I'm damned sick and tired of this kind of thing," overnor Louie B. Nunn of Kentucky said when he eard of the seizure by black students of the office of e President of the University of Kentucky, Louisville. he Governor's reaction is increasingly representative widespread condemnation of the student demonstraons which reached their peak by striking traditionound Harvard University. Public reaction has been swift. The press joined niversity administrators in condemning student activts. A recent Gallup Poll showed student unrest to be a olitical issue of more concern to the American public than the war in Vietnam. Our legislators, both Federal and State, have devised a complex network of laws aimed at curbing student unrest. Amid the public clamor, we tend to forget or overlook that the college student is a "citizen" with certain rights. The development of the idea of student civil rights is relatively recent. Meaningful protection came only in 1961 and then as part of a national movement for Negro civil rights. The early 1960's saw a concentrated co-effort by northern white college students and blacks to wipe out legal and de facto segregation in the South. Freedom rides, pickets, and lunch counter sit-ins became commonplace. For the first time, black college students in the South took to the streets to demonstrate in support of civil rights. The movement marked the end of a decade of student silence, referred to by one commentator as the "silent fifties." Some college students soon found that their civil rights activity jeopardized their education. When Alabama State College summarily expelled a group of black students for participating in a sit-in at a local eating establishment, the students took the case to Court. Federal Judge Frank M. Johnson, now a leading champion of student legal rights, upheld the expulsions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed and became the first Court to decide that a student could not be expelled from a tax-supported college or university without notice of the charges against him and a fair opportunity to state his case at a hearing. Three years later the Fifth Circuit, in the case of Wood vs. Wright, accorded similar rights to grade school students suspended for participating in a civil rights march. These cases went largely unnoticed by the public as only a minor aspect of the civil rights battle being waged in Federal courts throughout the South. With the approach of the mid-sixties, students turned their attention away from traditional civil rights toward the goals of educational reform, freedom of speech, and increased participation in institutional decisions. Showing various degrees of tolerance to these activities, college and university administrations moved to discipline offending students. As these cases came before the courts, the earlier civil rights decisions served as a foundation for establishing firmly that the Constitution protected the procedural rights of students at tax-supported institutions. At the same time, students began to move against "speaker bans" prevalent at many colleges and universities. These bans found their source either in State legislation or in college rules and regulations which authorized institutions to keep off the campus speakers with unpopular political views or associations. Showing little sympathy for such restrictions on speech, the judiciary gave the students one spectacular victory after another, and held unconstitutional speaker bans at the University of North Carolina, the University of Illinois, and Auburn University, among others. Censorship of college news media fared no better than the speaker bans. When Troy State College summarily expelled the editor of its newspaper, Judge ohnson ordered the College to reinstate him. The edior's mistake had been to write an editorial critical of Governor Wallace. When the newspaper faculty “adiser" ordered the editorial shelved in favor of an article on dog raising in North Carolina the editor left he newspaper column blank except for the word "censored." Upon the editor's reinstatement, Troy State gain expelled him, based upon a finding that he had been guilty of "insubordination" for failing to print he article on dog raising. The Court again granted reinstatement, stating that the College could not punish he legitimate exercise of freedom of the press under he guise of "insubordination." A student's right to freedom of assembly at a taxsupported institution received recognition in 1967, when a Federal court overruled the expulsion of a group of students at South Carolina State College who had demonstrated on the campus without prior approval from the administration. While generally critical of the demonstrators' conduct, the Court made it clear that a tax-supported college has no right to prohibit all peaceful campus demonstrations. There is evidence of decreasing judicial tolerance for student rights as student activism has become increasingly political. The war in Vietnam, the close connection between the defense establishment and some universities, and a Selective Service System of questionable fairness, have prompted strong reactions on the campus. The result on student civil rights cannot yet be fully evaluated, but some trends are apparent. Of particular significance are two recent cases before the United States Supreme Court. