Mara Hoogerhuis
12/11/03
HC 421
Individual Research Paper



The Roles of President Clark and the Oregon Daily Emerald
In the 1970 Protests on the University of Oregon Campus



Introduction


Like many colleges and universities throughout the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the University of Oregon experienced a variety of anti-war student protests on its usually peaceful green campus.  Students at the University of Oregon, upset with the unjust war in Vietnam, the draft, and the feeling that their parents’ generation was ignoring their voice and first amendment right to protest, took to the streets and administration buildings their demands for justice.  The administrators of the University of Oregon, as well as other demonstration prone universities like UC Berkeley, Columbia, and San Francisco State, faced new challenges as the demonstrations and protests erupted into unprecedented forms of violence and student/faculty/community discontent.  Different University Presidents handled the disruptions differently.  On the University of Oregon campus, President Robert D. Clark’s voice of reason and calm kept dangerous situations from escalating into uncontrollable ones.  The events of the late 1960s and early 1970s, on the microcosm of the university campus, epitomized an era of transition and shifting values among the younger generation of America.
There are a number of different sources a scholar can use to begin understanding and analyzing the events on campuses.  For example, on the University of Oregon campus, researchers can gather varied information in a number of different ways.  For one, they can examine the archives of the residing President Robert D. Clark.  Also, researchers can create an oral history through interviews of key players and other more informal observers on the University of Oregon campus.  Additionally, reading secondary sources puts the protests in Eugene into a larger context.  Finally, researches can scour newspaper articles from the time to see exactly what information was available to the public and how different media sources framed that information.  I have chosen to examine this last source, the media, to critically analyze the April 1970 protests on the University of Oregon campus.  Specifically, I have been researching the Oregon Daily Emerald.
The media source reporting from the closest vantage point on the University of Oregon protests was the campus newspaper itself, the Oregon Daily Emerald.  Published daily and available to the students, faculty, administration, and community members, the Oregon Daily Emerald aimed to keep everyone up-to-date on campus information and activities, much like it does today.   However, not only the times, but also the structure of the newspaper differed back then, and this is one of the many aspects of the paper and its presentation of the protests that I will reflect upon.  In order to critically analyze the interconnected roles of the Oregon Daily Emerald and President Robert D. Clark, as well as his administration during April 1970, I have researched four different angles of the media and the protests: the way the paper framed the protests; from where the paper received its funding and how that may or may not have affected its reporting; the students’ and administration’s view of the paper and its credibility; and lastly, President Clark’s use of the paper as a tool to express himself as well as the administrations’ ideology and policies regarding student protests.

How the Oregon Daily Emerald Framed the Protests

President Robert D. Clark had only started his Presidency in the fall of 1969, but immediately small confrontations and voiced opposition to the war and what the students saw as the University’s ambivalence to Vietnam began to mount. Since the first part of the year, the Oregon Daily Emerald had been sprinkled with articles about student demands for a University stance against the war in Vietnam (Lanier, “Coalition States Charges; Clark Replies), boycotts of controversial companies on campus (“Radical Arts Troupe Mocks Weyerhaeuser”) and statements made by President Robert D. Clark about the necessity to maintain civility in these trying times (Clark, “Disruption Cannot be Tolerated”).  The volume of protest / war related articles skyrocketed, as demonstrations and student protests materialized on the University of Oregon campus itself. 
The first real, semi-organized protests began in January 1970 when a small group attempted to prevent the Weyerhaeuser Corporation from holding recruiting meetings on campus.  (It is unclear exactly how many outside agitators and non-student radicals participated in this and later protests, which is important to know because often they were responsible for inciting the more damaging and illegal aspects of the demonstrations.)  The protests and violence on campus escalated until the tension peaked in April 1970 with the ROTC protest and the Johnson Hall sit-in. The students’ demands on more than one occasion included: wanting the University to take a stand against the Vietnam War (much like the debate that went on last year for the University to declare its opposition to the war in Iraq); removing the ROTC from campus, amnesty for all students arrested in connection with the protests and more representation in policy-making and financial spending groups.
Although Clark tried to maintain calm on his campus, several issues ignited the already agitated students.  On April 15, 1970 the faculty took a vote on whether or not to keep the ROTC on campus.  After the 199-185 vote to keep the ROTC, a group of more than 400 students marched to the ROTC building where a small number actually broke in, shattering windows, upturning desks, and strewing paperwork.  This marked the first incident where Clark called the Eugene Police on campus to reestablish order as well as the first, full-blown press coverage given to a protest on campus.  
The Oregon Daily Emerald gave front-page coverage to the protests and ROTC-building damage the day after the riot and extensive coverage after that.  Readers saw large photographs of police in riot gear confronting hostile demonstrators, captioned:
“Rocks and improvised torches were thrown at the outside walls of the University’s ROTC facilities in French Hall Wednesday evening, breaking numerous windows and leading to a volley of tear gas from Eugene Police” (Lanier, “Police, Demonstrators Clash on ROTC”).

