University and opposed to the fetters on the University's freedom. It will be well for all of us to remember in the future: The press stuck by the University.

The press and the University find themselves in the same boat.

Most of the 200 newspapers of North Carolina are against the Speaker Ban Law. They have editorialized in favor of the University's positions.

Reaction by enemies of the University was immediate. They jumped on the press, too. The newspapers were lumped with the University in the same duffle bag to be dropped over the side-if the Gag Law adherents, racists, political haymakers, Ku Klux Klanners, Birchers and professional flag-wavers have their way.

Press Comes to Rescue; Is Also Smeared by Stiflers of Free Speech

The 14 daily newspapers, morning and evening, in North Carolina's seven largest cities have staked themselves out in editorials opposing the Gag Law and. explaining to their 800,000 subscribers why freedom of speech, freedom to hear, freedom to assemble, academic freedom and other freedoms of the people are involved in the great North Carolina controversy. Editors of the newspapers in Durham, Greensboro, Charlotte, Asheville, Winston-Salem, Wilmington, and Raleigh have expressed themselves strongly, logically, earnestly, urgently, and with devotion to the highest standards of ethical conduct and journalistic persuasion.

The majority of the other daily newspapers in North Carolina's 35 smaller cities and towns are also against the law regulating speakers on campuses, and in favor of the position taken by the University's trustees which asks for repeal or amendment of the law. Their total circulation is about 425,000.

Of the 150 weekly and semi-weekly newspapers in the state, the vast majority opposes the Gag Law.

Among the anti-intellectuals the typical response to the attitude of the press is crystallized in a response by one legislator who favors the Gag Law: "We don't pay any attention to what the professors say, and we don't listen to the editors."

When it comes to television, that other Powerful news media, there is a different story. Of the nine commercial TV stations in North Carolina. only two have a policy of editorializing on the air. These two are WRAL-TV in Raleigh and WBTV in Charlotte. On those two stations, Jesse Helms and Alan Newcomb, speak vehemently in favor of the Speaker Ban Law, their positions cleared and expressions scrutinized by editorial boards representing the top management of their corporations.

Why is it that most editors of newspapers are against the Speaker Ban Law while at the same time the only two TV stations commenting are rabidly for the law? Is it because newspapers are older and cognizant of the history of free speech and how it was acquired? Editors are deeply committed to high ideals of freedom and traditional independence of thought.

In the virulent attacks upon the University, the minority group of newspapers, the anti-University political combines, and the minority of TV stations (but the one speaking most loudly) have followed a line of propaganda that has fooled some of the people some of the time.

Here are some of the misleading and repetitive phrases that have beat upon the ears and eyes of North Carolinians:

We love the University, but . . . Many speakers supporting the Speaker Ban Law preface their remarks with words of respect for their University, and appreciation for its position and stature.

Reply: The actions of such people are so loud that it's difficult to hear their words of affection for the University. They show no comprehension of the reasons why a University must be free, to let its students speak and hear freely, to be a center for discussion and debate of pros and cons, bad and good, virture and evil.

Do nothing, Say Nothing, Sit Still-Speaker Ban vigilantes warn University professors and officials to pipe down. Don't criticize the Legislature or legislators. Accept this law and be quiet about it. Any effort to remove it will only end in a stronger and more oppressive law. "Why should anyone object to a Speaker Ban Law?" they exclaim. "We are amazed at the bitterness and hostility it has aroused." Even friends of the University who are striving to have the law amended are sucked in by the same admonitions-"Don't antagonize them, let's wait and work quietly. Don't fight it. It will pass away in time."

Reply: There comes a time when a man, or a University, must decide when to stand up and be counted, to speak strongly, indignantly, against injustice. He must make up his mind whether to be or not to be a University. Skillful propagandists are attacking and striking with brass knucks and warning of worse to come if the victims offer resistance. Those who would ordinarily come to the aid of the University are neutralized by counsel to keep hands off, that all will be adjusted in time, as soon as they have stopped beating the University for the unforeseeable future. At first, that philosophy did prevail, and the University-put, well-reasoned objections, courteously offered, were received with abrupt sarcasm and threats of additional reprisals. When the months passed, and nothing happened to change the law and free the University, the self-restrained positions by faculty and students became stronger. The Gag Law advocates were ready. They screamed that they themselves were the injured ones, that legislators had been vilified. Threats of stronger measures against the University were repeated. The truth is that not enough voices have been heard from the ranks of those who are against the Gag Law and who are eager to come to the assistance of the University. It is time for alumni and friends of the University to speak up. The Commission appointed by the Governor to investigate the Speaker Ban Law and its effects on accreditation welcomes comment by North Carolinians. This Commission not only invites, but has a vital need for sound opinion voiced by people who have given thought and attention to the dangers confronting the University. If the Commis-

(Continued on Page 3)

- Editorial -

The University needs your help.

