{"@context":"http://iiif.io/api/presentation/2/context.json","@type":"sc:Manifest","@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/a1489768-c15a-4eb3-a09c-607cf6e0c11b/manifest","label":"Speaker_Ban_Law_Study_Commission","metadata":[{"label":"Title","value":"State Agency Finding Aid: Speaker Ban Law, 1963-1968"},{"label":"MARS ID","value":"193"},{"label":"Digital Collections","value":["Legacy Finding Aids Collection"]},{"label":"Identifier","value":"Speaker_Ban_Law_Study_Commission"},{"label":"Digital Format","value":["application/pdf"]},{"label":"Hosted By","value":["State Archives of North Carolina"]},{"label":"Metadata Creator","value":["Cusick, Aaron"]},{"label":"Type","value":["Text"]},{"label":"Notes Public","value":"If you have questions about this collection, please contact the State Archives of North Carolina at archives@ncdcr.gov."},{"label":"Source","value":"Speaker Ban Law Records. State Archives of North Carolina"},{"label":"Language","value":["English"]},{"label":"Description","value":"On the final day of the 1963 session of the General Assembly, a  controversial bill with enormous ramifications for freedom of expression in the academic community was rushed to passage.  Sponsored by Rep. Phil Godwin of Gates County and modeled after a bill proposed that year in Ohio, this statute, known as the Speaker Ban Law, prohibited any  state-supported college or university from permitting the use of their facilities by any speaker who was a known member of the Communist Party, a known advocate of the overthrow of the federal or state constitution, or one who had pleaded the Fifth Amendment in response to questioning concerning Communist or subversive activities or connections.  The law was to be enforced by the board of trustees of each institution.  The Board of Trustees of the University of North Carolina immediately set about to eliminate this restriction upon academic freedom and  unwelcome encroachment upon their authority.  On October 28, 1963, the  board requested that its chairman, Governor Terry Sanford, appoint a  special committee to identify and implement measures to repeal the  Speaker Ban Law.  Sanford tabled the request until the last days of his administration.  Finally, on October 21, 1964, the governor appointed a committee to be chaired by William Medford.  The report of  the Medford committee expressed a preference for total repeal, but admitted that an amendment of the law was a more practical objective.  Sanford's successor, Gov. Dan K. Moore, advised the General Assembly  to appoint a commission to study the Speaker Ban Law.  On June 16, 1965,  the legislature created by joint resolution the Commission on the Study of the Statutes Relating to Visiting Speakers at State Supported Educational Institutions, usually referred to as the Speaker Ban Law Study Commission.  The commission consisted of nine members, five appointed by the governor, two by the lieutenant governor from the membership of the Senate, and two by the speaker of the House from  among the representatives of that body.  Governor Moore was empowered to  name the chairman and selected Rep. David M. Britt of Robeson County.   The commission was directed to study the 1963 statute, with particular attention to enforcement of the law, possible consequences to  accreditation of the colleges and universities, potential effects upon  relationships with other educational institutions, and the likely impact  of the speaker ban upon the \"status, administration, reputation, functioning and future development\" of the schools.  The Speaker Ban Law Study Commission (often referred to as the Britt Commission) held public hearings during August and September, and on November 5th reported its findings and recommendations to the governor.   The report proposed that the board of trustees of each state-supported  educational institution adopt a policy statement concerning visiting speakers which the commission had drafted.  This statement declared the  unalterable opposition of the trustees to Communism and the destruction  of basic democratic institutions, but permitted the \"infrequent\"  appearance of speakers banned under the language of the original law \"only when it would clearly serve the advantage of education.\"  Upon the adoption of the policy statement, the governor was to call a special  session of the legislature to amend the statute, vesting in the trustees responsibility for promulgating regulations governing speaker activity on their campuses.  Within a week, all the boards had approved the  required statement, thus acknowledging their accountability for guest speakers and for rules restricting their invitation.  Governor Moore then called the assembly to convene on November 15th for the sole purpose  of considering the recommendations of the Britt Commission.  After three  days of debate, the legislature amended the statute as recommended,  requiring the board of trustees of each institution to adopt and publish regulations for the use of their facilities by guest speakers and  empowering the trustees to enforce such rules.  The three specific categories of undesirable lecturers remained unaltered.  Its mandate completed, the Speaker Ban Law Study Commission passed from existence.  Before the UNC Board of Trustees could establish speaker guidelines, its authority was challenged by students.  In 1966, the Chapel Hill chapter of Students for a Democratic Society invited Frank Wilkinson, an outspoken advocate for the abolition of the Un-American Activities Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, and Herbert Aptheker, a prominent Marxist historian, to speak on campus.  The executive commit-  tee of the board of trustees resolved to deny both speakers access to  university facilities, and to suspend all invitations to similar  lecturers until the board could formally approve appropriate rules and  regulations.  Wilkinson and Aptheker came to Chapel Hill anyway,  addressing crowds of students from a sidewalk beyond the bounds of the  university.  