Vol. 1 No. 2
,April 17,1978, Page 1
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4
Submission Page Text Only Submisson
|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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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