Its stature as a University is in Danger.

Legislators favoring the Speaker Ban Law say: "This law is popular back home. Our constituents want it on the books."

Other Legislators, against the Speaker Ban Law and in favor of the University of North Carolina maintaining its accreditation, say: "The overwhelming majority of North Carolina community leaders recognize the insidious danger of this law. They want the authority to run the University returned to the Board of Trustees."

We are confident most alumni, parents and others of North Carolina are for the University and will act for the University-now.

Will you make your views known to all who may be concerned? Please do it without delay.

It took 171 years to build the University to its present respected position among universities of the world.

It can be torn down much quicker.

Your University is in jeopardy. Will you come to its aid today?

Some Answers

(Continued from Page 1 )

been awarded the Purple Heart medal for their wounds. For the American Legion to question, by innuendo and by direct assault, the integrity and loyalty of these faculty members is reprehensible and dastardly. It is also noted that some of these Legionnaires who speak so forcefully about patriotism and Viet Nam were summer soldiers who were noncombatants in World War I and II, and some of them never left the friendly shores of the United States.

7. The reaction of University people against the action of the 1963 Legislature was startling. The bitterness and hostility towards the General Assembly was astonishing. The Legislature must now show the University professors who is the boss.

Reply: If there was any genuine surprise at objections to the Gag Law, that is the most astonishing state of mind that can be imagined. If the faculty and others in the University had taken it lying down, they would not be worthy of calling themselves faculty and University people. Their indignation was honestly 'felt and forcefully put. The perpetrators of the Gag Law surely knew there must be objections to it; otherwise they would not have ramrodded it through the way they did. The "let them know who's boss" tact is the wildest of all. A distinguished Legislative body can withstand criticism without retaliation. The Congress of the United States is continuously criticized, so is the UN, and so are other parliamentary bodies of the world. The insinuation that the North Carolina General Assembly is above criticism cannot be permitted to go unanswered. There is no question and no deprecation of the General Assembly or of individual legislators when the University of North Carolina legitimately comes to its own defense as a University, and clearly cites the reasons therefore. Only a feeling of guilt by those who have attacked the University can account for the hostility exhibited by some of the legislators.

The Legislature is "boss." Not all of the legislators have acted the tyrannical boss. Nor will tyranny towards the University prevail in the long run.

8. Communists are in Chapel Hill. The campus is a haven for Communists, and the atmosphere spawns leftists. Innocent boys have learned the ways of communism at Chapel Hill.

Reply: That is the meanest libel of all. In 30 years only a handful of leftists and admitted Communists have appeared at Chapel Hill, out of enrollments totaling about 25,000. Insisting upon "visibility" and open discussion, leftism has been discouraged. The one or two major examples of Communist membership will clearly show in those students' childhood traumas and family experiences that came long before arrival in Chapel Hill. Suppression of free discussion at Chapel Hill over the past 30 years might have produced ten times the number of Communists, while wrecking the University. Suppression in the next 30 years could invite similar results.


Governor Moore's Commission on Speaker Ban Investigation Gives U.N.C. Chance to Be Heard

"If you are against the Speaker Ban Law, you are for Communism"-True or False?


Pro-Gag Law activists in North Caro, Tina try to fob off on the people twisted logic and falsehood.

Being for free speech is the opposite of favoring communists. It merely means colleges and universities welcome opportunities to hear all sides of a question. It means not being afraid of the enemy. It means confidence in the intelligence of students to spot a lie and distinguish the false from the true.

Those who would keep the University gagged make their pitch in amazingly simple terms. "If you don't ban communist speakers, you are for communism," they say.

They also ask: "Why do you want to bring communists to the campus?' Their implication is clear-"You must want to spread communist doctrine and train young communists."

Even many alumni and friends of the University who are opposed to the Speaker Ban Law and know its evils advise caution in talking about communism. "You can't win that argument," they declare. "You are right but the mass of the people don't understand. The large body of people believe the super-patriots."

