THEUNIVERSITY COLLEGE IN RHODESIACONTENTSpageINTRODUCTION ......................................THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE IN RHODESIAN SOCIETYTODAY, AND THE PROBLEM OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM .... I THEEXTENT OF STAFF AND STUDENT DISSENT ........... 12STAFF LOYALTY TO THE COLLEGE ..................... 13CONCLUSION ....................................... 18APPENDIX I, EVENTS FROM T;EDNESDAY, 16TH MCH .... 20APPENDIX II, SOUTH MN RHODESIA ANDTHE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, 1964 ................. 35

I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 NAs a result of disturbances which took place at the University College ofRhodesia and Nyasaland in March 1966, a Commissioner of 3nquiry, Dr. R.Birley was appointed to investigate and report on the events and to makerecommendations for the improvement of machinery for staff and studentadmistration.At the end of April the Birley Report was published and presented to the CollegeCouncil, who accepted in principle the recommendations and some of theopinions expressed in it.By the time the Council met, however, events had already moved beyond thescope of Dr. Birley's enquiry. As a result of a new crisis the Principal of theCollege had tendered his resignation to the Council and over half the members ofstaff had supported his stand, many of them also offering their resignationsalongside that of the Principal.At a meeting of 30th April, 1966, the College Council rejected the profferedresignation of the Principal without making any reference either to the causes ofhis resignation or the strong resolutions of support which had been passed in fourout of five Faculty Boards and in the Academic Board.These events have a bearing on some of the main points made by Dr. Birley,permitting a different interpretation of the situation from that which was possibleat the time of his investigation.It has been thought valuable, therefore, to supplement the Birley Repo-t. Some ofthe facts wore known to only a fuw stcff, but 54 out of a total of 111 members ofthe staff at the College associate themselves with the opinions expressed in thispaper. There are three questions of principle arising out of the Birley Reportwhich we think deserve further clarification. They are

1) The position of the College in Rhodesian societytoday, and the associated problem of academicfreedom.2) The extent of staff and student dissent asreflected in the events in the College betweenMarch 16th and 25th.3) The loyalty of staff to the College.The two Appendices to this report contain a detailed statement of evidencesubmitted to Dr. Birley by some members of staff who were directly involved inthe events in question, and a copy of a statement drawn up by some members ofthe academic staff of the College in October, 1964, which helps to put theseevents into a wider perspective.

THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE IN RHODESIAN SOCIETY TODAYAND THE PROBILM OF ACADemIC FREEDOM.The University College was founded during the time ofthe Federation of Rhodesia and.Nyasaland, when multi-racialism was the avowedGovernment policy and when white Rhodesians were generally prepared totolerate the concept for the sake of the economic benefits of federation-toSouthern Rhodesia. It is, however, important to bear in mind that those inRhodesia who all along opposed federation and its commitment to racialpartnership are now among the leaders and prominent supporters of the presentregime in the country. No one who has lived in Rhodesia during the past ten yearscan be unaware of the expressed antipathy of a large part of white Rhodesiansociety against the multi-racial College.The turn of events since the break up of the Federation, away from tolerance andpartnership, has loft the College as a sort of anachronism-in the present whiteRhodesia.In terms of the Royal Charter granted in 1955, the University College is anautonomous body charged 'to make provision for research, to provide courses ofinstruction, and to take such o+Ler steps as may appear necessary or desirable forthe advancement and dissemination of knowledge.' The Charter also states that'No test of religious belief or profession or of race, nationality or class shall beimposed upon or required of any person in order to entitle him to be, admitted as amember, professor, teacher or student of the University College or to hold officetherein or any advantageor privilege thereof.'Concerning the concept of University autonomy as set out in the Charter, weunderstand this to imply the following1) Feedom of the College to choose students and staffand freedom of all students and staff to enjoy theprivileges to which they are entitled as members ofthe College, irrespective of race, nationality orclass.2) Freedom of the College to choose curricula and tochoose the means by which these curricula are taught.

3) Freedom to carry out research and to publish theresults without interference from other authorities.4) Freedom of association, i.e. to hold gatherings onthe campus, with full freedom of expression.The pressures working on the College from the society outside are of three kinds1) Indirect pressures, arising out of the generalassumptions of the white society2) direct pressures, arising out of the EmergencyPowers and the dezial of civil rights, but notaimed specifically at the College3) direct pressures, aimed at the College.Taere is a fourth kind of influenoe, which does not amount to effective pressure inthe sameoay as the three above, and this comes from the attitude of blackRhodesians toward the College.

1) Indirect Pressures,In his analysis of the position of the College today Dr. Birley has clearly seen theeffects of these outside pressures, and he concludes that he does not see 'howanyone can support the University College of Rhodesia as the multi-racialinstitution it is now, who does not believe that Rhodesia should move toward thecreation of a multi-racial society.'We consider that one cannot assess the difficulties posed for tha.Co1lege at thepresent time without being aware and seeing the effects of the basic assumptionon which white society exists in Rhodesia. This assumption is that life inRhodesia must continue as it is, with white domination, segregation, and themaintenance of the high material standard of living of the whites. The wholepolitical and social framework must be shaped accordingly. The institutions of thesociety must come within this framework ; central and local government, the lawas it is created and administered, education, the church, the machinery ofindustrial conciliation, and, we fear, the Universitj College. Since individuals andinstitutions exist on this assumption it is possible for the bulk of white Rhodesiansto hold that there is no room for acts of protest against the present situation. It ispossible for churchmen and University professors to argue, as they have, that actsof protest must be matters for the individual conscience a-au must not commitothers. It is possible for lawyers to argue, as one prominent Rhodesian lawyer hasargued, that the law must conform with the norms of the white society, that lawand order must be maintained against black agitators, and that the rules ofevidence in the courst must be altered to see that it is maintained, even if the Ruleof Law has to be reinterpreted to allow for this.Where, on the other hand, the basic assumption is that all of the four and a quartermillion people in the country must share opportunities equally, that blackRhodesians have a right to claim and get a real share in government and in all theprivileges now claimed by the whites, that their aspirations are serious andsincere, then one cannot avoid questioning the present assumption and thepolitical and social framework which rests on it. And this must lead individualsand organisations of people to expressions and acts of protest.

The pressure which the College has to bear, and the effects it feels, as a result ofthe present assumption of the ruling white minority, have Deen clearly indicatedby Dr. Birley. It is possible to show them in other ways.The privileged status of the white minority is clearly shown by the availability ofschool education, determined by the expenditure of £100 per anrum on theteaohing of each white child as compared to £10 per annum on each Africanchild. There are two government-run African secondary schools leading touniversity entrance in Rhodesia, serving a population of nearly 4 million. Becauseof this indirect control over university recruitment by racial and economic factors,the chance of an African entering the University College is 1 6,000, while that ofa European is 1 : 125.To increase the intake of African students, the College has, on the initiative of theteaching staff, run its own A-level course since 1963. This course is almostexclusively financed by the Ford Foundation. Despite this effort on the part of theCollege itself, the number of African students has necer risen above about 1/3 ofthe total, which is sadly out of proportion with the ratio between the two mainethnic groups in the country as a whole, i.e. I European to 17 African.

3PROPORTION OF AFRICAN STUDENTS AT UCR 1961-19661961 1962 1963 1964 1965 196623% 20% 28% 24% 24 24%This disproportion is reflected as well in the number of graduates produced by theCollege since its inception in 1957.W.MBM OF GRADUATES 1957-65Non-Rhodesian Africans 49Rhodesian Africans 57Africans 106All Races 448Moreover, rather than increasing the opportunities for Africans to acquiresecondary education leading to university entrance, the Government has actuallyreduced them. Towards the end of 1965 private schools, such as Peterhouse inMarandellas, were informed by Government circular that they were no longeralloced to accept African pupils, as their presence on the school premises aspupils represented a contravention of the Land Apportionment Act.The recently-announced plan of expansion for Africaneducation, even if the problematical funds and teachers become available, isdesigned to enlarge the numbers of African scholars in lower secondary schoolsproviding some sort of vocational training, rather than the numbers of Universitycandidates. 'Government commitment will, therefore, be restricted to the needsof the state for graduate students.' (Hansard, April 20th, 1966). This confirms theimpression that there is a deliberate policy to keep the number of Africangraduates at a low level. (There is also a limitation on the number of thoseeducated to the level required for enrolment as an 'A' voter and for participation inthe administration of a modern state.)

Despite this policy, the College has, since its inception, been used for propagandapurposes as a show-piece to demonstrate multi-racial harmony as a 'reality' inRhodesia. (Cf. the latest instance : Mr. Ian Smith writing in Punch, January,1966.) At the same time the College has constantly been attacked in the Press andelsewhere for not being in step with the European section of the community.Since the Rhodesian Front Government came to power, criticism of the multi-racial practices of the College and of the values it stands for has becomeincreasingly fervent. This can be illustrated by the following extract from aproGovernment Salisbury newspaper, The Citizen (25th March, 1966),commenting on the demonstrations at the College.'The University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland has been an institutionforeign to this land right from its very inception. It has been conceived not tohelp this country as we know it, but to promote it to something outlandish, wayout of recognition. It has its head in the clouds, its soulin London, and its heart heaven knows where. Even now there are far moreRhodesian students studying outside our borders than in the local University.

Viewed in this light, this seat of high learning has not exactly become the jewel ofthe Rhodesian heart. And the events which took place on the campus of thatUniversity until the police were called in, have caused more anger outside thewalls of our academic institution, than emitted from the chests of the rowdydissenting students and the striking lecturers ....In reality the Students' Union, through its President, Mr. J.J. Taylor, has come outstrongly against the demonstrators and striking professors. The trouble-makers,theyare in a minority. Had they been in majority, they would have forced a changeof the Union's executive in the democratic manner of free elections, for whichthey show such passion. More than that the whole rumpus is the work of a smallhard core group who used intimidation in the form the banned nationalist partiesdid when they had the run of the townships ....I understand that the official view (on the College trouble) is one of patience, butwe think that the time has come to reclaim the University from its loyaltywilderness and turn it into a truly Rhodesian institution. This may seem difficultto most, but once a decision in that direction was taken we will find that we havemuch more sympathy and understanding in the world at large than we are led tobelieve. If we bring this seat of learning to within our capabilities and forsake thegrandiose ambitions of its founders, we will be able to get both the money and thesuitable tutoring staff. A lot, of course, will depend on what the Principal, Dr. W.Adams, brings from London, but happen what may this country can support aUniversity - one over which we will have full control and say.'The conflicts in the country as a whole, and the conflicting attitudes to theCollege, have unavoidably become part of the University community itself ; andwe submit that the failure of the College authorities to take this fully into accountis one of the root causes of the oecent crisis.2) Direct Pressures.It may be possible to make an intellectual distinction between arbitrarygovernment action taken against individuals in terms of general emergency

powers and action specifically directed at the academic freedom of a University.It is difficult to make such a distinction in fact in Rhodesia, where frequent actionof the first kind has directly affected College staff and students.A description of a series of Government acts which have directly affected theCollege over the past six years or so will indicate this difficulty.A. Interference with Staff.The interference has taken two forms - asfusal of residencepermits to appointees, so that they were unabl to enter the country, anddeportation. Instances of the first are difficult to document since the Collegeadministration has never publicised their occurrence. However, a lecturer inEconomics, Mr. M. Faber, who had entered the country on a temporary residencepermit, i.e. as a visitor, and then joined the staff, was subsequently unable toobtain a permanent residence permit. This occurred in 1960. In 1961, Mr. J.Bsrrangd was offered appointment in the Geology Department, but was refused aresidence permit. Much more recently, in February, 1966, a part-time teachingassistant and Ph.D. student in the Department of History, Mr. R. Palmer, had therenewal of his temporary permit refused. In at least two instances (H. Jenkins,History, 1962, and R. Woods, Sociology, 1965) residence permits have only beenissued after initial refusals. The Rhodosian Govoernment appears to operate ablanket policy of refusal of permanent, residence to 'foreign' Indians. Thisprevented the appoizntment of

