Archives Scrapbooks

The image shows a collection of newspaper clippings from May 1987, all related to a trial involving anti-apartheid protesters. Here is a detailed summary of each article:

1. Top Left Article ("Anti-apartheid protesters can't use 'necessity defense'")

   • The article discusses a judge's decision to disallow the "necessity defense" for anti-apartheid protesters who disrupted a Harvard University class. The protesters, part of the South African Liberation Committee, argued that their actions were justified due to the urgency of opposing apartheid. The judge, however, ruled that their actions were not necessary to prevent a specific harm and thus did not qualify for the necessity defense.

2. Top Right Article ("Judge bars necessity defense in trial of apartheid foes")

   • This article also covers the judge's decision to bar the necessity defense in the trial of anti-apartheid protesters. The judge stated that the defendants did not show an immediate threat that required their disruptive actions. The article mentions that the protesters aimed to raise awareness about apartheid and the role of U.S. corporations in supporting it.

3. Bottom Left Article ("Fogg Protesters Go on Trial Today")

   • This article reports on the commencement of the trial for protesters who disrupted a class at Harvard University. The protesters, including several Harvard students and alumni, were part of the South African Liberation Committee. They aimed to draw attention to Harvard's investments in companies with ties to South Africa. The defendants planned to argue that their actions were justified due to the moral urgency of opposing apartheid.

4. Bottom Right Article (Continuation from another page)

   • This is a continuation from another page, discussing the protesters' motivations and the broader context of the anti-apartheid movement. It mentions the involvement of various activists and the moral arguments they presented for their actions.

Overall, the clippings highlight the legal and moral debates surrounding the actions of anti-apartheid protesters and the judicial response to their defense strategies.

The image displays a collection of newspaper clippings from May 1987, reporting on the trial of anti-apartheid protesters from Harvard University. The protesters, who were charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct, attempted to use the "necessity defense," arguing that their actions were justified to protest the university's investments in South Africa under apartheid. Key figures, including Robert Parry, Benjamin Hiller, and Lee Gold, were involved in the case. The clippings detail the legal proceedings, with Judge Paul G. G. Loeb ruling that the necessity defense could not be used, and the protesters being found guilty. The articles also mention the broader context of protests and divestment efforts at Harvard and other institutions.

The image is a page from the Boston Globe newspaper dated May 28, 1987. It features several articles related to anti-apartheid protests and legal cases involving Harvard University and Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1. Top Left Article: "Anti-apartheid protesters can't use 'necessity defense'"

   • This article discusses a legal case where protesters were charged with disorderly conduct and obstruction of justice. The focus is on the legal defense strategy, specifically the "necessity defense," which is being used by the defendants, who argue that their actions were justified due to the urgent need to protest apartheid.

2. Top Right Article: "Judge bars necessity defense in trial of apartheid foes"

   • This article reports on a judge’s decision in the trial, stating that the necessity defense cannot be used. The judge ruled that the defendants did not meet the criteria for invoking this defense, emphasizing that the protesters must prove that their actions were done to prevent a greater harm.

3. Bottom Left Article: "Fogg Protesters Go on Trial Today"

   • This article provides details about the trial of seven protesters who were arrested during a demonstration against Harvard’s ties to South Africa. The defendants, including Harvard students, are charged with various offenses such as trespassing, obstruction, and disorderly conduct. The article describes the legal arguments and the broader context of anti-apartheid activism on campus.

4. Bottom Right Article: "Protesters"

   • This section continues the discussion about the protesters' charges, focusing on the charges of obstruction and the broader implications of their actions. It highlights the context of Harvard’s stance on divestment and the broader anti-apartheid movement.

The articles collectively discuss the legal proceedings, the arguments of the defendants, and the context of anti-apartheid activism at Harvard University, illustrating the complex interplay between legal strategies and social activism.

The image displays a newspaper page from the Boston Globe dated May 28, 1987. The page contains three articles related to protests and legal proceedings against Harvard University's involvement with South African businesses.

1. Top Left Article: "Anti-apartheid protesters can't use 'necessity' defense"

   • This article discusses a legal case involving the "Harvard Seven," a group of political activists who disrupted a meeting at Harvard to protest the university's investments in South African companies. The court ruled that the protesters could not use a "necessity defense" because their actions did not meet the criteria of being a last resort to prevent imminent harm.

2. Top Right Article: "Judge bars necessity defense in trial of apartheid foes"

   • This article, also covering the same case, reports that Judge William Weld ruled that the protesters could not use the necessity defense in their trial. The article highlights the defendants' argument that their actions were necessary to prevent continued harm to South African dissidents and the university's investment in apartheid-supporting companies.

3. Bottom Article: "Fogg Protesters Go on Trial Today"

   • This article details the upcoming trial of seven protesters who disrupted a meeting at Harvard's Fogg Museum to protest the university's investments in South African businesses. The defendants argue that their actions were justified under the necessity defense, contending that Harvard's continued investment in South Africa perpetuated apartheid. The article mentions the defendants' plans to show evidence of the harm caused by the investments and the necessity of their disruptive actions.

