Vol. 1 No. 2 ,April 17,1978, Page 1

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4
Submission Page  Text Only Submisson

Headerpage1No2.JPG (40824 bytes)


Students, faculty and concerned members of the community have since the shootings, demanded that classes be cancelled on May 4th, Why, after seven years, has the KSU administration capitulated to this demand? Some have said that Golding is attempting to get students off campus on May 4th by offering the opportunity for a four day weekend. Others think that Golding is simply feigning sensitivity to the issue.

I his address announcing the cancellation of classes on May 4th Golding claims that it is impossible to reduce tension on the campus until "there is some recognition by parties at both ends that the vast majority of us in between wish them to abandon the ideas of victory and join us instead in resolution." In other words Golding puts himself as the representative of the invisible silent majority

known only to him. Golding wants us to believe that he and this so-called 'silent majority' are the innocent  victims caught in the crossfire of extremist, rival warring factions.

But the fact of the matter is that Golding belongs to nor represents any majority. He serves no public interests. He is in the mainstream of a continuing tradition of political repression, human insensitivity and moral turpitude which has functioned as a barrier to all people concerned with progressive social change. To put it briefly, one finds it difficult to believe that the man who sent in the police, clad in riot gear to break up and gas a peaceful assembly on Oct. 22, could dig deep into his heart and find there is a noble motive for canceling classes on May 4th.

So why then did Golding cancel classes? No doubt, from the administration's perspective, it is a

"tactic" for dissipating dissent. Appealing to the "reasonable and the right" Golding appears to be taking a liberal stance for the purpose of public opinion. At the same time the administration expands it's unconstitutional policies against students rights and civil liberties.

Nevertheless the canceling of classes on May 4th can be viewed as nothing short of a meaningful step forward for all those who have been pursuing the course of justice for seven years. In short. Golding's "tactic" is our success. Neither the hollowness of Golding's motives nor his underlying strategy of repression can detract from the significance of the cancellation of classes on May 4th. Indeed it is only a small step but all those who contributed to the pursuit of justice at Kent deserve a moment of pride.


Perusek is
found guilty
for leafleting
PerusekHearing.JPG (10441 bytes)        Dodge faces

As reported in last week's TRUTH DEMANDS JUSTICE, Glenn Perusek was called before the All Campus Hearing Board for distributing a leaflet opposing the tuition hike, without first reser-

Another page in the fight to preserve the rights of persons to express dissent on the Kent State campus was written on Thursday, April 13, 1978.

At 4:30 p.m. Glenn Perusek's leafleting case was to be reconvened before the All University Hearing Board (See related story on Dodge). While seventy-five Perusek supporters filed into the hall outside the conference suite, Perusek and attorney, Terry Gilbert, entered the hearing.

AUHB procedural guidelines state, that defendants have the right to decide whether a hearing will be open or closed to the public. However, AUHB Chairman, Ray Flynn, told Perusek and Gilbert that the defendant's right to make that determination was suspended because of the "disruption" that occurred at the first part of the hearing on April 6, 1978.

This so-called "disruption" was actually an attempt by Perusek's defense to bring out the political significance of the case; namely, that these regulations are only enforced against those who oppose and threaten the administration, and are not enforced against the Ku Klux Klan, the fraternities, religious organizations, and others who pose no threat to illegitimate administration policies.

Perusek informed the AUHB that he would not participate in a hearing that was closed to the public and stated that he felt he had no chance of getting a fair hearing if it was not witnessed by the people.

When the board denied his right to an open hearing, Perusek walked out of the hearing. By doing so, he risked retribution from the hearing board that

could have meant his expulsion from the university and he left the board to determine guilt or innocence on the basis of testimony already heard.

The length of time taken by the board during deliberation was evidence that Perusek's broad support outside their doors made it clear that the decision was an important one. Finally, the board rendered a verdict--Perusek was found guilty of violation of university policy regarding distribution of leaflets. He was sentenced to "conduct probation" which would not expire until the end of Fall quarter, 1978.

The terms of this light sentence, Perusek later said, "It was definitely the presence of the crowd. The board was unwilling to rule on the constitutionality of the regulation, and they knew it was an over-broad rule. Still, I think they would have set a stiffer sentence for this precedent case, had there not been such a large crowd here in my support." He went on further to say, "The 'slap on the wrist' sentence is not my victory, but shows the strength united opposition to the administration can have on this campus."

During a lengthy delay, Perusek, Gilbert and others spoke to the spirited crowd outside the hearing room. The crowd was inspired by the militant stand Perusek took in refusing to accept being railroaded through a closed hearing.

Chic Canfora summarized the mood of the crowd by saying, "We don't need a hearing for Glenn--he's done nothing wrong! The hearing board and the administration are the ones who should be on trial. They should answer to us for their crime in denying Glenn's constitutional rights, and their use of his case as an attempt to silence the movement against injustice on this campus!"

ving a table.

Perusek's first hearing was adjourned when the Board's attempt to railroad him out school was thwarted by 70 of his supporters who objected to this railroading at the hearing. Perusek's supporters were angered by the political biases of the University's Hearing Board.

When Perusek questioned a witness, Jane Bratnober, on what differences she saw between the distributed leaflet that Perusek was prosecuted for handing out, and leaflets passed out by the Ku Klux Klan without a table for which they weren't prosecuted, the hearing board chairman, Ray Flynn, ruled the question "out of order."

Jane attempted to point out that Glenn's anti-tuition hike leaflet was viewed as a threat by the administration and so the distribution of it was repressed. But the efforts of the Ku Klux Klan to recruit members was not repressed, apparently because the administration did not feel threatened by their actions.

When this line of questioning was ruled as irrelevant by the Hearing Board, the effect was to isolate Perusek's defense to a discussion of the facts which supported his guilt, while dismissing the presentation of any other facts, such as the uncontested KKK recruitment, as irrelevant and disruptive of the proceedings.

Carter Dodge suggested that the people at the hearing vote on whether or not the line of questioning was relevant or not. Ray Flynn, head of the hearing board, then ordered Carter to leave the room. When Perusek insisted that Dodge was acting as his co-legal counsel, Ted Hollenback of Student Life called in the police.
(continued on page 2)

Vol. 1 No. 1, April 17, 1978, Page 1

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4
Submission Page  Text Only Submisson