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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment