AHHHESAH THESHT HULEE’EHL HCTEHET‘E EH

THE EE‘HEHTEHS HHS' SEHEESESS; HH HHSHHHESES

OH WAR HHGTEST AT HAHHEAHH AHH HEESHtGHSEH

THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF MA.

WAN STATE UNIVESTTY

BARBARA SWMKI

1971

IHEEHHHEHHEHEEEEEL31293 00848 6577

ABSTRACT

AMERICAN STUDENT POLITICAL

ACTIVITY IN THE THIRTIES AND SIXTIES:

AN ANALYSIS OF WAR PROTEST AT HARVARD AND WISCONSIN

By

Barbara Swirski

This study contributes to the study of social movements in general,

and student movements in particular, by clarifying the difference between

independent, class conscious movements of students, and other types of

student political activity. The study examines the political activity

of students in connection with anti-war issues during the 1930's and

1960's at two.American universities--Harvard and.Wisconsin. Data for

the study were gathered through a content anaLysis of the student

newspapers of the two schools.

The main purpose of the study is to distinguish between student

political activity during the two decades, by focusing on the following

variables: the initiators of conflicts between students and other

groups, the allies of students, the formal demands of student organi-

zations and the demands of individual students during those conflicts,

the dissatisfactions expressed by students, and the number of partici-

pants in the conflicts.

The study claims that the activity of the sixties constituted a

student movement, that the activists of that decade were aware of

themselves as a distinct group and that they desired increased power

to make decisions affecting them. It claims that the activity of the

thirties did not constitute a student movement, but rather was part

of a wider social movement; no evidence of class consciousness or

desire for increased decision making power on the part of students of

the thirties was found. Finally, the study did not find any signifi-

cant differences between activity at the two schools during either

decade.

AMERICAN STUDENT POLITICAL

ACTIVITY IN THE THIRTIES AND SIXTIES:

AN ANALYSIS OF WAR PROTEST AT HARVARD AND WISCONSIN

By

Barbara Swirski

A THESIS

Submitted to

Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1971

Theoretical.Framework . . . . . . . . . . .

Purpose of the Study

DeSign Of the Study. 0 I O C O O O O O O O O

Source of Data and Sampling Procedure

unitOfAnalySisooooooooooo

Procedure of Content Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Student Anti—War Activity During the Thirties

Student AntiAWar Activity in the Thirties

and Sixties

Student Anti-War.Activity in the Sixties . . . . . .

Differences Between Student

Decades

Initiators . . .

Allies

Demands . . . .

Dissatisfactions

Number of Participant

0

C

C

S

Cmmhmnms.. ... ...

Bibliography

Appendices

Appendix.A:

Appendix B:

Anti-War.Activity in the Two

Coding Sheets

Intercoder Reliability

ii

Page

10

l2

13

1h

1h

11+

18

21

21

25

28

33

39

1+1

uu

l+9

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Numbers and Types of War—Related Issues Over

Which Conflicts Arose at Wisconsin and Harvard

During the Thirties and Sixties . . . . . . . . . . 15

2. Initiators of'War-Related Conflicts at Wisconsin

and.Harvard During the Thirties and Sixties . . . . 22

3. Number of Conflicts in Which Non-Student Groups

Were Allied.With Students at Wisconsin and

Harvard in War-Related Conflicts During the

Thirties and SiXties o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 25

A. Formal Demands of Students Involved in War-Related

Conflicts at Harvard and Wisconsin During the

Thirties and SiXtieS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 29

5. Number of War-Related Conflicts in Which Demands

Were Expressed by Individual Students at

Wisconsin and.Harvard During the Thirties and

SiXties o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 30

6. Number of Demands Expressed by Individual Students

in War-Related Conflicts at Wisconsin and

Harvard During the Thirties and Sixties . . . . . . 30

7. Number of War-Related Conflicts in Which Dissatis-

factions Were Expressed.by Individual Students

Concerning Their Role as Students at Wisconsin

and Harvard During the Thirties and Sixties . . . . 3h

8. Number of Dissatisfactions Expressed by Individual

Students Concerning Their Role as Students in

War-Related Conflicts at Wisconsin and Harvard

During the Thirties and Sixties . . . . . . . . . . . 35

9. Intercoder Reliability for Attitudes Recorded and

Coded at Wisconsin and Harvard . . . . . . . . . . . 50

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. 8mm COding Sheet 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 1+7

2 O Attitude Sheet 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1+8

iv

AMERICAN STUDENT POLITICAL

ACTIVITY IN THE THIRTIES AND SIXTIES:

AN ANALYSIS OF WAR PROTEST AT HARVARD AND WISCONSIN

The wave of student political activity throughout the world in

the sixties has called the attention of the academic community to the

study of student movements. Yet, student political activity is not

a new phenomenon; in the United States, for example, there was a

"student movement" during the thirties, while in South.America students

have been politically active during most of this century. One of the

main problems of the recent literature, from a theoretical point of

view, is that it calls all forms of student political activity by the

same name, i.e., "student movements." Since students are a relatively

large group of individuals, of varied personalities, interests, socio-

economic backgrounds, and intellectual pursuits, such a statement is

equivalent to calling all political activities of white collar workers

"white collar movements," and all political activities of blacks "black

movements." For this reason, a cursory review of the literature reveals

a plethora of hypotheses and prOpositions about student movements,

which include just about all reasons for political activity of any

social group or conglomeration of individuals.

By far the greatest number of studies of student political ac-

tivity, especially those of American students, have focused on bio-

graphical variables. Political activism of students has been found

to be associated with politically liberal parents, permissive child-

rearing, high socio-economic status (and in some cases low status

or high mobility), and intelligence. (Flacks, 19675 Keniston, 1968;

Soloman and Fishman, 1961+; Paulus, 1967; Lyonns, 1965; Watts and

Whittaker, 1966; Westby and Braungart, 1966; Heist, 1965; Trent and

Craise, 1967; Somers, 1965; Emmerson, 1968.) Other findings have

pointed out the association between student political activity and

personality characteristics such as flexibility, individualism, es-

thetic and artistic sensitivity (Watts, 1966; Flacks, 1967; Heist,

1965; Lyonns, 1965; Paulus, 1956; Trent, 1967); or attitudes such as

religious liberalism and idealism (Keniston, 1968; Flacks, 1967;

Trent, 1967; Lyonns, 1965; Heist, 1965; Paulus, 1967; Soloman, 1961+;

Larkin, 1968). There is no reason to believe that such qualities

differentiate between students and non-students; they may character-

ize the participants in any political activity or any movement for

change, though they were found in studies of student activists.

Social scientists attempting to explain the presence of student

movements in the so-called developing nations have pointed to the

national or international scene for explanations; they have hypothe-

sized that "the more tenacious the colonial regime, the greater its

politicizing and radicalizing effects," (Emmerson, l968:h07) or the

greater the propensity of political authorities to impose sanctions

upon student political activity and the more vulnerable the student

perceives himself to such sanctions, the less likelihood of a student

movement developing (Finlay gt al, 1968). Other studies have related

student political activity to a country's stage in the modernization

process (Emmerson, 1968: hlZ-hlh), or to foreign invasions and.weak

national governments (Larkin, 1968). Again, these variables do not

apply specifically to student political activity; for example, the

role of sanctions in preventing any attempts at social or political

change has been pointed out by Talcott Parsons in his analysis of

deviance and social change, and by Neil Smelser in his discussion of

social movements (Parsons, 1951; Smelser, 1962). Similarly, the pres-

ence of a colonial regime, a foreign invader, or a weak government

may help to explain dissatisfactions on the part of many individuals,

but it does not tell us why students as a separate group in society

should mdbilize for change.

A third type of hypothesis offered in the literature is more

relevant to the subject of student movements; this type looks to

university variables. Several studies have sought explanations in

the character of the university; American student activism has been

associated with the "multiversity" (Scott and El-Assal, 1969); and

with institutions having large numbers of students, high quality, the

presence of large out-of-state student bodies, and faculty and insti-

tutional insecurities (Lipset and Altbach, 1967). Studies of Latin

American student activism have found it highest in secular state in-

stitutions where students have an important voice in university af-

fairs (Myhr, 1968), and African student political activity has been

associated with large universities in capital cities rather than with

universities in isolated rural areas (Willame, 1968). The isolation

of the latter is said to facilitate a political elitism among many

students (Ottoway, 1968). Studies of student activism in the United

States as well as in other countries have hypothesized that it is re-

lated to higher student population ratios and to non-elitist systems

of higher education (Sampson, 1967; Roszak, 1969; Douglas, 1970; Em-

merson, 1968: #01). Another relevant university variable is said to

be the area of study: student activism has been found higher in de-

partments of humanities, law and social sciences, and lower in

departments of natural or applied sciences. Such findings have been

explained by the fact that in the former the curricular challenge is

lower (Glazer, 1968), or that students of the former experience frus-

trations over uncertain or unacceptable vocational prospects after

graduation (Emmerson, 1968: #09; Pinner, 1968). Some of the above

institutional variables will be discussed further below.

One reason for the great variety of hypotheses offered above is

that they relate to different phenomena; they do not differentiate

between cases of strictly student movements and those where the politi-

cal phenomenon involved is not a "movement," or at least not a strictly

"student movement." Looking at student political activity from a

cross-cultural point of view, we can distinguish three categories of

student political activity.

The first consists of activity in the frame work of student or-

ganizations which are affiliates of adult political organizations.

