Speaker Ban controversy at UNC
Pollitt argues that Allard Lowenstein's rejection of Jim Crow public accommodation laws resulted in the Speaker Ban law. UNC Chancellor J. Carlyle Sitterson's opposition to the students' proposed speakers led to a lawsuit against him. The students' attorney recalled a similar incident with former UNC President Frank Porter Graham at the turn of the century. The courts ultimately overturned the Speaker Ban.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with Daniel H. Pollitt, February 22, 2001. Interview K-0215. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- DANIEL H. POLLITT:
-
Well, the way I always understood it is that the sit-ins were going on,
and there was a guy named Al Lowenstein, who later became very
famous—
- DAVID POTORTI:
-
Allard Lowenstein, from the Kennedy [assassination]—
- DANIEL H. POLLITT:
-
Yeah, Al Lowenstein was then teaching at state. And Shaw University had a
graduate who was the ambassadress of some African country to the United
Nations. So they invited her down to receive an honor of some sort. And
Al Lowenstein made arrangements for her to speak to his class as well,
as long as she was there. And then he took her to lunch at the Sir
Walter Hotel, and at the time the Sir Walter was "the"
hotel in Raleigh, and that's were the debutante call was
held, and that's where the legislators met for lunch. And
here comes Al Lowenstein with this black woman, while the sit-ins are
going on, and they were not admitted, they were turned away. But that
pissed off some of the legislators. And I always thought that
that was why we had a speaker ban. Cause we had no
problem with Communist speakers; we didn't have any. It was
not an issue. So they passed a law saying that no public university can
extend its speaking facilities to people who are, 1, known communists,
2, who plead the fifth amendment in regard to subversive activities, or
3, advocate the overthrow of the government. Those are the three
categories. And in due course, the students, Paul Dixon, who was the
president of the student body, he and the head of the Di Phi, and the
Tarheel and the yearbook, and interfraternity council, whatever you can
think of, took the lead and they invited Aptheker to come and speak, and
Aptheker was a known communist. He had come back from North Vietnam and
they invited him to speak about his trip. And he was turned away. And
they had 5,000 students milling around to hear him, and to see what
doing. They were up in the trees and everywhere. And then they invited
Frank Wilkinson who was the head of the committee to abolish the House
Committee on Un-American Activities, and he had pleaded the fifth
amendment before some California committee on trees and their
subversion—Uncalifornian activities.
[Laughter]
So he was turned away. So those were the, they now have a case,
and it now went to Sitterson, the Chancellor, and earlier the governor
who was the acting head of the executive committee of the governors of
the University system, earlier there had been a request to hear
Wilkinson and Aptheker, and there was a lot that went on, but in any
event, Sitterson said no. So they brought the students and they were
turned away. And then there was a suit against Sitterson. And Dixon,
Paul Dixon, the head of the student body, against Sitterson, the
Chancellor. Saying that it's unconstitutional. There was a
guy named McNeil Smith, who's a lawyer in Greensboro, who
agreed to represent the students. And he had been the editor of the
Tarheel in his day, and was in a very prominent law firm, and he agreed
to do it. And he wrote to about 50 other lawyers who were graduates of
the university, and asked them to sign on with him, and be
the counsel of record. And none of them would. Which is
shameful. So McNeil—me, I was then the president of the North
Carolina ACLU, and Bill Van Alstyne, who was a distinguished
constitutional lawyer, professor at Duke, helped him. And I filed a
brief, amicus, friend of the court for the ACLU, and Bill Van Alstyne
filed a brief amicus for the AAUP. But it was really, so there were
three briefs, but there's a page limit, so one brief would
take care of these three problems, and the other would take care of the
other three problems. So it was one very big brief, exceeding the page
limit for one brief. So we argued, and I just checked it out the other
day and I didn't think I'd argued—but I
had seven minutes, and Bill Van Alstyne had seven minutes, and McNeil
Smith had twenty minutes or something.
- DAVID POTORTI:
-
And what year was this?
- DANIEL H. POLLITT:
-
'64 maybe. And we won. And there was a federal three judge
panel, court, and they agreed that it was unconstitutional. And that
ended, the state didn't even appeal to the Supreme Court, so
that ended the speaker ban. But the interesting anecdote type thing is
that McNeil Smith reserved for a rebuttal, you can reserve three
minutes, whatever, he reserved three minutes. And in his rebuttal he
said that he had gone to see Frank Graham the previous night to tell him
what he was doing, and how he saw it, and Frank Graham told him that
when he had been an undergraduate here, he had been the head of the Di
Phi or something, and he had, they had invited a
senator—Butler, with a funny first name—to come
and speak. Well, the senator was a republican. And this was say in 1905
or 06, when Jim Crow was getting underway, and there was a fusion party
of blacks and it was volatile. And one president told Frank Graham that
the senator couldn't speak on campus. So Frank Graham, and he
named them, I can't remember their names, but one of them
later became the head of Watauga Bank, and another was a judge, five or
six of the students, all who became prominent later on, went and sat on
the porch of the president, and they said they
weren't going to leave until he agreed to let the senator
speak. So this was a sit in by Frank Graham protesting the refusal to
let somebody—he said, we have an open campus. McNeil Smith
told this little story in his rebuttal. And one of the three federal
judges was the grandson of that senator. And I knew what was coming, as
I was watching the judge. And his face didn't change one bit.
But I always thought that that was the greatest rebuttal: you bring in
Frank Graham, you bring in free speech, you bring in your grandfather, I
mean, what more can you do. So that ended the speaker ban, and then came
the black student movement, and the cafeteria strike and all the
rest.