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Court considered the validity of a regulation prohibiting the wearing of black armbands by students while on school facilities. The armbands had been worn by a small group of students to show their support for a truce in the Vietnamese war. The principals of the Des Moines School system adopted a policy that any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it, and if he refused he would be suspended until he returned without the armband. On February 24, 1969, a majority of the Supreme Court declared the policy unconstitutional. It was the High Court's first pronouncement on student rights in more than 25 years and, not surprisingly, the opinion of the Justices attracted wide public attention. Civil libertarians hailed the decision as firmly establishing that constitutional rights need not be shed at the schoolhouse gates. Others saw the SPRING 1969 decision as giving students a wholesale license to run the schools. They found comfort in a sharply worded dissent by Justice Hugo Black, who noted that "the original idea of schools, which I do not believe is yet abandoned as worthless or out of date, was that children had not yet reached the point of experience and wisdom which enabled them to teach all of their elders." The press generally agreed with Justice Black. Even before the public debate was over, the Supreme Court, on March 10, 1969, spoke again in a highly unusual fashion. In declining to review the expulsion of students from West Virginia's Bluefield State College, Justice Abe Fortas took the occasion to clarify his opinion in Tinker by distinguishing between "peaceful, non-disruptive expression, such as was involved in the wearing of black armbands, and "aggressive and violent demonstration," such as was involved at Bluefield State College. The extraordinary statement by Justice Fortas gave clear warning that students involved in disruptive behavior would not be likely to receive much sympathy from the courts. Whether the courts take away some of the civil rights students have gained in the past remains to be seen. Judicial disapproval of the new kind of student activism has been out-distanced by legislative disapproval. Reacting to college unrest generally, and more particularly to the situation at Columbia University last spring, Congress recently enacted several laws withdrawing financial aid from college students (and some instructors) who demonstrate. Some of the legislation, such as Section 504 (a) of the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1968, cuts off aid only after a student has been convicted of an offense involving disruptive campus behavior. Section 504(b) of the same Act, however, cuts off aid even without a conviction if the college at a hearing makes certain findings of fact. This kind of legislation has come under heavy criticism, particularly because it appears to impose severe punishment on the financially needy student whose education may be discontinued if financial support is withdrawn while the more affluent student may consider the withdrawal of financial aid as an inconvenience only. Additionally, black students understandably fear that the legislation is aimed at curbing the growing number of Black Student Unions at campuses throughout the country. The legislation, which potentially affects some 1.5 million students receiving Federal benefits under a multitude of programs, is generally not regarded as a solution to campus unrest. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Robert H. Finch, the Federal official primarily responsible fo administering the legislation, has questioned it wisdom, stating that, "We want to solve the problem. not to wield an indiscriminate bludgeon." A congressional subcommittee has been holding hearings on student unrest. Chairman Edith Green has introduced legislation for a Federal mediation service for campus conflicts modeled on the Nationa Labor Relations Board. Another bill, at this writing pending in her subcommittee, would have the effect of denying aid to colleges and universities which do not adopt and file with the Government regulations setting permissible limits on campus demonstrations. This legislation would cut off or deny aid to students for up to five years for taking part in campus demonstrations which result in a criminal conviction or vic lation of a valid college regulation. Specific provi sions cut off aid to protesting students receiving sur vivors' social security benefits or studying under the GI Bill. All students seeking Federal aid would have to certify that they have not engaged in prohibited activities. Other bills would cancel automatically a student's draft deferment upon conviction of a campus offense and cut off aid to colleges and universities that fail to restore order promptly in the face of a demonstra tion. These proposals symbolize congressional hostility to student demonstrators and "weak" college adminis trations. Also, at least two State legislatures are investigating campus disruption. At least seven State legislatures have adopted laws to curb campus dis orders and such bills are pending in the legislatures of 16 other States. While the legislatures are understandably concerned about violence and the forceable takeover of buildings. they have shown little regard for students' civil rights There are still many colleges and universities operating without rules, regulations, or guidelines to aid students and administrators in differentiating between a ceptable and unacceptable behavior. Most anti-student legislation ignores such shortcomings. New York is an exception. Its legislature recently passed a bill cutting off State financial aid to colleges and universitie chartered by the State unless they file with the Board of Regents a