Subsequently, the two speakers joined UNC student body president Paul Dickson III in a legal challenge of the Speaker Ban Law  in federal court.  In 1968, the United States District Court ruled in Dickson v. Sitterson that both the statute and the regulations adopted  by the university were too vague to be enforceable, and were thereby unconstitutional.  The UNC Board of Trustees responded by establishing a  new policy statement which made no mention of the Communist Party but specifically prohibited speakers who advocated the violent or unlawful  overthrow of the government.  When a new administrative code was established by the UNC Board of Governors after the restructuring of the  university system in 1971, no provision was made concerning guest  speakers.  The statute as amended in 1965, though ruled unconstitutional,  remained on the books until 1995.  REFERENCES: S.L., 1963, c. 1207.  S.L., 1965, Resolution 85.  S.L., 1965, (Ex. sess.), c. 1.  G.S., 116-199 and 116-200 (1994).  King, Arnold K.  THE MULTICAMPUS UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA COMES OF   AGE, 1956-1986.  Chapel Hill:  University of North Carolina, 1987.   Pp. 57-69."},{"label":"Digital Characteristics","value":"4 pages"},{"label":"Format","value":["Finding aids"]},{"label":"Rights","value":"This item is provided courtesy of the State Archives of North Carolina and is a public record according to G.S.132."},{"label":"Source Collections","value":["Speaker Ban Law Records. State Archives of North Carolina"]}],"description":"State Agency Finding Aid: Speaker Ban Law, 1963-1968","sequences":[{"@type":"sc:Sequence","canvases":[{"@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/a1489768-c15a-4eb3-a09c-607cf6e0c11b/canvas/_1","@type":"sc:Canvas","label":"Speaker_Ban_Law_Study_Commission-1","height":1687,"width":1255,"images":[{"@type":"oa:Annotation","motivation":"sc:painting","resource":{"@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/38ce4290-4466-41c4-858a-7112a1539fba/full/full/0/default.jpg","@type":"dctypes:Image","format":"image/jpeg","service":{"@context":"http://iiif.io/api/image/2/context.json","@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/38ce4290-4466-41c4-858a-7112a1539fba","profile":"http://iiif.io/api/image/2/level2.json","tiles":[{"width":512,"scaleFactors":[1,2,4]}]},"height":1687,"width":1255},"on":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/a1489768-c15a-4eb3-a09c-607cf6e0c11b/canvas/_1","metadata":[]}],"thumbnail":{"@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/38ce4290-4466-41c4-858a-7112a1539fba/full/500,500/0/default.jpg","@type":"dctypes:Image","height":500,"width":500}},{"@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/a1489768-c15a-4eb3-a09c-607cf6e0c11b/canvas/_2","@type":"sc:Canvas","label":"Speaker_Ban_Law_Study_Commission-2","height":1684,"width":1269,"images":[{"@type":"oa:Annotation","motivation":"sc:painting","resource":{"@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/da870dd5-0c04-4249-a4c8-cbd22f1f2b74/full/full/0/default.jpg","@type":"dctypes:Image","format":"image/jpeg","service":{"@context":"http://iiif.io/api/image/2/context.json","@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/da870dd5-0c04-4249-a4c8-cbd22f1f2b74","profile":"http://iiif.io/api/image/2/level2.json","tiles":[{"width":512,"scaleFactors":[1,2,4]}]},"height":1684,"width":1269},"on":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/a1489768-c15a-4eb3-a09c-607cf6e0c11b/canvas/_2","metadata":[]}],"thumbnail":{"@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/da870dd5-0c04-4249-a4c8-cbd22f1f2b74/full/500,500/0/default.jpg","@type":"dctypes:Image","height":500,"width":500}},{"@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/a1489768-c15a-4eb3-a09c-607cf6e0c11b/canvas/_3","@type":"sc:Canvas","label":"Speaker_Ban_Law_Study_Commission-3","height":1682,"width":1248,"images":[{"@type":"oa:Annotation","motivation":"sc:painting","resource":{"@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/45605229-4bdd-4447-924c-741a2d7d9443/full/full/0/default.jpg","@type":"dctypes:Image","format":"image/jpeg","service":{"@context":"http://iiif.io/api/image/2/context.json","@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/45605229-4bdd-4447-924c-741a2d7d9443","profile":"http://iiif.io/api/image/2/level2.json","tiles":[{"width":512,"scaleFactors":[1,2,4]}]},"height":1682,"width":1248},"on":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/a1489768-c15a-4eb3-a09c-607cf6e0c11b/canvas/_3","metadata":[]}],"thumbnail":{"@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/45605229-4bdd-4447-924c-741a2d7d9443/full/500,500/0/default.jpg","@type":"dctypes:Image","height":500,"width":500}},{"@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/a1489768-c15a-4eb3-a09c-607cf6e0c11b/canvas/_4","@type":"sc:Canvas","label":"Speaker_Ban_Law_Study_Commission-4","height":1690,"width":1252,"images":[{"@type":"oa:Annotation","motivation":"sc:painting","resource":{"@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/bad15ee3-2bc8-44d5-a950-d3101cce0566/full/full/0/default.jpg","@type":"dctypes:Image","format":"image/jpeg","service":{"@context":"http://iiif.io/api/image/2/context.json","@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/bad15ee3-2bc8-44d5-a950-d3101cce0566","profile":"http://iiif.io/api/image/2/level2.json","tiles":[{"width":512,"scaleFactors":[1,2,4]}]},"height":1690,"width":1252},"on":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/a1489768-c15a-4eb3-a09c-607cf6e0c11b/canvas/_4","metadata":[]}],"thumbnail":{"@id":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/bad15ee3-2bc8-44d5-a950-d3101cce0566/full/500,500/0/default.jpg","@type":"dctypes:Image","height":500,"width":500}}]}],"thumbnail":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/38ce4290-4466-41c4-858a-7112a1539fba/full/300,300/0/default.jpg","logo":"https://iiif.quartexcollections.com/ncdcr/iiif/logo"}