The 'Death' of the Daily Bruin: Part 1

The men wore single-button sportcoats with padded shoulders, white shirts, ties and pleated trousers. Some were in their shirtsleeves, for it was a warm day. Behind the coffin a drummer beat a solemn tattoo, and after the bier was placed on the Kerckhoff Hall steps, Editor Martin McReynolds told the assembled crowd, "We have gathered here for the mock funeral of The Daily Bruin as a free newspaper. The Bruin is not actually dead yet, but on the students' action will depend whether it will live or die." (DB, 12/16/54.)

The mock funeral was the climax of an Administration campaign that had been desultory and unfocused for many years but which came to a sudden and unexpected climax on Dec. 7, 1954, after a preparation period of almost two years. The signal had been given in a memorandum sent to Chancellor Raymond B. Allen by Dean of Students Milton E. Hahn in January 1953, "to supply background on a matter which may provide a very warm issue in the near future."
 

 For twenty years there has been no commonly accepted policy regarding the student publications at U.C.L.A. The Bruin has been the chief problem. It has been a prime target for Marxist groups which, at times, have had almost complete control.

The administration has seldom attempted to impose University policies and regulations. Student government with its lack of continuity has not been strong enough to exert its constitutional powers with a few exceptions . . . We regressed to the former status of near chaos.  Recent events [probably the Garrigues turndown and resulting series of resignations] compel clearing of this whole situation. I am planning . . . To insist on: a. equal opportunity for staff membership by all students and b. elimination of candidate slates by present staffs. (Chanc, 1953, Folder 246-DB, 1/7/53.)

The result was a directive that the Bruin immediately adopt a constitution because it would otherwise be operating "under sufferance and illegally." (Chanc, 1953, Folder 246-DB, 3/5/53.)

The constitutional provisions required by Dean Hahn led to two major complaints by the Bruin which, surprisingly enough, were supported by the Student Council.

• A section that some staffers called a "loyalty oath" required all applicants for Bruin editor to sign a statement that "I agree to serve in any Editorial Board position on The UCLA Daily Bruin for which I have applied and to which I am appointed by Student Legislative Council." The oath could then be used as a potent weapon against the kind of group loyalty that led to the Garst-Sigal summer walkout, the Schlapik-Rexrode mass resignation and the three resignations after the Garrigues rejection (which were later rescinded).
• The Administration-imposed constitution also provided that applicants for two of the most sensitive posts on the paper -- news and feature (opinion) editors -- needn't have had any previous Bruin experience at all. The Student Council directed President Martin Rosen to appeal for a reversal to Chancellor Allen. Rosen's letter stated that Dean Hahn
   

maintains that junior college transfers will be discriminated against . . . While the Dean's objections are usually well-intended, it's easy to see that this situation was not the case, particularly when last fall's editor Dick Schenk was a junior college transfer from Santa Monica as is this year's city editor and associate editor. (Chanc, 1953, Folder 246-DB, 6/10/53.)

Allen asked Dean Hahn for his comment, and Hahn replied:

 
 In six years during which I have been responsible for student activities, in general, the following charges have been made by students, faculty and community . . . :

 1. That it [The Bruin] can be, and has been, captured by small ideological groups.

 2. It is a self-perpetuating group in control of one of ASUCLA's larger budgets ($40,000-$50,000 per year).42

 3. It does not follow generally accepted journalistic ethics or practices, i.e., quotation of faculty members, community residents and students without checking; publication of inaccurate stories when the editor has the facts.

 4. It "freezes out" those who do not agree with its editorial board's philosophy, or those who have not spent their lower division years on the paper.

 5. It does not provide, as do other student activities, equal opportunities for all students on the basis of competency and experience.

 In my opinion, all of these charges have been true to a great extent. (Chanc, 1953, Folder 246-DB, 6/10/53.)

Hahn did not seem to take into account a comprehensive six-page memorandum from Editor Jack Weber to Assistant Dean of Students Atkinson the preceding February:
 

You recently expressed an interest in personnel policies and practices on The Daily Bruin and I thought a letter might give you a clear idea of the way we do things . . .

We have adopted various procedures to make it easier for newcomers to put in work on the paper . . . we have now altered our methods so that it is possible to come up at any time during the day to write . . . we encourage anyone to come up and put in whatever amount of time he may feel able to give . . .

Perhaps the most important area for improvement is the least tangible -- the attitude of persons on the paper towards newcomers. I feel we have made great strides here, though less out of benevolence than out of necessity. The dearth of staff members in recent semesters has forced a policy of warm welcome on the part of staffers, if only to relieve part of the load from their own shoulders . . . [M]any individuals come up with glamorous notions of newspapering. They are soon disappointed . . .

Every person who comes up . . . is automatically made a member of the staff and given the title of reporter. Any student -- without restriction -- may join up . . . Promotions . . . are conferred by the editorial board . . . [based on] a style test . . . credits for work done . . . recommendations of night and desk editors . . . recommendations of the associate editor . . . personal knowledge of editorial board members . . . [the] promotion is fairly automatic for anyone who puts in a reasonable amount of work.

I want to discuss some of the incentives we have for the improvement of work . . . Awards . . . The hell sheet, . . . the daily criticism of the paper done by the managing editor, in which he points out all of the mistakes, and makes suggestions for improvement. This is closely scrutinized by staff members and is usually quite effective in maintaining the quality of writing . . . most effective method of all is the constant stream of criticism, advice and comment that one gets from his fellows . . . Even an editor is not immune from this constant probing process, as I well know . . .

Before concluding, I want to consider . . . the Junior College transfer . . . What we try to do is pick out the comers -- whether or not they are JC transfers -- and move them ahead more quickly. We try to see to it that they don't get bogged down in dull work and that their abilities are put to good use . . .