Dr. B. Pachai as a lecturer in History in 1964-65. He is now Senior Lecturer inHistory in the University of Malawi. The only instance of doPortation au such isthat of Dr. T.O. Rangor (Lecturer in History and Warden of Carr-Saunders Hall)in 1963.For some years now it has apparently been the practice on the part of the Collegeauthorities to submit the names of the applicants selected by the SelectionCommittees to the Immigration authorities in order to find out from the latterwhether the selected applicants would be granted a residence permit if offered theappointment. To our knowledge there have been at least tio occasions involvingDr. A.L. Bpstein and Dr. Pachai, in which the selected applicants were neveroffered the appointment because the College authorities had been informed by theImmigration authorities that these particular applicants would not be granted aresidence permit.Since joining the staff of the College one Africanlecturer has been visited by the Security Police four times. On the first occasion,after the banning of an African newspaper and one of the African political parties,both his house and office were searched. The second, third, and fourth visits weremade after UDI in November, 1965. Following the fourth visit he was taken to theCID offices for questioning. At the end of November he left Rhodesia for Britainon study leave. While in Britain he applied for a British passport because hisRhodesian one expired while he was there, and a post-UDI Rhodesian passportwould not enable him-to travel abroad. This British passport was seized by theRhodesian authorities on his return in February, the reason given being thatRhodesia did not recognize a British passport, (A further indication of the

arbitrariness with which Rhodesian officials can act is given by the fact that onlyon May 27th was power taken by the regime under emergency rog,±icAons toceize British passports issued to Rhodesian citizens after UDI.) Finding that theBritish representatives were reluctant to help him get his passport back he saw alawyer, who managed to obtain its return, but with the proviso that he might notleave the country using this passport. This limitation on the use of this passportaffects his work, insofar as he has to carry out research in his field of study inother parts of Central Africa.In the matter of refusing immigration permits, deporting certain residents, andrestricting the movement of others, the Government has not acted solely againstthe College. In giving his opinion that this is not a question of AcademicFreedom, Dr. Birley points out that there is probably not a country in the worldwhich does not reserve:the right to refuse persona leave to enter or which wouldmake an exception in tho case of those appointed to a University. It may,moreover, be difficult to show that the refusal of entry to, or the deportation of, anumber of lecturers removes the freedom of existing staff to teach. But we wouldsubmit that a University has no less a duty than any other person or institution inthe country to protest at the limitation of its freedom to appoint properly qtalifiedand valuable employees, and of the freedom of these employees fully to dischargetheir duties. That no other institution is prepared to protest at the way widespreadpowers, used peremptorily in accordance with narrow doctrinaire politics, areallowed to exclude the services of valuable persons from the society, is no reasonwhy a University should not do so. If, as Dr. Birley sayc, University institutionscannot be exempt from the conflicts and dilemmas of the society, nor can they, inour opinion, be exempt from the duty to face up to these conflicts. Yr5 agree withDr. Birley's view that no University

6institution can be regarded as set apart from the society in which it is placed. Itmust identify itself with that society ; and Rhodesia is not merely a society ofwhite people, supporting a Government whose policy it is to rule for their ownbenefit, but a society including over four million Africans, many of whom stilllook on the University with hope.B. Interference with Students.In August, 1964, Mr. J.T. Maluleke, a first year B.Sc.(Economics) student, was restricted to Gonakudzingwa, a detention camp, whichis 400 miles from Salisbury. Initially staff were able to visit him and he wrote andpassed his Pt. I examination at the camp. In the first term of 1965, however, new'Tmergency' regulations closed the area to visitors so that staff were no longerable to provide personal tuition for Mr. Maluleke. The restriction order expired inAugust, 1965, and lMr. Maluleke returned to the College. In January, 1966, heand another undergraduate, Mr. S. Makoni, were charged with 13 offences (arsonand malicious injury to property) in the Fort Victoria Magistrate's Court. TheMagistrate found there was no case to answer, but the two students wore arrestedas they left the Court and were later served with five and three year restrictionorders respectively. In April, 1966, first Mr. Maluleke and later Mr. allakoni

absented themselves from Gonakudzingwa and the former succeeded in reachingthe University, In December, 1965, another undergraduate, Mr. E. Mlambo, wasarrested and placed in jail. After one month he was released without chargeshaving been laid and without explanation.In March, 1966, two former students of the College, Mr. B. Hove, and Ir. H.Musikavanhu were restricted to Gonakudzingwa for one year each. Ce understandthat the warrants for their arrest had actually been issued on the llth of November,1965, when they were still students of the College.It is to be noted that in all these cases no offences have been proved in open court.Other students have been declared prohibited immigrants from time to time. In1964 Mr. J.S. Songolo, a second year B.Sc. (71Econ.) student from Zambia wasdeclared a prohibited immigrant, but was subsequently admitted to the LondonSchool of Economics. Other prohibited immigrants in 1965 were Mr. I. Barton, asecond year science student (the College arranged for him to continue his degreeat King's College, London), and Mr. P. Cosgrove and about a 'dozen otherstudents on Zambia Government Teacher Trainee grants who were doing thePost-Gaduate Certificate in Education course. Some of the latter failed, but wereunable to return to repeat the course or to resit the examination because their re-entry was prohibited.Our comments on interference with staff appointments apply here to about thesame extent. Dr. Birley's view is that this does not raise the question of AcademicFreedom, but that it raises the question of the College's duty toward its students,and particularly, in this respect, toward its African students, who face thepossibility of arrest and restriction to an extent not experienced by Europeanstudents. But to recognize this special position of African students is to see thepossibility of the virtual silencing of African students in their extra-curricularactivities in the College and making these activities colourless. One wonders whatthe reaction of a University such as Oxford would be if the Prosident of the Unionor any other good prospect for political leadership stood the risk of being dctaincdwithout trial for anything up to five years.

7C. Interference with the Freedom of ,xrorssion1. The 'No-Politics Pledge'In August, 1965, the Southern Rhodesia Ministry of Educationintroduced new conditions governing the awards of Government scholarships,grants and loans. As set out in Circular E. 43 of 1965, students selected forGovernment awards in 1966 were to sign a declaration that they would refrainfrom political activities within as well as outside the University. 'Politicalactivities' were given a very wide definition and included membership in orassociation with any organization or movement of a political character ;canvassing support for or in any way assisting such a movement ; display ofrosettes, favours, clothing symbols, placards, etc. having a political significance;asking questions from the floor at political meetings ; and other acts which mightinduce any member of the public to identify students with a political organization

or movement. Failure to observe these requirements might lead to the withdrawalof Government awards.The new regulations met with strong opposition and piotests from the A.U.T. andthe Students' Union ; and despite Government statements to tho effect that theproposali had been discussed beforehand with the College authorities, themembers of the College werc not informed of their existence until the regulationsappeared in the Press.In the following weeks the College authorities enteredinto negotiations with the Government in an attempt to securo the withdrawal ofthis 'no-politics' pledge. These talks were apparently brought to a successfulconclusion, and the pledge was withdrawn in October.However, in March, 1966, at the beginning of the newacademic year, the College Council introduced a new disciplinary regulation of itsown, according to which'Students are required to abstain, whether on the Collegepremises or not, from all conduct which in the opinion of the College authoritiestends to bring discredit onthe College or is derogatory to the character or welfareof the College.This new College rule is interpreted by many students as a quid pro quo for thewithdrawal of the pledge - or as its reiteration under Colege authorship.Dr. Birley has drawn attention to the effect of this issue on events in the College,and he cuite correctly points out its effect on African students. The fact that theysee it against the background of general limitations by the state on their freedomof action as citizens can have the same stultifying effect on their student activitiesas does the threat of restriction or detention.2. CensorshipThe dissemination of an academic's professional findings is an essential part ofhis function both within tbs university world and in society. In the followinginstances we do not claim that any member of staff has suffered severe hardshipas a result of ounsorship in one shape or another ; we do claim that the directionof events is a sinister one, aild thatGovernment uontrol over publication has tightened to the point where svezimildly liberal views can be banned as subversive. The College has failed to makepublic protest against the

authorities in the following instances of politic ly-biased censorship. :'e think thatthe College should publicly support its staff, and the right of all citizens, topublish without first seeking the permission of the Government. The point whichDr.Birley makes, that no printer in the country would consent to publish researchfindings unless they were submitted to censorship, illustrates again how thegeneral use of emergency powers impinges on the freedom of the Collegg, and ofother institutions.Broadcast on the Rhodesia Brocdcastinp CorporationJuly 1965.

A member of the History Department was commissioned by the R.B.C. to give a15 minute talk on Cecil John Rhodes for Rhodes Day, 1965. He duly recorded thetalk, but was subsequently asked to make certain alterations to it. Evidently theR.B.C. wished to remove all traces of criticism of Rhodes, leaving only thefavourable references to him. Whea he agreed to some but not all of tbe changesrequested, the Director-General of the R.B.C. instructed that the talk should not bebroadcast.Denial of Access to Archival Material.Shortly before U.D.I. certain files on African politicalorFanisations in the 1920's and 1930's were closed indefinitely to severalmembers of the Department of History. The Director of the National Archivesindicated that the motives for this were partly 'to protect living persons' (althoughthe files had been open previously) and partly to adjust Archives policy toGovernment policy.One member of staff has had to replan his research programme and is now unableto assist in the publication of a book which would have greatly assisted him in hisacademic career.The Academic Board drafted a statement on academic freedom,etc., for the College Council to consider at its meeting of 10 December, 1965,specifically mentioning access to archives, multi-racial teaching hospital, etc., asexamples of academic freedom. However, CouMcil did not accept this clause inthe Academic Board's draft, and Council's statement of 10 December waspublished without it.Banning of Publicatioh.A pamphlet, Revisions in Central African History to 1953, by two members of theHistory Department, wao submitted to the censor and was banned underRegulations invalidated by the British Order in Council. The pamphlet waspublished in defiance of the illegal censorship. This mneans that the auhors areliable to prosecution, and, if convicted, to a sentence of imprisonment anl/or aheavy fine.Letter to the Times of 23rd November, 1965.A letter signed by 46 members of the College staff, refusing to recognise theSmith regfime, appeared in The Times on 23rd November, 1965. A draft of thisletter was circulated in the College on November 19th, and on the following day itwas the object of a search of lecturers' offices and homes by the Police. ThePolice Officer in charge said that to circulate a document inside the College was abreach of censorship regulations unless it was first submitted to the censor.

3. The Teaching Hospital of the University College.At a maeting in mid-1964 of representatives of the College,Her Majesty's Government and the Rhodesian Government, a final agreement wasreached on the project to build a teaching hospital for the Medical Faculty on theCollege campus. Plans had already been prepared by Lord Llewellyn Davies, inconformity with the recommendations by the Nuffield Planning Committee. HerMajesty's Government was to contribute £800,000, and the RhodesianGovernment the remaining £1.3 million. It was intended

to admit patients of all racial groups, not only to provide a service of academicquality to all sections of the community,but also to offer students experience in the management of the widely divergentpattern of diseases prevalent in the different peoples resident in this country.Construction was to begin in 1965, and it was expected that the hospital would befunctioning by 1968.Opposition to the construction of the hospital, at least in this form, had beenexpressed by Government members of Parliament in the House of Assembly, atthe 1965 Congress of the Rhodesian Front, in the press and at a public meeting. Itreached a climax in April-July 1965 ; an ad hoc committee was set up by the thenPrime Minister to reconcile the views of the College and its opponents, but littleprogress was made by the committee, which has not met in the last six months.The stated grounds for opposing the teaching hospitalproject were numerous. It was said to imply deferment of extensions to theCentral Hospital (a fee-payinZ hospital for white patients, run as a cottage-hospital), and it was o.aime4-that the costing (by the Consulting Architects andthe University College) was wildly optimistic, and that attendance by Africanpatients would detract from the quality of the Mount Pleasant suburb. But there islittle doubt that opposition was largely based on distaste for the multi-racialconcept. This was clearly expressed by Mr. Dominion, a member of theRhodesian Front Party 2xecutive : 'We will end up with being presented with thealternative of going to a multi-racial hospital or dying.' (Accounts of theRhodesian Front Congress contained in The Sunday Mail of 8th August, 1965,and in The Rhodesia Harald of 7th August, 1965, and 9th August, 1965.) 1 TheMinister of Health, Mr. McLean, has stated that hospitals* to be built in Rhodesiawould be expected to conform to the established practice within existinghospitals, namely that of racial segregation. It is believed that an alternativedesign has been prepared by the Minister of Health, comprising separate Whiteand African blocks with some shared services. It is inconceivable that such adesign would be accepted by Birmingham University, with which the MedicalSchool is in special relation.The effect of this opposition has been that permission has yet to be granted forbuilding to commence. As a result, there is no prospect that medical students nowin their fourth year of study will receive any part of their training in a suitablehospital, and it is very unlikely that third year students will do so. The presentarrangement is that clinical training is provided at Harari Hospital, nine milesfrom the campus ; this is an African hospital, severely overcrowded and deficientin adequate lecture rooms. Students see only African patients, and, therefore,obtain experience in only a limited range of diseases. Even if patients of all ethnicgroups were

10available there remains the widely-held prejudice against the examination byAfrican students of White patients, especially White women, even when theexamination would be on a voluntary basis.

