326

305

"The 1963 Act by its own terms does not impose any penalties for failure to comply with its provisions. However, General Statutes 13-230 declares that: 'If any....official of any of the State institutions....shall willfully omit, neglect or refuse to discharge any of the duties of his office, for default whereof it is not elsewhere provided that he shall be indicted, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.' Presumably this latter statute applies and, if so, the 1963 Visiting Speakers Law is a criminal statute.

"On the surface this Act, copy attached, appears to be a simple one to enforce. But to one charged with the duty of enforcement it is quickly evident that it is worded in extremely vague terms in almost every particular. A few selected examples will illustrate the vagueness of the Act.

"1. What is meant by a 'known member of THE Communist Party?

"American Communist Party only?
"Communist Party of Great Briton? France? Italy? Etc?
"Does it include all citizens of Russia whether or not they are members of the Party?
"Does it include all citizens in Russian Bloc?

"2. 'Known' by what means?

a. Judgment of a court?
b. Admission?
c. Reputation?
d. Accusation by some official body?
e. Accusation by some unofficial body or individual?

"3. Section (B) 'is known to advocate the overthrow of the constitution of the United States or the State of North Carolina. '

a. This section does not specify by force or violence. Does it include 'overthrow' by peaceful means? If so, would it include those who advocate radical changes of our government through political action? Ex. proposal for a Super Supreme Court.

"4. Section (C) involves persons who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment in specified circumstances. Is this section similar to (A) and (B) in that they must be KNOWN to have done so? Is there a duty to investigate each invited speaker? If so, so-called Fifth Amendment Communists (often not Communists at all) are in this respect considered more dangerous than known Communists. The less the danger the greater the prudence is the literal language of this Section.

"5. The title of the Act refers only to regulating visiting speakers. But the text refers to any person using the facilities of the college or university for speaking purposes. Students do not enroll for speaking purposes and faculty are not employed for speaking purposes in the same sense this term is used for visiting speakers. The meaning of the text is not clear.

"The Trustees of the University could exercise sole responsibility for the enforcement of the Act. The Board of Trustees is also authorized to appoint others to administer it. Presumably such person or persons could be appointed whether or not such person or persons now hold an administrative post in the University. The President or a member of his staff could be appointed to enforce the act on a uniform basis for all campuses. Another alternative would be to appoint the Chancellors alone or along with deans, directors and department heads. Anothefpossibility would be to designate all persons authorized to invite visiting speakers as responsible for its enforcement.

"In order to resolve some of the ambiguities in the 1963 Act the Administration prepared a policy statement and submitted it to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees on July 8, 1963. On that date the following policy statement was adopted by the Executive Committee."