Modern Universities: Teaching Conformity

This here is an image of the famous (at least at the University level) Mario Savio, one of my political heroes. Savio was a very outspoken UC Berkeley Student fighting for student and civil rights in the sixties. This photograph not only captures Savio's intensity and the anger of the police force, but beyond the focus point there are people: hundreds, maybe thousands of people. Savio and his peers united, coming together to protest and stand and fight for what they believed in. Our modern generation is at a loss for what to fight for. We often wonder what is worth fighting for, or even how to fight for that which we may be passionate about. This is not because the school systems, the politics, and the community are so perfect that we should not work for change. This is because we have been raised to be content with our surrounding environment and conform to the status quo.
As I have gotten older and more confident in myself, I have firmed my personal and political perspectives. I will now confidently affirm that I am a self-defined leftist liberal (non-violent though!). I was having a conversation with a friend last year when I admitted that a career in politics might interest me. After saying that I added: “Even if I want to be a politician I will never get voted into any office; not without softening my political platform first.” I thought about that statement when I was reading several of Mario Savio’s speeches this term. I knew that I could not stand as an individual with strong, maybe sometimes radical, political goals and earn votes. I could not strive to make the political changes from within the political sphere unless I changed my goals to fit the status quo. EVERYTHING is about the status quo. Uniqueness does not fit in; does not get in, a concept taught, enforced, and maintained by politics and the university systems. As Savio said back in the sixties, "the university is well structured, well tooled to turn out people with all the sharp edges worn off, the well rounded person." Students were, and still are, generally taught not how to be individual and unique, but how to fit in with society. By abandoning our positions to join the majority, we accept what is the majority and blind ourselves to what needs to be changed. There is a veil over our eyes, held by the status quo. Mario Savio lifted that veil in the sixties, but since then it has fallen back, increasingly heavier. He taught his peers and perhaps the whole student generation of the sixties to deny the goals of the status quo and fight for what they personally believed in. This generation now still holds specific issues at heart that do not conform to the status quo but are either too timid to make that opinion clear or just do not know how.

Carolyn Knox On Protests

As a person with very close personal involvement in politics and political protest, Carolyn Knox has powerful words of wisdom to share on this subject. Regarding anti-war protests, she said, "People make such a risk when they feel they have no choice. This feeling can come after tangible/personal trauma or as a result of perceived/shared trauma within a group. Obviously, we do not have a draft--that keeps the American middle class from feeling the cost of this war in a personal way. In our time, we have not quite hit the line where--as a group--we identify with Middle-eastern people who are victims of our governments' imperialism. The Vietnamese were easy for us to feel close to: They were fierce but peaceful, agrarian, peasant people who believed in democracy and had great respect for women. Middle eastern people are relatively wealthy, male chauvinist, homophobes, who are easy to make fun or/and demonize. That fractures grass roots organization on their behalf and confuses us in general. I believe that issues around American torture and off-shore prisons are the clearest issues that Americans can feel strong opposition to right now. As/If Homeland Security invades personal space more in this country and evidence of torture off-shore grows--we may see more people in the street."
There have been far fewer anti-war protests occurring for Iraq than for Vietnam (at least physical protest, ignoring written works, etc). Knox offers a couple reasons why, according to her perspective. First, a draft no longer exists. Men and women who go to war go by choice. During the Vietnam war generation, there was huge concern that those who declared war (or didn’t officially, in this case) were acting on a highly controversial cause and would bring in people to fight who did not support the war in any way. There were much higher potential personal costs during Vietnam, proving stronger incentive to protest actively.
Second, an interesting thought, is that American people identify easier with the Vietnamese than the Iraqi people. Stereotypically, the Vietnamese are more peaceful and democratic (ideals America associates with) then the Iraqi people who we tend to demonize. The Iraqi people represent our opposites who we are less likely to protest in support of. American people may be adamantly in opposition to the war, but not necessarily in support of Iraqi politics, which I can see how that may inhibit some grassroots movements that support change, but not through war.

Carolyn Knox, University of Oregon, interview

Johnson Hall Sit-In

The preceding two documents stem from the Johnson Hall sit-in at the University of Oregon in 1970 (1) in which protesters established a congregation place in the University building and remained there after hours to express their opposition the the war in Vietnam. Sixty three students were arrested (2). That 1970s generation of students faced the same risks that me and my peers faced in 2002: authority opposition, trouble with the University, legal repercussions, etc. They did not back down like we did though, they followed through with their sit-in. Two factors may have made the difference between the success of their sit-in versus the abandonment of ours. The Vietnam generation students had a more personal relationship with the war due to the draft, and they also had some authority support in President Clark.
In his letter to President Clark, Attorney General Lee Johnson blatantly ignored the cause and goals of the protest, focusing only on the legal issues. He described the sit-in saying, "students are singing and making music and loud noises" (3). He devalued the admirable action of the interested, active students. He was not curious about the students' messages, but only in the violations of the laws that he listed as the trespass statute, disorderly conduct statute, and unlawful assembly statute that "can result in arrests and criminal prosecutions" (4). The 1971 University of Oregon students risked lot in violation of multiple laws to get the attention of people in power, such as Lee Johnson, but the attention being given was strictly in reaction to the illegal actions. The students had their attention, not their messages.
President Clark worked to reverse the type of attention his students were getting, standing in support of their non violent action. My fellow class officers and I had worked to find a school authority who would provide value, support, and our credibility with no success, but President Clark filled this role for his students. While not necessarily condoning the illegal aspects of the protests (certainly not those violent actions that a few students engaged in) he wholeheartedly admired and supported them (5) for their activism and probably put his job on the line to do so. He assured his students that "if we are forced to take police action, we should take it reluctantly and in sorrow" (6). Police action ended up being taken and more than sixty students were arrested, but the students sent their message. They could not bring the troops home themselves, but they were certainly going to articulate that that was what they wanted.