Facilities are almost wholly lacking for sophisticated research, e.g. there is nometabolic ward. In general, because of the delay in building the new teachinghospital, stv dents are provided with inferior facilities, a state of affairsperpetuated by Government and other external opposition to the College'steaching hospital.D. The Police Order of March 17thThe history of the Police order, and its effect, are covered in the Birley Report.We consider thet here, in the most clear-cut way, is an example of how thearbitrary powers assumed by the Government under the Emergency Regulationsare turned directly against the College. And here we think that Dr. Birley, thoughunderstanding the immediate feelings of staff and students, has failed to take intoaccount the background against which many of us saw the imposition of thisorder. Not only did the order put all group activity in the College under Policecontrol, thus hitting directly at academic freedom, but it was exemplary of thearbitrary powers widely exercised by the present regime. It could not, as Dr.Birley suggests, be assumed that if the striking lecturers had waited for a weekwithout any protest they would then have found that the College would havereturned to a normal existence. (We who live in Rhodesia these days might bejustified in asking ourselves, 'What is a normal existence ?') Seen against thebackground of antipathy and the attitude of leaders of the ruling Party and theirsupporters towards the College, the order could be considered as part of the wayin which the present regime thought it might exert pressure on the College. Thefact that the Police thought it necessary to tour the staff residential area at the eastend of tha campus during the nights with Land Rovers, directing search lightsthrough windows, and into gardens and drive ways (a dinner party of more thanthree people was an illegal gathering in terms of the order), is an indication of ccalculated show of force and intimidation. Dr. Birley recognises that the attitudeof the lecturers after the imposition of the order cannot be adequately judgedwithout some consideration of previous events, and he refers the members of theUniversity Council to his views about the erosion of Academic Freedom. Thispassage of his Report is one which the Council significantly omitted toacknowledge in its subsequent statement of May 1st, though it specificallyaccepted other views critical of the staff.On the other hand Dr. Birley's Report does leave the impression of an attitude ofdissent among staff and students more limited than was the real case. We wishnow to deal briefly with this point.

THE EXTMNT OF STAFF AND STUDENT DISSNTBefore giving a narrative of the events in the College beginning on Wednesday,March 16th, Dr- Birley makes two points. The first is that he found no evidence,beyond a certain amount of hearsay, (part of which may have been the allegationby the Professor of Law published in The SundaMail of March 20th) thatmembers of the staff incited students to take part in a campaign of protest. Thesecond is that neither the members of staff nor the European students who toldhim that African students had been intimidated into taking part in the disturbances

produced any evidence of this. These observations show the care with which Dr.Birley examined the evidence submitted to him on these matters.There are, however, parts of Dr. Birloy's account of the actual events which fail toshow the extent of our support for the protest.With regard to the feelings and actions of the African students there wore somearents - one of which Dr. Birley does not report from which the Report could haveshown a wider and deeper feeling among the African students than it does.The unreported event was a crucial meeting which took place late on Wednesdaynight, March 16th, between the African students and their six representatives afterthe latter had left their meeting with the Principal. At this meeting the sixrepresentatives reported back to a full Arts Lecture Theatre the results of their talkwith the Principal, and here it was the overwhelming opinion of the meeting thatin view of the Principal's previous lack of action they would make a publicdemonstration the next day by boycotting lectures. The Report fails to bring outthe general feeling of suspicion and distrust at this point and to link it with thestart of the boycott.Other events, which the Report does refer to, when the extent of African studentfeeling was shown more clearly than the Report iirdicates, were the first gatheringon March 16th, with about 150 African students, not about 70, and the 'Teach-in'on March 23rd. Dr. Birley states that some fifty students attended this ; in fact atleast 180 atten.ed.In taking evidence about the numbers at these gatherings, and about the number oflecturers who postponed lectures on Thursday morning, March 17th, which werefer to below, we conclude that Dr. Birley must have felt bound to accept theopinions of students and members of staff other than those who were directlyinvolved, in order to present a balanced picture. Eut such opinions would havebeen based on conjecture and probably boon offered by persons wishing to givethe impression of instigation of the many by thq few. This impression is notentirely avoided in the Report.With regard to the feelings and actions of members of the staff, taere are threeinstances where by mis-reporting or by the omission of data the Report diminishesthe extent of staff dissent against the way in which the College authorities werehandling affairs. Firstly, on the morning of Thursday, March 17th, not five butfifteen lecturers postponed lectures. Secondly, on Thursday, March 17th, a jointmeeting of the Faculties of Arts and Social Studies passed a resolution, by anoverwhelming majority, supporting the African students in their grievaneGs.Thirdly, when on March 20th the ultimatum was sent to the striking lecturers, alarge number of staff came out in direct support of them, to the extent of makingit

12clear that they would consider resigning if those lecturers were dismissed. In totalthe College stood to lose up to fifty or sixty of its academic staff.We think it right to correct in this way the record of events which otherwiseshows Dr. Birley's clarity of thought in sorting out a confused situation on whichmany different interpretations were put by different people.

But this question of the extent of the protest is the least important of the threequestions we wish to raise. We think that such protest deserves to be judged cn itsoxn merits and against the background of the circumstances which have alreadybeen described. A much more important question arising out of the Report s thatof the loyalty of staff to the College.

STAFF LOYALTY TO THE COLLG.As far as the staff of the Collego is concerned, one of the most important passagesin the Birloy Report is in paragraph 116. Here Dr. Birley states that if the Collegeauthorities will take the opportunity to make their position absolutoly clear to thestaff, and take steps to ensure that it remains clear to them, then in his view theCollege has a right to make a definite call on their loyalty. If the staff believe theCollege is taking the wrong line then they have no right to remain in its service,and any who do remain should show their confidence by their loyal actions. Thisopinion has subsequently been taken up by the Principal in a meeting with theacademic staff, and it is one which has been endorsed by the Council in its reportof May lat.As yet the position of the College authorities has aot been clarified. But, toaccentuate general misgivings which members of staff feel about the effect onCollege affairs of the outside pressures described earlier in this report, eventshave taken place recently in the College itself which have given the staff goodcause to question whore authority in the College really lies. The question canseriously be asked, 'Loyalty to whom and to what ?'These events started before Dr. Birloy began his investigations, but they wereoutside the scope of the enquiry.Mr. J. Maluleke, a restricted student of the College, who hss been mentionedearlier, escaped from detention and presented himself on 12 April for registration,which was carried out by the Dean of kis Faculty. He began attending classes thesame day. When this became known, the Police issued a warrant for his arrest andtold the College Principal that anyone withholding information about Mr.Maluleke's whereabouts would be liable to imprisonment and/or a heavy fine.That evening some members of staff succodod in obtaining an interview with thePrincipal. They considered that as Mr. Yaluleke was a student of the College (apoint previously made by the Principal in a letter to Malulike when he was indetention), it was their duty to provide him with tuition and all other facilities dueto a student. They therefore had conflicting Icyalties, to the College and to thegoverning regime. As a small number of lecturers and wardens of halls ofresidence were aspecially exposed to this dilemma, it was considered that theCollege should act collectively as a corporata body. This would imply a duty onthe Principal to give clear instructions to the staff as to whether or not they shouldcomply with the Police order.Next day the Principal issued a statement to the College, reporting the legalposition and stating that, while he left it to each individual member of staff todecide whether or not he would inform the Police of Maluleke's whereabouts, hehimself would not reveal to them any information he might have.

That afternoon the Principal informed a meeting of the Academic Board thathaving issued the statement he had tendered his resignation to the CollegeCouncil. The Academic Board passed the following resolutions -

'This Academic Board endorses the action that thePrincipal has taken in declining to pass on to the Police any information that hereceives about thewhereabouts of Mr. Maluleke.''This Academic Board believes that the personalposition taken by the Principal in his statementof 13 April 1966 is compatible with his continuingin office and strongly urges that the Councildo not accept his proffered resignation,'On Thursday the Faculties met and considered the resolutions of the AcademicBoard. All Faculties urged tha Council not to accept the Principal's resignationand the boards of all Faculties except that of the Science Faculty voted in supportof the Principal's stand. A number of members of staff wrote to the Principalsaying that they would themselves resign from the College if his resignation wereaccepted and others who had already put in their resignations from the Collegewrote to support this statement.During the following week Maluleke lived at the College and attended lectures ;the Police made no attempt to arrest him and there was no indication when theCollege Council would meet to consider the Principal's resignation. Towards theend of the week it was announced that the Academic Board would meet onMonday 25th April and tnat a full meeting of the College Council including theBritish members would be held on Friday 29th April.For fourteen days Maluleke continued with student life. It was then discoveredthat he had not in fact been formally registered for the current academic year.During the period since Maluleke's arrival at the College, it had been assumedthat he was still a student of the College and re-registered in the Faculty of SocialStudios. In the week preceding the meeting of Council a report appeared in TheRhodesia Herald saying that Maluleke was not a registered studentof the CollogeFrom this point, Maluleke made further attempts to complete registrationformalities. and it is hard to rosist the conclusion that both tho Principal and theRegistry made every attempt to prevent this registration taking place, ThePrincipal declared on Wednesday 27th April that Maluleke could not be registereduntil he had paid the full year's fees - some £200 - even though in specialcircumstances students are allowed to register on the payment of a single term'sfees and Maluleke's circumstances Were certainly special - that is, there could belittle certainty of his opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a full year's tuition at theCollege. When Maluleke appeared there with 70, being one term's fees he wastold that in addition to this he must pay a fine of 10/- for every day that hisregistration was late another £27 in all - although for most of this time Malulekehad not registered because he had been in detention.On the morning of Thursday 28th April, tho day before

Council was due to meet, the Registrar said that even if Maluleke found thenecessary money he could not be registered until both the Academic Board andAdmissions Committee had given direct authority. It was now clear thatMaluleke's registration was being delayed deliberately. Three Deans, togetherwith another senior member of the academic staff, informed thb Principal thatMaluleke's fees for the full year, together with the fine, had been paid and urgedhim not to delay the formal registration any longer. They told a gathering of staffthat the Principal agreed that £aluleke should be considered a registered studentand that the 'technicalities' of registration

15would be gone through first thing in the morning and therefore before the meetingof the College Council at 9.00. The Deans then returned to report this to the othormembers of their Faculties who were concerned about the matter, and to theAfrican students. Immediately after seeing the Deans thePrincipal joined the Briish representatives of Council who had arrived during theday. He reported to them what had just taken place and that Maluleke would nowbe registered. Together they agreed to call in Sir Henry McDowell the ViceChairman of Council.' At the private meoting that then took place, it appears thatthe Vice Chairman of Council, the Principal and the five British members ofCouncil (the total membership of Council is 29) took the decision that Sir HenryMcDowell should countermand the Principal's promise to the Deans in themorning.At 7.45 a.m. on April 29th all five Deans were summoned to the College. Theythere met the Principal and Sir Henry McDowell. Sir Henry McDowell told themthat he had overruled the Principal and that Maluleke would not be considered asregistered, for the time being at any rate.Thus a lay member of Council had oveiruled the Principal on the registration of astudent - something which had always been considered.p purely acadoi c matter.In this early morning meeting the Principal did not speak at all, so that even theannouncement of the overruling was made to the Academic staff by a lay memberof Council.The College Council met at 9.30 a.m. As news of the 'overruling' of the Principalreached mem4bers of staff its significance was realized -whenever the conduct ofaffairs of the College ran counter to the wishes of the governing regime then therunning of the College and the responsibility for this could be taken over by thelay members of Council who are sympathetic to the regime. A meeting of themembers of staff who had receivedthe assurances the previous evening thatMaluleke whould be considered a registered student drew up the followingstatement'The Principal promised some of the Deans last evening that Maluleke mould beregistered this morning and theDeans accepted that promise.Sir Renry McDowell has now reversed the decision and thereby unwarrantablyinterfered in a matter which is wholly within the competence of Academic Boardand its sub-committees. By this usurpation of control of an

academic matterSir Henry McDowell has placed theacademic staff in an intolerable position.We believe the Council now faces a clear alternative.ither it must support the Principal in the decisionhe made and therefore repudiate the Vice Chairman's overruling or it must rulethat the Principal is nolonger the chief academic and administrative officerof the College, and that academic registration is notwholly within the competence of the Academic Board.'During the morning this statement was signed by fifty-fivemembers of the College staff and was sent into Council where it was read. Yet amotion endorsing Sir Henry McDowell's action in overruling the Principal wascarried by 12 votes to4.The Council met ,that afternoon, and on the next two days, On Sunday morniIgthe Salisbury newspaper carried a report about the meeting which contained thisstatement