set of written rules governing the campus conduct of students. The judicial and legislative response to student unrest may change the course of the evolving relation ship between student and college. Until recently, this relationship was described as in loco parentis, meaning that the college stood in the place of a student's parents nd had the same inherent right to mete out discipline. With rare exceptions, this permitted the college to deal ith students without regard to procedural or substanve rights. Largely as a result of court decisions, the a loco parentis theory has now lost its vitality. In place of in loco parentis, the student-college relaonship is now generally regarded as contractual in ature. The contract consists of the admissions applicaon, the catalogue, written rules and regulations, and ther documents brought to the student's attention by ne institution. Even in the absence of such documents, is sometimes thought that there is an "implied con-act" between student and college whereby the college romises to afford an education and a degree, and the tudent promises to abide by the college's rules and egulations. The difference between in loco parentis nd "contract" may be more apparent than real. Many niversities provide in their admissions application or atalogue that the college may ask the student to leave t any time for any reason, thereby giving the college irtually absolute discretion to discipline the student. The courts have consistently upheld such "contracts," otwithstanding that in many cases the student was a minor and the contract could hardly be considered a oluntary one. Apart from in loco parentis and contract, a third asis for the relationship may be found in the Constiution. The Constitution, at least in part, requires governmental bodies" to be fair in their dealings with ndividuals. Like other government agencies, the State r tax-supported educational institution is a "governnental body" which cannot ignore the Constitution. This third basis for defining the student-college relaionship has been the touchstone for most of the cases granting civil rights to students. Indeed, virtually all of he cases recognizing student rights as civil rights have nvolved tax-supported institutions. Within the last year, students have pressed the argunent that governmental support and involvement in higher education have transformed today's private university into a governmental body bound by the Constiution. The argument has been used unsuccessfully in challenging expulsions from Columbia University and used with partial success in challenging expulsions From Alfred University in New York. In a case involving Howard University, the issue is awaiting decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. A satisfactory theory to regulate the relationship beween student and college has yet to be developed. Neither the in loco parentis nor the contract theory is adequate to protect the civil rights of students. Reliance upon the Constitution to define the relationship ignores students at private institutions. Moreover, even where the Constitution protects student civil rights, that protection is markedly less than other citizens. enjoy, the narrower protection being generally premised upon the assumption that there exists a legitimate need for an educational institution to maintain discipline in order to meet its particular objectives. If the civil rights of students are to be protected and if the needs of our educational institutions are to be met, we must develop a meaningful basis for defining the relationship between student and college. Such an attempt was recently undertaken by a number of Federal judges in Missouri who published a lengthy list of rules to be applied to college discipline cases. The rules go far to guarantee the procedural right to a notice of charges and a hearing, but still leave the student subject to in loco parentis treatment. A more equitable basis for defining the relationship may be found in the treatment given members of voluntary associations, such as hospitals, churches, and labor unions. Persons associated with such institutions are receiving increasing protection against arbitrary action. The civil rights of a student deserve no less protection. Alternatively, the time may be ripe to establish a special set of rules governing the student-college relationship. Such rules would embrace both tax-supported and private institutions and would hopefully anticipate a number of serious problems which the courts have not yet broached. Consider for a moment the significant power an educational institution holds over its students. This power does not appear only in time of student unrest, but is ever present in many areas. One example is the compilation and maintenance of student files. In one recent case, a dean placed a confidential memorandum in a student's file implying that the student's father was a member of the Communist Party. The student had no knowledge of this entry, which was uncovered only in response to a subpoena in the course of litigation. Yet, this comment might have kept the student from working for the Government in a sensitive position. There still remain widely divergent practices in placing adverse information in a student's file and in prohibiting the student from inspecting and confronting such material. Neither courts nor legislatures have yet considered this problem. It would be prudent to find a peaceable solution which protects the student from such arbitrary prejudice. In the area of social rules and regulations, the power |