Participatory meeting inside Mathematics Hall, the most militant l'evolutionary stronghold. On Sunday numerous meetings teem held in all the buildings as faculty opposition stiffened and some "liberals" among the rebels urged a compromise solution.
not request that it be voted upon. At the beginning of the all-faculty meeting, President Kirk said he had called it to find out what the faculty's "sentiment and opinion" was about the disruption. He found out that the faculty overwhelmingly opposed amnesty, but almost as strongly feared police action on the campus-a sentiment that was hardly helpful in pointing to a course of action, given SDS intransigence. \Vhile the meeting was in session, several dozen protestors in the buildings came out and strolled around the campus with a mixture of good cheer and tense anxiety. There were by Sunday morning about 625 young people in the occupied buildings: roughly 75 in Low, Avery and Hamilton, and 200 in Mathematics and Fayerweather. A few of the protestors' mothers drove to the campus that Sunday to bring fried chicken or roast beef sandwiches to their rebel children, causing a dozen or so "Jewish mother" jokes to start circulating around the campus. Shortly before noon Vice President Truman had a visit from Dr. Kenneth Clark, a professor of psychology at 58
C.C.N.Y., father of Hilton Clark '66, a respected egro scholar, and a personal friend. The day before, Professor Clark had volunteered his services to see if he could help with negotiations in Hamilton Hall between the students and the Adminisb路ation. The University had continued to talk separately with the black collegians because the black students had relatively little to do with the Strike Coordinating Committee. (They seldom even sent representatives to Ferris Booth to participate in the Strike Coordinating Committee.) Dr. Clark went into Hamilton on Sunday but reported that his first effort was unsuccessfu I. At noon the Strike Steering Committee held a press conference and issued a strange, long-winded statement to the press, who by then were becoming a bit sour about the radicals for what the press regarded as SDS's increasingly deceptive and dishonest manipulating of the University, the other students, the community, and the press itself. For example, when Strike leader David Gilbert was asked by a journalist why his group persisted in their no compromise stand, he answered "Because we
are right and we represent the majority of students." Journalist: "Would the strikers then submit to a poll of all Columbia students and abide by its results?" Gilbert: "\Vell, no. You see, we represent not only Columbia's students, but the majority of the \ ietnamese people, the soldiers who are dying there, the oppressed blacks in America, in fact, the struggling masses everywhere." Journalist: "I see." Then he turned to a press colleague and whispered, "The voice of the Columbia Left is the voice of the world." What made the SDS statement strange was its sudden shift to interest in university reform. ("Our goal is to create a functioning participatory democracy ..."); its unusually obtuse and involved argument; and its conb'adictions. ("\Ve have been very anxious to continue the discussions we had with the faculty Ad Hoc committee." [And] "It is pointless to continue negotiating with a committee that does not have the authority to put forth a solution that recognizes that discipline is inappropriate for actions that are right and necessarv. We thus ask the Faculty Ad Hoc Committee to stop trying to perCOLUMBIA COLLEGE TODAY