However, although the protests consisted of emotion-laden demonstrators, the media coverage proved to be fair and diplomatic.  If an article was not completely fact based, then the article usually included both sides of the debate or quotes from both pro-protest and anti-protest citizens.  Impartial articles included but are not limited to Bushnell, “Officials Defend Using Police Against ROTC Demonstrators,” Bakken, “Student Protests on ROTC Bring Varied Faculty Opinions,” and Lanier, “In ROTC Confrontations: Police Arrest Seven Students.”  All these articles were fact based and merely shed light on the events of the protest.
One week after the ROTC protests, a pre-announced sit-in began on the marble floor of the Johnson Hall lobby.  The students again demanded the removal of ROTC, navy recruiters, and police on campus, as well as the amnesty for their fellow protesters.  Clark agreed to allow the students to stay overnight on the condition that they maintained their peaceful protest.  The following day, after the students had pushed their way into the President’s outer office, hampering the ability of Clark’s secretaries to do their job, and also fearing that the longer the sit-in lasted the greater chance of violence and disruption, Clark called for the help of the Eugene Police Department (EPD).  The EPD arrested the protesters who continued to stay; aware they were trespassing and breaking the law in an orderly fashion.  Unfortunately, a communication breakdown led to the arrival of the National Guard, throwing canisters of tear gas as they arrived, escalating the entire situation into a mob scene and leaving Clark to answer to angry students.
The Oregon Daily Emerald reacted to the Johnson Hall sit-in in much the same fashion as the ROTC riots.  Headlines on April 23rd, the day after the sit-in began (as well as the day of the arrests, although the paper had already gone to press by then), read: “Student’s Take Johnson Hall; Stay all Night.”  This article, written by John Lanier, included varying perspectives from participating students, administrators, and President Robert D. Clark.  On April 24th, the protests stayed in the front pages with a huge photograph of National Guardsman, in riot gear, advancing among a cloud of tear gas upon nearby students.  No caption was present, yet no caption was needed: the picture got its point across: unprecedented violence had now occurred on campus.
April 23rd’s paper was primarily dedicated to sit-in coverage.  The Oregon Daily Emerald covered everything from simply a factual run down of events, to an article quoting President Clark’s sadness regarding the outcome of the events.  The following day the Johnson Hall protest saturated the campus newspaper again.  This time opinions from faculty members and community members joined the myriad articles reporting, analyzing, and judging the events of April 22nd.
Over the next few weeks, articles continued to pop up in the Oregon Daily Emerald about the Johnson Hall protests.  The degree to which any given article contained war/protest rhetoric and language usually varied slightly depending on the author.  Through my research of Oregon Daily Emerald articles on and around April 15th and April 23rd, I can make a tentative assertion that certain authors used either more or less rhetoric than the “typical” article that reported on the student demonstrations.  (This is not a concrete assertion because clearly the number of articles I read by each author was rather limited because of the short time frame.)  For example, while Art Bushnell seemed consistent in his completely factual presentation of the campus events, I discovered that Kevin Cape wrote from a more anti-police involvement perspective.  His article, “ ‘This is a nightmare, not a university,’” described how the police presence actually escalated the situation on April 23rd.    In his article he included mostly quotes from protesting students, which turned the article into more of an opinion piece than a report.  However, I will note that this is the only article I found by this author, so this could have just been a rare one-sided piece from him.
	The ambiguity of the authors’ use of rhetoric to push a certain agenda is best exemplified in staff member John Lanier.  No concrete conclusions can really be drawn about his use of rhetoric to frame the protests in a certain light because in any given article he could be anti or pro-demonstrations.  While most of his articles based their information on fact, a few of them used biased language either for or against the protesting students.  For example, in his article, “Police, Demonstrators Clash on ROTC,” Lanier wrote, “Once trouble developed during the afternoon rampage…” “…The militant atmosphere of the evening came to dominate again, however as they surged without leadership…” and “…demonstrators unleashes several barrages of rocks….” His use of loaded language in this article clearly depicts the students as the instigators and troublemakers of the April 15th protests.  In contrast, Lanier peppers his article after the April 23rd sit-in, “Police End 30-hour Sit-in,” with accusatory language towards the police and administration:  “President Clark refused their compromise…” “After nearly twenty were taken away, the rest of the protesters stood up and gave up voluntarily to arrest, their action precipitated by a particularly violent arrest.”  
As previously stated, on the whole, the Oregon Daily Emerald framed the student protests and demonstrations throughout the month of April in an unbiased, fact-based manner.  The opinion and editorial pieces, on the other hand, tended to reflect a much more critical community opinion of the university campus that had been taken over by “liberal hippies.”  Opinion/editorial articles I reviewed included reactions by the community members to both the ROTC fire and Johnson Hall sit in.  In “Mob Action Won’t Do It,” an editorial published on April 17th, the anonymous writer compared the student protesters to a “lynch mob” and said that the student’s protest is “not only foolish, it’s futile.” Staff writers recorded the reactions of community members and even some faculty in normal articles as well and these comments tended to be more anti-protest.  Donald DuShane, Dean of Students, stated, “If the faculty vote [regarding ROTC on campus] had been the other way there would have been no trouble.  It is like a temper tantrum.  They don’t get their way so they reacted by kicking against the wall.”  
While most of the written articles in the Oregon Daily Emerald maintained an unbiased approach to information dispersal, the pictures covering the front and subsequent pages of the paper that went along with the article told a much different story.  The photographs taken during the protests depicted police, in full riot gear, advancing towards crowds of unarmed students (much like the photo mentioned earlier on the front page of the April 23rd edition).  From the articles, it is clear to the readers that the protesters did not maintain a peaceful vigil but rather, many instigated violence that culminated in the burning of the ROTC building and the tear gas laden arrests of the Johnson hall protesters.  There was a clear incongruence between the facts given in the articles and the emotions depicted in the photographs.  (As a side note, two of the Oregon Daily Emerald photographs that took shots of the protesters were subpoenaed by the grand jury.  Student photographers were asked to surrender their unpublished film so that students could be identified and charged.  Information about this subpoena issue can be found in June 1970 articles of the Oregon Daily Emerald.)

