Search Results
4 Documents Found
![Regents Meeting rally, student dialogue, Interview with Assemblyman William Stanton](images/fileicons/nodigital.png)
Date: 12/18/1964Call Number: CE 682Format: 1/4 7 1/2 ipsProducers: Colin EdwardsCollection: Colin Edwards Free Speech Movement
FSM rally and vigil at UCLA during Regents meeting. There is interruption by unrelated choral group. Dialogue with two UCLA students: one supporting the Free Speech Movement and one opposed. Interview with 25th District Assemblyman William Stanton about political implications of UC Berkeley campus events. He disapproves of the use of state troopers in suppressing student protests and the lack of clarity around police authorization at the December 2-3rd sit-in.
![Rick Davis: Covering the FSM (part 2 of 2)](images/fileicons/nodigital.png)
Call Number: CE 692Format: 1/4 7 1/2 ipsProducers: Colin EdwardsCollection: Colin Edwards Free Speech Movement
Continuation of interview with television reporter Rick Davis. Davis discusses his admiration for the discipline displayed by student organizers. He discusses the role of the FSM in overall campus party politics, and the responses to the FSM and campus events by state politicians and public figures.
![J. Frank Coakley: Alameda County District Attorney](images/fileicons/nodigital.png)
Call Number: CE 700Format: 1/4 7 1/2 ipsProducers: Colin EdwardsCollection: Colin Edwards Free Speech Movement
Interview with Alameda County District Attorney J. Frank Coakley about legal issues surrounding the FSM from a prosecution perspective, and how his office became involved around the sit-ins of December 2-3, 1964.
![Deputy District Attorney Edwin Meese](images/fileicons/nodigital.png)
Call Number: CE 701Format: 1/4 7 1/2 ipsProducers: Colin EdwardsCollection: Colin Edwards Free Speech Movement
Interview with Alameda County Deputy District Attorney Edwin Meese on the Sproul Hall sit-in and the events that brought in police and State Highway Patrol. He discusses the criminal violations he says were committed and “riotous conditions” created by students. He states there was no police brutality whatsoever and that students attacked officers. He states that university representatives were consulted about outside police presence but that outside police have jurisdiction over the campus. He denies that actions were taken to restrict press access.
4 Documents Found