325

OverviewVersionsHelp

Facsimile

Transcription

Status: Complete

304

"The bill (House Bill 1395), as I have said, was passed into law on June 26. The first knowledge that I had that such a law was contemplated came to me at about a quarter of three in the afternoon of June 25 when someone heard a radio news report that a law which would prohibit certain persons from speaking at state-supported colleges and universities had been introduced in the House of Representatives that afternoon and, after brief discussion, passed under suspension of the rules and transmitted by messenger to the Senate. By a telephone call I learned that the Senate was about to be convened in afternoon session. Mr. Weaver and I drove immediately to Raleigh hoping to reach the Legislative Building in time at least to apprise some members of the Senate of the gravity of such an action. By the time we reached Raleigh the bill had already been passed in the Senate also under suspension of the rules, and sent to the Enrolling Office. Even then, after securing a copy of the bill and seeing the difficulties that it must raise, we made inquiry as to whether the technical status of the bill would admit of some hearing or possible reconsideration, an undertaking rendered all but hopeless by the fact that the bill lacked only the formality of ratification; that is, the signature of the presiding officers, before it became law.

"When the Senate convened the next morning a number of Senators introduced a motion favoring recall of the bill from the Enrolling Office hoping thereby to obtain more considered discussion, but the effort failed. A bill of far-reaching significance for higher education and the future of the State, which less than twenty-four hours earlier was unknown to any college or university president in the State and unknown to all but a few members of the General Assembly, was now the law of North Carolina.

"From the hour of its enactment, my immediate attention and that of the Chancellors and my other associates in the administration was directed toward securing compliance with the law. This task was not simple because there had been no prior discussion as to the real intention of the authors, and the statute itself was quite vague as to the persons forbidden and the conditions in which speaking would be prohibited. Nevertheless, since the statute placed the responsibility for endorcement upon the Board of Trustees, we went before the Executive Committee of the Board at a meeting on July 8 where, at my request, Chancellor William Aycock, who is trained in the law, presented to the Executive Committee a legal analysis of this bill and a recommended policy of compliance.

"I shall now ask Chancellor Aycock to present the highlights of this presentation to this full Board session."

Statement of Chancellor W. B. Aycock

Part 1

"In 1941 the General Assembly of North Carolina enacted a criminal statute (General Statutes 14-11, 14-12) making it unlawful for 'any person, by word cf mouth or writing, willfully and deliberately to advocate, advise or teach a doctrine that the Government of the United States, the State of North Carolina or any political subdivision thereof shall be overthrown or overturned by force or violence or by any other unlawful means.' This statute also prohibits the use of any public building for such purposes. In 1953 the 1941 statute was extended to outlaw certain types of secret societies. The officials of the University have been aware of this statute since the time it became law. I do not know of any violation. Moreover, I do not know of anyone who has knowledge that this law has been ignored by the University. Clearly, if any person has such knowledge, he is derelict in his duties as a citizen so long as he withholds such knowledge from those officials charged with the enforcement of the laws of this State.

"The 1963 Legislation (H.B. 1395 - Chapter 1207 of the 1963 Session Laws) goes much further than the 1941 Act in that it prohibits any person to whom it applies from speaking on any State supported campus on any subject. Apart from this blanket prohibition the statute is frought with uncertainties and ambiguities.

Notes and Questions

Nobody has written a note for this page yet

Please sign in to write a note for this page