A Black Student Response To the Shockley Incident

TO THE EDITOR:

Since so much of the reporting on the Shockley Incident has been slanted against us, we the Black Students involved have to issue a statement of our own.

We condemn the actions of the CCSC on the following grounds. Dealing with the technicalities of whether or not we actually prevented Dr. Shockley from speaking and in turn violated the College guidelines on dissent, let's go back eight months. In the spring term of 1969 anti-ROTC students organized two College-approved rallies on the steps of Parkhurst Hall.

Anti-ROTC speakers tried vainly to speak, but they were shouted at, thrown at and in other ways abused. Anti-ROTC organizers obtained loudspeakers and still the speakers could not be heard.

Now since these actions occurred after the current guidelines were instituted (June 3. 1968) this can be seen as a precedent. Where was Proctor O'Connor to take pictures of these conservative white students and what charges were made? Where was the Provost to say that this was a clearcut violation of the guidelines on dissent.

We were there to prevent Shockley from being heard just as those white students were there to prevent anti-ROTC speakers from being heard. But not once did Shockley utter a word or attempt to see if he could be heard, nor did the College provide Mr. Shockley with any audio aid. The group involved had no plans to physically abuse Dr. Shockley in any way, nor did they. He was not verbally abused or thrown at as were the anti-ROTC speakers.

So if we are going to talk about interpreting the guidelines on dissent and setting dangerous precedents, the College and those conservative white students of Spring Term 1969 interpreted the rules and set the precedents. The white students set a precedent by attempting to shout down and in other ways abusing anti-ROTC speakers.

The College set a precedent and at the same time interpreted the guidelines by not prosecuting or making any official statement against the actions of those white conservative students. Therefore the Black Students had no business being persecuted, because they could only interpret the guidelines from the way in which the College interprets them. We as Black Students now can say that disciplinary rules apply differently to Blacks and whites on this campus. The College should issue two sets of guidelines immediately.

The College accepted the fact that a different body was needed to try the cases of Black Students. The BJC was formed with the same structure and same rules to abide by as the CCSC. The only difference was most of the members were Black.

We believe in a trial by peers but the College believes white makes right. We can only regard this as meaning that the BJC has been established by the College as a token measure of its token commitment to Black Students, and Black people as a whole.

Last spring the CCSC didn't issue its decision on the ROTC protesters until the summer because they felt it might interfere with the students' final exams. The results of our "trial" were issued to us on the first day of final exams because the College didn't want it to ruin our vacations. We feel this only illustrates the double standard prevalent throughout the proceedings.

The reason we were there to prevent Shockley from speaking was because through his slanderous statements Mr. Shockley was endangering the welfare of Black people. In this country Free Speech is supposedly allowed until it endangers the lives of others.

So when The Dartmouth tries to sell a story about H. Rap Brown travelling around saying what he wants, they should mention the fact that he was put under house arrest (silenced) for inciting to riot while Dr. Shockley is free and respected for his scientific proof of Black inferiority and political advocacy of artificial insemination of Black women. We acted to prevent a crime against our people. We acted justly.

The College claimed that the NAS had full responsibility for Shockley's speaking and thus could not cancel it. However, the College took the responsibility of punishing us when the NAS did not think it necessary.

The College was the judge, jury, prosecutor, and plaintiff in this case. Its findings were one-sided and racist. We urge all persons concerned over this to read the findings of the BJC.