Funding and Censorship

	In my effort to analyze the Oregon Daily Emerald at the time of the April 1970 riots, it is important to look at how the paper was financed and run.  Depending on who held the purses and pulled the strings of the writing staff, the Oregon Daily Emerald could have either been completely independent from the University, and thus beyond Administrative censorship, or it could have been essentially another program funded and controlled by the ASUO or administration.
	Other University papers reported problems with censorship by administrators (Beezly, “Censorship in Massachusetts: A Special Report), but what about in Oregon?  In Oregon:
[The] newspaper is directed by a Student Publications Board, appointed by the University President, which selects the editor and has budgetary and general supervisory control over the publication.  A Board policy statement declares the University ‘will not act as a censor’ (Letter to Edward W. Cleary from Herbert L. Penny, Jan. 6, 1970.)

In a memo to Dean Hawk from Herb Penny, Office of University Relations, dated February 3, 1970, the then current financing of the Emerald was laid out: “The Emerald receives its income from (a) advertising, (b) a ‘subsidy’ from the incidental fee budget, and (c) a payment from state funds for use of the Emerald by the faculty and staff.” Clearly in 1970, the Oregon Daily Emerald was not financially independent from the University of Oregon, although school administrators and the staff of the paper were both working towards gaining its financial independence, because they worried about possible censorship and the backlash from students even suspecting censorship at play.
	
