ustxtxb_obs_1968_02_02_50_00007-00000_000.pdf

hours later, about 6 p.m., they were moved to the Belton jail. At the second jail. Damon says they were put into a cell with a veteran of the Vietnam war, a Negro. Damon says the veteran said he had been .ordered to shoot a Viet Cong suspect in the presence of the suspect’s pregnant wife, but had refused. The captain had to do the killing himself. “Next time I’ll shoot,” the veteran said. “You’re wrong about ban the war,” he told the demonstrators, “You got to kill them so they don’t kill you.” About 7 p.m. the three demonstrators were bailed out by Davis Bragg, a Killeen lawyer who has done work for the American Civil Liberties Union. AN EDITORIAL in the Killeen Daily Herald afterwards said the demonstrators were “uninvited guests” who exhibited “bad manners” in trying to display peace banners before the President. This was “also a risky action, considering the patriotic atmosphere and respect for the Commander-in-Chief which exists in this military complex,” the paper’s editorial continued. “We have seen tramps kicked off freight trains who looked better. Furthermore, the local agitators smelled bad.” Four Austin men have organized a defense fund to finance the three demonstrators’ legal challenge. They are the Rev. Charles A. Howe, minister of the First Unitarian Church, Austin; Greg Olds, editor of The Texas Observer; Dr. Robert Palter, professor of history and philosophy at UT; and George Schatzki, a UT law professor who is the chairman of the Central Texas chapter of the ACLU. The case was tentatively scheduled to begin its courtroom consideration on Feb. 23 in Austin. Austin attorney Sam Hous ton Clinton, who also works with the ACLU, is representing the three men. Miss Granville wrote a summary of the events at Killeen in The Daily Texan, the UT student newspaper, in which she summed up: “Seven Austin demonstrators arrived at Central Texas State College at 11:10 a.m. By 11:18 a.m. three of us had been arrested, three were headed out of town, and one had melted into the crowd. To my knowledge during this time none of the demonstrators shoved, hit, or shouted at anyone in the crowd; none of us defended himself; and none of us talked back to the police or in any other way infringed upon the rights of others. “I was part of a small, polite minority, acting according to my conscience in trying to communicate with a man who is supposed to be the highest representative of my country. I had no other motives.” G.O. Censureship Looms for A&M College Station The administration of Texas A&M University virtually is certain of being censured this spring by the American Association of University Professors. Even by Texas’ formidable standards, there has been, in recent years, an unusually high leyel of unhappiness among some students and teachers about the degree of academic freedom at A&M. The situation that has led to the almost inevitable AAUP censureship this April of A&M involves the divorce in 1965 of a full professor of veterinary medicine, Dr. Leon W. Gibbs, who has taught here since 1949. Clearly Gibbs’ private life has put him into disfavor With the A&M administration. The reasons that such a relatively common occurrence as a divorce would cause one of the region’s most important educational institutions to risk censureship by the influential AAUP lies in the circumstances of the divorce. Gibbs and his wife were active members of a social circle that included his departmental head, Dr. John Milliff, Mrs. Milliff, the dean of his college, Alvin A. Price, and Mrs. Price. The Gibbs divorce began in the spring of 1965. On May 14 of that year Milliff told Gibbs that his services at A&M would end that September. Gibbs says that Milliff mentioned only the marital break-up and gave no reasons for firing him that were based on Gibbs’ professional performance. Since that day nearly three years ago Gibbs his stayed on at A&M only by accepting a research project his college assigned him on a “temporary” basis in laboratory animal medicine in preparation for a course A&M plans to institute in the future on diseases that afflict animals being used in laboratory experiments. Gibbs accepted the research project after learning that he no longer was wanted at A&M despite the fact that teaching and not research is his academic preference. He says that though he continues to draw his salary he is persistently harrassed and is not given reasons either in writing or orally why he is being let go. During the summer of 1965 the A&M chapter of the AAUP sought to clarify the situation but failed and notified the association’s national office of what was happening. The national office inquired of A&M president, Earl Rudder, who responded by letter that the matter would have to be considered by the university’s board of directors, since A&M has no regulations governing the presentation of written complaints against faculty members, nor the holding of a hearing on any such charges. As the summer wore on Gibbs accepted the research assignment. On Oct. 9, 1965, the A&M board met. Gibbs told the members that he had been presented with no written charges. Gibbs says that some of the board members responded by remarking about the responsibilities of faculty members. After ten minutes the discussion was closed, by Rudder’s saying, “That will be all, Gibbs.” Gibbs has not yet been advised of any disposition by the board of his case. During the 1965-’66 school year Gibbs worked on his research assignment. He complains that his facilities were inadequate; he had no water, electrical, or gas connections. He was advised that he could use a university truck to get some old bookcases and a desk. A little after Gibbs moved in the lock to his building was changed and he was unable to get in at nights. Requests for new keys were unmet. Technicians he needed to conduct his lab work were always busy on something else when Gibbs requested their services. After consultation with his associate dean, F. D. Maurer, Gibbs on Mau rer’s suggestion moved his research to the library, preparing bibliographies of published material. In January, 1966, Gibbs’ parking space was assigned to a new faculty member, Gibbs being given a space a good distance further from the building in which his office is located. O N SEPT. 8, 1966, Gibbs was summoned to Dean Price’s office and advised that his research work was unsatisfactory. He was given a memorandum saying that he would be placed on one year’s probation, be required to submit monthly progress reports and time sheets describing his work activities. Gibbs was told that if his work was not deemed satisfactory a year later he would be dismissed from the faculty. Gibbs tells the Observer he believes he was put on probation because, in preparing a proposal requesting a renewal of his research project for the 1966-’67 year, he had said he couldn’t justify its continuation, given the conditions he was working under. Gibbs then decided to request a return to teaching. Dean Price, in a letter to the national AAUP office, wrote that the request would not be approved as he did “not believe it to be in the best interest of the teaching program within the department nor consistent with the responsibilities of the college.” Later in September, 1966, a national AAUP representative met with Rudder, two A&M vice-presidents, and Dean Price. It was decided that Gibbs would be offered a second year of the research project, that Rudder would raise with the A&M board the question of conducting a hearing on Gibbs’ fitness to resume fulltime teaching, and that the AAUP would cease further steps in the matter until hearing from Rudder as to the board’s Feb. 2, 1968