We've noted great improvements in this area . . . because with a depleted staff we've been forced to look out for new talent and make full use of it when we find it. (Chanc, 1953, Folder 246-DB, 2/16/53.)

Jack Weber, who was remembered by Al Greenstein, his successor, as a "pleasant, cheery man . . . mostly a-political," looked back 17 years and recalled that his relations with the Administration "were not what you would call good."
 

 At the outset Dean Hahn used to invite me over, and he would chat pleasantly and offer me coffee (which I never have been able to drink). The obvious effort was to influence me indirectly, but there were never any orders or attempts to be overt. I'm afraid that I was so concerned about preserving independence that I was clumsy in resisting these efforts and communications ultimately broke down almost completely . . .

 [T]he thing I most recall was the smoothness, the long cigarette holder (a la Roosevelt) and the polished manners. He was a very sophisticated man, but not a man of force and strong actions. He watched himself like a bureaucrat. I imagine he felt interested in the Daily Bruin because it was a source of problems to him. (Questionnaire.)

Weber, who became a Los Angeles attorney, was essentially moderate. He wrote editorials favoring pension increases for emeriti (retired) professors, opposing student tuition increases and arguing against hiring Communist teachers because of the "effects which would be wrought upon our University and others over the nation by allowing Communists to teach." (DB, 3/16/53.)

Weber's semester was highlighted by a series of interviews with professors on the subject of academic freedom by Eugene Blank, who had returned to the news staff. The series led a student, Esteban J. Toscano, to wonder if "your new reporter, Gene Blank, is the same Eugene Blank that used to write those articles strictly on the Pravda line?" Then, in a campus version of the question, "Who promoted Peress?" he asked, "[W]ho gave to a man that presented himself as an active Communist thinker the job to write those articles?" Blank replied:
 
 

 Ah, yes! . . you've caught me red handed. I can no longer conceal my identity. The infamous Eugene Blank and Gene Blank are one and the same character -- horns, bombs, a twisted unhappy childhood, et al.

 It all started when a sultry Russian spy on The Daily Bruin staff referred to me by the nickname that I have since acquired. (DB, 3/9/53.)

The light-heartedness failed to make much of a dent in the conservative forces moving to control the Bruin's news and feature policies. Chancellor Allen refused to modify the Bruin's new Constitution, but he added in a letter to Lew Leeburg, the incoming student president, "so far as I am aware, no one is out to 'smash' the Bruin." (Chanc, 1953, Folder 246-DB, 6/24/53.)

During the summer (in which the Administration barred the Summer Bruin from printing opinion pages), Dean Hahn moved ahead in his campaign to make the Bruin more "responsible." With the aid of Professor Joseph A. Brandt, he sought out and found a faculty sponsor for the newspaper, Ivan Innerst of the Department of Journalism, who was to receive a stipend of $600 a year, payable by the University Administration. It was this latter requirement that led to another rare display of unity between the Student Council and the Bruin. Editor Al Greenstein said he had no objection to a faculty advisor but he rejected the idea that he should be paid by the Administration. He said the payment by the Administration would be "censorship" (DB, 10/15/53) and "a foot in the door of ASUCLA freedom" (SLC, 10/7/53).
 

 The deep-rooted Bruin feelings on the matter, built up over a long period of time, have gone unnoticed by the relatively new chancellor, who seems to be unaware of many student-Administration points of contention. (DB, 10/7/53.)

Though Student Council member Ron Garabedian claimed the Bruin had a "persecution complex" over the matter (DB, 10/22/53), the Council backed ASUCLA independence and voted to employ Innerst and pay him with student funds. His duties were
 

 (1) To act as a general consultant and advisor, but in no way as a censor, for the UCLA Daily Bruin. (2) To work with the staff as a group and individuals for close adherence to sound journalistic practice and ethics. (3) To attend all Bruin staff meetings. (4) To serve as a member of the Screening Board to rate and nominate candidates for editorial positions each semester. (5) To be a "special" type of friend to members of the Bruin staff in order to aid them to a better understanding of a complex institution and society. (DB, 10/22/53.)

The Bruin staff was incensed over the third provision. "The Bruin prides itself on being independent, which is admirable for any newspaper," Graduate Manager William C. Ackerman had written Chancellor Allen a few months earlier. (Chanc, 1953, Folder 246-DB, 7/27/53.) It was this sense of independence that was violated by the idea that an "outsider" -- whether paid by Administration or student body -- would be allowed to attend staff meetings. The staff sent a protest to the Student Council:
 

 1. The presence of an adult faculty sponsor at staff meetings would tend to curtail freedom of expression and make staff members more hesitant in expressing their feelings.

 2. The attendance of a non-member should not be forced on any group when that group does not desire his presence.

 3. More productiveness can be achieved in a group meeting when an individual is invited by the group itself to participate in group business.

 4. Attendance at Bruin staff meetings has always been on an invitational basis to non-staff members. (SLC, 11/18/53.)

In retrospect, it is easy to criticize the Bruin's stand. What the staff needed more than ever was a method of building a three-way bridge among newspaper autonomy, Student Council control and a rising surge of forcefulness from the Administration. It might have taken a minor engineering miracle, but the need was certainly strong, and a good bartering process by a competent advisor might have done it.

On the other hand, the Bruin had had previous experience with strangers sitting in on staff meetings. After the Schlapik-Rexrode walkout in 1951, a short-lived Advisory Board -- consisting of student and faculty representatives -- had been instituted to pass on Bruin staff appointments and to attend Bruin nominations meetings. Many staffers objected on the grounds that personal remarks and criticisms -- perfectly acceptable within the Bruin "family" -- should not be allowed to go past the doors of KH 212.