Perceptions of the Paper

As the media source closest to the “action,” the Oregon Daily Emerald played a large role on not only reporting the campus incidents as they occurred, but also in shaping the way that the information was presented to the public reading the daily paper.  The audience of the Oregon Daily Emerald was not as large, or as demographically diverse as the city paper, the Eugene Register Guard, the state paper, the Oregonian, or even a national paper such as the New York Times.  Even though the paper yielded some influence among the Oregon campus community, I discovered, as mentioned earlier, that the paper’s staff almost always, reported just the facts, and included only a minimal amount of protest or anti-protest rhetoric (in the columns at least.)
While I found the Emerald’s reporting of the protests to be fair and factual, there was no clear consensus about this among the students at this time.  Because the administration had influence in both the staffing and the financing of the paper, students saw the Oregon Daily Emerald as an extension of Johnson Hall and its policies.  The students, for whom the paper was primarily intended, viewed the paper as opposing them and their concerns.  The more politically active students on campus seemed to feel the strongest about the Oregon Daily Emerald’s credibility as a fair and unbiased news source.  Kip Morgan, leader of the SDS, Students for a Democratic Society, on the University of Oregon campus commented that he saw the Oregon Daily Emerald as the “voice of the administration.”  Rather than catch up on the news through the campus or city paper, Morgan said students preferred to communicate with one another through alternative and underground papers.  One example that Morgan may have been referring to was the SDS underground paper, The Irregular.  
Although for the most part, the student’s concern over the impartial reporting of the Oregon Daily Emerald seem unfounded because the administration publicly committed a policy against censorship, there was one issue in particular that fueled the fire of doubt in politically active students across campus.  On April 21st, after the first ROTC protest of April 15th, the Eugene District Attorney subpoenaed two Oregon Daily Emerald photographers, Matt McCormick and Paul Brainerd, and the photographs they took during the protest.  The order required the two men to appear before a Lane County grand jury on April 22nd with “all photographs, moving pictures of video tapes in your possession or taken by you: of ROTC demonstrations during a three day period the previous week”  (Brainerd). After discussing their case with their attorney, Arthur C. Johnson, the two agreed that since reporters are not “privileged” in Oregon, their best option was to turn over the photographs, but to do so in protest.  Granted a one-day delay, Brainerd and McCormick appeared before the grand jury on April 23rd and submitted over 400 photographs.  (Incidentally, as many as 6 photographers from the Emerald in total contributed to this number of photographs though only the two previously mentioned were named in the suit.)  At the same time, the two men issued a statement, in part saying:
Under protest we supplied the Lane County Grand Jury with photographs of the ROTC protests at the University of Oregon April 15, 16, and 17, 1970…It will be extremely difficult for both of us to function as photographers during future demonstrations in Oregon knowing that our photographs may be legally demanded by police agencies.  We recognize our duty to equally participate in the established legal system, but we also believe that freedom of information for all people in this state must be maintained.  We were advised by our attorneys that the subpoenas served on Tuesday, April 21, were a lawful exercise of the district attorney’s powers.  We felt that no meaningful purpose could be served by engaging in a court fight to change the existing laws of this state at this time.  It was clear to us in reviewing Oregon state statures and case law…that court challenges in our instance would have been carried to the United States Supreme Court (Brainerd.)

The obstruction to their duties as photographers that this statement talked about occurred during the next organized demonstration on the University campus, the Johnson Hall sit-in.  As a result of the media coverage of the first two subpoenas, two Emerald photographers were physically and verbally threatened as the crowd kept them from taking pictures.  The students in the demonstrations, feeling that the paper had sold them out to the cops, were not about to let it happen again.
Sure enough, one week later, on April 27th, the D.A. subpoenaed Brainerd and McCormick as well as “all photographs, moving pictures or video tapes in your possession or taken by you concerning the University of Oregon student protest demonstrations beginning the week of April 14, 1970 through and including this date” (Brainerd).  This extended subpoena now included all coverage of the Johnson Hall sit-in and demonstration as well.  Again, the two photographers complied, this time submitting between 1,000 and 2,000 pictures.  The D.A. issued two more subpoenas over the next 24 hours, requiring Brainerd and McCormick to appear as witnesses and to submit all “photographic negatives” of the Johnson Hall protest.
The subpoenas issue struck a cord with many in the community, but none more than the students themselves, who now felt they had hard proof to distrust the Emerald.  In their eyes the photographers happily handed over their photographs to the police in order to possibly ID any demonstrators who had participated in violence.  In the end, I have found no evidence that the D.A. or the Eugene Police Department used any of the photographs in investigations into demonstrators and thus nothing resulted from the subpoenas in the first place, except a heightened student distrust of the Oregon Daily Emerald and its staff.


