Page 11


Registration Begins Shortly after noon on July 21, four men entered the main post office in Austin and linked arms in front of the counter where draft registration forms were being handled. Outside, a small group of anti-draft demonstrators chanted, “Hell no, we won’t go!” Inside, members of the news media, several deep,. crowded around the men, thrust microphones and cameras toward them and listened while the four, in turn, denounced the draft registration that had begun earlier that day. At the center of the crowd, two 20year-old construction workers, Chicanos from California temporarily in Austin to build a highway bridge over the Colorado River, stood silently filling out draft registration forms. When the four protesters were asked by officials to move so that the hardhats could hand in their forms the protesters refused. With hardly another word spoken, officers of the Federal Protection Service’s Special Operations Response Team swiftly wedged through the crowd. “Go get ’em move ’em outa there,” said one postal employee watching from behind the counter. “I wish I had a hand grenade to throw in there,” said another. “They ought to be killed,” added another. All three employees refused to give their names. The federal officers quickly wrestled the protesters into a side hallway and handcuffed them. Shouts of “No kicking! No kicking! Go peacefully!” rose from the crush. The confrontation was over in a matter of seconds. And the four men Hugh Stearns of College Station, Stephen Cook Jr. of Leander, and Tom Chaisson and William Stribling, both of Austin were charged with disorderly conduct and obstructing public access. They were later released on personal recognizance bonds of $500 each by U.S. Magistrate Phillip Sanders. Elsewhere on the first day of draft registration protesters staged non-violent demonstrations and picketed post offices in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, as did thousands across the U.S. The nation’s 40,000 post office stations are expected to register some 4 million men during the initial 10-day registration period for 19and 20-year-olds. Coup at College .Station In the aftermath of the removal of Jarvis Miller as president of Texas A&M University, one thing is clear: someone wanted Miller removed quickly. Beyond that, there are few clues. Both Miller and the board of regents which demoted him from president to assistant to the chancellor July 10 are saying little. Most of what is known is based on the record of Miller’s three-year career as president and the reaction of various Aggie groups to the high level shuffle. Miller was brought in as president in 1977 under the chancellorship of Jack Williams. With the regents’ approval, most of the control of the vast A&M operation was transferred from the chancel for to the president. In 1979, Williams resigned. Miller seemed heir apparent, but, instead, the regents named Frank W. R. Hubert as chancellor. Almost at once, Hubert began drawing the lines of control back to his own office and away from Miller, on the general theory that the chancellor would control A&M’s service agencies and out-of-town campus while the president would run the College Station campus. Jack Williams had entertained a similar notion. What brought matters to the events of July 10 has never been clarified by the regents. Why remove Miller as president because of disagreements with Hubert only to make him Hubert’s assistant? Are the regents in fact in control? If so, none of their recent actions make sense in terms of personnel management. Perhaps the regents have at least con eluded their search for the right people to run the university, but if so, the process has come over the rare public dissent of the A&M alumni. Meeting in Dallas the Sunday after Miller’s demise, the board of directors for the alumni association declared the regent’s action “Ill-timed, ill-conceived, and effectuated without any planning or thought of consequence.” The following week, seven student leaders, including the student body president, signed a similar statement supporting Miller. These unusual displays of dissent also call into question a statement from A&M regent Clyde Wells that he had received “numerous complaints from people in different parts of the state” about Miller. The alumni association said it had received no complaints at all. The timing of the Miller ouster may cn 0 a. c TC Draft protesters just before arrest in Austin. Journal THE TEXAS OBSERVER 9 ..-A41.,0,44″.