16'The Council also approved a decision not to allow theescaped restrictee to register at the University.'At lunch time on May 1st the Council meeting ended. The report issued later inthe day contained no direct mention of Maluleke or of the Vice Chairman'sactions. It said that the Council had agreed that its Chairman should write to thePrincipal as follows'We understand the difficult position in which you wereplaced when your student Mr. Maluleke presented himself at the College andrealise that you acted as youdid after careful reflection and as a matter of personalconscience. We also appreciate the consideration youhave shown us in placing your resignation at ourdisposal. In a matter so complex we are naturallydivided in our opinions as to the wisdom or rightness of your action. Weunanimously resolved, however, atour session on 30 April, to reaffirm our confidence in you and to request you towithdraw your offer ofresignation.'and that the Principal had agreed to withdraw his offer of resignation. TheCouncil in its consideration of the Birley Report agreed to follow the coursesuggested in para. 129 which says that the College should approa'ch the relevantgovernmental authorities to try to secure their ag reement to an arrangement underwhich the students of the College who are restricted should be restricted to thecampus.On that Sunday afternoon an informal meeting was held between Sir HenryMcDowell and some of the College's academic representatives on Council.Afterwards the representatives addressed fifty or sixty members of staff, telling

them that the Principal had promised that Maluleke would be registered the nextmorning. The staff were asked to conceal the information from the press both thenand after Maluleke had been registered. Staff were told that when the Councilendorsed Sir Henry McDowell's action, they were endorsing not the absoluterefusal of Maluleke's registration but only the refusal of registration on April 29th.After seeing the staff the same senior members saw the student committee of sixand the President Nlect of the Students Union, and gave them the sameinformationNext morning the Principal, through one of the Deans, informed Maluleke that hewould not after all be registered. He said that he did not wish thatmembers of theRegistry should place themselves in danger of serious penalties by registering aman wanted by the Police, and that there were now negotiations in progressbetween the College and the regime about the alteration of restriction orders sothat students of the College could be restrictod to the College campus, these, hssaid, would be prejudiced if Maluleke were registered before they wereconcluded.It must be plain that these events have not been a happy start to the 'new era ofmutual confidence' within the College which the Principal has called for. Webelieve that the senior members who addressed staff and student representetiveson Sunday evening acted in complete good faith but obviously they will neveragain be able, even if they are willing, to act as a bridge or channel ofcommunication between staff and administration and Council. The Principalseems, through the Maluleke affair, to have yielded to successive pressures ratherthan to have led the Collegev and to have acted in ways which openedmisunderstandings instead of healing them. We believe that in the daysimmediately following the Principal's announcement that he would refuse toreveal Maluleke's whereabouts to the Police, the College, though it was notunified entirely, knew a spirit of confidence and determination

that has boon completely lost by the Prinoipl's, handling, or failure to handle,matters since. It is apparent now that many of us misunderstood the nature of thestand which the Principal considered he was taking at that time but there hasnever been any word of clarification from him. le believe there has been anunwarranted and improper interference in academic matters by a member of theCollege Council and we regret that this has been accepted and endorsed by theCollege Council itself including the British members. The dismay which hasbeen caused among staff by this siding of the British members with the non-academic Rhodesian members of Council against our academic members has beenvery deep indoed.Because of all this, when we are asked, as we have been asked by 1r. Birley ardthe Principal, to shaow loyalty to'the College, we fear this means loyalty to aCollege Council controlled by local members who accept the present regime ofRhodesia and some of whom are members of the Rhodesian Front Party. They donot believe in a truly multi-racial state in Rhodesia and therefore we feel are notsuitable people to control a multi-racial College.

It is -evealing that during the Council meeting one of these members referred toAfrican students as "those monkeys", a term of contemptuous abuse used bymany white Rhodesians. It is equally revealing of the limited knowledge on thepart of British members of attitudes and conditions in Rhodesia that they wereapparently unaware of the significance of such a remark.PerLaps some mombers honestly believe they are serving theCollege by attempting to reconcile it to the illegal regime of the country. But theallegiance of the College Council is now in conflict with the allegiance of many,and perhaps most, members of staff who are either Pritish or Rhcdesian citizens.We believe that the regime, realising that direct interference in the College'saffairs would quickly lead to the closing down of the College, has begun tocontrol and to interfere in its affairs through the College Council.Evidence for the close rapport between the Council and the governing regimeincludes the appointment of the Vice-Chairman of Council to the illegal Board ofthe Reserve Bank of Rhodesia, and the fulfilment of the Council's attempt to haverestricted students confined to the campus instead of to Gonakudzinga detentioncamp.Members of staff who no longer feel confidence in the College authorities willleave the College, and many have left or are leaving. But to say that this is theonly honourable course for them, as the Principal has done in an address to thestaff on the Birley Report, is to identify honour with expediency, and with theinterests of the present regime rather than those of the country as a whole.It is of the utmost importance that when constitutionalGovernment is restored to the Colony of Rhodesia, the College should not bestaffed entirely by men and women wh3 fully accepted illegality or who saw nolimit to the compromises justified by political circumstances. There are somemembers of staff who feel it is their duty to continue at their pouts even thoughthe College's administration is no longer independent, in order to fight from theinside in the interests of the students and of the College itself as an autonomousacademic institution. They are justified because circumstances may change,constitutional government may be reestablished, with the opportunity to beginbuilding a multi-racial society. But even if there were no chance of thishappening, we feel that they would be validly interpreting their professional dutyif they decided to stay and teach at the College until they were removed.

CONCLUSION + 18We believe that, provided the College c'n enjoy thefreedoms accepted as normal in British Universities, it an peorform a vital role inRhodesia. In a society in which extreism in r acial and political thinking is all tooprominent, the College can offers a .place where divergent voioes can be , ea,.different positions examined without prejudice to the community, and wherereason snd truth can be sought. And, of o urse, the C-ollege performs the moreimmediate functions of educating undergraduates for degrees and fosteringresearch.We do not believe that the College can perform these services for the cmmunityunless normal freedoms and rights are respected. The College is no a popularinstitution among a powerful section of the community. Instead of pride in the

College and its services and achievements, it is commoh to find fear andsuspicion. There is no evidence, as far as we khnow, of any Government plan toclose the College or to control its internal administration and programmes ofteaching and research, its freedom to appoint az teachers and to admit as studentsthose whom it considers fit. But we do consider that there is a very r eal danger'of the College having its rights eroded away by single a ho acts. Already suchacts include the censorshipof publications, the restriction of students without trial, the refusal to permit otherstudents to remain i Rhod sia, the search of-staff houses and offices, theimposition of police emergency orders which went as far as to control, in theseme of allowing only by police permission, all the normal and offioial meetingsand business of the College.,.These particular acts axe said by some to be special end exceptional oases, c1@ating no precedents and not constituting ay thrat to the University College.We cannot accept this'. We consider that they are symptomatic of a mentalitywhich either does not understand, or is hostile to thr idea of a University sash ashas grown up in the West, and is 'prepared to accept the University only on itsown conditions-in a servile capacity in which freedom to examine, eriticise andstudy is curtailed. This is a problem which universities have frequently had to facein the .history of their institution and which arises specifically here in Rhodesiabeouse we have a society in which racial tensions are high, a government whichhas seized power illegally and maintained itself by emergency legislation and thesevere curtailment of civil liberties.Such being the case, one can understand the position of African studentswho feel -severalythreatened and insecure because of unexplained acts ofrestriction direeted against students as such. As students they will want to Joinwith others i voicing their criticism of the regime and their ho-pes for the futureof their peorle. T'hey may have come to aocept as inevitable the risk of arrest Fndrestriction as the result of being too prominent in student politics, but if theUniversity does not protest on the basis of its own charter against this unjustdiscrimination, it is not to be .vondered at if they show their disillusionment anddespair.If the College is. to exist outhe terms we envisage then the erosionof College (freedoms and rights m-ust be resisted, Representaicn to ministersandipexacual pressures may be valuable, but tiese 'alona diannot ,and 2,learlyhave not, been adequate. If the College is to survive, it must have its position andits rights publioly respected. It must be prepared to stand up for-itself and makeknow:n that it is standing up for itself. The .ole-e-Muat defend its freedom out ofthr responibility it bears to the Qommidty to be the thing it was set up to. be, andwhich so many have striven, adare striving; to- make it. We appreciate thedifficulties of maeking such stands. We accept that there are clear divisions withinthe C<olege itself, hut unleas a clear lead is given in defending Collage rights andreedmsthen it cninot perform it functioni and has betrayed its trust. if we <mayrefer again1 specifical~ly to the <students whose action drew attention to thisweakenss, in the College, the students who ai'e the first to suffer from inaction, it

is clear that they have beoome disillusioned by what they see as failure of ros-ponsibility -on the part of their seniors.

Those of us who have taught at South African universities, such as the Universityof Cape Town, recall the same slow, but inexorable erosion of academic freedom.However, there is onc notabledifference, the South African Government has for many years been fimlyentrenched in power, whilst the regime in Rhodesia is at present far less secure.in this country it is still sometimes possible to resist the deprivation of civil rights.The argument often made on behalf of the College's administration is that publicprotest is likely to vitiate-the chance of obtaining onncessions from the regime.'Secret diplomacy is assumed to offer greater chance of success, by saving faceand. avoiding untoward publicity. But even apart from considerations ofprinciple, which are all too easily ignored in a situation like this, secrecy has notbeen very successful, Though there may have been occasions when secretapproaches were the only possible means of negotiation, thereare cases in which direct confrontation has caused the regime to retreat.We feel that it is necessary to oppose with vigour every attempt by the regime torestrict the freedom of the College. By so doing, in our pinion, we are offeringthe University College of Rhodesia its bes: chance for survival with honour. Pyneglecting to defend our principles now, ,we run the risk of becoming an object ofcontempt in the Rhodesia of he future and in the eyes of the world. We wouldalso seriously reduce our right and ability to resist pressure from futuregovernments of the country.

APPENDIX I.WEDNESDAY, 16TH MARCH.At 1.30 p.m. about 150 students, mostly African, gatheredat the principal's Lodge with a request to see the Principalthat day. The Principal informed them that he was notprepared to meet all of them, but that if they selected a delegation he wouldarrange a time. He then attended aseries of meetings beginning with a meeting of theStudent Health Committee at 2,15. At the end of this meeting, about 3.30, anumber of students were crowded about the door of the Cotncil Room and whenquestioned said that they were dissatisfied with the Principal's failure to specify atime at which he would meet their representativesto discuss their grievances. The Principal said that he would meet a delegation thefollowing morning, but only to arrange a time for a meeting; he was unable togive anassurance that this meeting would take place before his departure for London onSaturday. The students pressed the Principal to meet the delegation that day ratherthan the following day, which he eventually agreed to do, at6.0 p.m., but he still gave no promises that he would hear the actual grievancesbefore his departure. He told the student representatives to wait outside theCouncil Room at 6.0 p.m. and ordered the rest to disperse. This however they

refused to do, apparently believing that if they remained in a body they wouldemphasise the urgency and seriousness of their requests.The reason for an approach of this kind to thePrincipal, and the reason why the students believed the Principal would postponehis meetirg with them indefinitely (or at least until after his return fromLondon), must be seen against the background of previous student delegations. Ata later stage the studentspointed out to the Principal that when they approached him in the normal way,either through the Registrar or Principal's Personal Assistant, or even directly in adelegation, they had constantly found themselves frustrated. Sometimes theynever reached the Principal and requests were lost in the administration's files;sometimes they had been promised that the Principal would "look into thematter", after which nothing had happened. The evasiveness of the Principal onthis occasion only reinforced their belief that he intended to do the same thingagain.It should also be made clear that one of the reasonswhy the students wished to see the Principal was his intendedvisit to Britain three days later. It seemed to the students essential that thePrincipal should not be allowed to say in Britain that all the members of theCollege were quite happy with the condition of the College under the SmithregLmo. There was therefore a very good reason why the students felt on thisoccasion they must be allowed to seethe Principal in the near future.6.0 p.m. More students had been arriving, bringing the total up to about 200. Itwas only about 4.0 p.m. that most staff became aware that anything out of theordinary was in progress. There was also a good deal of noise outside the ChunailRoom where the Principal was by z.ow holding a meeting with the Deans. Itwould however be quite incorrect to suppose that the disturbances constituted anythreat to person or property, in spite of the seriousness of thestudent demands. Soon after 6.0 p.m. the Principal emergedfrom/...

