Student anti-war demonstrators on the campus of Southwest Texas State University a surrounded by a hostile crowd. Note--This
all but forgotten demonstration and its aftermath are an example of
resistance under hostile conditions with little hope of immediate
success. It may be a model--and a warning--for action in these troubled
times.
In 1969 anti-Vietnam War
protests were literally a dime a
dozen. In the previous five years demonstrations had escaped liberal/radical enclaves
like New York City and Berkley, California and protest
magnate Washington, D.C. to campuses across the United States and to cities and towns in the fly-over
heartland. After radicals and authorities clashed violently at the Pentagon in 1967 and in the streets of Chicago during the Democratic
National Convention a year earlier, the respectable middle class including groups like Another Mother for Peace, Civil
Rights and labor leaders joined
the moderate wing of the peace movement to launch the Vietnam Moratorium on October 15, 1969
and an even larger wave of Moratorium protests were scheduled for a month later
including a mass march on
Washington.
An
event like a small rally at Southwest Texas State University (now Texas State University) in San Marcos, a small central Texas city
30 miles southwest of Austin, on
November 13 was hardly a blip on the
radar screen among the literally scores
of protests being held daily. It was
particularly modest in scope and included no marches, picketing, speeches, or even any hand-out
literature. A few dozen students and a handful of sympathetic staff simply sat down quietly in front of the landmark statue of rearing wild horses by sculptor Anna Vaughn Hyatt near the center of campus.
They held signs like “Vietnam is an Edsel”
and “44,000 U.S. Dead, For What?” Some wore black mourning armbands for the dead on all sides.
Pretty
tame stuff actually. But not mild enough for Texas where patriotism was equated with jingoist militarism and protest of any
kind was suspected of being Communist.
|
Texas author and historian E.R. Bills.
|
Esteemed
Texas historian and writer E.R. Bills has documented the event and its significant fallout in his book, The
San Marcos 10: An Anti-War Protest in
Texas Bills’ previous books
included the gritty depictions of
horrific racist violence in The
1910 Slocum Massacre: An Act of Genocide in East Texas and his
depiction of lynching by burning in Black Holocaust: The Paris Horror
and a Legacy of Texas Terror. His
new book comes on the heels of his essays in Texas Dissident: Dispatches from
a Diminished State 2006-2016. Bills
earned his bachelor of arts degree and
Texas State. Most of the information in
this post comes directly or indirectly from his research and work.
|
E.R. Bills new book. In the cover illustration pro-war students drape
the Huntington Horses monument with an American flag and a love it or
leave it flag.
|
November
13 was actually not the first time students had rallied against the war at SWTSU.
Dozens joined a quiet protest at the same location on the first day
of the Vietnam Moratorium on October 15 without incident or interference
from the University. But the publicity surrounding the protest in the local and state press alarmed and embarrassed
officials, perhaps especially so because the school was the alma
mater of former President Lyndon
Johnson who had been targeted and
vilified by the anti-war movement
for his escalation of the war in
Vietnam.
Led
by Dean of Students Floyd Martine,
the administration scrambled to put the kibosh
on future demonstrations. New rules
strictly regulating protests
were hastily promulgated restricting protests to a designated “free speech area” away from the central quad and forbade demonstration assemblies before 4:00 p.m. on weekdays.
Free Speech Zones were then just beginning to be used to move
protests out of sight out of mind and
away from any targets of the
demonstration. They have since become ubiquitous and a notorious abuse of civil liberties due in no small part, as we
shall see, to the events in San Marcos.
Students
consulted with two lawyers recommended by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who advised them that that they a
First Amendment right to hold
another protest in the original location as long as they did not block traffic or create a disturbance. They determined to press on with their plans
for the second demonstration. A sense of
urgency was compounded when the
first news of the My Lai Massacre
was released the day before.
With
plans going forward Martine set about recruiting football jocks and so-called cowboys—rowdy
West Texas good ol’ boys always up
for a display of macho swagger. Neither group had appeared on their own to
counter the first demonstration. They
were allegedly called out to “represent”
a silent majority of patriotic and loyal students. In reality
they were given wink and nod encouragement to disrupt
and intimidated protesters.
|
The Huntington Horses sculpture by Ann Vaugh Hyatt was a central feature
on the campus quad and a natural gathering point. The rearing
stallions who have thrown off one rider and are about to do the same to
the other was said to represent the spirit of independence and freedom.
|
Regardless
about 75 protestors arrived by the statue at 10 am and began their
witness. They were quickly surrounded by
jeering and threatening counter demonstrators as well as a large number of curious onlookers. At by 10:35 campus police began roping in the demonstrators. Martine read a statement.
Ladies and
gentlemen. May I have your attention please? I am Floyd Martine, Dean of
Students. In the judgment of the university administration, this assembly is a
violation of established university policies as set forth in the Student
Handbook. I hereby direct you to leave
this area within three minutes. Any student remaining beyond that time will
be suspended from school until the fall
of 1970.