Such a description fits the political activity of students in Chile

during the sixties, where the various student organizations through

which students acted were miniatures of national parties (Glazer,

1968). Another example of the same phenomenon wOuld be student politi-

cal activity in Venezuela between 1936 and 1958, especially during

the dictatorship of’Marcos Perez Jimenez (19h8-58), when the adult

parties were illegal, and the primary role of students was to keep

these political structures alive (Hamilton, 1968: 366-367). In the

above examples, student activity was not directed towards specific

student interests (curriculum, tuition, housing, etc.) but toward a

larger political struggle.

The second type of activity occurs in the framework of political

organizations or movements in which students constitute a significant

part of the membership and leadership. Such was the case of the

Algerian and Congolese student activists before independence was

achieved, of the Guban students before Castro overthrew Batista, of

the Venezuelan students who Opposed the dictatorship of Juan Vicente

Gomez between 1928 and his overthrow in 1936, and of the Columbian

students who became active in the 1920's (Willame, 1968; Suchlicki,

1968; Hamilton, 1968; Walker, 1967). In these cases, students pro-

vided a good manpower source for larger political movements against

dictators and colonial regimes. Even though they often had their own

separate organizations, the students acted as members of the larger

movement rather than as students per se. They Opposed the regime

rather than the university; they worked for the interests of a larger

social group than students.

The third type of student political activity occurs in the frame-

work of a student movement, that is, a group of students (individuals

occupying the same social role), who, as a group are outside the de-

cision making structure within their role set or occupy a low position

in it, who try to influence the making of one or several decisions,

or try to become a prominent or exclusive part of the decision making

structure themselves (Swirski, 1971). An example of such a movement

would be the University Reform.Movement in Argentina in 1918, when

students succeeded in bringing about many changes in their universi-

ties, including considerable decision making power for themselves

(Walker, 1968). The difference between this type of activity and the

other two is that there students acted as students and attempted to

bring about changes that would.benefit them as students, rather than

as members of the middle class, as members of the Social Democratic

Party, or as Algerian nationals.

However, students participating in a student movement do not

necessarily act ggly in their own interests, or only on university-

connected issues. They may also participate in broader political

conflicts; indeed, there may be more conflicts centered around national

issues than around strictly university ones. These national issues

may also be connected with university issues.

Theoretical Framework

The above definition of a student movement is derived from a

general theory of the development of movements for social change which

was developed in connection with a study of student political activity

at Harvard and Wisconsin between 1930 and 1969 (Swirski, 1971). The

theory focuses on groups of individuals occupying the same role,

termed "role groups." In a university, students, faculty, and admin-

istrators would each constitute a role group. The theory views society

as a conglomeration of role groups interrelated in "role sets." Stu-

dents, faculty and administrators, then, would be viewed as interact-

ing with one another not as individuals, but as members of their re-

spective role groups. Together, these role groups would form the

university role set. The theory further states that within each role

set there is a certain distribution of decision making power, and

that each role group has certain expectations with regard to its po-

sition within the decision making structure of the role set. In the

university role set, most of the decision making power is in the hands

of the administration and faculty. Until the 1960's, students viewed

this distribution as just and preper.

A political movement is said to arise when there is a discrepancy

between the expectations of members of a role group and its objective

share of decision making power. The formation of a political movement

is seen as a four stage process:

1. On a societal level, broad and widespread changes take place,

such as industrialization, commercialization, demographic changes,

natural disasters, and migrations. These changes are not dealt

with in the present study.

The preceding societal changes bring about structural changes

within the role set. These changes are of two main types:

(a) changes in the relative strength or importance of a given

role group vis-a-vis the other groups in the role set,such

as changes in the finer of a role group, which can reinforce

its claims to a share in the decision making structure; and

changes in the composition of a role group, which may bring

new skills, new tactics, or more intense expectations regard-

ing its position within the role set.

In the case of the student role group, its potential

power has increased because of the great increase in the

percentage of young people enrolled in colleges and univer-

sities, as well as the great increase in absolute numbers of

students attending college in the past decade (Swirski, 1971:

Chapter 3; Douglas, 1970: 13-16). While only a small per-

centage of students in a given university may participate

in some political activity, that small percentage may amount

to hundreds or even thousands of students.

Another change in the student role group has been the

increasing heterogeneity of students. Greater numbers and

proportions of students now come from.working class and min-

ority group backgrounds (Swirski, 1971: Chapter 3). This

increased representation among students of different back-

(b)

8

grounds has broadened the social and political concerns of

students.

The second type of structural change consists of changes in

the circumstance of performance of the given role, such as

an increase in the duration of the role, measured by hours

of the day or number of years an individual spends in it;

and changes in the degree to which occupation of the role in

question affects the success or satisfaction a person has in

his other roles. Each of these two changes may increase the

"centrality" or importance of the role to its occupants and

thus increase their concern with the position of their role

group.

This type of change is especially relevant to the pres-

ent study. The role of student is now more central to its

occupants than it was in previous decades. College-bound

youth begin to identify as students before graduation from

high school through various college preparatory programs such

as advanced placement. Large numbers of students take more

than the traditional four years to complete their first de-

gree, taking a year off to work or travel. Mereover, more

students now plan on and.pursue graduate studies. Instead

of four years, the role for students who continue their

studies beyond the first degree lasts for 6-8 years, or even

longer. This increase in the total time Spent in the role

has affected students' perceptions of the student role group,

contributing to a group or"clas§'consciousness among stu-

dents. As Douglas points out:

This . . . has meant that not only is there

more time for membership in the college community

to become the basis for one's identity, but

there is also more time for common interests

and problems to develop, to be defined as

common by individuals . . . (Douglas, 1970:

68)

Not only is the role of student occupied for a longer period

of time than previously, but it is also perceived as more

important for success in life. In earlier years college was

"more of a finishing school, a rite of passage into upper

class life, even for the males." (Douglas, 1970:63). Future

success did not depend upon one's attendance at college or

on one's performance there; students came largely from upper

or upper-middle class backgrounds, and their future depended

on their social ties and their fathers' occupational positions.

In contrast, college has now become the most important avenue

to financial and occupational success in life. Academic per-

formance is perceived as important for acceptance into grade

uate school and/or for Obtaining good jdbs.

The increase in the numbers of students and the increased

importance of the role to its occupants have brought about

a group or "class" consciousness on the part of students.

The fact that they form one of the largest groups in society

has made students aware of their potential power as a group.

The increase in the time spent in the student role has allowed

a student identity to deve10p, as students have become aware

of the interests and problems they share as individuals oc-

cupying the same role. Moreover, decisions which affect

students as students now affect them for a longer time;

therefore such decisions have taken on increased importance.

10

The fact that students have a greater stake in their student

role, that higher education is now perceived as essential

for success in life, has also affected the way students view

their own group, as well as the way they view other groups

in the role set.

3. When some or all of the structural changes within the role set

take place, they may lead to higher expectations by members of

the role group in question with respect to the position of their

group within the decision making structure of the role set. In

the case of the student movement, students have come to reject

the traditional authority of faculty and administration, to de-

mand a voice in university decisions which affect them, and to

reject the image of students as immature citizens on the way

(Swirski, 1971: Chapter A).

h. Finally, the new, higher expectations may lead to the formation

of a political movement. The probability of such a development

is influenced in turn by (1) the degree to which members of the

dissatisfied group have a group, or "class" consciousness; (2)

by the clarity of identifiability of the opposing group or groups;

(3) by the existence of alternative channels for decision making;

and (h) by the existence of alternative rewards.

Purpose of the Study

This study will attempt to show the difference between a strictly

student movement and other types of student political activity by

looking at.American students' involvement in war-related issues during

two periods, the thirties and the sixties, in two schools -- the Uni-

versity of Wisconsin and.Harvard University. These decades saw the

11

highest levels of student political activity in the history of Amer-

ican higher education: analysts of student activism in the sixties

have compared it to that of the thirties, and both periods have been

referred to as "student movements" (Feuer, 1969; Lipset and.Altbach,

1967) .

The major claim of this study will be that While student politi-

cal activity in the sixties -- at both universities -- constituted a

genuine student movement, the student activities of the thirties did

not. Hopefully, it will be shown that the student activism of the

thirties occurred in the framework of student organizations which

were affiliates of adult political organizations, and that students

of that period did not act to promote or defend student interests per

se. An attempt will be made to show that they did not have much aware-

ness of themselves as a separate group within the university or in

society, and that they did not expect more decision making power as

a distinct grogp than they had.

Conversely, the study will present evidence to support the con-

tention that the students of the sixties did perceive themselves as

belonging to a separate group with common interests and common prob-

lems and that, furthermore, one of the purposes of their activities

was to gain more decision making power within the university as well

as outside it.

Design of the Study

The student political activity of the thirties and sixties will

be compared by analyzing the following aSpects of this activity in

connection with war-related issues:

1. The student organizations that were most active politically.

2. The types of allies that cooperated with students in their

12

political activities.

3. The types of demands that students -- both organizations and

individual students -- made in particular conflicts.

h. The dissatisfactions expressed by students with regard to

their position as a group.

5. The numbers of students that participated in political activi-

ties.

The study focuses on war-related issues because these were the

most prominent issues for students in the two decades: in the thirties

this meant attempts to prevent the United States from entering a fu-

ture European war by demonstrating in advance that students would not

support the government in such a venture, while in the sixties it

meant efforts to end a war already being waged in Vietnam. While war

was the biggest issue in both decades, it is still small enough to

allow for an in-depth study of student political activity which cen-

tered around it. Since the issues are similar, the differences be-

tween them will emphasize the differences between the phenomena in

both decades even more than would be the case were the type of issue

not held constant.

The choice of Harvard and‘Wisconsin was made in order to test

some of the hypotheses concerning the relation between university

structure and student activism. In addition, both schools had active

student bodies and excellent, independent student newspapers, which

assured rich data.

