2 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Were those who were active in making these demands, did they attend these meetings to carry on a dialogue THE CHAIRMAN: So you try to accomodate them, and that really is not what they want. Simply their goal is destruction, is it 5 6 7 8 not? MR. BRUNSVOLD: It certainly appeared to be. THE CHAIRMAN: Was there any better way you could accomodate them than with a discussion to hear their point of view, as you proposed to do, I assume, with these meetings? Is that right? MR. BRUNSVOLD: THE CHAIRMAN: We felt we had given them an opportunity. This was the purpose of it, to give them an opportunity to come and discuss their demands, was it not? I should make clear that the invitation 18 19 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't mean the SDS. You made your invi- 21 22 THE CHAIRMAN: You said you would not communicate through the SDS, but you extended it to all students, recognizing. 23 24 all groups, so the invitation went to SDS as much as anyone else? MR. BRUNSVOLD: Yes, indeed. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: And they did not participate and take MR. BRUNSVOLD: Not more than one, to the best of my know ledge. THE CHAIRMAN: What I mean is, these leaders agitating 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 and causing the disorders did not attend to bring about a reconciliation or understanding of this grievance, did they? MR. BROWSVOLD: That is true. THE CHAIRMAN: What I am emphasizing here, and what this omphasizes to me is that they did not care. They would rather have a disagreement than an agreement. They would rather pursue teir objective of creating disorders and dissent and bringing 12 about destruction than to bring about an agreement and accomo All right. MR. ANDERSON: On January 29, a small group of students 14 16 again most members of SDS, demonstrated at SRI's Hanover Street 15 17 facility near the campus. They handed out handbills to employees 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and attempted to engage them in conversation. They were not On April 3 of this year the so called "SRI Coalition" held a meeting to discuss what it called plans for control of SRI. According to those organizing the meeting, the sponsoring groups included: SDS, Resistance, Peninsula Observer, Stanford United Christian Ministry, March 4th Convocation, Peninsula Red Guard, Junior Faculty Forum, United Students Movement, New University Conference, Committee for New Politics, Palo Alto Concerned Citizens, Mid-Peninsula Free University, North Santa Clara Peace and Freedom Movement, and American Federation of Teachers, Local No. 1816. More than 800 people attended the meeting in Dinkelspiel 6 Auditorium on thecampus. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The group voted to demand that the Stanford Trustees "discontinue all plans for severance of SRI fromthe University that inétead SRI be brought under tighter control by the University and that guidelines be established for socially acceptable The group also voted to oppose "ali classified research at SRI as well as the University and all research in the areas of chemical and biological warfare and counterinsurgency at home and abroad and research in support of war against the people-of Vietnam, Laos and Thailand. This was the birth of the April 3rd Movement ar the name for the anti-SRI/anti-University activity, and in the ensuing weeks it was this somewhat loose-knit group of organizations supplemented by many unaffiliated students that signed and dis.... tributed circulars, organized meetings, and participated in demonstrations. On April 9, following a rally in Dinkelspiel Auditorium, some 400 people mostly students forced their way into the 261 This was the incident that was described by Professor 7 8 9 2 Rambo this morning. 3 4 5 6 On April 14, the Scott Committee released its report with the majority recommending the sale of SRE. Three members of the committee supported closer ties between the Institute and the University for the express purpose of achieving control over SRI research activities. THE CHAIRMAN: How many members on that committce? MR. ANDERSON: 12 Members, siz. 12 13 the radicals? MR. ANDERSON: I believe that is correct, yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: I use your term. You called them radicals. of this committee -- two of the students -- I would have to check but two of the students and one other wished to bring the Stanford Research Institute under the intimate con trol of the University in order to control the type of research we did. THE CHAIRMAN: That is what this losse coalition had wanted, so out of 12 members of the committee, they got the support of THE CHAIRMAN: Do they belong to one of the other of these MR. ANDERSON: No, sir, I do not. 4 MR. ANDERSON: I could not say. Wouldn't the records reflect that? MR. ANDERSON: We did not have these records, Senator. 7 MR. ANDERSON: There were six students, Mr. Brunsvold THE CHAIRMAN: So half of the students on the committee, I 10 believe you said only two of the students? 11 MR. BRUNSVOLD: Perhaps I can clarify. There were 12 12 13 members of the committee, six of which were students. Among those two students were among the three committee members 14 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Two of the six students supported the position of this coalition group? 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ANDERSON: Seven members of the committee favored the sale of SRI with a restrictive covenant which would prohibit for a period of 20 to 25 years certain war-related research. Another recommendation was that a student-faculty committee be set up to decide on the moral acceptability of SRI projects. In all, ten of the twelve members recommended that the University exercise control over SRI's research. THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you what the seven voted for there, the sale or restriction? |