Against the Current: Student Protests
Deprecated: strpos(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($haystack) of type string is deprecated in /home/hiddenhi/public_html/application/views/helpers/Shortcodes.php on line 51
Historical Context
By the spring of 1967, tensions between student activists and organizers and the University of Texas administration had reached an inflection point. The civil rights and anti-war movements that had been building on campus since Embree's arrival in 1963 had grown into an organized and visible force, and university administrators, operating under a Board of Regents chairman who had explicitly set out to suppress left-leaning student movements, were increasingly unwilling to tolerate dissent (Lerner 2020). The broader national context made the situation volatile: the Vietnam War was escalating, the draft was bearing down on college-age men across the country, and students at universities from Berkeley to Columbia were challenging institutional authority in ways that alarmed administrators, legislators, and law enforcement alike (White 2018; Dreyer 2006).
At UT, SDS had become the focal point of both student organizing and administrative anxiety. The organization had already drawn the attention of campus police, the Austin Police Department, and the FBI, all of whom were actively monitoring its membership, meetings, and activities (Dreyer 2006). Students like Embree were visible, organized, known to university administrators, and running for student government office on a platform that explicitly challenged the power structure Frank Erwin Jr. believed the regents alone should control (Embree Papers 1933–2023; Lerner 2020). When Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey's visit to the Texas Capitol to address the Texas Legislature provided an opportunity for a demonstration, the stage was set for a confrontation that had, in many ways, been building for years.
The Daily Texan, April 26, 1967
On April 26, 1967, The Daily Texan ran a front-page headline announcing that "Demonstrators, Arrests Stir Campus; Protesters Oppose Administration," capturing the atmosphere of confrontation that had overtaken the University of Texas at Austin. At the center of that confrontation were six students: Alice Embree, Gary Thiher, Dave Mahler, John LeFeber, Dick Reavis, and Tom Smith, who had been brought before the Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee for violating a Chancellor's order by participating in an unauthorized rally on campus on April 23 (Zamarripa 1967). The rally had been called to organize an anti-Vietnam War demonstration timed to coincide with Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey's appearance at the Texas Capitol the following day. All but LeFeber, who was president of the University Young Democrats, were members of SDS (Zamarripa 1967).
The stakes of the disciplinary hearing extended beyond the question of the rally itself. Thiher was a candidate for president of the Students' Association, Embree was running for vice president, and Reavis was campaigning for assemblyman-at-large, meaning that a finding of disciplinary probation would disqualify all three from holding student office (Zamarripa 1967). The hearing was closed to the public, but approximately 200 students staged a stand-in outside to demand equal responsibility for the actions of the six defendants, refusing to let the proceedings go unwitnessed. Members of the press corps and radio media attempted to cover the closed hearing by inserting tape recorder microphones through the mail slot of the hearing room door, and photographs were taken through the same slot until university officials closed it (Zamarripa 1967).
Zamarripa's article and Johnson's photograph capture Embree, identified as an "SDS Member," in conversation with Dean Lawrence Franks outside the hearing room. The image, taken by Daily Texan photographer Virgil Johnson (1967), places Embree as an engaged participant, reviewing documents with the very administrator overseeing her case. The timing of Senate Bill 162's passage is also worth noting here because the bill authorized Texas universities to commission campus security personnel as peace officers with full law enforcement powers and broad authority to eject anyone deemed to have "no legitimate business" on campus and was signed into law by Governor John Connally on April 27, 1967, the day after The Daily Texan reported on the disciplinary proceedings against Embree and her co-defendants (State of Texas 1967; Krueger 2016).
The Daily Texan, May, 2, 1967
On May 2, 1967, the front page of The Daily Texan carried the headline "Committee Says Guilty," reporting the outcome of the Faculty-Student Discipline Committee's deliberations against the six students who had participated in the unauthorized April 23 rally. The committee found all six guilty of failing to "show respect for properly constituted authority and to observe correct standards of conduct," placing them on disciplinary probation until June 1968 (Abernathy and Peterson 1967). Any further violations would result in suspension from the university for a length of time to be determined by a disciplinary committee. Under a specific exception, however, the three students who were candidates for Student Assembly offices — Embree, Reavis, and Thiher — were permitted to continue their campaigns and hold office if elected (Abernathy and Peterson 1967).
The committee's own report acknowledged significant problems with the university's handling of the situation. The administration had cited only a vague and unspecified standard of "respect for properly constituted authority" as the basis for its charges, the rules governing the distribution of announcements of campus meetings had been selectively enforced, and the order itself had been issued in a haphazard manner that had the effect of provoking students into confrontation rather than de-escalating it (Abernathy and Peterson 1967).
The committee further acknowledged that students' assertions about the suppression of free speech had been raised as an open issue by the Texas Attorney General, who suggested that expressions of opinion on controversial matters were being characterized as "activities adverse to the best interests of The University of Texas" (Abernathy and Peterson 1967). The Daily Texan included an editor's note explaining that it was under specific instruction from the Texas Student Publications Board not to print the names of students found guilty, an unusual restriction given that the paper had already photographed Embree with Dean Franks and named all six students in Zamarripa's April 26 article and that, as the editor's note itself acknowledged, the students did not object to being identified. The restriction came entirely from above.
The front page also featured a photograph by Clair Newberry showing Nick Wilson at a desk, with a line of students stretching behind him, waiting to lodge personal protests with Chancellor Ransom. The image captures the breadth of student opposition to the disciplinary proceedings, showing that concern had galvanized a significant portion of the student body. Alongside the finding of guilt, the same edition reported that Chancellor Ransom had dismissed a bid by the University Freedom Movement for representation on an advisory panel, further signaling the administration's unwillingness to extend meaningful participation to student dissenters (Abernathy and Peterson 1967).
