Taking a Stand

In the first post in this blog, “Dis-remembering,” Ken talked about how many of the anecdotes we hear about the early days of the college contradict others that are in circulation. There are, for example, many stories about the naming of Lakes Fred and Pam. In other cases, the stories we hear seem to be wishful thinking, and one is left wondering whether they are true.

One such story in this latter category is that of the Candace Falk trial. The basic background to this trial was that Candy Falk, a young professor in General Studies who Ken had hired, confronted some Army Reserve Recruiters who were coming onto the campus and informed them that they were not welcome. They said that they wouldn’t leave unless they were told officially to do so, so Falk went to her office and typed up a letter on official letterhead telling the recruiters to go away. This would have been April of 1971, the first semester on the new campus. Candy Falk was then brought before the campus hearing board on the charge that she had misrepresented herself as speaking on behalf of the college in an official capacity. The trial was held and at the end of it the charges were all dropped. Candy Falk left soon after, went west, and became the editor, perhaps fittingly, of the Emma Goldman papers at Berkeley.

I had heard one story from Ken, that the case had hinged on the use of the male pronoun, that the lawyer hired to defend Falk had said that since the male pronoun was used throughout the college handbook Ms. Falk, a woman, could not be charged with having violated the code. Apparently, when David Kairys, the lawyer, made this pronouncement a great commotion occurred and our friend Bill Lubenow, the chair(man) of the hearing board, had some difficulty restoring order.

My interest in the trial was further peaked on reading a flurry of emails between President Saatkamp, Ken Tompkins, and Candy Falk, in which Candy indicated that one of the key elements of the trial was the action taken by Jim Williams, director of campus security. In Falk’s words, Williams had been

asked to say that the demonstration against the army recruiters was violent (which it certainly wasn't!). He testified, under oath, to David Kairys, who was my lawyer, that he knew that this was false and thus refused to follow orders. This was a turning point in the trial -- though it continued to be raucous. Then, during the summer, when no one was around, the campus policeman was fired. I had already moved away... and as far as I know, there was no follow-up.

It turns out that Jim Williams went on to a very distinguished career after Stockton, and it is uncertain whether or not his testimony was a reason for his leaving the college.

But getting back to the original point of this post, one wondered on hearing both of these stories whether or not they had grown in their significance over the years. But it turns out that both were very much founded in events in the trial and were both significant in determining its outcome. No "dis-remembering" here -- just another colorful moment in the early years of the college.

The Argo report about the trial can be read here.