The articles collectively describe the legal and moral arguments surrounding the protest and the defendants' attempts to justify their actions in court.

The image displays a collection of newspaper clippings from the Boston Globe, dated May 28, 1987. The articles focus on legal proceedings and protests related to Harvard University's investments in South Africa during the apartheid era.

1. Top Left Article - "Anti-apartheid protesters can't use 'necessity' defense"

   • This article discusses a legal case where seven protesters were charged with disrupting Harvard University's commencement exercises in 1985. They argued the "necessity defense," claiming they had to disrupt the event to protest Harvard's investments in South Africa. The judge, Peter M. Weld, ruled that the defense was not applicable, stating that the protesters' actions were not justified by any legal necessity.

2. Top Right Article - "Judge bars necessity defense in trial of apartheid foes"

   • This article provides additional context on the same case. Judge Weld barred the necessity defense, arguing that the protesters did not meet the criteria for such a defense. The protesters were seeking to prove that their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm, specifically the continuation of apartheid through Harvard's investments. The judge found their argument unconvincing.

3. Bottom Article - "Fogg Protesters Go on Trial Today"

   • This article details the upcoming trial of seven protesters who disrupted a Harvard event to protest the university's investments in South Africa. The protesters, known as the "Fogg Seven," will argue that their actions were justified by the necessity to prevent harm. The article mentions the legal arguments and the potential implications of the case, including the possibility of the protesters being charged with trespassing and conspiracy.

The articles collectively highlight the legal and moral debates surrounding Harvard's investments in South Africa and the protesters' attempts to challenge these investments through direct action.

The image contains pages from two newspapers, the "Patriot Ledger" and the "Boston Globe," both dated around late May 1987. The main articles on these pages discuss legal proceedings related to anti-apartheid protests and the use of the "necessity defense" by the protesters.

Patriot Ledger (Left Page)

Headline: "Anti-apartheid protesters can't use 'necessity defense'"

• Summary: The article reports that a judge ruled anti-apartheid protesters, charged with trespassing at the South African consulate, cannot use the "necessity defense." This defense would have allowed them to argue that their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm.
• Details:
  • The defendants included students and a professor from Harvard University.
  • The ruling was made by Judge Daniel W. O’Connell in Quincy District Court.
  • The defendants aimed to present evidence showing the importance of their protest against apartheid.
  • The judge ruled that the necessity defense did not apply in this situation.

Boston Globe (Right Page)

Headline: "Judge bars necessity defense in trial of apartheid foes"

• Summary: This article also covers the decision by a judge to bar the "necessity defense" for anti-apartheid protesters who were arrested during a sit-in at Harvard.
• Details:
  • The trial involved several protesters, including students and community members.
  • Judge Paul L. Garrity barred the defense, stating that the defendants could not use it to justify their protest actions.
  • The judge noted that the defense was not applicable in cases of civil disobedience.
  • The article mentions that the protesters aimed to highlight the immorality of apartheid and the involvement of Harvard in companies doing business in South Africa.

Additional Article in the Patriot Ledger (Bottom Left)

Headline: "Fogg Protesters Go on Trial Today"

• Summary: This piece announces the start of the trial for seven activists arrested for protesting at the New England Electric System (NEES) annual meeting.
• Details:
  • The protesters were charged with disturbing the peace.
  • They intended to argue that their protest against NEES's involvement with South Africa was necessary.
  • The defendants included members from various anti-apartheid groups and students.
  • The article explains the necessity defense and its potential use in this trial.

Sidebar on the Patriot Ledger (Far Right)

Headline: "(Protesters)"

• Summary: A short piece explaining the protester's intent to enter a "diner" to disrupt a meeting by singing and chanting.
• Details:
  • The protest was against the New England Electric System's policies.
  • The activists were removed and arrested, facing charges for disturbing the peace.

Overall, these articles cover the legal challenges faced by anti-apartheid protesters in Massachusetts, specifically addressing the courts' rejection of the "necessity defense" for their actions.

The image shows a two-page spread of a scrapbook or press-clipping collection with newspaper articles from what appears to be May 28, 1987. The articles are related to protests and legal actions regarding anti-apartheid activities.

On the left page, the headline reads "Anti-apartheid protesters can't use 'necessity defense'" from the "Patriot Ledger Quincy, Mass." It discusses a legal situation where seven anti-apartheid demonstrators at Harvard University were told they could not appeal to the "necessity defense" in court to justify their actions. The article goes on to describe the context and statements from individuals involved.

On the right page, two articles from "The Boston Globe" are visible. The first article's headline is "Judge bars necessity defense in trial of apartheid foes," which details a judge's ruling preventing the use of the necessity defense by protesters in a trial stemming from a demonstration against Harvard's investments in companies that did business in South Africa. The second half of a different article titled "Fogg Protesters Go on Trial Today" continues on this page, explaining the circumstances of the protesters' trial.