UT Board of Regents Regarding the Disciplinary Appeal
The disciplinary proceedings against Embree and her five co-defendants did not end with the Faculty-Student Discipline Committee's formal finding in May 1967. The students, represented by attorney Doran Williams of Rio Grande City, Texas, pursued an appeal to the University of Texas Board of Regents, a process documented in two letters from Board Chairman Frank C. Erwin, Jr., and preserved in Embree's papers (1933-2023).
Deprecated: strpos(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($haystack) of type string is deprecated in /home/hiddenhi/public_html/application/views/helpers/Shortcodes.php on line 51
1. October 4, 1967 Letter (p. 1)
This letter from Frank C. Erwin, Jr., Chairman of the University of Texas Board of Regents, acknowledges receipt of attorney Doran Williams's notice of appeal on behalf of Alice Embree, John Lefeber, David Mahler, Richard Reavis, Tom Smith, and Gary Thiher. By the time this letter was written, the original disciplinary finding had already been affirmed and sustained at every internal level of university review: by the Discipline Policy Committee, the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and the Chancellor before reaching the Board of Regents (Erwin 1967; Embree Papers 1933-2023). Erwin outlines the appeal procedure under the Regents' Rules and Regulations, noting that the Board would receive the students' reasons for appeal in writing rather than orally.
2. October 4, 1967 Letter (p. 2)
On the second page of Erwin's October 4 letter, he specifies the procedural requirements for the appeal. Fifteen copies of the students' brief needed to be delivered to the Secretary of the Board no later than ten days before the October 27–28 Regents meeting, or the matter would be deferred to December (Erwin 1967; Embree Papers 1933-2023). The letter is copied to Chancellor Ransom, Dr. Hackerman, Dean Holland, and several other university officials, a distribution list that shows just how extensively the administration was coordinating its response to the students' appeal.
3. October 23, 1967 Letter
The second letter, dated October 23, 1967, is a brief but pointed response to a letter from Williams dated October 21. It addresses two matters: first, confirming that if the briefs were submitted in time for the December 8–9 meeting, the appeal would be considered then. Second, Erwin flatly states that there is "no valid reason" why he should disqualify himself from the Board's consideration of the students' appeal and that he has "no intention of doing so" (Erwin 1967; Embree Papers 1933-2023). Williams had asked Erwin to recuse because he had previously referred to Alice dismissively as "the Embree girl," a remark that raised legitimate questions about his impartiality as a presiding officer in a case directly involving her (Wang 2016; Hield 2023). That he refused to step aside despite this is an illustration of the power imbalance the six defendants faced.
Frank C. Erwin, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Regents
Understanding who Frank C. Erwin, Jr. was is essential to reading these letters clearly. Erwin had become chairman of the University of Texas System Board of Regents in December 1966, just months prior to the April 1967 rally that precipitated the disciplinary proceedings against Embree and her five co-defendants (Lerner 2020). A prominent figure within the conservative faction of the Texas Democratic Party, Erwin had a close personal and professional relationship with Lyndon B. Johnson, with whom he worked directly on the development of the LBJ Library on the UT campus (Lerner 2020). He firmly believed that "the faculty taught, the students learned, and the regents made policy," and he began his campaign against SDS specifically in 1967, working behind the scenes to suppress left-leaning student movements he considered a threat to the university's image (Lerner 2020).
Erwin had also helped launch the political career of John Connally in 1961, and Connally, as Texas Governor, signed Senate Bill 162 into law on April 27, 1967, the day after The Daily Texan reported on the disciplinary proceedings, vesting campus police with the full law enforcement authority that had not existed when Hamilton's surveillance operation began (Lerner 2020; State of Texas 1967).
As a member of the SIC steering committee, Embree had helped organize demonstrations at Kinsolving Dormitory, knowing that Lynda Bird Johnson, daughter of then-President Lyndon B. Johnson, lived there, to draw national attention to UT's segregated housing policies (Sokolove 2021). Then as a member of SDS, it was an unauthorized anti-war rally timed to coincide with the campus visit of LBJ's Vice President, Hubert H. Humphrey, that resulted in her disciplinary proceedings (Zamarripa 1967). That the appeal of those proceedings landed before Frank C. Erwin, Jr., LBJ's close ally and collaborator on the development of the LBJ Library, was not lost on the students who requested his recusal (Lerner 2020; Hield 2023). According to Wang (2016), Erwin canceled the UT-Chilean Exchange Program specifically because of Embree, referring to her as "the Embree girl" when stating his reason for doing so. That means by the time the appeal letters were written, Erwin had already used that phrase in the context of directly targeting Embree and blocking her academic opportunities. Erwin's refusal to recuse himself, despite having referred to Embree dismissively when displeased with her, was consistent with a pattern, and it colors every aspect of the correspondence that follows (Hield 2023; Lerner 2020).
Taken together, Erwin's letters document the full weight of the bureaucratic and administrative machinery utilized against students whose original offense was participating in an unauthorized anti-war rally. By the time the appeal reached Erwin's desk, the finding had been upheld at every level of university administration. His correspondence reveals an institution that offered the appearance of due process (i.e., appeal procedures, written briefs, and formal hearings), while ensuring that the people presiding over that process had a stake in the outcome.
The design elements of this page were created using Canva and AI assistance.