In the Summer of 1967, presidents of eight student organizations formed a committee to study student involvement in policy making for non-academic areas of student life. Named the Board of Presidents, this group included the Minnesota Student Association (MSA), the University Board of Governors, and the Board in Control of Student Publications. Concerned that since the adoption of the 1951 Student Consultation Policy, student involvement had become stagnant, the group aspired to prepare a position paper outlining their philosophy on the issue. In August 1967, the Board of Presidents hired Bonnie Marsh Blackmore, 1963-1964 Daily editor, to begin this research on the history of student involvement at the University of Minnesota.
At the same time, similar initiatives around student inclusion were discussed between other Universities at the National Student Association (NSA) Congress. A conference on ‘student power’ was developed by the NSA to be held at the University of Minnesota on November 17-19, 1967. As a member of the NSA Congress, MSA coordinated the event, which discussed the legal rights of students, the definition of student power and how institutions can implement it. As a lead up to the conference, the Daily wrote a four-part series on student power illustrating the viewpoints of the administration, the students and the faculty, the student leaders, and members of the Senate Committee on Student Affairs (SCSA). This series, pictured below, provided context to the discussions and opinions around student involvement and student power at the University of Minnesota.
The discussion continued through the Fall of 1967, when MSA President, Bill Newell, proposed the transfer of power from the SCSA to MSA over policies concerning student affairs. Further examination of the proposal was published in the Daily through news articles and editorials for the remainder of the semester.
This issue became a catalyst for the reorganization and establishment of the role of Vice President for Student Affairs, as described in the April 23, 1968, editorial, “Williamson ‘out’ as Pres. Moos enacts major reorganization” by Mike Anderson, Editor-in-Chief of the Daily.
This editorial, in particular, spurred controversy between Anderson and John Darley, Chairman of the Psychology Department, over the response to the administrative changes. Darley found Anderson’s thoughts uninformed, but Anderson, as seen from his June 3, 1968 response, found the editorial to be “written with the ‘best interest of the University’ in mind.”
Anderson even doubled down, that despite Darley’s contentment with having the Daily continue in a “bulletin board” function, that the Daily’s staff had responded to the student power issue in a “liberal” way without allowing attitudes to interfere.
Incoming Editor, Paul Gruchow, introduced and addressed the student body in his editorial, published in the 1968 Welcome Week edition of the Daily. He wrote that even though “student power” was the prior year’s battle cry, it was also a time to continue the fight into a new academic year.
On October 1, 1968, an article titled, “Rally protests essay ban,” was published on the front cover of the Daily. It described a demonstration held in front of Vincent Hall to protest the decision of J.W. Clark, chairman of the Department of English, to ban required reading of the essay,” Student as N-----,” by Jerry Farber. Along with the article, the Daily included a photograph from the demonstration of a woman holding a sign that said, “Fuck Puritans.”
The initial response by onlookers, as well as readers, revolved around the subject of obscenity, as comments around the use of an expletive word surfaced. Editor Gruchow addressed the concerns in his October 2, 1968 editorial, stating that the journalists were reporting the news carefully and with honesty. In response, the Board in Control of Student Publications adopted a “hands off” policy to the controversial content. They instead reiterated their faith in the Daily staff, but also recommended that the board further examine their statement of responsibilities of editors.
After 11 meetings over the Fall quarter, the Editorial Committee of the Board of Publications prepared a report documenting their study on the duties and responsibilities of the editors. They found that the issue from October 1st became more about the use of an expletive work by the Daily rather than its use by the demonstrators. Despite this, the Editorial Committee recommended that the Daily not be censured, due to their honest intent on reporting and publishing campus news.