The articles are surrounded by the yellowish pages of the scrapbook, and there are some handwritten notes and underlined sections, suggesting someone has studied or marked these articles for specific information. There's also a visible date stamp "MAY 27 1987" on the left article suggesting when it might have been archived or added to the scrapbook.

The image shows a scanned page from a newspaper, likely The Boston Globe, dated May 28, 1987. The page features two main headlines and accompanying articles, along with additional smaller text and a sidebar.

Main Headlines and Articles:

Left Column:

• Headline: "Anti-apartheid protesters can't use 'necessity defense'"
  • Subheading: "CAMBRIDGE, MA"
  • Content Summary:
    • The article discusses a legal ruling in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where a judge has barred anti-apartheid protesters from using the "necessity defense" in their trial.
    • The protesters, including seven individuals, were charged with disrupting a Harvard University-sponsored dinner held at the Five Charged University Club in November 1986.
    • The protest was aimed at drawing attention to South Africa's apartheid policies and the university's investments in companies doing business with South Africa.
    • The judge, Paul Langone, stated that the protesters' actions were not justified under the "necessity defense," which typically allows individuals to break the law to prevent a greater harm. The judge ruled that the protesters' actions did not meet the legal criteria for this defense.

Right Column:

• Headline: "Judge bars necessity defense in trial of apartheid foes"
  • Subheading: "By Paul Langone"
  • Content Summary:
    • This article elaborates on the same legal case discussed in the left column. It provides more details about the trial, including:
      • The seven protesters were arrested after disrupting a fundraising dinner for the South African government at the Five Charged University Club.
      • The protesters argued that their actions were justified under the "necessity defense" because they were protesting apartheid and the university's investments in companies supporting the South African regime.
      • The judge rejected this defense, stating that the protesters' actions were not legally justified and that the necessity defense was not applicable in this context.
      • The article also mentions that the protesters, including individuals such as Benjamin Silver and Lee Gold, were charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct.

Additional Text:

• Sidebar (Right Side):
  • A smaller article titled "Fogg Protesters Go on Trial Today" discusses a separate protest at Harvard University involving students and alumni who were charged with disrupting a dinner at the Fogg Art Museum.
  • The protesters were advocating for the university to divest from companies doing business with South Africa.
  • The article notes that the protesters faced charges, and the trial was set to begin on the same day as the publication.

Visual Layout:

• The page is formatted in a typical newspaper style, with two main columns of text.
• The headlines are prominently displayed at the top of each column.
• The articles are written in a journalistic tone, providing context, quotes, and details about the legal proceedings.
• The page includes a date stamp at the top: "MAY 28 1987", and the source is noted as "NEW ENGLAND NEWS CLIPPER AGENCY."

Context:

• The articles reflect the heightened activism against apartheid in the late 1980s, with students and activists using civil disobedience to protest universities' investments in companies supporting the South African government.
• The legal challenges faced by protesters highlight the tension between civil rights activism and the law, as well as the judicial system's stance on the "necessity defense."

This page provides a snapshot of the anti-apartheid movement in the United States during the 1980s, illustrating both the activism and the legal battles that ensued.

The image shows a page from a newspaper or magazine with multiple articles printed on it. The page has a black border around it and is part of a larger publication. The articles are dated May 28, 1987, and May 27, 1987, and they cover various topics related to protests and legal cases.

The top left article is titled "Anti-apartheid protesters can't use 'necessity defense'" and discusses a court case involving protesters who were arrested for disrupting a Harvard University dinner to protest Harvard's investments in companies doing business with South Africa. The protesters argued that their actions were justified by the "necessity defense," but the judge ruled against them.

The top right article is titled "Judge bars necessity defense in trial of apartheid foes" and provides more details about the same court case, including the names of the protesters involved and the arguments made by the defense and prosecution.

The bottom left article is titled "Fogg Protesters Go on Trial Today" and covers a separate trial involving protesters who blockaded a dinner at the Fogg Art Museum in protest of Harvard's investments in companies doing business with South Africa. The article provides background information on the case and quotes from the defendants and the university's legal representatives.

The bottom right article is titled "Protesters" and continues the coverage of the Fogg Art Museum trial, providing additional details about the defendants' arguments and the judge's ruling.

Overall, the image shows a page from a publication that covers various legal cases and protests related to anti-apartheid activism and divestment from companies doing business with South Africa. The articles provide background information, quotes from the involved parties, and details about the court proceedings and rulings.

The image appears to be a scrapbook page containing multiple newspaper clippings. The clippings are arranged in a collage format and are related to a specific event or topic. The clippings are from different newspapers, as indicated by the mastheads at the top of each clipping. The clippings cover various aspects of the event or topic, including news articles, opinion pieces, and photographs. The clippings are arranged in a way that suggests a chronological order, with the earliest clipping at the top and the latest clipping at the bottom. The scrapbook page also includes handwritten notes and annotations, indicating that the person who created the scrapbook page was actively engaged in the event or topic and was interested in documenting it in detail. Overall, the image provides a glimpse into the past and offers a unique perspective on a specific event or topic.