Perhaps the intelligence of the mass of people of North Carolina is being underestimated by the demagogues.

The people of North Carolina may be smarter than the Birchers and the racist propagandists give them credit for.

At any rate, it's proper to tell the truth. It's right to try to nail the lie, It's correct to attempt to clarify and set straight the false innuendo. Adlai Stevenson said, "Let's talk sense to the American people." Perhaps we should say in North Carolina, "Let's talk sense to fellow Tar Heels. Give them credit for being able to separate truth from falsehood and the complex from the simple. Is it so that truth will ultimately triumph? Is it a fact the truth crushed to earth will rise again?

Governor Dan K. Moore has done a tremendous service for the University and for the people of North Carolina it appointing a Commission to investigate the Speaker Ban Law and its effects or the colleges and universities of the state -True or False?


Even those who were impatient at first and had hoped Governor Moore would throw his weight and influence behind a repeal or amendment of the Gag Law in the 1965 General Assembly may now come to see the wisdom of his action.

The Britt Commission, named by the Governor to examine the Gag Law, provides the opportunity for the University of North Carolina and the other colleges of the State to tell the public of North Carolina exactly what they mean by free speech and untrammeled discussion on campuses.

For many months the Gag Law issue was fought behind the scenes. Many were cautioned not to speak out. A few legislators even threatened reprisals-an even more onerous law-if faculty members criticized. Timidity prevailed in many quarters. Many others thought that silence in public and calm, backstage, negotiation would be the means of getting rid of the Speaker Ban Law. The strategy of "Let's Not Antagonize Anybody" appeared the safe course.

But now the battle is in the open. The Governor's Commission welcomes all sides to come and state their views. The University and the other colleges have a magnificent public relations opportunity-not before offered to them in such a useful and dramatic way.

The University and its alumni can now defend itself against false accusation and answer its critics. The opportunity is here to acquaint the public of North Carolina with the ideas of democracy and freedom, the meaning of a University, the threefold functions of teaching, research and service to the State. The Britt Commission provides this opportunity in formal presentations and penetrating questions. All this is done on live television.

As in the McCarthy hearings on TV in the 1950's, the mass public of North Carolina can see and hear the testimony. They can see the manner of men and women who accuse the University, what they look like, how they reply to cross-examination. In the glare of the TV camera, with the intelligent commissioners striving and succeeding in bringing out the facts, the watching public can determine who seems arrogant, who appears oily, who gives the appearance of honesty and sincerity, who seems unnecessarily bombastic, who talks sense, who takes the evasive path, who appears to be just a little bit the odd-ball. You can't fool the public for long.

Many say the television hearings ruined McCarthy. TV hearings before the Britt Commission may ruin or revoke the Speaker Ban Law. It may ruin the University and the colleges.

But we can have faith in free discussion, as offered by the Governor's Commission. Those who believe the University is right need not fear. The University has nothing to lose in speaking frankly, fully, and in discussing any facets of the Speaker Ban Law.

The main thing is to overcome timidity to speak as strongly as you feel, to talk sense to the people of North Carolina.

"We never hear any professor at Chapel Hill speak against communism. They ought to come out and say am opposed to communism.' " That tack has been taken by a few of the foes of the University-and has even been repeated by a few of its friends.

It is false.

Faculty members at Chapel Hill have indeed spoken out forcefully against communism.

When the libel was suggested in 1963 that faculty members did not oppose communism and were leftist in philosophy, nine faculty members were asked to appear at the annual North Carolina Press Institute and to tell the assembled publishers and editors exactly what they were teaching about philosophy, religion, sociology, psychology, political science, business administration and other disciplines.

The faculty members amply demonstrated not only an opposition to communism, but gave cogent reasons why they opposed it-on economic grounds, for religious and philosophic reasons, because of the recognized danger of the international communist conspiracy.

If it would do any real good, perhaps faculty members would declare daily and before every lecture that "I am opposed to communism." They could write it on the blackboard 10,000 times and require their students to do the same. But that isn't called for.

The lives and teaching of University people testify to their loyalty to their nation. Hundreds of faculty who oppose the Gag Law are themselves patriots, veterans of combat in wars fought by the United States, winners of medals for bravery in action, honored by purple heart awards for wounds they suffered and for blood shed on the battlefields. There are on the faculties at Chapel Hill and on the other campuses honorable men who oppose the Speaker Ban Law. They have proved their devotion to their country. There is no lack of Americanism on the campuses. To the contrary, our faculty members are dependable leaders in the nation's time of crisis. They have proved it.