Source of Data and Sampling Procedure

Data for this study were gathered in connection with a larger

study which attempted to measure, among other things, changes in Ameri-

can students' perceptions of their role in society between 1930 and

13

1969. Such information was obtained through a content analysis of

student newspapers at the University of Wisconsin (The Daily Cardinal)

and Harvard University (The Crimson).

The sample for the content analysis included all the issues of

the paper, from the registration issues to the Christmas break, and

from.March lst to the end of the school year for every other year, be-

ginning in 1930. Time limitations dictated the choice of every other

year rather than every year, as well as the elimination of the two

winter months. Though a content analysis was not done for the January

and.February issues, these papers were skimmed in order to make cer-

tain that important activities were not missed. It was found that

student activity was low during those months, and that when there was

activity, it consisted either of a continuation of activity begun in

the fall or of the beginning of activity which continued in the spring,

so that very little information was lost because of the sampling pro-

cedure. In each issue of the newspaper included in the sample, all

the news items, feature articles, editorials and letters to the editor

were read.

Unit of Analysis

The unit of analysis was a conflict between students and other

groups. A "conflict" was defined as any situation in which an organ-

ized group of students -- student government, dormitory council, fra-

ternal organizations, ad hoc group organized around a specific issue,

political organization -- engages in activities (strikes, demonstra-

tions, oral or written statements, etc.) designed to affect existing

or projected policies in areas of concern to them either on or off

campus. .An "organized group" was considered one in which a recogniz-

able leadership exists. Focusing on conflicts allowed for the

1A

collection of other information relevant to the subject of student

political activity: number of conflicts in a given year, issues around

which conflicts arose, patterns of alliances of students, means em-

ployed by them to achieve their goals, numbers of participants in

conflicts, and declared goals or demands of students during conflicts.

Procedure of Content Analysis

Once a conflict was identified, all the information about it --

from the first reported activity to the last -- was recorded on two

different types of coding sheets: attitude sheets and summary sheets

(see Appendix.A). One attitude sheet was used for every unit of re-

cording (a unit of recording is the smallest section of a text in

which a reference is recorded). The unit of recording was a letter

to the editor, an editorial, or a speech reported in a news story; in

other words, a piece of writing containing the opinions of one person.*

The summary sheet was used to summarize background information

about the conflict, such as the nature of the issue, when the conflict

started and ended, who initiated it, how many students participated

in activities related to the conflict, what means were used.by the

students during the conflicts, what groups supported or opposed the

students, and what formal demands were made by the students.

Student.AntiAWar Activitpruringgthe Thirties and Sixties

In the following analysis of student anti-war activity in the

thirties and the sixties, a short history of the conflicts during

* Although some letters to the editor contained more than one

signature, only one attitude sheet was used for each letter. A de-

tailed explanation of the content analysis procedure can be found

in the Codebook, which is not included here because of its length.

15

both periods at the two universities studied will be presented. It

should be borne in mind that this review is based on a reading of two

student newspapers for every other year; it is not a complete histor-

ical assessment of student activity. Following the historical sketches,

the initiators of anti-war conflicts in both periods, their allies,

the formal demands of student groups and of individual students, the

dissatisfactions expressed.by students with regard to their role as

students and the numbers of participants in both decades will be com-

pared.

Student Anti-War Activity in the Thirties

Two events provided the backdrop for student political activities

in the thirties: Hitler's rise to power and the prospect of another

world war, and the Depression. In 1933 English students at Oxford

University resolved that under no circumstances would they "fight for

King and country," and this "Oxford Pledge" was echoed on American

campuses. The Depression affected students' ability to find jobs

while at school and greatly reduced their prospects of finding employ-

ment after graduation; at some universities students agitated for

lower fees, more federal help for students, and better salaries and

working conditions for students who had to pay their own way through

college.

Table 1: Numbers and Types of'War-Related Issues Over Which Conflicts

Arose at Wisconsin and.Harvard During the Thirties and Sixties

, Thirties Sixties

Issue * Wis. Har. Total Wis. Har. Total

Anti-war ll 8 19 15 10 25

Anti-ROTC h 0 h 2 l 3

Total 15 8 23 17 ll 28

* Anti-war refers to World.War II in the thirties, Vietnam in the sixties.

16

By far the biggest issue for student activists in the thirties

was the war issue. The chief organizers of anti-war conflicts* were

national organizations, the National Student League (NSL), which was

tied to the Communist Party, and the Student League for Industrial

Democracy (SLID), which was tied to the Socialist League for Industrial

Democracy. These two organizations called for the first "Student

Strike Against the War" on April 13, 1931+, to commemoratethe entrance

of the United States into World.War I and to stage a dress rehearsal

of what students would do if called upon to fight another imperialistic

war. The anti-war strike became an annual event on American campuses

until the United States entered.World.War II. The most successful

strike was held in 1935; at Harvard 7 per cent of the student body par-

ticipated in the strike, and at Wisconsin, 10 per cent took part. At

both schools the national platform was supplemented by local issues;

at Harvard it was a teacher oath bill in the Massachusetts legislature,

and.at‘Wisconsin it was a compulsory ROTC bill to be brought before

the state senate. In the 1936 school year there was less anti-war

agitation in both schools, and the anti-war strikes were attended'by

much less controversy than they had previously. .At Wisconsin the dem-

onstration was termed a "peace assembly" rather than an "anti-war

strike," and it was backed by 30 campus organizations. At Harvard,

the strike was supported by members of both administration and faculty.

The 1939 strikes were also similar in both schools, where two separate

* The term "anti-war conflicts" will be used only in reference to

conflicts concerning United States participation in a future war --

World'War II. Conflicts focusing on the status of ROTC at the uni-

versity will be referred to as "anti-ROTC conflicts." Similarly, the

conflicts which occurred during the sixties will be referred to as

"anti4Vietnam conflicts" and "anti-ROTC conflicts." See Table 1 for

a breakdown of war-related conflicts in both decades.

l7

' at-activities were held: a university-sponsored "peace convocation,'

tended by 20 per cent of the student body at Wisconsin and 12 per cent

at Harvard, and a rival "anti-war strike" held by more militant peace

groups at both schools and attended by less than 1 per cent of the

student bodies. The l9h0-hl school year saw very little anti-war ac-

tivity at Wisconsin, prdbably due to the fact that its president had

been appointed director of the draft, and the university administration

did what it could to discourage peace organizations. The anti-war

strike became a debate that year, and the groups which were still a-

gainst intervention held two rival meetings because they were not able

to agree on a platform. At Harvard, protest activity in l9hO-hl was

much greater; it was precipitated by a radio speech in which President

Conant called for direct military assistance for Great Britain. Rival

interventionalist and anti-interventionalist activities were carried

out throughout the year, with frequent confrontations between the groups

and the involvement of many different campus and outside organizations.

At several universities, including the University of Wisconsin,

the anti-war issue was connected with another issue -- compulsory mil-

itary training at land-grant colleges. At Wisconsin.ROTC had been

voluntary since 1923, but during the thirties annual attempts were

made by conservative legislators to reinstate a compulsory program.at

the university. In 193A, opposition to ROTC was part of the platform

of groups organizing anti-war activities, and 1% per cent of the stu-

dent body signed an anti-ROTC petition circulated in conjunction with

the anti-war strike. .At both the 1935 and 1937 strikes, Wisconsin

students passed resolutions against ROTC. In addition, students joined

with faculty, administration and local organizations on several occa-

sions to oppose the ROTC bills once they were introduced into the State

legislature. These conflicts, however, were not led by student left-

ist or peace groups, and they did not succeed in mobilizing many stu-

dents or student organizations to their cause. Only when the ROTC

question was tied in with anti-war efforts under the leadership of

leftist organizations did it arouse much interest in the student body.

Though the patterns of anti-war activity at the two schools were

quite similar, a few differences should be pointed out. The general

level of activity was much greater at Wisconsin than at Harvard. Anti-

war activity also came later to Harvard; just as it took.Harvard stu-

dents a long time to discover the Depression, it took several years

before they appeared to notice that a war was brewing in Europe; nei-

ther subject was extensively discussed in the pages of the Crimson,

until the late thirties. During the l9h0-hl school year, however,

Harvard students opposing the war were more active than their Wiscon-

sin counterparts.

Student Anti-War Activity in the Sixties

Student political activity in the sixties was fueled by the

youthful and idealistic image of President Kennedy, by the investiga-

tions of the House Committee of Unamerican Activities, disarmament

talks between Russia and the United States, the Cuban blockade, the

civil rights struggle of young blacks in the South, and by the Vietnam

war.

