Heyns makes it clear that he has gone about as far as he can go, or as far as the Regents will let him. "This situation isn't at all like 1964. Since then, our students have enjoyed the 'free forum.' They are free to assemble on campus, invite controversial guest speakers to talk, distribute literature, collect funds, solicit memberships, and support political candidates.
"We have recognized that freedom, while inviolate in principle, must be exercised under regulations assuring that the time, place, and manner of their exercise will not interfere with the University's educational functions. The rules we follow now arose from the very processes of the free forum. They were initiated and formulated by faculty members and students who were closest and most sensitive to the issues of free speech -- those who had been most active in the events of 1964."
This kind of rhetoric, balanced against the legitimate criticisms put forth by the ASUC, gives a clear picture of what really has happened at Berkeley. Students and faculty, although their ideas are miles apart, are at least talking in the same terms -- and about the same thing. Non-students, on the other hand, are increasingly isolated; their appeals -- above and beyond what most students want -- are the most widely heard, however.
Student Control
Non-students on the strike committee (which is still operative) have a vision, and Mrs. Lieberman's predictions of a revolutionary stirring are typical. At the final strike rally, Savio told the strikers that "we're going to give this administration trouble until students really run this university."
In the literature that emanates from Savio's run-down apartment a few blocks from the campus -- toward the seedier part of Berkeley -- there is a real revolutionary tone. One leaflet circulated during the strike demanded that students be given:
* Authority to make social rules for the dormitories;
* A voice in university admissions policies;
* Greater freedom in picking outside speakers to address campus audiences;