Twelve
Who Signed
Their Names

All but one of the 12 students whose names appear on the 1966 lawsuit against the University, its trustees and top administrators were undergraduates. Henry Patterson Jr. had graduated in 1962 and was in his last year at Carolina’s law school.

Ten of the students are listed on the new marker along with their affiliations with campus and off-campus organizations that were involved in the campaign against the Speaker Ban.

Paul Dickson III ’ 66 was student body president; George Nicholson III ’ 66 and Robert Powell Jr. ’ 67 represented the Carolina Forum, a speakers bureau; James Medford ’ 67 was with the YMCA and Eunice Milton ’ 66 the YWCA; John Greenbacker Jr. ’ 67, the Dialectic and Philanthropic societies; Eric Van Loon ’ 67, the Carolina Political Union (and a current member of the GAA Board of Directors); Ernest McCrary ’ 66, The Daily Tar Heel; Gary Waller ’ 66 and Stuart Matthews ’ 67, Students for a Democratic Society, a national activist group.

Patterson and John McSween ’ 68 were not officially affiliated with any of the groups.

at UNC as a symbol of liberalism in the
state that they just didn’t like.”
The paper’s first headline of the fall
announced that the Speaker Ban already
was wreaking havoc: “First Speaker Is
Barred By Controversial Gag Law: Noted
Scientist Refuses To Discuss His Politics.”
Four more world-renowned scientists
canceled their appearances on public cam-
puses in the state in the months following,
in part because they objected to being
asked about their political practices.

The student government met several times to discuss how to respond. Friday convinced the students to wait until the fall meeting of the Board of Trustees before taking any serious measures to resist the legislation. Robert Powell ’ 67 attended some of those meetings as head of the Student Affairs Committee (he would be student body president in 1966-67).

“I do recall,” Powell said, “that among
those meetings with the administration was
a reluctance — a deep concern on their
part that their hands were tied institution-
ally, given their vulnerability financially to
the governor.”
Friday said he and other officials were
bound to their oaths to carry out the
actions of the trustees. “If you can’t do that,
then you resign,” he said. And, as Friday
found out very early in the discussions, he
didn’t have all the trustees on his side.

Questions of legality

Aycock stood before the University’s governing body on Oct. 28, 1963, to outline multiple ways that the law’s wording was so insufficient as to be difficult to enforce and possibly unconstitutional.

“What is meant by a ‘known member
of THE Communist Party?’‘Known’ by
what means? Does it include ‘overthrow’
by peaceful means? Is there a duty to inves-
tigate each invited speaker?”
The trustees meeting ended in a resolu-
tion stating that the board deplored “this
legislation as a departure from the tradition
of our State” and directing the chair to
appoint a special committee “to determine
and implement measures to remove this
legislative impairment of intellectual free-
dom and preemption of the authority and
prerogatives of the Board of Trustees.”
Thus was formed the first of many com-
mittees convinced they could craft a com-
promise. Yet, in a telltale sign that politics
would govern the process, the trustees waited
a year to form the group because of con-
cerns that the issue could become a cause
celebre in the 1964 gubernatorial campaign.