The most prominent issue for student activists in the sixties

was the Vietnam war. Anti4Vietnam activity started in the winter of

1965, after the United States began daily bombing raids on North Viet-

nam. Like the anti-war conflicts of the 1930's, the antiAVietnam

protests attracted large numbers of student organizations and large

numbers of students. As in the thirties, the leftist and peace groups

19

were the major initiators of such conflicts; the major organizing

force in the sixties was the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS),

an independent student organization. At Harvard, SDS was the most ac-

tive student organization in anti-war activities, while at Wisconsin

it shared the spotlight with a local anti-war organization, the Commit-

tee to End the War in Vietnam (CEWVN). In April of 1965. SDS organized

a Washington march, attended.by over 15,000 students. At both Harvard

and Wisconsin, demonstrations and teach-ins were held during the same

period, with the c00peration of well-known faculty members. In the

spring of 1966, sit-ins were held at Wisconsin and.Harvard, as well

as at other universities across the country, to protest the decision

of the Selective Service to give special standardized exams to college

students to determine their eligibility for the draft and to protest

the cooperation of university administrations with the draft. The

1966-67 school year was characterized.by draft resistance and demon-

strations against military, CIA, and Dow Chemical Company recruiters

on campus. In the spring, SDS and other anti-war and civil rights

groups organized the Spring Mobilization.Against the War in Vietnam,

two nationwide demonstrations held simultaneously in New'York and.San

Francisco, and attended.by a tOtal of about 275,000 students. Stu-

dents from.both.WisconSin and.Harvard joined the New'York march, and

at both campuses local protest activities were organized in conjunc-

tion with it. That same year Harvard SDS organized protests against

Hubert Humphrey and.John.McNamara when they visited Cambridge. The

same themes of draft resistance and confrontation with military and

industrial recruiters persisted the following year. In 1968, the fo-

cus of student anti-war protest at the two schools shifted to the

national elections and to ROTC. The elections were accompanied by

2O

nationally-coordinated demonstrations to protest both the war and the

absence of meaningful choice between candidates.

There were two ROTC-centered conflicts at Wisconsin during the

1968-69 school year and one at Harvard. In the fall an ad-hoc group

of Wisconsin students organized petitions, walk-outs, rallies and boy-

cotts of ROTC orientation classes, which were compulsory for new stu-

dents. The student government proposed to the faculty and regents

that ROTC orientation be made voluntary, and agitation continued until

the regents finally abolished the compulsory sessions in February.

The second Wisconsin conflict occurred the following Spring, when stu-

dent leaders from the newspaper and the student government joined with

leaders from other midwestern campuses to demand that ROTC become a

non-credit program, The ROTC conflict at Harvard was the biggest

conflict in Harvard's history. It attracted the support of many stu-

dent organizations, and some 5,000 students participated in protest

activities connected with the conflict, the greatest number of students

to participate in any protest activity at Harvard. The conflict lasted

throughout the school year; it began with demands by the student gov-

ernment that ROTC be given the status of an extra-curricular activity

and.by SDS that it be abolished from the campus in any form, but it

later broadened to include the questions of tactics, viOlence, and the

structure of decision making at the university (for accounts of the

strike, see Eichel 93,.gl., 1970; and Kelman, 1970).

As was the case during the thirties, the patterns of student anti-

war activity at Wisconsin and.Harvard were similar. The only notable

difference is that activities at Harvard got off to a slower start;

they did not attract large proportions of the student population until

1967.

21

Differences Between Student Anti-War Activity

In The Two Decades

Initiators

In the content analysis, up to five initiators, organizations

which started the student activities, were recorded for each conflict.

As can be seen from Table 2, the student leftist and peace groups were

the major initiators of anti-war conflicts in both periods. During

the thirties, at Wisconsin, they were among the initiators of 12 of

the 15 war-related conflicts, and at Harvard they initiated all war-

related activities. In 87% of the war-related conflicts of the thir-

ties, these groups initiated student anti-war activities. In the six-

ties, they were among the initiators of 12 of the 17 war-related con-

flicts at Wisconsin and 8 of the 11 war-related conflicts at Harvard,

or 70% of the war-related conflicts of that decade.

While in the thirties leftist groups were joined in the sponsor-

ship of war-related activities by other campus organizations, notably

the campus religious groups, the impetus for most political activity

came from the former. In the sixties, on the other hand, independent

efforts were made by other groups which did not want to be associated

with the New Left, but which nevertheless opposed the war through se-

parate activities. This was the case at Harvard, where during the

1966-67 school year moderate students, led by the National Association

of Student Body Presidents and Editors, engaged in a series of activi-

ties designed to influence governmental policy, including a letter to

President Johnson, a meeting with Dean Rusk, a giant teach-in dubbed

' and the circulation of athe "National Day of Inquiry on Vietnam,'

petition calling on the government to offer an alternative form of

service to those who could not in good conscience fight in Vietnam.

22

Table 2: Initiators of War-Related Conflicts at Wisconsin and Har-

vard During the Thirties and Sixties

Thirties Sixties

Organization Wis. Har. Total Perc. Wis. Har. Total Perc.

Left and Peacea’ 12 8 20 87% 12 8 2o 70%

Religious 3 1 h 17 O 0 O 0

Student Newspaper 3 0 3 l3 1 1 2 7

Student Gov't. 2 O 2 9 O 2 2 7

Dorm., Class, &

Dept. Assoc. l 1 2 9 l l 2 7

Partisan Organi-

zationsb o o o o l l 2 7

Black 86 Civil

Rights 0 O 0 O l l 2 7

Ad Hoc Organiza-

tion 0 l l h 2 l 3 10

Total Conflicts 15 8 23 17 ll 28

a In the thirties, for both schools, includes the Student League

for Industrial Democracy, National Student League, American Student

Union. .At Wisconsin, includes also Young Communist League, Progressive

Club, University League for Liberal Action, Youth Committee Against

the'War,.AntiAWar Committee, and Peace Federation. At Harvard, in-

cludes also Harvard Peace Society, Harvard Liberal Club, Harvard So-

cialist League, and Committee.Against Military Intervention. In the

sixties, for both schools, includes Young Socialist Alliance, Students

for a Democratic Society, Student Mobilization Committee, Student

Peace Center. At Wisconsin also includes Socialist Club, W.E.B. Du

Bois Club, Committee for Direct Action, Wisconsin Draft Resistance

Union, Madison Resistance, Committee to End the War in'Vietnamt At

Harvard includes also Young People's Socialist League and.May Second

Movement.

b Includes the Young Republicans, Young Democrats, and Students

for Democratic Action. ‘

23

Divinity students, students in the Department of East Asian Studies,

and the Young Democrats at Harvard also made independent efforts to

stop the war, as did the Science Students Union at the University of

Wisconsin. While there were also ideological differences between the

student organizations which initiated anti-war conflicts during the

thirties, the differences were within the leftist and peace groups

themselves, and these reflected the positions of their parent organi-

zations.

There is an important difference between the leftist organizations

of the thirties and those of the sixties: the various organizations

which organized the campus anti-war activities of the thirties were

affiliated ideologically and/or financially with adult organizations.

The militancy of their activities corresponded to the positions of

their parent organizations on the war issue. During 193h-35, the "pop-

ular front" period when socialists and.communists were closest in

ideology and tactics, their student organizations (SLID and NSL, re-

spectively) cooperated fully and organized the most successful anti-

war activities of the decade. In 1935, the NSL and the SLID merged

to form a new national organization, the American Student union (ASU).

However, by 1935 the international communist movement, including the

American Communist Party, had abandoned its anti-war policy in favor

of an anti-German alliance. The student communists followed suit, and

in 1936 they demanded that the radical approach to campus issues be

dropped in order to secure maximum.unity against Germany. The student

socialists (whose anti-war position, like that of their elders, had

not changed) became a minority in the ASU. In 1936, many ASU-affiliated

groups accepted the offers of university administrators to sponsor

"peace convocations" for peace rather than against war or the govern-

2h

ment. Anti-war strikes were held only on campuses where left-wing

socialists dominated the local ASU chapter. By 1938, the socialist

wing of the ASU was completely overcome by the communists, and the

"student movement" had.become pro-administration and.very respectable.

This was reflected in the peace convocations held at both Harvard and

Wisconsin. Socialist organizations holding rival strikes attracted

very few followers. After the Hitler-Stalin Pact in 1939, the ASU

again took a position against United States involvement in a future

war, which it maintained until Germany attacked.Russia in.June of 19H1

(for the history of SLID, NSL, and ASU, see Draper, 1967).

In contrast with those of the thirties, the leftist and peace

organizations which led antiJVietnam.activities of the sixties were

independent student groups. The most prominent organization of the

sixties, SDS, rejected.both Old.Left ideology and adult leadership,

as did SNCC, the leading student force in the civil rights struggle

(Newfield, 1966; Zinn, 1967). Other groups organized at Wisconsin to

Oppose the war, the Committee for Direct.Action and the Wisconsin

Draft Resistance Union, were also independent from adult groups.

The fact that the major student organizations which initiated

conflicts in the thirties followed the line of adult groups lends sup-

port to the contention that in that decade students did not act as a

separate group. The political activity on campus was an extension of

that outside the university, rather than an expression of student in-

terests or discontent. While the Vietnam war was, of course, a na-

tional issue in the sixties, the student organizations which initiated

the‘Vietnam.conflicts on college campuses did not take their cue from

adult groups, and as will be seen below, they perceived the war as

affecting specifically student interests. The initiation of conflicts

25

by non-leftist groups in the sixties is further evidence of the exis-

tence of a movement among students; it Shows that their activity can-

not be explained by reference to any leftist ideology, but that it in-

volved students with a wide spectrum of political.views. In other

words, what united students was not any particular political preference,

but interests that they shared as students occupying the same role in

the university and in society.

Allies

All groups which expressed support for the student organizations

initiating the conflicts or which joined them in their activities were

recorded as allies. In both decades student proponents of peace formed

alliances with the same types of non-student groups -- with faculty,

adult leftist and peace organizations, labor organizations, and relig-

ious groups.