The Big Lie technique used by enemies of the University of North Carolina will not rob the faculty of the credit justly due them for their service to the State and Nation and to their students.

(Continued from Page 2)

sion is to make a decision in favor of the University, the Commission needs support. The pressure of the anti-University forces, for instance, must meet with counter-pressure from alumni and friends. Even though the jury may be ready to render a verdict in favor of the University, the friends of the University first have got to take the stand and testify. It is not true that the great majority of North Carolinians are against their University and for suppression of speech on the campuses. There is a slow but rising tide of sentiment in favor of the University, and it comes from the masses of people of the State. It is time for friends of the University to get UP on their feet, to answer the slander against the University, to express their confidence in the University's trustees and its officers, to reply to the calumny of detractors, to write letters to editors, and to legislators and to the Governor's Commission stating their sincere convictions. The derogatory of the University have their letter-writing campaigns, their threats against legislators, their demeaning of the press and professors. It is time to take the offense against the offenders against free speech.

Confess Error and Ask Forgiveness -That is one of the trickiest propaganda moves by the Speaker Banners. Several politicians hinted they would be glad to let the University up-if only the were some indication of regret over "liberalism and leftist leanings" at Chapel Hill and reforms which would include control over visiting speakers. In a WRAL-TV broadcast Jesse Helms insinuated that some accommodation may still be in sight, if there is assurance that the University community will resolve to mend its ways, and give that assurance contritely and publicly. They counsel the University to commit blatant hypocrisy.

Reply: The University should not confess sins when no sins have been committed. The University will not and the University cannot be for bans on speakers. It would not be a university if it were to take such a stand.

The State can accredit itself - The University here and the other colleges and universities of the State don't need the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, says Thad Eure. The State can establish its own accrediting agency.

Reply: North Carolina is now the only state having a speaker ban law and is threatened with disaccreditation. All the other states are members of accrediting associations. North Carolina should not secede from the other 49 states of the nation. Self-accreditation education would probably be as effective as a doctor licensing himself to practice medicine -or a man in need of money printing his own ten dollar bills, or manufacturing his own driver's license. If the University is to aspire to universal and national standards, there must be accreditation on a universal or national basis.


". . . Strikes at Jugular Vein of the University . . . "

(An Appraisal of the Gag Law by a Philosopher)

By Maynard Adams, UNC Philosophy Department

Although the position of the academic community on the Speaker Ban Law has been stated many times by able spokesmen, apparently some of our political leaders, and no doubt many of our citizens, do not understand even now the basis of our opposition.

The people of North Carolina have built a number of good colleges and an outstanding university system and commissioned them to advance learning at the higher levels through teaching and research. Academic freedom is not a privilege of our faculties and students, but a necessary condition for our educational institutions to meet their obligations to society.

The function of a university is not merely to transmit to students today's "knowledge and wisdom," but to assess critically the accepted body of opinions and practices in order to correct and to advance beyond them, and, perhaps most important of all, to train and to develop

On the U.N.C. faculty are combat veterans of World Wars and Korean War, winners of medals for bravery in action, holders of the Purple Heart award for wounds. Yet, these veterans are against the Speaker Ban Law and for free speech in the University. These faculty veterans are the best reply to the innuendo by the American Legion that support of the Gag Law is the patriotic thing to do.

sensitive, inquiring, critical minds devoted to and skillful in the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.

A felt contradiction or some form of logical inconsistency, is the irritant that drives the human mind to question, to think, to inquire. No mind can be at peace as long as it is aware of an inconsistency within itself, for inconsistency is our basic criterion of error and failure. Consistency, on the other hand, is coveted as our primary mark of success, but when one feels that he has achieved it, his mind rests. Only troubled minds do intellectual work.

The sole test of truth for any body of beliefs, memories, and experiences is their consistency with one another and the fact that to replace any of them with their negatives would create some logical incompatibility within the whole. Indeed rational appraisal in any area, including plans, decisions, and actions as well as experiences and beliefs, depends upon the criterion of consistency.

Furthermore, the scope of experience, thought and action taken into account is vitally important. Consistency within a narrow range may yield to inconsistency when the field is broadened.