from the Council loom and informed the students that he had no intention ofseeing them while they were behaving so badly, and unless thy dispersed he".ould call in the police.Whatever the justice of the Principal's position it is unfor+unate that he inflamedthe students (who were already excited) by this kind of threat, and by still notgiving them a definite time for their meeting. He seems not to have recognised theunderlying seriousness of the situation, nor the need to fix a definite time ofappointment and to attempt to sot up machinery for discussion - regardless of thepropriety of the student behaviour. One has to understand the deep-seated loathingfor the police among many of the African students to know what a threat to call inthe police meant. The Principal seemed to identify himself with the forces ofoppression in the country, the very thing the students were reacting against.The meeting in the Council Room continued, but the students refused to disperse.At about 7.0 p.m. the meeting ended and the Principal attempted to leave the

room. The corridors were completely blocked by students, who were determinedthat the Principal should give them a definite appointment. As he came out of thedoor they refused to move, but there was absolutely no attempt to do more thanthis. The Principal retired into the Council Room claiming that he had beenmanhandled. But this is quite untrue (though it is quoted more than once in lateraccounts). Several non-student witnesses, including several representatives of thepress, saw what happened. The Times has quoted the Principal as saying that hewas net manhandled.The Registrar came out of the room and was allowed topass through the students quite untouched, even though the students believed thathe was going to telephone the police. Soon after this the Registrar returned verybriefly to the back of the crowd to see what the students were doing. At thatmoment six of them were called into the Council Room on the initiative of one ofthe Deans, but it is possible the Registrar could not see this. Once inside theCouncil Room the students were given an appointment by the Principal for 10p.m. at the Lodge, and at once the whole student body began to disperse.The Registrar meanwhile had gone to his house One of the Deans came cat of theCouncil Room and went straight to the telephone in the Reception Office in theHall below, where he rang the Registrar's house to tell him that, if the police hadbeen summoned, they were not needod. Failing to get through to the Registrar heasked a member of the staff to go to his house to tell him not to telephone thepolice. (Note that later newspaper reports say that one of the students forciblyrestrained the Registrar from calling the police). Since all this activity took placein the presence of many students, who were in small groups in front of the ArtsBlock, it was impossible for them not to know what was taking place.The tion by the Registrar in actually attempting to call the police was bitterlycriticised. Fortunately some

of the Deans had the good sense to see that it was unwise to call the police. It tookabout two minutes for the students to disperse when the Principal finallyconsented to meet their representatives.The students now decided that they would not befoiled again in their intention to see the Principal, and that they would thereforego in a body to the Principal's Lodge to wait the meeting at 10 p.m. This was notso much an act of defiance (though there may have been an element of thispresent by now), but a demonstration of their seriousness. By having foregonetheir evening meal and having waited for 81 hours for an interview they believedthey were showing their patience and determination.One group of white students said to staff members present that they had come tosee the "munts", a term of abuse which would have infuriated the Africans.Because of this they were asked to leave. Later, two South African journalistswere asked to identify themselves, but offensively refused to do so. They too weretold to leave. But no one else was turned away. Other white students came andwatched quietly. These incidents were given prominence by Dr. Birley, whoseaccount and interpretation appear to be based on police evidence, as opposed tothe evidence submitted by those of us who were present.

The six delegates went in to the Principal's Lodge at 10.0 p.m. and met not onlythe Principal, but two Deans, the Registrar and the Wardens. At midnight theyemerged and at once decided to report back to the waiting students. A largemeeting took place in the Arts Lecture Theatre at which the six reported theirdiscussions. No attempt was made to eject outsiders or non-participating students.The delegates explained that they had taken three requests to the Principal(a) That the College should declare itsopposition to The Unilateral Declarationof Independence;(1) That the College should publicly protestabout and assist students who were arrested,detained or restricted without trial;(c) That the Principal should intervene in thewhole question of students' affairs, suspend the newly granted powers ofdiscipline givento the Students' Union, and find some means of ensuring that African students hadsomerights of expression within the studentbody.It is necessary at this stage to comment briefly on the real nature of thesedemands, as we see them, since there is a long history and background to some ofthem.(a) Opposition to U.D.I. In some senses thiswas tha least important of the claims,and certainly the least immediate. 46 membersof staff had signed a letter to "The Times"in November, 1965 declaring their oppositionto the Smith regime's unconstitutional act.But/...

But the College had made no attempt to protest or stop thepolice who raided the College in an attempt to seize thedocument of signatures and to obtain evidence that theletter had beeon circulated within the Colleged, in allegedpontravention of an Ehergency Regmlation. It must be emphasised that this letterwas an internal document.When later certain members of staff wrote a letterof protest against Government attacks upon theUniversity staff and students and on University autonomy,they immediately received something approaching a reprimandfrom the Principal, but when students had been arrestedduring the vacation and when two had been put intorestriction there was nothing like the same prompt reaction. A member of theInternational Students' Conference from Oxford who had attempted to see thePrincipal in January about student protection and assistance was unable on twooccasions $o got an interview with him (though be had no

difficulty in seeing . :abinet Ministers). The conclusion was that the Principalwas far more interested in stopping legitimate protests. Thus requests (a) and (b)were closely connected and emotionally stemmed from the same source whichwas a plea for protection by the University against arbitrary actions of the regimeand a demand to know on which side the College authorities stood. Were they infuture likely to assist students against whom a regime dedicated to racialdiscrimination was likely to be hostile, or were they going to acquiesce in thesedishonourable (and extralegal) actions without a protest?(b) Student restrictions and arrests. In our opinion this was the most importantand the most eecp-seated of the complaints. At least two of the six delegates hadsuffered atthe hands of the police during the vacations. Messages to Dr. Adams had. eitherne7,er been received by him (e.g. the example aove) or he had done nothing aboutthem. Two students, Maluleke and Makoni had been arrested (as described in thebody of this report). The Principal had been kept fully informed of these facts bymembers of staff, nd in fact had made private representations to the authorities totry and get the restriction orders lifted,butwithout success. He failed however to make any kind of public protest about therestrictions. Nor had he at any stage informed staff or students of his privateefforts. Once again, thq impression was created that the College authorities wouldnot fight publicly for the rights of their students and teachers of the College.(0) Student Union Africans. It would not be appropriate for members of staff togo into this dispute at any great length. There has been a long history ofdifficulties. but the more immediate grievances arose from the Presentation DayCeremonies in October, 1965, at which 'he Governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs, wasthe guest of honour. A number of African students left the cermony as he began tospeak, as a protest against the actions of the Smith Government. The protest itselfwas perhaps ill-advised, but it was the sequel whichhad more importance for the Students' Union. A disPute arose as to the proprietyof issuing press statements, in which the President of the Union was believed tohave acted inappropriately, siding with the white students and referring to theAfricans as "puerile", in a newspaper statement. A complete break had occurredwhen every single African member withdrew from Union affairs. Neither side, inour opinion, behaved with much credit.At/...

At the beginning of this year, however, the Principalagreed to grant the Students' Union a far wider measure ofdisciplinary powers than ever before. They were givenpowers which, to say the least, were ambiguous, but which, under thecircumstances of a split body, were surely alsoinadvisable. The non-white students were refused permissionto meet anywhere on the College site to consider theirposition and to put forward terms for negotiation. This,as a strictly legalistic approach, was correct. Instead oftalks and investigations to try and bring the student body

together, penalties had forced the African students into demonstrating.At the midnight meeting on March 16th one of the student delegates was able toreport the following replies of the Principal to their requests(a) The College as a body was in no position tocondemn U.D.I. That is, (according to the report)there was no agreement among the whole University onthe issue.This answe evades the deeper issues explainedabove.(b)The Principal explained that he had made privaterepresentations on behalf of the restrictedstudents either to bring about their release orto get the terms of their restriction orderohanged, but that he had had no success. As toother student arrests he had no previous knowledgeof this ani would welcome a concise and accurateaccount of the facts.As explained above, the Principal had been urged two months earlier to make apublic protest about restricted students if ne were unsuccessful in privatenegotiation. There had also been several attempts to give him some of the facts onarrested students and, in at least one case, he had been sent a letteo acquaintinghim with the facts. His answer was therefore received with incredulity.(c) On Student Affairs, the Principal agreed tobegin nego-iations the following day and urgedthe students to co-operate by meeting theStudent Union representatives to find a solution.To this they agreed.This was a sensible but belated attempt to solve the problem.The delegates who reported back tothe two hundred students were divided onwhether or not to accept the Principal's answers. Speakers recalled a similarpromise of an enquiry by the Principal a year previously, which had not beenacted upon. Others feared the introduction of apartheid into the College, affectingtheir brothers still at school if not themselves. The Principal's statement was, tosay the least, inconclusive, and his sincerity was gravely doubted, but the studentsfelt he should be given a chance to show his intentions. The students decided todemonstrate their feelings by boycotting lectures on thefollowing day (Thursday, March 17th), then to review the position.it/.. .

It was moreover clear that the students felt that, in view of the treatment they hadreceived from the Principal on Wednesday, they were likely to achieve nothingunless they showed him that they did not believe a solution had yet been found.They thought the best way to show this was by absenting themselves fromlectures in a mass.THURSDAY, 17TH MARCH.The first that most members of staff know of the

continued demonstrations was that no African student was present in the lectureroom. As soon as this became generally known, most members of the Faculties ofArts and Social Studies found themselves in a difficult position. Among a certainnumber of staff there was a strong sympathy with some of the student demands,though as yet no positive identification with them. But there was tho, additionalfactor that many members of staff were due to give lectures to a class, over half ormore of whom were known to be absenting themselves. It was also known thatthe Faculty of Social Studies was holding an extraordinary meeting at2.15 on Thursday at which they would discuss the events of the past 24 hours.Mmbers of the Faculty of Arts also decided to ask for an emergency meeting oftheir Faculty Board at the same time. Meanwhile 15 members of staff decided topostpone lectures for that day. (This number has been ascertained since thepublication of the Birley Report, in which he gives the number as 5.)2.15 p.m. The meetings of the Faculties of Arts and Social Studies took place inthe lecture rooms 1 and 3. The 'dissident' students had decided to gather on thegrass outside the meeting holding placards urging the Faculties to support theirdemands. As tho meetings began, amid a good deal of excitement, the studentsmoved awaty from the Arts Block on to the College green between the Arts andScience buildings. At both Faculty meetings there was a brief discussion amongmembers as to the nature of the student grievances and the attitude of the FacultyBoards to their grievances. It quickly became apparent that there was a widemeasure of sympathy for the students and anger at the way in which +,he studentshad been handled the previous day by the Principal. One of the points seizedupon by Faculty mambors was the inexplicable account given by the Principal tothe Deans that he had *een manhandled by students when, as many of thosepresent know, nothing of the sort had occurred.The outcome of the joint Faculty meeting was a public statement issued by themshowing a general support of thestudent demands. This departure from established College practice wassymptomatic of the failure of normal channels of negotiabion. It was said at themeeting that if the Principal believed it:was inappropriate for the College as awhole to make any pronouncement on U.D.I. because there was no generalagreement, this: did not apply to the Faculties of Arts and Social Studies who hada very wide measure of agreement. They had very strong feelings on some:of theconsequences of that illegal act insofar as they directly affected the Faculties -staff recruiting, resignations, student arrests, censorship of publications beingsome of the obvious cases in point.Substantially/...

26Substantially the joint Faculty statement followed the lines of the studentdemands of the previous day and was meant to show that the Faculties did notbelieve they could be ignored. It was also, at the request of thu Faculties, read outto the students outside the lecture rooms by the Chairman. Immediatelyafterwards, the students dispea'sed to their various halls of residence.It was already known that large concentrations of

police were hovering around the roatds just off the University site. However, itwas not then known (until 24 hours later) that notice of an order in terms of theEmergency Powers of the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act had already beenserved on the Principal, who had neverthelkss secured a temporary stay ofexecution of the order (barring all meetings on thecampus) until 9.45 that night.Feelings of members of staff in the Faculties of Arts and Social Studies werevaried. Some felt that in virw of the joint Faculties' resolution of support for thestudent demands, they had an obligation to refuse to lecture for a token period (ofone day)'until the College authorities had given some assurance of their good faithin trying to find a solution. Some members of staff were also encouraged toprotest in this way in view of the fact that during that very morning, when someof the 'dissident' student representatives had gone to the Principal with a statementof complaints relating to student arrests (as the Principal himself had requestedthe previous night), they had been turned away by the Principal's privatesecretary, ordered to present their statement to the Registrar, and, when theycomplained about this, they were told that they were threatening the secretary.The events indicate an attitude of contempt for the students' views andsensibilities, and a complete lack of contact with the gravely serious situation thatwas developing.7.30 p.m. The students, as agreed upon wth the Principal the previous night, metin the Arts Lecture Theatre to discuss the events of thti day cnd their future courseof action. The Principal himself asked to be allowed to address them5 which hedid briefly at the start of the meeting. He did not tell the students, what he alreadyknew, that a police emergency order was to take effect from that evening. After hehad spoken, he was thanked and asked to withdraw from the meeting.The final decision of the meeting was to continue the boycott for one day more.As a gesture of support for the minority of students in the 8cience Faculty whowere to boycott lectures, the meeting agreed to picket the entrances to the Sciencebuildings for the next morning.White students were beginning to put real pressureupon the College administration to take disciplinary action against the 'dissident'students and lecturers. Already, the all-white Students' Union had issued onestatement to the Press condemning the lecture boycott (Rhodesia HeraldFriday, March 18th) and there was a good deal of fcling against lecturers in theFaculties of Arts and Social Studies.White students had threatened at least one lecturer.Many students were temporarily inconvenienced by the lack of teaching next day,but this did not justify the call for "immediate and stringent disciplinary action"against students and staff, demanded by the President of the Union/...