Table 3: Number of Conflicts in Which Non-Student Groups Were.Allied

With Students at Wisconsin and.Harvard in'War-Related Con-

flicts During the Thirties and Sixties

Thirties Sixties

Organizations Wis. Har. Total Wis. Har. Total

university"Administration 7 1 8 0 0 0

Faculty h 6 10 3 5 8

Left & Peace Organizations 7 2 9 5 3 8

Civil Rights Groups 0 0 0 1 l 2

Labor Organizations 2 1 3 O 1 1

Religious Groups 3 1 h 2 l 3

Total Conflicts 15 8 23 17 ll 28

The only group whose relationship to the student activists changed

over the decades was the university administration. (In the thirties

the administrations were allied with students in 8 out of the 23 con-

flicts (35%). The administration supported the students in three of

the anti-war conflicts at Wisconsin and one at Harvard, though it tried

to take the "radicalism" out of them by offering sponsorship and a change

26

of name. In all of the anti-ROTC conflicts at Wisconsin, the admin-

istration and students were on the same side -- against reinstatement

of compulsory ROTC. The administration also joined the students in

other conflicts, such as rallies against anti-Semitism in Germany, op-

position to legislative investigations of "radicalism" at the univer-

sity, and proposed budget cuts. Students perceived the university as

their ally: in the discussions which preceded the 1935 anti-war strike,

some argued against holding the demonstration as a "strike" because

of connotations that they would be attacking the university.

.At Harvard the administration generally kept aloof from student

anti-war activities. In 1935, however, they denied the strikers the

use of the steps of Widener Library, traditional meeting place for

students with a cause. There was no apparent opposition to this de-

cision on the part of students. That same year the administration

also ordered campus police to prevent opponents of the strike from

breaking it up as they had the previous year.

In the sixties the university administrations did not ally them-

selves with the students in a single anti-war conflict; in fact, in

several conflicts students Saw the administration as their enemy or

as an accomplice to the enemy -- the government -- through its allow-

ance of DOW, CIA, and armed forces recruitment on.campus, through

government-sponsored defense research, and through its ROTC program.

Further evidence for the changed relationship between anti-war

activists and their university administration can be found in the ar-

guments of students against ROTC in both decades. At both Wisconsin

and.Harvard,* students of the thirties argued (1) that ROTC training

* Although there were no ROTC conflicts at Harvard in the thirties

sample, the program was occasionally criticized by editors of the Crimson

and other students.

27

was reactionary, that it promoted militarism in American universities,

(2) that the kind of thinking that ROTC courses promoted -- acceptance

of certain statements without proof -- was contrary to the principles

of higher education, and that this had a "malicious effect on the mind

of the student when it is in its formative stage," and (3) that ROTC

harmed the prestige of the university, referring either to its liberal

tradition (Wisconsin) or the high standard of its courses (Harvard).

During the ROTC conflicts of the sixties, the arguments of students re-

peated the first two themes. But students also argued that

"the quiet presence of ROTC on the Harvard

campus appears as a recent and insidious

intrusion of the warmakers, an ill-conceived

alliance between the university and the war

"in'Vietnam," (Crimson, 2/3/69)

or

"ROTC is a symbol of the entire web of con-

trol on this university exerted by govern-

ment and industry" (Cardinal, 10/8/68).

In other words, in the sixties students accused their universities of

collaborating with the military and of promoting the very war which

they were trying to stop.

The fact that the students and the administration were on the

same side in 35 per cent of the conflicts in the thirties shows that

the relevant group for students of that period was the university as

a whOle. Students identified their interests with those of the faculty

and administration. The common enemy was outside the university,

whether it was the state legislature or the federal government. During

the thirties students did not identify as a separate role group.

By the 1960's, however, students did see themselves as comprising

a separate group whose interests and prdblems were different from those

of the administration. In the case of ROTC, the administration was

28

perceived as profiting from its connection with the federal government,

while students suffered from it. The same was perceived with regard

to the Vietnam war; the university administration received federal

grants for research defense in connection with the war, while students

received draft notices. In war-related conflicts of the sixties, the

administration did not declare support for a single student activity.

Students, for their part, considered the administration, in many cases,

as part of the enemy.

Demands

Two types of demands were recorded. The first consisted of de-

mands expressed by individual students in letters to the editor,

speeches, or interviews. These were expressions either of individual

students who did not represent any organization, or of organizations

which became allies of the student groups which initiated the conflict

but which did not claim to represent all students in the conflict.

The second type of demand recorded will be referred to as "formal de-

mands." These demands were those which were officially made by the

student groups which initiated the action or which were passed by

students participating in some mass activity connected with the con-

flict.

The demands of individual students were recorded word-for-word

on separate attitude sheets. Later they were coded according to the

authorities to which they were directed: (l) the university, (2) the

state, county, or city government, and (3) the national government or

a national figure representing the government. Formal demands were

also coded in this way. When more than one formal demand was made,

only the first or major demand was recorded.

29

Table A: Formal Demands of Students Involved in War-Related Conflicts

at Wisconsin and.Harvard During the Thirties and Sixties

Thirties Sixties

Demands Wis. Har. Total Per. Wis. Har. Total Per.

Directed at Uni-

versity O 1 l h h 2 6 21

State,County,City h 0 A 17 3 O 3 10

National Government 11 7 18 78 10 9 19 68

Total Conflicts 15 8 23 99 17 ll 28 99

One of the most significant differences between the thirties and

the sixties, from the point of view of this study, is that while during

the thirties almost all formal demands made during war-related conflicts

‘were directed at the national or state governments, during the sixties

students also made demands of their own universities (see table A above).

At Wisconsin, no major demands were directed at the university in the

thirties. At Harvard, there was one such demandt* In the sixties,

in 21 per cent (6) of the war related conflicts at both schools, the

major demands were directed at the university administration.

In all of the ROTC conflicts of the thirties, the formal demand

was that ROTC not be made compulsory at the university of Wisconsin,

and this demand was directed at the state legislature. The university

administration was in every case on the side of the students. The

formal demands of the ROTC conflicts of the sixties, however, were

directed at the university administration.

* This followed a radio broadcast by President Conant in which he

urged, United States intervention to help England. undergraduate

leaders began circulating a petition repudiating Conant's "declaration

of war" and "this drive to war" by"leading faculty members who were

the first to call for the draft, the first to call for the transfer

of destroyers."

30

Table 5: Number of War-Related Conflicts in Which Demands Were Ex-

pressed by Individual Students at Wisconsin and Harvard

During the Thirties and Sixties

Demands Thirties Sixties

Wis. Har. Total Per. Wis. Har. Total Per.

Directed at University 0 l 1 *MWI 6’ 2 8 29%

Directed at State, County,

City Government A 0 A 17 2 O 2 7

Directed at National Gov't.

or Nat'l. Figure 3 h 7 30 A h 8 29

Total Conflicts 15 8 23 17 ll 28

Turning to the demands of individual students whose expressed at~

titudes were reported in the neWSpapers of the two schools (see Tables

5 and 6), one finds only one conflict during the thirties in which a

student directed a demand at the university. This was made at Harvard,

following Conant's radio speech. The demand.was: "Harvard should not

become a war machine" (Crimson, l2/6/h0).

Table 6: Number of Demands Expressed by Individual Students in War-

Related Conflicts at Wisconsin and.Harvard During the Thirties

and Sixties

Demands Thirties Sixties

Wis. Har. Total Wis. Har. Total

Directed at University 0 l 1 20 73 93

Directed at State, City

Government , County 10 0 10 2 0 2

Directed at National Govtt.

or National Figure 8 8 l6 9 2o 29

For the sixties, the story is different. Even in conflicts in

which the formal demand was directed at the federal government, indi-

vidual students made related demands on their university. In 29 per

cent (8) of the war-related conflicts at the two schools students di-

rected some of their demands at the university. Moreover, the frequency

31

of these individual demands was much greater in the sixties. While

only one individual demand was made against the university in the

thirties, 93 such demands were expressed in the sixties. Even though

the issue involved was a national one rather than a university issue,

individual students whose opinions reached newsprint made more demands

on the university (93) than on the federal government (29).

'What kind of demands did the students direct at their universities?

Students demanded, first of all, that the university sever its connections

with the military and the Vietnam war; secondly, that it not interfere

with student protests; and finally, that it give students decision

making power. In connection with a 1967 demonstration against CIA on-

campus recruitment, a student demanded,

"If the University is to retain any kind of independ-

ence from outside sources of support and influence --

if the university is to stand for more than a corpor-

ate arm of the State Department and monied America,

it must . . . tell the CIA to go elsewhere" (Cardinal,

1711/67) .

.At an anti-Dow demonstration the next year, a student declared,

"The university should stand for the freedom of dis-

cussion, and not for the employment of an unnecessary

and futile war. Students who are members of this

university are being compelled to indirectly sanction

the war effort" (Carding, 11/8/68).

Students also argued that the university should make a positive contri-

bution to the cause of peace:

"American universities (should) refuse to supply the

military with officers . . . Universities, by their

refusal to train military officers, can have a genu-

ine effect on the determination of the future character

of America" (Cardinal, h/30/69).

Another individual demand directed at the university during the

sixties was that students be permitted to challenge or disrupt speakers

or visiting dignitaries who refused to address themselves to the'Viet-

32

nam issue. Such demands were made at Wisconsin in 1965 in connection

with a visit by Edward Kennedy, and at Harvard in 1966 in connection

with a scheduled event involving Secretary of Defense John Mc Namara:

"There is definite incongruity in insisting on

proper decorum when the underlying question is

of attitudes toward a vicious war or of being

concerned with not embarrassing a guest when

the questions he raises concern the fundamental

nature of our society" (Crimson, 11/16/66).

The "student power" conflicts between students and university

administrations during the sixties are well known. This idea, that

in general people have the right to determine the decisions which affect

their own lives, and that students, as a group, have the :right to make

decisions which affect them directly, or "participatory democracy,"

was the contribution of SDS. This idea was expressed by students in

anti-Vietnam and anti-ROTC conflicts as well as in conflicts concerning

campus life. For example, when Wisconsin students protested the re-

cruitment by Marines in the Memorial Union, the demand was also made

that the administration

". . . be made to represent the people of the

University both financially and spiritually.