While
the 200 or so members of the mob surrounding
the demonstrators screamed epithets and
threats including ominous chants of “string
‘em up!” most of the protestors left the penned in area, many receiving rough handling and pommeling by the jocks with no attempt by campus police to protect
them. Ten students remained kneeling or sitting. At the last moment German instructor Allen Black ducked under the rope to join them.
|
Campus police string the rope line to pen in the protestors being given an ultimatum to leave.
|
In
exactly three minutes Martine told the protestors “Your time is up!” and began taking names of the remaining students. No one was arrested that day, but the protestors promptly received official
written notice that they were suspended.
Despite
continued efforts to smear the students as commies
and dirty hippies, they were
nothing of the sort. Like most of the
students at this second tier public
university they were the sons and daughters of ordinary working and middle class families,
several the first in their families to attend college. They did not look or dress particularly
different from the counter protestors screaming at them. They included a Who’s Who math student, two veterans, one a baseball
player, three other mid-20s males, a 19-year-old male and three women. They were:
27-year-old,
Vietnam veteran David G. Bayless of Silver City, New Mexico, 19-year-old Frances
A. Burleson of Houston,
23-year-old Paul S. Cates of San Antonio, 19-year-old Arthur A. Henson of Pasadena, 23-year-old Michael S. Holman of Austin, 27-year-old David O. McConchie of Wimberly, 24-year-old Murray Rosenwasser of Lockhart, 21-year-old Joseph A. Saranello of Brooklyn, New York, 20-year-old Sallie
A Satagaj of San Antonio, and
18-year-old Frances A. Vykoukal of Sealy.
While
the students were all immediately suspended, the German instructor was not
initially punished. But he and a few
other junior faculty who voiced
public support for the students ultimately had their teaching contracts not renewed.
E.R.
Bills wrote in an essay for the Zinn
Education Project:
On the evening
of the San Marcos 10’s suspension, hundreds of their classmates and faculty
members marched on the Administration Building protesting the 10’s treatment.
The next morning they reappeared and Texas State President Bill Jones told a group of student representatives the
university “means to hurt no one.”
“After all,” Jones
said, “we are here for the same purpose—education.”
The
legal battle on behalf of the
students quickly was on. It turned into
an epic. It began as a grievance within the University system presenting their case to the
Student-Faculty Board of Review,
Jones, and the Texas State University System Board of Regents. Their appeals were denied at every level.
The
ACLU took the case to Federal Court suing Martine, Jones, and SWTSU for
$100,000 in damages. They also asked for a temporary restraining order to prohibit
enforcement of the suspensions until the case was resolved in court, a permanent injunction preventing the
university from making notations on
their permanent records, and a declaratory
judgment that the Student Handbook policy dealing with student expression be void because it was vague and over-broad. The ACLU reasonably
argued that the University and other defendants
had “created a policy which violates the rights of freedom of speech and
assembly granted under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.”
In
early December the court denied the immediate appeal for
reinstatement of the students without ruling on the merits of the case. But he
wrote, “no party denies that the First Amendment applies with full vigor on the
campus, but a university by reasonable regulation, can limit and regulate the
exercise of rights granted by the Constitution. . .” That was a clear signal the whole action would ultimately be denied.
However
on December 13 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in New Orleans temporarily
blocked the suspensions pending disposition of the appeal. The students were allowed to resume studies
at the University and enroll for the spring
semester as the case wound through the courts.
But
in July of 1970 the same court ruled that the school had acted within their
rights, effectively affirming the original suspension order. Lawyers filed an appeal of that ruling and a
second suit demanding that the students receive full credit for the work completed during the initial appeal.
The
second suit again landed before Judge Roberts who ruled against the 10, stating
that he could see no constitutional
justification for reversing the finding conclusion of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Ironically
when SWTSU president Jones tried to personally apologize to Lyndon Johnson for
the protest, the former President who was racked with regrets over the war told
him, “They were right.”
|
Liberal icon and court maverick William O. Douglas was the only member
of the Supreme Court to vote to hear the San Marcos 10 appeal.
|
In
1972 an appeal was made to the Supreme
Court, but only stalwart liberal
Justice William O. Douglas voted to hear the case. Without comment or a determination of the
facts, the Supreme Court’s inaction allowed
the suspension decision to stand.
Not
only were the San Marcos 10 retroactively suspended, but they were denied refunds to their already paid tuition. The following notation was placed in their
student transcripts, “The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled for the administration
and all credit is denied.”
The
case of the San Marcos 10 was quickly obscured as anti-war demonstrations
heated up across the country by student occupations
of college facilities, and student anti-war demonstrators were shot and killed at Kent State in Ohio and Jackson State in Mississippi in 1970 leading to more than a week of student strikes across the nation.
But
the ghost of the case still haunts justice. It remains a precedent often cited in
cases of university attempts to stifle campus free speech. Although some lower and appeals courts have
reached different conclusions depending on the exact details of the suppression
the current hyper conservative Supreme
Court majority can be counted upon
to apply the precedent broadly against
dissent.
Terrific read!
ReplyDelete