Sources:

(1, 2) A Brief History of the UO, http://www.uoregon.edu/~uocomm/newsreleases/facts/history.html
(3, 4) Lee Johnson, letter to President Clark
University of Oregon Archives
(5, 6) Robert Clark on the Johnson Hall Sit-In
University of Oregon Archives

President Clark's statement re: Johnson Hall Sit-In

Image: President Clark's address to the student protestors
Source: University of Oregon archives

University of Oregon Johnson Hall Sit-In: Letter to President Clark

Image: Letter to University of Oregon President Robert Clark from Lee Johnson re: Johnson Hall Sit-In

Source: University of Oregon Archives

Stand up for a cause! Without making a scene of course...

Sometime during the spring of my sophomore year in high school, my fellow sophomore class officers and I decided to petition our leadership class into planning and carrying out a sleep-in protest to Bush’s war. We were very gun-ho about this exciting and powerful message we wanted to express. We wanted to tell our school, our parents, our community that we did not support the war in any way. We had plans to hold a free speech platform in which anyone could speak about the war. We wanted to invite the media to help spread our message. We wanted anyone and everyone to come participate in the sleep-in. The first step we took was trying to gain support from our school teachers and administrators. We knew that by adding the involvement and support of authority our ideas would be more valued and respected. We found unwilling teachers and an unrelenting administration.
Attempts to corral authority support only yielded warnings about the risks our protests held. My parents pleaded with me to not risk my potential for earning college scholarships and offers by getting into trouble. We could not find a single teacher willing to put his or her job on the line to protest the war. Our administration threatened me and my peers with suspension of expulsion if we carried out this sleep in. My school was afraid to ruffle any feathers within what I viewed as a liberal city.
Being fourteen and very influenced by my authority figures, I personally decided to abandon our plan, and eventually everyone else followed suit. We were too afraid to lose what we had worked for thus far in our lives. We were still equally as opposed to the war, but no one knew.
We elected to hold a picket protest on a Saturday afternoon rather than hold a sleep in with speeches and interviews, and a solid media presence. We had a large turnout with at least two hundred students and family members, most of whom held signs expressing their opposition to the war. We stood at a major intersection for two hours yelling and picketing. That night we reflected on the day, feeling little to no accomplishment. We were so passionate, so determined to influence the government and scream to the world that we were adamantly opposed to war, but we had no idea how to do so without risking too much. Cars drove by and saw our signs and heard our yells, but did they really hear us? It sure did not seem like it. We knew high risk protsts sparked strong reactions, and our riskless protest yielded no reaction.
Generations of the past often overcame their fear of taking risks and held sit-ins, seized buildings, etc. The Johnson Hall sit-it at the University of Oregon exemplifies this.

Image: sophomore class officers, '03
Source: Sheldon High School yearbook

Getting Started...

Everything seemed normal to me as a changed into my regular clothes following an early morning basketball practice before class started. I hustled over to my freshman introduction to health class to meet a few early arrival students gaping at the television. I was worn out from practice and not the least bit interested in whatever movie or show was holding their attention. I took my seat and prepared myself to take advantage of my spare two minuted by closing my eyes and resting while absorbing the noises of the television. First I noted the urgency in the voices, realizing that this was not staged. When I heard that it was a news report on some horribly tragic occurrence, not some movie or show, I opened my eyes to see what it was about. I anticipated a reporting location in Israel, or London, but I too joined the gaping students when I first witnessed the unreal images of what became of New York City.

The September 11th terrorist attacks prompted George W. Bush to declare a “War on Terror” which fueled strong opposition comparable to opposition against the Vietnam War. Demonstrations of this opposition were not comparable. The majority of the United States does not support the War on Terror/ Iraq, yet protests do not measure up to protests against the Vietnam War in effort or effectiveness. Not only is my generation failing to express an adamant resistance to war, we are not making any of our political platforms and perspectives clear to our government officials and to the rest of the community. I absolutely will not argue that we are apathetic or uninvolved in protests, but times have changed and our methods of protest have as well and are losing efficiency. I will use this blog to demonstrate protests of today compared to protests of the sixties during my parents’ generation and investigate why protests are losing value and power.

Bibliography

“A Brief History of the UO,” University of Oregon, uoregon.edu
“Cal Tree Huggers,” 12th Street Chatter, September 3, 2007, http://12thstreetchatter.blogspot.com/2007/09/cal-tree-huggerscampers.html
Anderson, Ross, “We Won’t Take it Anymore,” October 27, 2007. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28179
Clark, Robert, “Johnson Hall Sit-In,” 1970, University of Oregon Archives, October 2007.
CodePink4Peace.org, 2002.
Gettings, John, “Civil Disobedience: Black medalists raise fists for Civil Rights Movement” Memorable Olympic Moments, 2007. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/summer-olympics-mexico-city.html
Henry D. Sheldon High School Yearbook, 2003, 176.
Johnson, Lee, “Letter to President Clark,” April 22, 1970. University of Oregon Archives, October 2007.
Knox, Carolyn, University of Oregon, interview, November 8, 2007.
Larson, Christina, “Postmodern Protests: Why Marches only matter to those who march,” Washington Monthly, March 2005. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0503.larson1.html
MoveOn.org, 1998.
Savio, Mario, “An End to History,” The New Left: A Documentary History, copyright (c) 1969, edited by Massimo Teodori, used by permission of the Publisher, The Babbs-Merrill Company, Inc.