We need to be governed by a joint administra-

tive group--and it should be more heavily

students" (Cardinal, 12/7/66).

That same year, a Dow demonstration developed into a student power

conflict over who had. jurisdiction over student organizations, the

faculty Student Life and Interests Committee, or the student govern-

ment. Similarly, when the Harvard administration made it clear that

it was not prepared to change the status of ROTC, the focus of the

conflict shifted from ROTC to the university administration, and stu-

dents demanded a change in the decision making structure of Harvard:

"The university (must) be restructured so that its

policies will be determined by the people that they

significantly affect. The Corporation, as it is

33

presently constituted, must be abolished"

(Crimson, u/lh/69).

To summarize, the data on formal demands and demands of individual

students lend support to the propositions that students of the sixties,

unlike those of the thirties, identified and acted as students in their

conflicts with other groups and that their expectations with regard

to the decision making power of their role group had increased by the

latter decade. The fact that they made demands (both formal and in-

dividual) against their university administrations in the sixties,

while only one such demand was made during the thirties, shows that

by the sixties they differentiated between the student and administra-

tion role groups. Their increased expectations with regard to decision

making are shown in their rejection of the right of the university to

cooperate with the military and with industries involved in the war

and to curb their anti-war activities, as well as in their explicit

demands for increased decision making power with regard to policies

affecting them as students. -

Dissatisfactions

The dissatisfactions expressed by students as regards their

role as students were c0pied verbatim. Later, all the dissatisfac-

tions recorded were placed in one of the following categories: (1)

Others do not take student interests into account; (2) Students

are not consulted, or are not listened to; (3) Students are not

represented; (h) Others intrude into solely student areas of

concern; (5) Others abuse their powers, exploit harass or suppress

students; (6) Others have all the power; (7) Civil or constitutional

rights of students are violated; (8) Complaint about in loco parentis

regulations, or with the image of students as immature, irresponsible,

3b.

and unable to make their own decisions; and (9) Concern with the in—

dependence, character, and prestige of the university, the quality of .

education, and the academic freedom of the faculty. These categories

were derived from the theoretical frameworkkpresented above. They

correspond with other attitudinal expressions which were coded in the

content analysis but not utilized in the present study.

If more than one dissatisfaction was mentioned in a single attitude

sheet, only the first was coded. If the same two were mentioned in

subsequent attitude sheets connected with the same conflict, the dis-

satisfaction not coded in the first case was coded, regardless of

whether it appeared first or not. Such a procedure was followed on

the assumption that what was important was the presence or absence of

a particular attitude in a conflict, rather than the number of times

which it appeared in any given conflict.

Table 7: Number of War-Related Conflicts in Which Dissatisfactions

Were Expressed by Individual Students Concerning Their Role

as Students at Wisconsin and Harvard During the Thirties

and Sixties

Dissatisfaction Thirties Sixties

Wis. Har. Total Wis. Har. Total

Others Don't Take Student

Interests Into Account 0 0 O O 2 2

Students.Aren't Consulted 0 O O l 3 A

Students.Aren't Represented 0 0 O 0 l 1

Others Abuse Their Powers;

Oppress Students 0 0 0 3 2 5

Others Have.A11 the Power 0 l 1 0 1 l

Constitutional Rights of Stu-

dents are Violated 1 O 1 2 l 3

Concern with Prestige of

University 3 0 3 1 l 2

35

The findings concerning the demands of students are supported by

the findings on dissatisfactions of students. (see Tables 7 and 8).

During the thirties there were fewer conflicts in which dissatisfactions

were expressed, the frequency of expression of role dissatisfactions

was lower, and only three types of dissatisfactions were mentioned.

This corrdborates the findings with regard to allies and demands. It

can be inferred from all three that in the thirties students saw their

own well being as closely tied with that of the university as a whole,

and that the relevant group for students of that period included the

university administration.

Table 8: Number of Dissatisfactions Expressed by Individual Students

Concerning Their Role as Students in War-Related Conflicts

at Wisconsin and.Harvard During the Thirties and Sixties

Dissatisfactions Thirties Sixties

Wis. Har. Total Wis. Har. Total

Others Don't Take Student

Interests Into Account 0 O O O h h

Students.Aren't Consulted O O O 2 6 8

Students Aren't Represented O O O O l 1

Others Abuse Their Powers 0 O 0 3 6 9

Others Have.All the Power 0 l l O 3 3

Constitutional Rights of

Students are Violated l O 1 2 1 3

Concern with Prestige of

University 3 O 3 l 1 2

This was not the case in the sixties. A larger number of dis-

satisfactions were expressed. The dissatisfactions which occurred

in the greatest number of conflicts were: (1) that the university

administration and the government abused their power, exploited, har-

assed and suppressed students, (2) that students were not consulted

or listened to on issues vital to their interests, and (3) that the

civil or constitutional rights of students were violated. In all

three of these categories, the perceived causes of the dissatisfaction

36

were both government and university authorities.

The first type of dissatisfaction was expressed in relation to

the government when, for example, several students burned their draft

cards:

"Students are an oppressed and exploited class,

traditionally seen as outcasts from the mainstream

of society and.denied power over the most crucial

decisions affecting their lives. . . ." (Cardinal,

12/13/68).

It was expressed in relation. to the university in anti-ROTC conflicts:

and

"The University has attempted to control us above

and beyond educational requirements by implement-

ing compulsory ROTC (orientation). We strenuously

object to being forced into an indoctrination that

has no relevance to us and serves only to perpetuate

a military system.we cannot condone" (Cardinal,

9/17/68).

"The University is a superstructure of exploitation"

(Crimson, h/25/69).

In another example, a.Harvard student complained of being victimized

by both the university and liberal political leaders:

"We are sick of the whole series of shoddy plays

aimed at discrediting the anti-war movement and

avoiding public debate, at Harvard and in the

country at large. We're tired of being manipu-

1ated.by so-called liberals" (Crimson, 11/16/66).

Like the first type of dissatisfaction, the second was expressed

in relation to both the federal government (and its representatives)

and the university. In 1965 Wisconsin students accused State Depart-

ment officials of ". ...1ack of respect for the intelligence and moral

position (of students)" (Cardinal, 5/12/65); the next year they ex-

pressed the same idea in connection with a visit by Edward Kennedy:

"It is the right and obligation of the people

to publicly debate and discuss with the govern-

ment the honesty of its motives and the wisdom

of its positions. When the people fulfill

that Obligation and do not receive direct answers

it is an indication that democratic rights have

been seriously restricted. The essence of

37

democracy lies in the right of the people

to discuss and decide upon the issues which

determine their destiny" (Cardinal, 11/2/66).

The same attitude was expressed at Harvard:

"Never during the course of this war has

the administration sought a dialogue with

members of the anti-war movement, and, in

fact, has done its best to ignore them"

(Crimson, ll/7/66).

Students expressed dissatisfaction with their universities for not

consulting them in connection with, for example, the visit of John

McNamara,

"How ridiculous that students have a say in the learning

experience! Is this the kind of student-teacher part-

nership in free inquiry that Professor Neustadt seeks

to experiment with at the Kennedy Institute? If so,

it is no new experiment but rather a retrogression

into an old and not very creditable educational form"

(Crimson, ll/l6/66) .

Harvard students also complained that they were not being heard when

the administration refused to grant SDS permission to be present at a

faculty meeting at which the future status of ROTC was to be discussed:

"...it is an absurdity that the question of ROTC's

retention may be considered at a meeting from

which 'virtually all those who have voiced op-

position to ROTC are excluded" (Crimson, 11/27/69).

The third type of dissatisfaction was expressed in connection

with attempts on the part of the universities to prevent students

from demonstrating against the war or against representatives of the

government or war industries. Wisconsin students accused the univer-

sity of "flagrantly violating the individual's right" by trying to

prevent a Dow protest (Cardinal, 11/8/68) and the city police of

"...a flagrant violation of the right to peaceably

demonstrate and the right to free speech,"

when they broke up an election demonstration and arrested several stu-

dents (Cardinal, ll/ll/66). Similarly, at Harvard a student complained

38

about the

"...Administration's regrettable policy

of Opposing free speech and assembly under

the guise of 'good taste'" (Crimson, ll/7/66).

Three other dissatisfactions which were expressed in conflicts

during the sixties but not in the earlier decade were (1) that others

don't take student interests into account, (2) that others have all

the power, and (3) that students aren't represented. In the first

case, the "others" refer to the national government in one conflict

and the university administration in another, and in the second example

they refer to the university administration. The complaint voiced in

the third dissatisfaction is again directed against the university

administration for not giving student representatives a vote in their

decisions.

To summarize, the absence of a student group consciousness in the

thirties is shown by the presence of expressions in which students

identify with the university as a whole and by the absence of expres-

sions implying any kind of group consciousness. That such a conscious-

ness was present in the sixties is evidenced by expressions of dissatis-

faction that (1) others don't take student interests into account, and

(2) others abuse their power and Oppress and harass students.

The fact that no dissatisfactions were found concerning the de-

cision making power of students (students aren't consulted, students

aren't represented, others have all the power) in the thirties sup-

ports the contention that the student activity of that period did not

constitute a student movement, that students did not desire increased

decision making power for their role group. The fact that such ex-

pressions were found in the sixties in connection with similar kinds

of conflicts provides support for the proposition that such a movement

39

did exist in the sixties.

Number of Participants

The anti-war demonstrations of the thirties and the anti-Vietnam

activities of the sixties both attracted large numbers of students.