What was better established than Newtonian physics for two hundred years Yet it proved to embody contradictions within the expanded experience and thought of scientists and thus led to the creative work of Einstein and other modern physicists. The old familiar work of absolute space and time had to yield to a baffling and staggering world-view that only a few can grasp even now.

The only assurance we have for the validity of any of our experiences thoughts, and actions is that they have been exposed to the possibility of contradiction or some form of logical inconsistency and have withstood the hazards involved. But to gain this assurance, we have to be prepared for the possibility that long cherished beliefs and institutions may crumble and new ones emerge before the widening experience and thought of the human mind

Throughout history, more often than not, societies have resisted such changes by building walls in one form or another to protect themselves from exposure to new experiences, ideas, and practices But we have built here in the West, and most particularly in America, a free society dedicated to the proposition that progress is possible only through maximum exposure to the possibility of contradiction, for we have learned that it is the only way our errors can be revealed and truth gained.

Our colleges and universities are our primary institutional means for progress through truth. Any attempt within them, from whatever source, to shield or to protect our beliefs and institutions from exposure to contradiction from any quarter of human experience strikes at the jugular vein of a university and threatens a free society. The spontaneous uproar of the academic community about the Speaker Ban Law was a natural expression of life instincts. Our concern, however, is not narrow and selfish, but for our colleges and university and the free society we all love.

The Speaker Ban Law cuts us off in e significant way from the experiences and thoughts of practically half the present population of the earth. It bars, in all areas of study, advanced students and professors, as well as undergraduates from direct encounter with many of the world's most eminent men and women in their respective fields of endeavor. Such restriction does not in any way obstruct the Communist revolutionary cause, but it does thwart education in North Carolina and our efforts at better world understanding.

Any form of political censorship of the teaching and research activities of our responsible educational institutions violates their commission by society, interferes with the fulfillment of their purpose, and blinds society itself to reality.

"Say not, the struggle naught availeth,

The labour and the wounds are vain,

The enemy faints not, nor faileth,

And as things have been they remain

For while the tired waves,vainly breaking

Seem here no painful inch to gain,

Far back, through creeks and inlets making,

Comes silent, flooding in, the main."

-From "Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth," by Arthur Hugh Clough.

The greatest evil in Communism is its fear of freedom and its insistence on a closed society. While we oppose its walls and iron curtains, we must not build our own. Free, open, critical minds are our best hope. We must keep faith in our free institutions and make them work. Otherwise we will bury ourselves.

Speaker Ban Law Commission Named

Governor Dan K. Moore and the Speakers of the House and Senate have appointed a distinguished commission to study the Speaker Ban Law. The members are:

Representative David Britt, Chairman, Fairmont.

Colonel William T. Joyner, Wachovia Bank Bldg., Raleigh.

Mr. Charles M. Myers, President Burlington Industries, Greensboro.

Mrs. Elizabeth Swindell, Publisher Wilson Daily Times, Wilson.

Senator Gordon Hanes, President Hanes Hosiery Co., Winston-Salem.

Rev. Ben C. Fisher, Southeastern Seminary, Wake Forest.

Representative Lacy Thornburg, Sylva.

Representative A. A. Zollicofer, Henderson.

Senator Russell Kirby, Wilson.


VOL. 13 NO. 4

Published Bi-Monthly by the University Development Council of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Second class postage paid at Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Inquiries are welcomed and should be addressed to the Editor, 302 South Building, Chapel Hill, N. C. Circulation this issue 75,300

Special speaker ban issue, volume 13, number 4
Special speaker ban issue of The university report, volume 13, number 4 (July-August, 1965). Four page bi-fold newsprint. The university report was published bi-monthly by the University Development Council of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. North Carolina’s Speaker Ban Law was passed by the North Carolina General Assembly on June 26, 1963. Essentially, it forbade anyone to speak on any University of North Carolina campus with known ties to the Communist Party or any subversive groups advocating overthrow of the U.S. Constitution.
July 1965 - August 1965
Original Format
28cm x 39cm
Local Identifier
Location of Original
Joyner NC Rare
This item has been made available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Researchers are responsible for using these materials in accordance with Title 17 of the United States Code and any other applicable statutes. If you are the creator or copyright holder of this item and would like it removed, please contact us at als_digitalcollections@ecu.edu.

Contact Digital Collections

If you know something about this item or would like to request additional information, click here.

Comment on This Item

Complete the fields below to post a public comment about the material featured on this page. The email address you submit will not be displayed and would only be used to contact you with additional questions or comments.

Comment Policy