Clark’s Use of the Media

	I have found it very interesting to analyze how the media framed the protests on the University of Oregon campus and what possible influences, be it financing, editors, community outcry, etc. affected its coverage.  Another equally interesting and seemingly overlooked aspect of the media and protests in our class, has been the way in which President Robert D. Clark perceived the campus paper.  Did he think that it was too liberal and played to the students?  Did Clark ignore the paper all together, or attempt to exercise control over it in any way?  Or what role did Clark see the campus newspaper as having?
	At both San Jose State, where Clark was previously President, and the University of Oregon, President Robert D. Clark published many statements in the campus newspapers as a way of conveying the feelings of his administration and himself to the students and community at large.  Particularly in times of turmoil, like those he faced on both campuses, it was important for the President to be very visible and involved in all aspects of the administrative response to the student demonstrations.  Clark liked to stay accessible to students and faculty and he did this not only by being physically available at times but also to make his opinions and policies available to all.  Between January 12, 1970 and May 15, 1970, President Clark made 12 presidential statements and press releases, not including other, more informal interviews and remarks to various publications  (Presidential Statements and News Releases).  Most of these statements/news releases dealt with the protests and demonstrations taking place on campus during this period.  They represent Clark’s way to talk to his students on a large scale and to respond to questions about the decisions he made involving these protests.
	Clark himself commented on the importance of his image in the news media in a video taped interview of him made a few years ago as well as his interview by our class on November 3, 2003.  At San Jose State, Clark had an excellent go-between for himself and the press to help establish relations.  He had a core media group who he spoke with on a regular basis and kept the lines of communication open.  In Oregon however, Clark stated that “One of the problems I had here in Oregon was communication with the press,” because no press-liaison position existed.  This was a clear frustration for Clark who had formerly had a good track record with media exchange.  Clark did not express any misgivings about the Oregon Daily Emerald itself in the class interview; rather, he only regretted not having a better relationship with the press in general.  In fact, regarding the same subpoena issue mentioned earlier, Clark stood behind the Oregon Daily Emerald and its photographers: “I concur in the statement made by the Emerald editors and I regret that the Grand Jury felt it should take this action” (4/23/70 News Release).

Conclusion

	The angles and perspectives that can be taken in analyzing the events on the University of Oregon campus in April 1970 are numerous.  I have just scratched the surface with my discussion of the media.  By looking at how the Oregon Daily Emerald framed the protests, who funded the paper and selected its staff, how the campus audience perceived the paper’s credibility, and finally how Robert D. Clark used the media as a microphone for his own voice, I hoped to understand more about the mindset of the people during this time.
The press is a powerful tool to shape and mold the opinions of the masses.  Especially in the 1960s and 1970s, before Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings, Nightly News and 60 Minutes, it is probably safe to say that the majority of Americans got their news from print.  Although the readership of the Oregon Daily Emerald was limited in scope, it still had the capability to affect the opinions of student and community members.  This campus paper was on the frontlines of the protests and sit-ins.  Written and edited by students, it gave a unique perspective to the campus unrest.
	I do not know if the student distrust of the campus paper is an anomaly of the University of Oregon, or was a common trend throughout universities at this time.  However, the fact that the students themselves did not trust their own newspaper is telling.  In retrospect it is clear that the administration, led by Robert D. Clark, sought to give the students as much freedom and voice as possible and did not attempt to censor the paper in any way.  Additionally, President Clark clearly tried to reach the protesting students, wary faculty members, and cynical community members through the medium of the press.  He recognized the interconnected role that newspapers, including the Oregon Daily Emerald, and the University President, could have on their audience, and thus sought to use that combination to preach calm and acceptance.  In the end, he was able to keep the protests on the University of Oregon campus under control without any critical injury to person or place, quite an achievement for one of the most tumultuous times in United States history.