However, there are two differences between the decades. First of all,

during the sixties there were several anti-war activities at both

schools in which a larger percentage of students participated than had

ever taken part in such activities during the thirties. At Wisconsin,

a CEWVN-sponsored teach-in in 1965 was attended by an estimated 5,000

students, about 20 per cent of the student population of the university

for the 196h-65 school year. In 1968, 9 per cent of the student popu-

lation participated in a demonstration to support GI's in California

who were opposed to the war.* Anti4Vietnam activity did not gain wide-

spread support at Harvard until the spring of 1967. In that year not

more than 5 per cent of the student body participated in any one anti-

war effort; however, many separate efforts were made by different

groups, some of which, as mentioned above, did not want to be allied

with "radical " activities, so that the actual prOportion of the student

body actively opposed to the war was much greater. The Crimson re-

ported at the end of the year that more than 25 per cent of the student

body had signed "I Won't Go" declarations or petitioned the government

to provide an alternative to the draft. The biggest conflict that

Harvard had ever seen came in 1968-69, and it was connected with the

*, The biggest issue of that year at Wisconsin, however, was not

the Vietnam war, but the demands of black students, whose activities

attracted as many as 7,000 sympathizers, about 20 per cent of the

student population.

no

war. This was the conflict over the status of ROTC at Harvard, in

which one-third of the student body participated.

During the thirties, the anti-war activities which got the most

support from the student bodies of both universities were the peace

strikes of 1939, attended.by 20 per cent of Wisconsin's students and

12 per cent of Harvard's. The difference between these activities and

the best attended ones of the sixties was that the former were held

with the blessings and/or sponsorship of the university administration;

they were the most establishment-oriented activities of the decade,

and the least controversial. Their attendance was encouraged by the

university administrations, who cancelled classes for the occasion.

The teach-ins, marches, petitions and strikes which mdbilized the

greatest numbers of students in the sixties were directly opposed to

government policies. Furthermore, they were neither sponsored nor

approved by the university administrations. The 1968-69 Harvard strike

was in fact directed against the university itself.

The role of the university in mobilizing students for anti-war

activities in the two decades should be emphasized because it provides

further evidence of the increased group consciousness of students and

their increased expectations during the sixties. In the thirties

university cooperation or sponsorship meant greater numbers of parti-

cipants in anti-war activities. In the sixties, university opposition

to anti-war activities brought the greatest numbers of students into

the anti-war camp. Thus, a pattern evolved, in which students demon-

strated against the war, the university took steps to curb their ac-

tivities, the university was perceived as part of the war apparatus,

and/or as suppressing student freedom, and more students joined the

conflict. The administration was no longer perceived as belonging to

Al

the same community of interests as students, but as part of the enemy.

It was a more tangible enemy than the federal government and more

closely connected with student interests. What united a third of the

student body in the Harvard strike was not their Opposition to ROTC or

the war, but their anger at the arbitrary actions of the university.

Conclusions

The data reported here support the proposition that the political

activity of students at Harvard and Wisconsin during the sixties, in

contrast to that of the thirties, constituted a student movement --

a group of students who, as a group, were outside the decision making

structure of the university role set (students, faculty, administration),

and.who tried to influence the making of several decisions and to be-

come a part of the decision making structure. The presence of class

or group consciousness among students is evidenced by the fact that

the conflicts analyzed here were initiated by independent student or-

ganizations. The initiation of conflicts by avowedly non-leftist stu-

dent groups in the sixties is further evidence that the students' poli-

tical actions were taken to promote the interests of the whole student

role group rather than the interests of one ideological faction.

The students' awareness of themselves as a separate group with

common interests is also shown by the fact that in the sixties students

at the two universities perceived the administration as having inter-

ests counter to their own. They directed many of their demands at the

administration, insisting that it not interfere with their activities,

and that it give them increased decision making power within the uni-

versity. Likewise, the dissatisfactions expressed by students showed

that they perceived themselves as a group exploited by the university

#2

as well as by outside authorities; they complained that the former

did not consult them on policy matters, that it explOited them, and

that it denied them constitutional rights. When the administration

opposed the students, it unwittingly helped their cause by increasing

their awareness of common interests and problems and increasing their

dissatisfaction with their position within the university.

What made the political activity of students during the sixties

a student movement was not only their awareness of themselves as a

distinct group with common interests, but also their desire for in-

creased decision making power within the university. Evidence that

students did expect a bigger voice in the university role set can be

found in the fact that they demanded that the university change cer-

tain policies (e.g., on-campus recruitment by the military and by war-

connected industries and the status of ROTC), as well as by explicit

demands for increased involvement in the decision making process. It

can also be found in the dissatisfactions expressed by students: that

they were not consulted on decisions affecting them, that they had no

representation on decision making bodies, and that other members of

the role set had all the power.

In other words, even in the context of political activity con-

cerning national rather than university issues, students acted as stu-

dents, as a group with special interests to promote or defend. This

was not the case in the thirties, when the initiators of all anti-war

conflicts were affiliates of adult groups, when neither organized

groups nor individual students involved in such conflicts made demands

of their university, and when the dissatisfactions expressed with the

student role concerned the prestige and character of the university

as a whole.

1+3

No evidence was found in this study to support certain hypotheses

concerning the relationship between university variables and student

political activity. In both the thirties and the sixties, but most

notably in the later decade, the patterns of activity at Harvard and

Wisconsin, two structurally dissimilar universities, were basically

similar. This is not to say that university variables are without

importance: the student movement of the sixties began in large, public,

high-quality universities -- Berkeley, Michigan, Wisconsin -- univer-

sities which attract what Keniston and Lerner call "protest prone" in-

dividuals. (Keniston and.Lerner, 1971: 51-52). Moreover, it is clear

that some schools have seen more student political activity than

others. The point is that whatever variables may be related to the

development of a student movement, they are not variables which differ-

entiate between Harvard and the University of Wisconsin.

In more general terms, the study specified some of the variables

that can be used to differentiate between various types of student

political activity, Using these variables, it showed the difference

between independent, class conscious movements of students acting on

their own behalf and groups of students who participate in a wider

social movement. It is hoped that such distinctionswill help in making

clearer explanations of student political activity.

BIBLIWRAPHY

141+

Bibliography

The Crimson. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The Daily Cardinal. Madison, Wisconsin.

Douglas, Jack D., Youth in Turmoil. Chevy Chase, Maryland: National

Institute of Mental Health, 1970.

Draper, Hal, "The Student Movement in the Thirties: A Political History"

As We Saw the Thirties. Edited by Rita Simon, Urbana, Illinois:

University of Illinois Press, 1967.

Eichel, Lawrence E. gt. 3.1., The Harvard Strike. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin, 1970.

Emmerson, Donald K. (ed). Students and Politics in DevelcminLNations.

New York: Praeger, 196T.

Feuer, Lewis S. The Conflict of Generations. New York: Basic Books,

1969.

Finlay, David J. 31;. 9:13, "Ghana." Students and Politics in Developing

Nations. Edited by Donald K. Emmerson, New York: Praeger, 1968.

Flacks, Richard. "The Liberated Generation: An Exploration of the

Roots of Student Protest." Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 23

(July. 1967). 52-75.

Glazer, Myron. "Chile." Students and Politics in Develgping Nations.

Edited by Donald K. Emmerson, New York: Praeger, 1968.

Hamilton, William L., "Venezuela" Students and Politics in Develgping

Nations. Edited by Donald K. Emmerson, New York: Praeger, 1968.

Heist, Paul, "Intellect and Commitment: The Faces of Discontent" Order

and Freedom on the Campus: The Rights and Regponsibilities of

Faculty and Students. Edited by O.W. Knorr and W. J. Minster,

Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Edu-

cation, 1965.

Kelman, Steven, Push Comes to Shove: The Escalation of Student Protest.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970.

Keniston, Kenneth, The Young Radicals. New York: Harcourt, Brace and

World, 1968.

Keniston, Kenneth and Lerner, Michael, "Campus Characteristics and

Campus Unrest." The Annals of the American Academy of Political

and Social Science, Vol. 395 (May 1971), 39-53.

Larkin, Bruce D., "China" Students and Politics in Developing Nations.

Edited by Donald K. Emmerson, New York: Praeger, 1968.

1+5

Lipset, S.Mt, &.Altbach, Philip, "Student Politics and Higher Education

in the United States." Student Politics. Edited by S. M. Lipset,

New York: Basic Books, 1967.

Lyonns, Glen, "The Police Car Demonstration: A Survey of Participants."

The Berkeley Student Revolt: Facts and Interpretations. Edited

by S. M. Lipset and S. S. Wolin, New York: Anchor Books, 1965.

Myhr, Robert 0., "Brazil." Students and Politics in Developing Nations.

Edited by Donald K. Emmerson, New “York: Praeger, 1968}

Newfield, Jack, A Prgphetic Minority. New York: New American Library,

1966.

Ottoway, David B., "Algeria." Students and Politics in Developing

Nations. Edited by Donald K. Emmerson, New York: Praeger, 1968.

Parsons, Talcott, The Social Sy§tem. New York: The Free Press, 1951.

Paulus, George, A.Multivariate Analysis Study of Student Activist

Leaders, Student Government Leaders, and Nonactivists. Unpublished

Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967.

Pinner, Frank A., "Tradition and Transgression: Western European Stu-

dents in the Postwar World." Daedalus Vol. 97, (Winter, 1968),

137-155.

Roszak, Theodore, The Making of a Counter Culture. New York: Doubleday,

1969.