Union in a report published on March 19th. The attitude of the Union helped todivide black and white students into two rigidly-opposed camps.It is in the light of this growing emotionalism that the 'dissident' students' decisionto picket the Science buildings should be seen. Coupled with this is also the long-held belief among African students that certain practices in the Science Faculty

have racial overtones which are offensive. African and European technicians haveseparate lavatory facilities in one department and some of the white technical staff(and a few leoturers) have made no secret of their support for the politics of theSmith regime. On the whole, we believe the view to be exaggerated but notwithout foundation.The students who planned on the Thursday evening topicket the Science buildings did no., of course, know that, under the terms of theemergency order served on the Principal that day, they would be met thefollowing morning by the police.FRIDAY, 18TH MARCH.7.30 a.m. Large numbers of police arrived on the siteat the time when the students intended to picket the Science buildings. ThePrincipal came down to the students with the terms of the emergency order, whichhe read out to them. Soon after this a notice appeared on all College notice boardsgiving the exact text of what was road, including the information that the Collegehad not been responsible for calling in the police. The students still refused todisperse and did not do so until they had been warned by the senior police officerthat they faced the possibility of arrest. Then, as Afriaan and European policeconstables with-dogs moved in on the group, the students moved away from theScience blocks towards the Arts block which they entered chanting and singing asthey went. Moving through the building, the students emerged at the enu facingthelibrary and, closely tailed by a rank of policemen with dogs, went down towardsthe halls of residence.Those who were present can attest to the extremely threatening bohaviour of thepolice. In our opinion the force of the measures adopted was not justified by thesituation. No violence or threat of violence had occurred before this.Most of the 'dissident' students gathered briefly, discussed their position andagreed to disperse to allow their chosen committee to issue a statement. Thestatement was intended to point out that their grievances had still not been met,that they had not resorted o violence in spite of police action, and that theydeplored the intervention of the police on the College campus. By now about sixLandrovers were stationed on the Library green as a prominent reminder to allthat the College was now under police supervision. There were also several policecars and plain-clothed detectives on the site.Regarding one incident of stone throwing in the Science block, most of thestudents were unaware of this foolish action when they later issued their statementdenying that they had resorted to violence.The/...

The significant point about the police intervention is that the College authoritiesdid not themselves judge it necessary to call them in. However, the Principalhimself read out the police order and the name of the Principal's PersonalAssistant appeared on the statement. Instead of protesting against (or at leastdissociating itself from) an emergency order which was made out in terms of a1966 Act, passed by a regime whose legality is still sub-judice in the courts, andwhose validity therefore was dubious, the College appeared to collaborate with

the police. The College authorities were certainly powerless to refuse the policepermission to enter the College site under the 1966 Act, but they could at leasthave insisted that the College should dissociate itself from the police order. Inview of the Principal's earlier promises to staff (in December) that he would nothesitate to resist if and when the College's autonomy was violated, a number ofmembers of staff felt very strongly that they had been betrayed. It was at thisstage,for the first time, that many staff members first thought in terms of strike action indefence of their rights.A meeting of the Faculty of Social Studies, scheduled to take place at 2.15 p.m.(at which machinery for student discipline was to be discussed) was refusedpermission by the police. Many members wished to defy the police ban, but theDean felt unable to convene the meeting. There couldhardly have been a clearer example of police interterenae in College life.A similar incident occurred two days later when thepolice questioned the right of the Vice-Principal, the Dean,the Registrar and the Principal' s Personal Assistant to hold a meeting to discassstudent discipline. The Principal's Assistant was called out of the meeting by asenior police officer and reprimanded for failing to obtain police permission forthe gathering.3.30 p.m. At a meeting with the staff the Principal gave a brief account of thepreceding 48 hours in which he stated that he had not known of many of thestudent complaints earlier and that he welcomed any information to elucidate thematter. To this end, he said, he intended asking the Deansand Vice-Principal to set up a board of enquiry while he was away. He alsoemphasised that he thought any disciplinaryaction against the six student delegates would be most unfair until after a fullenquiry, since he himself had asked students to select a delegation in the firstplaceA lectuner pointed out that although the six studentsmight be guaranteed a temporary immunity by the Principal, the police hadalready been searching for some of them. He then weat on to ask the PrincipalwheLher, in view of this most recent piece of news, and taking into account thefact that the College had not called in the police, this did not truly constitute aninfringement on the College's autonomy. The Principal's reply was that although itcame perilously close to an infringement, he did not yet believe we had groundsforprotest. A number of lecturers asked him to repeat this which he did. A secondlecturer then got up and expressed indignation at this continued failure to makepublic protest and said it gave the impression that the College would never protestunder any circumstances. Hesaid that he spoke for a number of lecturers when he declaredthat/...

that as long as the police were on the site they were not prepared to deliverlectures.

To demonstrate their disapproval of the Principal's failure to oppose this attack onacademic freedom, about twenty lecturers then left the meeting. Soon after thisothers followed because they found the Principal's answers to further questions onstudent restrictions and arrests, censorship of publications, and victimisation ofstaff, so unsatisfactory.Twenty-three of the lecturers who had walked out ofthe meeting subsequently issued a statement declaring strike action and sent it tothe Principal. Not all of those who had left the meeting decided to sign thisstatement and some wrote their own private letters.The 'walk-out' was criticised by some as overdramatic. But it is necessary tounderstand the feelings of exasperation and frustration which many of themembers of staff felt. Several of the staff had asked to see the Principal in Januaryabout violations of the College autonomy under the new Act, but had failed togain a hearing. Other staff had written letters which had remained unanswered.This almost inexplicable isolation of the Principal and refusal to meet members ofhis own staff had formented anger and a determination that this time there wouldbe no chance for him to ignore their feelings.The reason for the walk-out was made clear both to fellow-memoers of staff, andthe Principal, in a printed statement whici rea4, 'Our walk-out took place becausewe saw no further point in taking part in a discussion in which the Principal'sinterpretation of the College Charter and of academic autonomy was so widelydivergent from ours'. This failure to take a stand against totally unnecessary policeintervention was the clearest example in a series of events which showed that thePrincipal was unwilling to protest at each successive encroachment upon thefreedom of the College.The document declaring strike action stated that ifthe police withdrew there would be a reconsideration of the position.Subsequently when the police did withdr'aw, lectures were resumed, and thedecision was made without reference to any ourse of action by students.SATURDAY, 19TH MARCH.The main development of the day came when two of theboycotting students informed some members of staff that they had beensummoned to appear before a committee of enquiry at 3.30 p.m. Seven studentswere to have been summoned to the Committee. Four of them received letters tothis effect, one hour before the meeting. One of these was unable to appear; theothers did. Three of the seven students did not receive such letters. Those whoappeared at the committee, under the impression that they were being required togive information, found that this was not only a committee of enquiry but also adisciplinary committee. After their initial appearance they were informed thattheywere/...

were required to attend later in the day - at 6.0 p.m. when they would hear the'verdict' on their particular part in the activities of the past three days. Five of thestudents originally to be summoned had been members of the delegation of Sixwho had presented the student grievances to the Principal on Wednesday night.

The Warden of Carr Saunders Hall who first hoard of the activities of this "Court"from one of his students, immediately met with those members of staff he couldfind, in order that they might make a joint protest at this flagrant breach of apromise that the Principal had made toall his staff on the previous afternoon. The Principal himself had by this time leftfor Britain, but it was learned that the committee consisted of the five Deans ofthe Faculties, the Registrar, the Principal's personalassistant and the Vice-Principal. The Principal had not appointed his assistant orthe Registrar to the committee, yet these officials joined in the questioning ofstudents. As soon as the students had appeared for their sentences and had beendismissed, eight members of staff broke in on the deliberations of the committeeto protest on the following points:(a) that it had been promised there would be nopunishment of students until a full enquiry hadbeen held;(b) that it had been promised that the six delegatesof the students would not be LJigled out fromithe rest, yet five of them wereamong those summoned,(c) that the committee of enquiry, consisting of eightsenior members of staff, was an awesome body beforewhich to bring in the students one by one. It was proved almost immediately thatin the case of onestudent, a miscarriage of justice had already takenplace because he had been simply overawed. The students should have beenaccompanied by someonereasonably sympathetic to their cause.(dthat those who were trying the students were infact the very same people as those who were boundto be feeling most angry about the students'demonstration of March 16th, which had disturbedthe meeting of Deans and the Principal. Thus wasset up a committee which consisted of both complainants and judges, who weresupposedly conducting an impartial enqiry into the cause of thedemonstrations. This ws hardly the way im which avolatile situation would be settled.(6) As members of the committee later confirmed, thereason for setting up this hasty and ill-judged"court" had been to placate European students'demands. Unless punishment were swiftly meted out, the Students' Union wouldnot be answerable for theactions of the white students.(f) It is clear from the timing of events after theinvasion of the committee meeting, that no written indictment of the students hadbeen prepared beforethe students were sentenced. It took the tribunalforty minutes to formulate the charges when staffmembers asked to see them.

Amongst/...

31Amongst those constituting the Comittee of Enquiry, four of the Deans evidentlyhad reservations about the way the Committee conducted itself- and at least twoDeans protested ahout the proceedings, but were over-ruled.As it turned out, this meeting of the "court" and the interruption made by othermembers of staff was to prove a turning point in the whole of the subsequentevents For the first time, it seemed, an attempt would be made to find a solutionto the crisis rather than an arid legalistic answer which would merely have raisedtempers still further. Credit for this change in outlook, we believe, must go to thethree Deans who made no secret of their sympathies for some of the protests madeagainst this exercise of summary justice. Although it did not at once appear thatthe court was to be abandoned, a change in attitude became noticeable on allsides. Both the lecturers on strike and those who had not struck (including most ofthe Deans) began to realise that it was only negotiations which would save theCollege from collapse. It is worth noting that when news of this "court" reachedother members of staff it brought an immediate protest from ten, six of whomjoined in the strike. The letter which they signed on the following day states that itwas the activities of the committee of enquirycum-disoipline "which has finallydecided us after long and serious thought that we must take action."SUNDAY, 20TH MARCH.The Sunday Mail of March 20th, carried a front pageheadline story of the Uuiversity. It carried an allegation of Professor Cnristie, ofthe Department of Law, that 'dissident' lecturers and not students had caused thetrouble of the previous week. He accused lecturers of wanting to have theUniversity closed down and he accused a hard core of rebellious studentsnumbering only about 20 of forcing other students against thair will to demonsGrate.Professor Christie's allegation and The Sunday Mail's editorial which seemed toaccept his allegation was only one new aspect of the Sunday morning. Thedisciplinary enquiry and trial of the previous evening also had its aftermath on theSunday. Firstly, some of the lecturers who had interrulted the trial of the previousevening had consultations on March 19th and 20th with a leading barrister, on thelegal status of a trial of this kind. He spentthe morning interviewing the students who had been before the disciplinarycommittee the previous day. He heard all the evidence again and cross-checked it.He had come to the conclusion that not only wus the procedure of the disciplinarycommittee the previous evening completely irregular and with no foundation in'natural justice', but that the findings of the committee of discipline werecompletely inconsistent with the evidence as he saw it. He agreed to make himselfavailable for advice to the students and the staff concerned if they were to becalled again before the disciplinary committee that afternoon. As it happened, thedisciplinary committee spent the whole afternoon in discussions amongthemselves and at the end of the day he had not been called upon in any way togive any advice or any instruction.

The Deans had heard the previous evening thatSir/...