“I want every American free to stand up for his rights,
even if sometimes he has to sit down for them.”

- John F. Kennedy, Campaign speech, Philadelphia, October 31, 1960

 


Bibliography


Bakken, Pearl. “Student Protests on ROTC Bring Varied Faculty Opinions.” Oregon Daily Emerald 17 Apr. 1970, sec. 1: 1.

Beezly, Nancy. “Censorship in Massachusetts: A Special Report.” College Press Services. Washington D.C.: U.S. Student Press Association, Nov. 20, 1969.

Brainerd, Paul.  Letter to Mr. W. L. Wasmann, Freedom of Information Chairman for ONPA 8 June 1970; Oregon Daily Emerald; 1969-1970; Office of the President Records; Division of Special Collections and University Archives; University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403.

Bushnell, Art. “Strike declared, 61 arrested.” Oregon Daily Emerald 24 Apr. 1970, sec. 1: 1+.

---  “They Came to See a Riot.” Oregon Daily Emerald 25 Apr. 1970, sec. 1: 3.

Cape, Kevin. “ ‘This is a Nightmare, not a University.’” Oregon Daily Emerald 24 Apr. 1970, sec. 1.

Clark, President Robert D. “Police Action: ‘Sorrowful but Necessary.’” Opinion. Oregon Daily Emerald Apr. 24, 1970, sec. 1: 11.

--- Speech to Newspaper Publication Association; May 24, 1970; Clark, Robert (Speeches); 1969-1970; Office of the President Records; Division of Special Collections and University Archives; University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403.

Clark, Suzanne. Phone Interview with Kip Morgan 16 Nov 2003.

Fitch, Rick. “Clark ‘Sadly’ Calls Police; Views from Fenton Hall.” Oregon Daily Emerald 24 Apr. 1970, sec. 1: 1+.

Kucera, Kathy. “EMU Occupied as Strike Organizes.” Oregon Daily Emerald 24 Apr. 1970, sec. 1: 2.

Lanier, John. “Police Arrest Seven Students.” Oregon Daily Emerald 17 Apr. 1970, sec. 1: 1+.

---  “Police End 30-hour Sit-in.” Oregon Daily Emerald 24 Apr. sec. 1: 2+.

--- “Police, Demonstrators Clash on ROTC.” Oregon Daily Emerald 16 Apr. 1970, sec. 1: 1+.

---  “Students Take Johnson Hall; Stay All Night.” Oregon Daily Emerald 23 Apr. 1970, sec. 1: 1+.

Letter from Herbert L. Penny to Edward W. Cleary Jan. 6, 1970; Office of the President Records; Division of Special Collections and University Archives; University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403.

“Mob Actions Won’t Do It.” Editorial. Oregon Daily Emerald 17 Apr. 1970, sec. 1: 22.

“Oregon Daily Emerald Financing.” Memo from Herb Penny to Dean Hawk Feb. 3, 1970. Office of the President Records; Division of Special Collections and University Archives; University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403.

Presidential Statements and News Releases. Office of the President Records; Division of Special Collections and University Archives; University of Oregon, Eugene Oregon 97403.

Routsen, Joyce. “ASUO Senate Calls Strike, Also Demands Police Removal.” Oregon Daily Emerald 24 Apr. 1970, sec. 1: 2.

Statement of President R.D. Clark to University Faculty Meeting February 4, 1970; Unlabeled (Student Unrest); 1969-1970; Office of the President Records; Division of Special Collections and University Archives; University of Oregon, Eugene Oregon 97403.

Travis, Tim. “America Can’t Ignore Us.” Opinion. Oregon Daily Emerald 24 Apr. 1970, sec. 1: 12. 

University of Oregon News Release Clark Statement April 23, 1970; Clark Report on Student Unrest vol. II (1); 1969-1970: Office of the President Records; Division of Special Collections and University Archives; University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403.

“Who’s Calling the Shots?” Editorial. Oregon Daily Emerald 23 Apr. 1970, sec. 1: 8.

	

 PAGE 17