Sasajima,.Masu, Davis, J.A., & Peterson, R.E., "Organized Student Pro-

test and Institutional Climate." American Educational Research

Journal, #5, 1968.

Scott, Joseph, & El-Assal, Mohammad, "Multiversity, university Size,

University Quality, and Student Protest: An Empirical Study."

American Sociological Review, Vol. 31+ (October, 1969 ), 702-709.

Smelser, Neil J., Theory of Collective Behavior. NeW' York: The Free

Press, 1962.

Soloman, Frederick, & Fishman, Jacob, "Youth and Peace: A.Psychological

Study of Peace Demonstrators in Washington, D.C." Journal of

Social Issues, Vol. 20 (April, l96h ), 36-h5.

Somers, R. H., "The Mainsprings of the Rebellion: A Survey of Berkeley

Students in November, 196A." The Berkeley Student Revolt: Facts

and Inteppretations, Edited by S. M. Lipset and S. S. Wolin, New

York: Anchor Books, 1965.

Suchlicki, Jaime, "Guba." Students and Politics in Developing Nations

Edited by Donald K. Emmerson, New York: Praeger, 1968.

A6

Swirski, Shlomo, Changes in the Structure of Relations Between Groupg

and the Ehnerggnce of Political Movements: The Student Movement

at Harvard and Wisconsin, 1930-1969. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,

Michigan State University, 1971.

Trent, James & Craise, Judith, "Commitment and Conformity in the Amer-

ican College." Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 23 (July, 1967),

31+‘510

Walker, Kenneth. "A Comparison of the University Reform Movements in

Argentina and Colombia." Student Politics, Edited by S. M. Lipset,

New York: Basic Books, 1967.

Watts, William A., 8: Whittaker. "Free Speech Advocates at Berkeley."

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 2 (March, 1966),

hl-EZ.

Westby, David, 8: Braungart, Richard, "Class and Politics in the Family

Background of Student Political Activists." American Sociological

Review, Vol. 31 (October, 1966), 690-692.

Willame, Jean-Claude, "The Congo" Students and Politics in Developing

Nations, Edited by Donald K. Emmerson, New York: Praeger, 1968.

Zinn, Howard, SNCC: The New Abolitipnists. Boston: Beacon Press,

1967.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: CODING SHEETS

#7

\ “N01

6 lnltiotlu’

4'“

a.Confllct MW

‘- emu

S. s».‘1

6‘ VII?

2

utter: to utterCari. “other

“Hot-l 3‘3

‘C30' 0’ '0"! SM

Later 0. 0: .

>- Out.

at} l

.to ‘u n.6'."

an .0". amt

'Ovation

Ton! Ito-c

Tau! up . Mtl tugs

Polar 8mm

Stimuli for Action

Conn c. 94.5195 ‘

1)". of Ian

Wither PMlclphts

-———-—-——(

ht

tum-Am,

2M.

O roofs

3rd.

veg/bog£45th

gvs‘lé‘aslkletzw

haw:marge/ow

5/0/8121

”0116}:

L9s

hs

tI

Figure 1: Summary coding sheet

Ivmr- Fa-QI‘ML whom

slur 0mm: or comm (Mr. core-on!)

REQMQ

gentralttz

No Reference |

1 Indirect

2 Direct E

IPienrrerzz:

Attitude Sheet

No Reference

Train Minde

Prep.f.Career

Prep.f.Clt.

For.Dfa.ldeae

Fur.Dle.SocProb

Opp.Peraon.Dev.

Ave.Hobfllty

H.Peoplex.ldeas

Innovations

Make US Powerf-

Scrve Conlnunity

Train Leaders

EraeeClaeleff

Relevant to Soc

OTHER

4243 VILLA—IRE 0038”...” ‘

No Reference

Individual

Camp.0rgnnfzat.

Faculty

Administration

Trueteee

University

Pol Party

$1.Gov.Agency

Fed.cov.Agency

Pollcc

Military

Indue.Compeny

Hfl-lndus-Compl.

Older Generation

Establishment

Capitalism

Racism

OTHER

DUTY! ’ ‘ ”‘

Nn Reference

S1.onCampun

St.on0th.Camp.

St.0rg.onCamp.

St.0rg.Olh.Camp

Fac.on Campus

Fn(.on0th.Cnmp.

0ff.nn Campus

Pub.Uff.orAgen

Non-U. Organ.

Soclal Group

lnd.Grp.Oth.Soc

OTHER

Col. Col. Col. 'Col.

1 £9199; 21 osc,Rrs,sruotwrs 31 MLS 40-a1 OOROLEINVOKED 00-15

1 Hieconaln O No Reference 0 No Reference

2 Harvard 1 No Rights 1 Acceptable 01

t==: 2 Conaulted 2 Some Changee 7 02

2-5 CONP. f GOO-999 3 Repreaented 3 Not Accept. , 03

A Make Selvee ' 04

'32 Centralltx E 05

E22 Eggszglisz’ 0 No Reference E 06

3-6 A? R . O No Reference 1 Indirect - 07

E 1 Indirect 2 Direct 08

2 Direct bm_"."”____ w___ .. 09

4 __~ 33 CONSTITUTIONAL.RTH 10

7-lO DATE 0000-9990 12 DEC. RTS STUDENTS O No Reference 11

0 No Reference 1 No Righte 12

_E 1 No Righte 2 Limited Rights 13

2 Consulted 3 Pull Rights 1a

“13m‘1 3 Repre-ented 1"E a Make Selvee 34 Efifllllllll 1

. 0 No Reference

-..--- __E 21. Centralitx 1 Indirect .

[I 3775ITEM 0 No Reference 2 ulrert

Letter l Indirect .-- -...J 00

1; Editorial 2 Direct E35 comm mourns o1

Newt Item _._ruun.___“__ _. 0 Nu Reference 02

a Column "25 RESPONSIBILITY 1 No Com.Prob ! 03

5 Blcksround O No Reference 2 Spec.Com.Prob 0b

6 Other 1 Not Reap. 3 Common Probe 05

_________.______________J 2 Reep..Trueted _- l...... .u*_____ 06

15 SOURCE IF NEWS 1 36 POWER POTENTIAL 07

0 NO! "CHI .25 Centralitx O No Reference E 08

1 SPOCCD O No Reference 1 Small, Powerle ' O9

2 Interview ‘ 1 Indirect 2 Fairly Large E 10

3 Hrlt.Declar. E 2 Direct 3 large; Solve ll

4 Interpret. . _______ PTODICOMAll. E 12

.__ ..______._- .-. ...___,‘ 27mmnnr-muvmoon7 E 13

16 roan-Ion ; o No Reference E37”“51-Res Roi‘rnfi 1:.

0 Unknown 3 1 Not Mature-Adult O No Reference E 15

I Support 5 2 Mature-Adult E 1 Paaelve 1 16

2 Oppoee 1 l 2 Active 17

3 Q- SuPPm 28 9222231 '_ -_ .- . . 18a Q- 0PP03¢ E 0 No Reference 38 EEEELEL§E E

-l_._____.l_li.u___l___J 1 Indirect O No Raferencc E

17 D!C.RTS.OTHERS 2 Direct 1 ApathDontCere

0 No Reference L_- -.. WV. -UH__"W*"~ 2 Too Active E‘lL-&S~RERGES

1 Have Right . 9 A31L.R1:As.mxs,osc, 00

2 Do Not Have E o No Reference 39 Stir-RRHR‘RNCE ‘E 01

; 1 No Ability 0 No Reference 7 02

18 9°Q§I‘llfix ? 2 Ability ' l Youth ' 03

0 N0 Reference E i 7 Intellectual E Ch

1 I"41Y¢Ct 530 Centralitz I 3 Educ.Par.Pop E 05

2 Direct ‘ O No Reference 1 A Citlzene E 06

______..... l 1 Indirect 5 Adults . O7

19 DECJTS.01'“GEN. ' 2 Direct E 6 Americana 1 08

0 No Reference E i 7 Future Leader! 09

1 Have Rights a ' 8 (mum ': 10

2 Do Not Have E . l 11

' l2

20

DEMANDS

oisSAIISEAcTIQRS

PERCEPTION 0F IMPORTANCE

APPENDIX B: INTERCODER RELIABILITY

#9

APPENDIX B: INTERCODER RELIABILITY

The content analysis was done by two coders. Each coded about

half of the 20 years studied in each of the two universities. A pre-

test of the coding procedure was run on theiMichigan State News and

on the Daily Cardinal.

The reliability checks focused on attitudes. Two methods were

used to measure the reliability of attitudes. Under the first proce-

dure, after one reader had coded an entire conflict, the second was in-

structed to read all issues during the time period in which that con-

flict occurred.and to code the conflict. Since agreement on summary

sheet items was very high (over 90%) and the procedure proved very

expensive and time-consuming, a second.method was devised. .After a

given conflict had been coded, the reader prepared a second set of

attitude sheets for the second reader. The identification items were

coded (school conflict, number, item number, date, and type of item).

.All the second reader had to do was to locate the appropriate units

of recording and code or record the attitudes. For attitudes that

were recorded verbatim and coded later, a sample was reread by the

second reader in order to check for reliability.

Intercoder reliability was calculated according to the following

formula:

2:2.

T , where

T represents the total number of coding decisions checked for

reliability, and

D represents the total number of coding disagreements.

The measures of intercoder reliability are presented in Table

9 below.

50

Table 9: Intercoder Reliability for.Attitudes Recorded and Coded

at‘Wisconsin and Harvard

Total Decisions Disagreements Reliability

Wisconsin lh88 21 98.6%

Harvard 10011 0 100. %

As can be seen, disagreements were feW'and intercoder reliability

was extremely high.