32Sir Henry McDowell, the Registrar and tho Vice-Principal were drafting a letterthreatening striking staff with dismissal. All were concerned to make great effortsto find some way out of the situation that had developed. The Deans lunched withSir Henry McDowell and tried to impress upon him the gravity of the situation.As far as the students were concerned, almost all of these who were bccottinglectures attended a religiousservice in the Beit Hall conducted by a member of the Department of Theolog.Later, at their own instigation,they signed a statement denying the allegation of Professor Christie in themoming's paper. There were 217 signatures.During the course of the afternoon the disciplinary committee that had met theprevious day consisting of the Vice-Principal, the Principal's Personal Assistant,theRegistrar and the Deans met to resolve the problems that had arisen concerningtheir Committee. The committee had conceded on the previous day that a smallgroup of staff be present to represent the position of the students that had beencalled before it. These waited throughout the course of the afternoon with abarrister, as has been mentioned above. The committee did not call any morestudents before it, but decided by late afternoon to adjourn as it was thenconstituted, and that if it was to be recalled it would do so as a smaller committeeconsisting of theVice-Principal and one or two Deans.Early Sunday evening all lecturers who had signed the letter to the Principalinforming him that they were withdrawing their teaching services were servedpersonally with an ultimatum signed by the Vice-Principal saying that if they didnot acknowledge that they were going to return to work by mid-day the next day,that is Monday, they would face the possibility of disciplinary action and possibledismissal. All staff who had received this ultimatum then met to consider theiraction. It was unanimously decided that theultimatum could not be accepted, and all felt that the University Authorities hadstill not faced up to the real crisis on the University campus. ln consequence allagreed not to return to teaching the next day.Early Siuday evening, a representative of the strikinglecturers and a representative of students who were boycotting lectures, left forthe United Kingdom to put their respective oases.The fact that staff and students had decided to send these representatives at greatcost to themselves is evidence of the distrust between the staff ana the Principal,respectively. The fact that the Principal had gone ahead with his pla ns to visit theUnited Kingdom at this stage to discuss the long term future of the College, whilsthe was faced with such a pressing and immediate crisis, gave none of thoseinvolvedany oofa'idenoe in his intention.

The fact that the disciplinary committee, on reflection, decided to review theirwhole procedure, is evidence, we believe, that the staff intrusion on the 'trial' ofstudents on the previous evening was justified. At the least, it could be said thatthis intrusion led to a re-examinationof/...

33of the procedure. There were diffexrucem of opinion within the committeeprevious to the intrusion, but ne'erthelss the oommittee had continued with itscxibinod investigation and disciplinary functions until the intrusion occurred.Again the efforts of consulting top legal opinion was evidence of staff concernthat procedures should be proper and productiveand helpful, and not exacerbate the situation.Further evidence of an inability in the College authorities to see the seriousness ofthe present crisis was shown by Sir Henry McDowell's refusal to listen to theadvice of the Deans as to the seriousness of taking disciplinary action againststaff. Sir Hehi y McDowell is a lay member of the College Council and Chairmanof the Executive Committee. Greatresentment was felt among members of staff that a nonacademic was interveningin and appearing to control affairs which fall solely within the competence of thePrincipal andAcademic Board.Further resentment was felt because Sir Henry, who wasvery recently appointed by the Smith Regime to the illegal board of the ReserveBank of Rhodesia, could te regarded, because ofthis, as sympathetic to that Regime. In his intervention in the crisis at theUniversity he thus appeared to be actingo behaf of the Smith Regime against liberal opinion at the MONDAY, 21STMARCH.The students continued to boycott lectures and for the most part studied in theirrooms. Police activity on the campus was intense during the morning and bothEuropean and African police were patrolling the College grounds, and the halls ofresidence in particular.' Any group of students that exceeded three persons innumber was dispersed by the police.The one new development of the day was the signing of the letter by six furthermembers of academic staff, two of them senior members, saying that they too hadwithdrawn their teaching services. A total of 29- staff members had now takenthis stand.At 8.0 p.m. that evening Sir Henry McDowell with five members of staff whowere not on strike met to diseuss the current crisis. The meeting was apparentlywithout success, as Sir Henry McDowell seemed determined that disciplinaryaction against the dissident members of staff and studexts was the solution to theCollege's difficulties.TUESDAY, 22ND MARCH.The Executive Committee of Council met all day, but nostatement was issued. The situation was aggravated by further

pressure by the Students' Union, and tension rose amongst the boycottingstudents. Some staff members thought this might be mitigated by holding a teach-in, open to all students; this was intended to relieve tension by providing a topicaldiscussion of University problems in general. Nevertheless, lecturers wereaccused of organising the "teach-in" as a deliberate and provocative act. To thoseof us who were in touch with student opinion, such a move was seen in quite adifferent light, as being necessary to avoid further student action.The decision to hold theteach-in/...

-34teach-in was made at a time before the initial Police order was known to havebeen changed, and it was obvious that Police permission would not have beengiven for such a meeting had it been sought. At the same time those whoorganised it were convinced that the police would not take any action against sucha meeting. This proved to be the case and it was a demonstration to the College'sauthorities that this kind of stand Could be taken without prejudicing the College'sposition.During the course of Tuesday, there were many meetingsand discussions with all members of the C0tlege staff. The morning press hadcarried a statement issued by the 23 lecturers setting out their loyalty to theCollege Charter and refuting allegations that they wanted to close the Collegedown. The group had been continuously misrepresented, as in the allegations ofProfessor Christie, the Students' Union, and some other individual members ofstaff. On the Tuesday especially, but at all times following the previous Friday,members of this group did their utmost to explain their real position andintentions to any who would listen.The Police remained on the campus in considerablenumbers throughout Tuesday, although during the course of the day a new orderwas issued Sy Police Commissioner Bellamy, modifying the original order servedon the College. Theorder was so re-phrased that a blanket permission was granted by the police tohold certain types of gatherings. The essential point was that such gatherings, partof normal university life, were still subject to police consent.Thus, although this modification was a welcome one, it did in no way change thefundamental situation that the College was under a Police order and those 29lecturers who had withdrawn their teaching did not see it making any significantdifference to the position.WEINESDAY, 23RD MAROH.Late Wedresday afternoon Executive Council issued astatement saying that it had come to its conclusion as to how the present siguationcould be ended with justice to all. They said that they would be able to make anannouncement the following day. The rest of the day passed without incident.THURSDAY, 24TH NARCH.The Police were still on the campus in the morning.At noon, when the setting up of a Commission of Enquiry was

announced, they were withdrawn.FRIDAY, 25TH ARCH.All students attended lectures and all lecturers resumed teaching. Arrangementswere made by striking lecturers to make up the lectures that had been missedduring the week of crisis. These lecturers did their utmost to see that nostudents were penalised as a result of the withdrawal of lectures for that week.They did not ignore the interests of the students who had not boycotted lectures.----- -----

SOUTHERN RHODESIA,_-1 THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, 1964.(This statement was drawn up in October, 1964, a- numberof members of staff at the University College of Ahodesia & Nyasaland inresponse to a feeling that m.ny people in Britain and elsewhere oug-ht to knowwhat wns happening inRhodesia.)The political situation in Southern Rhodesia is essentially the struggle whether thecountry shall be ruled by its ,!hite or its Black peoples. To some degree thepolitical terminology used in the country attempts to conceal this and in the past atleast some political endeavour has gone into an attempt to avoid the starkness ofthese alternatives. The policies of partnership and the evolution of a multi-racialstate pursued by the United Rhodesia Party, and the United Federal Party inSouthern Rhodesia have in fact come to nothing. The United Federal Party failedcompletely to win African support in its campaign to Build a Nation. It wasrejected by the white electorate in 1962 when it campai,'ned on a platform whichincluded the abolition of the Land Apportionment Act, the legal foundation of thesegregated society of Southern Rhodesia. Both African and Europeans seem tobelieve that they cannot hope for freedom in a multi-racial community unless theydominate it. Most of us would wish these thinjs were not so, but that they are so isinescapable and if it is to be raoialistic to acknowledge tie racialism in a particularsituation and to accept that a non-racial solution is impossible now - whateveropportunities there may have been in the past, then we must accept that ourapproach is racialistic.The divisions within the African and European groups are insi'onificiantcompared with the division between them. ZANU and the PCC, the two Africanparties now banned, were not, at least by the time of their banning-, separated byserious differenceb in policy or in their conception of the movement. Both partieswere African Nationalist, believing in the unity of the African people of SouthernRhodesia and their right to rule. The differences between theRlhodesia Front and the Rhodesia Party over the wisdom of a unil -teraldeclaration of independence again did not reflect a real difference of policy orbelief. The Rhodesia Party wanted independence under the present constitution -that is the assurance that .Ihites will continue to rule in Southern Rhodesia. Theyargued that a unilateral declaration might, because of the disruption it wouldcause, imperil that rule. Because both parties depend on European voters neithercan offer to come to terms with African nationalism because Europeans do notbelieve this is possible - and indeed they are right; and the Afric-n Nationalists do

not believe that it is possible to come to terms with W6hite rule. The RhodesiaFront has been at pains to show there is no difference between the parties, hasdecried the return of Welensky to politics as divicivc of white solidarity - and, bysuddenly rejectioT the recourse to a unilateral declaration of independence hasleft the Rhodesia Party almost without any point to its existence.The Prime Minister's present course of consultation with the tribal leaders derivesfrom his belief that African Nationalism no longer exists, and that the Africanpeople wish to be ruled by the Thites. This is not true, though both sidesgenuinely believe that their own rule has not, or will not involve disadvantages forthe other. The present White rulers believe their own government is better forAfricans than an African Government would be, and the Prime Minister seems tobelieve this must be as clear to Africans as it is to him. The African Nationalistson the other hand believe Europeans will be as free, prosperous and as welcomeunder an African Government as they are now, and attribute Europeanintransig.ence to a mindless conviction of their own racial superiority.Though probably most Whites accept that eventually there will be a Blackgovernment in their country they accept it as the individual accepts the prospectof death - somethiAT it is not in good taste to dwell upon or talk about, yet worthtaking every precaution to postpone. In fact most whites are motivated by fearsabout their future, their property and even their personal safety if an Africangovernment came to power; the Congo is frequently cited as an example of whathappens when power is handed over to Africans, and both the European partieshave taken to referring not to a possible African Government or to African rule,but to an 'African Dictatorship'. The roots in Southern Rhodesia of many perhapsmost whites are fairly shallow.. The first European settlement is still only a singlelong lifetime away and the bulk of the whitepopulation.../

population are post-war immigrants, and already, not perhaps from the direct fearof imminent African rule but from the economic recession and generaluncertainty, the exodus of Europeans has begun. The European populationdropped by slig7htly more than 3% in the year ending June 30, 1964 - and in the13 months from July 1, 1963 - July 31, 1964, the country suffered a net lossthrough immigration of 10,393 Europeans. The Europeans most determined intheir opposition to African nationalism and the maintenance of white rule arethose with property - farmers particularly, but also the ordinary town dweller whohas bought or built his own often handsome Jxouse. Many of these were built asthe boom period of the mid and later fifties and can pnly be sold now at a loss.The liberals are generally professional people often without much property, butwith high earning ability and skills which will remain in demand in an Africanstate, or which, if the worst comes to the worst can be exercised just as wellelsewhere. Re ourselves come into this group, though not all the teachers at theuniversity are liberals, even inactive liberals. In the present struggle Europeanliberals are of very little importance although they might become more importantin a period when African government was obviously inevitable and imminent andin the early years under such frican QGvernment. The view of the liberals - using

this term to describe Europeans who side with the Africans - is that even ifAfrican rule were not preferable on moral and practical grounds, to the presentgovernment, it seems impossible that a rapidly expanding African population canbe held down indefinitely by a white population of a quarter of a million, alreadyshrinkin' and unlikely to attract much immicration while engaged in its presentstrurgle, and the time spent in the present struggle seems to be not preparing theAfricans for Government, but creating such reserves of bitterness that by the timeAfrican control is established the worst terrors of the Europeans are likely to berealized. Even if it were possible to hold off African government indefinitely asthe Prime Ninister seems to believe, on the present showing this can only bethrough the regular use of the methods of the police state. The cost ofmaintaining white rule is high in terms of those very standards and ideals whichare supposed to be its justification. And although we realize a country like thiscan hardly be expected to have a smooth and gentle evolution from one kind ofstate to another it seems unnecessary that so much of value should be destroyednot in the process of evolution but the attempts, doomed to failure we think, toprevent that evolution.In this general context, we wish to describe the present situation in some detailand explain how the university finds itself placed and the particular problemsfacing members of the university staff in this situation.The first difficulty in describing the detailed situation in Southern Rhodesia is ourown lack of information although we live and work in the country. TheGovernment on its own admission believe it cannot govern properly, if there is afree flow of information. It was advised, and accepted the advice of the securityforces that the operation of the Highfield Emergency could not be carried out ifthe Central African Daily News continued publication. The newspaper - a nationaldaily, the only alternative in Salisbury to the Rhodesia Herald, was banned,permanently. The Emergency (Highfield) Regulations made it an offence topublish any material about events in Highfield likely to "cause alarm ordespondency among the inhabitants of Southern Rhodesia or some of them". Anyperson publishing information about any measures "taken for or in connectionwith the State of Emergency shall be guilty of an offence" and be liable topenalties of a fine of up to £500 or imprisonment up to two years, or both. Fromtime to time the Goverhment has issued statements tellin ' of the 'intensesatisfaction, of the inhabitants of Highfield at an operation that has involved thearrest without charge of nearly a thousand of their number, but otherwise noinformation about the area, only seven or eight miles from the University itself,except rumour and occasionally eye-witness reports by word of mouth.The African DailyNews besides supporting the politics of AfricanNationalism provided news about the African community. The Rhodesia Herald,now the only daily paper available in Salisbury has never concerned itself withthis news and there is no way now to keep informed through the Press of forexample, what is happening in the African Trade Union movement. The RhodesiaHerald has to observe the censorship imposed under the ixhfield(Emergency) ..../

(7mor-oncy) Regulations and it is known that it does not publish all theinformation available to it. From information which occasionally reaches us fromother sources, it is clear the presi does not provice a coverage of what is going onin the Reserves and that some acts of sabotage are never reported.There are other limitations on a free press. In the past correspondents fromoverseas newspapers have been declared prohibited immigrants, apparentlybecause they sent out reports that displeased the Government. Even amongSouthern Rhodesian Europeans there has boen strong protest at impropergovernment control of the Southern Rhodesia Broadcasting Company andRhodesia Television. Mr. Hardwicke Holderness before he left for Tngland with1r. Todd to put the view of liberal Europeans was scheduled to appear ontelevision. This interview was cancelled at Government instigation. Recently sirRoy 'elensky was prevented from appearir' on television in Bulawayo. A removalfrom a bulletin before it was broadcast of a news item about a statement made bythe sociologists of our university concerning the testing of African opinion onindependence has led to the reclination of three members of the S.R.B.C. newsstaff. On a number of controversial issues, for example, the banning of theAfrican Daily News the Government has professed itself unable to find aspokesman to put its own case. As both sides of the question must be put, theprogramme in which the issue was to be discussed has therefore had to becancelled. The Government feels the difficulty of being without a newspaper thatwholeheartedly supports its policies, for the Herald althou-h hardly liberal in itsviews has attacked the policy of thepresent Government fairly consistently. The Government therefore feels justifiedin using the radio and television where possible to put its own case.The police and security forces are unduly influential. On theiradvice a newspaper has been banned. In a case against Rev.Ndabaningi Sitholerecently eleven out of thirteen charges were withdrawn after Cron witnesses hadclaimed they had been beaten to induce them to testify. Three Africans chargedwith arson were discharged by Mr. C..R.Tledforn after the Government medicalofficer had given evidence of bruises and blisters consistent with their havingbeen beaten. e said that he was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that themen's statements had been made freely and voluntarily. It is notoriously difficultin any country to gst satisfactory investigation by the police themselves intocomplaints against them, and it is expensive and complicated to bring matters tocourt. Nevertheless, there is now pressure for a judicial enquiry into policebrutality, which seems on evidence which has been collected ta be common.Under the Emergency (Highfield) Regulations the Minister of Law & Order mayorder any person found within that area to be detained"end thereupon such person shall be arrested and detained". on9 September Mr.Lardner Burke slid that 884 individuals had been detLmied atWha !a prison, a camp near Gwelo from 150 miles from Salisbury, since the stateof emergency was declared in Highfield.No list of men arrested has been published, and althouh the Government cl.timsthat no one has been removed to 7ha 1ha without being taken first to his place ofresidence to collect belonging s and to inform, some relation or friend, their

destination has often not been clear, for besides these detentions, restrictions arestill being imposedand men and women taken to Gonakudzingwa and also to another restriction areaat Gwelo. The Government believes those arrested and detained in Hi-hfield are"thugs". They seem to include school-boys anl school teachers. One of ourstudenta, Mr. Josiah Maluleke, former trade union leader, readin for theB.Sc.Economics) degree has been restricted and taken to Gonakudzingwa.Another student, Mr. Elisha Itushayakarara was arrested while visitin' his father'shome in Highfields, apparently in mistake for his father. He was released somedays later after protests from the College authorities.Members of tho College are naturally concerned at the arrest ofstudents in ties way. It se m that Mr.Malue re wIll be able to conftinue hisstudies satisf4actorily in the remote wil-derness of Conakildningwa.

The student body which for many years remained aloof from the events in thecountry has in the last year become extremely conscious politically. The Collegeitself is in Salisbury, the capital and seat of Parli -ment - and the university site isin the suburban constituency where a key ba-election is currently being foughtbetween Sir Roy "elensky and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Dupont whospecially resigned his seat in order to be available as an opponent. On the banniniof the African Daily News, there was a lar-e student demonstration outsideParliament and over eighty students and two members of staff were arrested.These are all to be charged under the Law & Order Maintenance Act withrefusing to obey an order from the police, and face maximum penalties of £100 orone year's imprisonment. At a public meeting held by the Prime Minister beforehe left for his consultations with Sir Alec Hume, a group of about 30 students andseveral members of the university staff were abused and attacked and at the end ofthe meeting had to be rescued from the crowd by the police. Their demeanour wasnext day praised in a leading article by the Rhodesia Herald but their behaviourwas attacked by Mr.John Gaunt, Minister of Housing and Local Government. Themeeting, which seems to show the beginning7 of ruffianism among the supportersof the Rhodesia Front has been much commented upon in a long series of lettersto the Rhodesia Herald. These reveal a certain preoccupation with the universityin the minds of the white population.The unpopularity of the University with a section of this population %oes backalmost te its foundation. It was founded as a multiracial institution and as anembodiment of the Federal Government's ideal of partnership. Many whitesseem to have been expecting an all-white institution wkeh the first university intheir country was founded. At the beginning, PRhodesian custom was observedin the university by separate rac ,spteces, but since 1960 there has been insidethe university no I segregation. Outside the University,a segregated society persists and although cinemas and most hotels in Salisburynow admit Africans as they did not bef6re 1960, both by social custom and by lawthrough the working of the Land Apportionment Act, Southern Rhdesia has asharply segregated society. The white societys

that enjoys7egregation is less tolerant of the liberal assumptions on which esternuniversities work than most societies in Europe or America. In the past whiteresentment has been directed against one or two members of the university staffwho took an active part in political life. Now that some of the students have begunactively protesting against certain acts of the Government, resentment against theuniversity is likely to mount among Europeans and it is possible that thegovernment itself may take action.He do not expect that this action will be as direct as an attempt to close theuniversity down or to alter its multi-racial nature. But the government can affectthe university very seriously in ways which still leave all the principles ofacademic freedom untouched. For example, since the staff of the university isalmost entirely drawn from outside Rhodesia, it can deport members or declarethem prohibited immigrants. The present Southern Rhodesian Government has infact never done this althourh the Federal Government effectively dismissed twolecturers - Mr. Michael Faber by refusing to grant him a permanent residencepermit and Dr.Tersnce Ranger by declaring him a prohibited immigrant. It canalso arrest and detain or restrict studentd and this has already happened in the lastfew weeks. And because most students are on Government grants it can exercisecontrol over students through these. A report has reached us that Africanschoolboys . being interviewed for Government scholarships were askedwhether they would agree to withdraw entirely from any kind of politicalinvolvement. Wle have already found ourselves virtually powerless in the face ofthese government actions. The e pulsions from the country of Mr. Faber and Dr.Ranged were contested by every legal means, the College itself took every actionit could to retain them and the cases attracted wide notice in the University worldin Britain. The arrest of students has passed without much protest, for in a countrywhere arbitrary arrest of Africans is commonplace, it is hard to make a specialcase on behalf of African students.5.../

Our concern in general terms must be to keep a universityrunnin2 in Salisbury and to preserve as fully as we can the nature of thatUniversity as a free and non-racial institution. This weinterpret to mean not just that it should remain open to all races inthe country but that all races in the country should be actuallypresent and that the present proportion of African students toEuropean should not be allowed to fall. 'e feel that the training ofAfrican graduates in their own country through the next few years invaluable contribution which can help to make for the well-being of thecountry which we all live in and which some of us have adopted. Tomaintain a good university may involve us in difficulties with thecountry and its present authorities and some of its people and werealise there are many compromises we will have to make or at leastaccept. The freedom of a university to decide whom it will teach andwhom it will appoint to teach cannot be insisted upon except in a

generally free society. Ve have lost members of staff through government actionand we know that in the past men have not been appointedbecause there was no chance that they would be granted residencepermits to come to Salisbury. We see that in any case as the political situationgrows worse, the recruitment of new staff from Europebecome more difficult, and that we have have to teach in departments which areunderstaffed or accept a drop in the quality of the teachers who come to theUniversity. "'e may have to accept that our students freedom of expression iscurtailed and that the Government is able to remove a student from the College atany time. We have then to watch conditions and decide at what point to continueteaching at the College becomes no longer a service to the country and the people,but service to a regime of which we cannot approve. And to face the difficultchoice of resignin as a personal protest against the destruction of the universityffreedom or continuing to teach at an institution we believe to have no realfreedom left in the hope of keeping something worthwhile in existence until amore favourable political climate returns. Of course we realise thatfor many ofour colleagues at the university this particular dilemma does not arise. Althoughwe believe that a direct assault on academic freedoms would unite the staffagainst the Government, to those of the staff who see no possible alternative to arepressive white regime the conditions in the country are acceptable and in anycase, some of our collea'ues appear to believe that their work as universityteachers imposes on them the obligation to avoid any kind of politicalinvolvement.But the dilemmas we have mentioned may be suddenly forced uponall of us at the University, whatever our views, if thd Government does eventuallydeclare itself independent unilaterally. At the moment of writin g the immediatedanger of this happenio. seems to have receded. But those of us who find itimpossible to believe the Prime Minister's assertions about a dramatic change inAfrican opinion and suppose that Britain will not be granting Rhodesiaindependence by the end of tlis year, think that the threat at least of a unilateraldeclaration will soon be back with us.If this threat is caried out we shall find ourselves teachingat a foreign university in a country outside the commonwealth and under theregime of a govenment of dubious legality, widely unrecoenised. Since it isunlikely that Britain would continue to contribute the share she has promised tothe recurrent expenses of the College there is the possibility that our salaries couldno longer be paid in full. Almost certainly many of our students and somemembers of the staff would be put under arrest at or shortly before thedeclaration. Possibly the university would be closed down for the period of theemergency which would follow the declaration. If the university were closed forgood, there is little likelihood that members of staff would receive compensationfor loss of office or even salaries for the six month period of notice. If it continuedit is likely that many who would wish to leave would be forced to continuebecause they could not immediately find posts elsewhere, in the meantime havinrto compromise with a government they did not recognise.. 6 .... /

~2~94q- 40To many of us, therefore, it seems an opportune moment to askwhat kind of support wo can expect from Britain in the event of some of theemergencies outlined above and what kind of pressure can be brought byUniversity colleagues elsewhere to assist us.1. Would Britain be prepared to make her contribution offinance conditional upon maintaining proper opportunitiesfor African students at this College? We think she should.2. If an illegal declaration of independence took place, wouldBritain cut off her contribution? If she continued shewould be helpini to finance an illegal Government.3. 3. If service for staff was terminated by either a closirndown of the College or deportation, would Britain beprepared to make a compensatory fund available in Britain?If Britain cut off aid promised to the College could someof the money unexpended be used to set up a fund for staffwho lose their jobs when this aid is cut off?4. 4. Would the Universities of Britain be prepared to *bsorbsome, at least, of the teaching staff who lost their jobsinvoluntarily? Or could assistance be Civen in placingstaff in other institutions? 14e would be encouraged ifthere were some chance of this, though we realise theproblems it raises.Much of the discouragement which overtakes liberals in this country comes froma sense of isolation and a frustrating lack of support.Every kind of encouragement from overseas has the effect of stiffening resistancein what we believe is a rapidly deteriorating situation.----oO0J