Join our editorial board by applying here or become a columnist at the Spectator by clicking here.
Both Sides Now
PUBLISHED APRIL 24, 2008
Beginning tonight, many on campus are observing the 40th anniversary of the now-legendary week of protests against the Columbia administration during which hundreds of students occupied campus buildings. Many of the weekend’s events promise to bring a better understanding of the events of 1968 to those who attend. However, perhaps because the reunion was organized mostly by people sympathetic to the protests, the events slotted for April 26 and 27 seem self-congratulatory in light of the decidedly mixed views toward these protesters. Whereas the more nuanced of the scheduled gatherings aim to provide valuable historical perspective, events commemorating the protesters might succumb to the assumption that 1968 had only positive effects on balance. Those in attendance should work to appreciate the complexity of the historical consequences of spring 1968.
The weekend as a whole is not sponsored by the University, but Columbia has granted free use of space—largely at the Graduate School of Journalism and School of Law—to the alumni who organized the events. This is no mere token, given the University’s endemic space shortages, and the gesture suits the historical importance of the 1968 protests. Moreover, a few of the panel discussions are sponsored by institutes within the University, and others boast prominent campus figures—most notably University President Lee Bollinger, whose presence is appropriate to the gravity of the occasion. On the other end of the spectrum, would-be participants might well be put off by a planned dance party at Havana Central and an open mic for “veterans of 1968” to reminisce in Earl Hall. Such reunion events naturally blur the line where balanced contemplation ends and glorification of the protesters’ actions begins.
Though President Bollinger has only addressed the matter obliquely, his expected appearance at tonight’s opening suggests that he welcomes a measure of official recognition of the anniversary. But if Columbia means to help put the school’s past in dialogue with its future, it should insist that the milestone be marked by serious consideration rather than festivities. As the University is not sponsoring the events, it will not set firm bounds on what is to be discussed. Still, professors speaking on panels ought to press the storied protesters to think critically about the consequences of student revolt. Hard as it may be to imagine similar turmoil on campus today, the elements that catalyzed student protest in the 1960s have not wholly disappeared. Provided that speakers do not simply romanticize the building occupations, students stand to gain a broader appreciation of a Columbia watershed whose effects still resonate to this day. The University also finds itself in the crosshairs—it must not ignore the important events of 1968, nor must it sentimentally co-opt them, since these events explicitly call into question Columbia’s actions as an elite institution.
More than catharsis for the 1968 protesters, this weekend offers a valuable opportunity to shed light on events that still inspire deep ambivalence, both for those who witnessed them firsthand and those who came after. Though they are unlikely to draw throngs of students, the weekend’s proceedings were clearly conceived with accessibility in mind. Most of the panels are open to all and located on campus, and the few that require tickets have a number of seats set aside for Columbia students and faculty. Despite some events’ air of self-indulgence—which the discerning student will take with a grain of salt—it is a fitting moment for Columbia to learn what it can from the checkered legacy of 1968.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 10)
Post a Comment
Mr. Bercaw regales, in haziness, his "championship season." He, and his addled hippie cohorts cost this University hundreds of millions of dollars over the years, AND, for a long time, its reputation. He sends us good wishes from Cambridge. Get retired and disappear.
Sorry to disappoint you Anonymous, but the committee of students that met with the University Trustees were establishment students, some liberal some conservative. The "drug addled" hippies did not support the election of student representatives. My interest was attending classes. You direct you animosity in the wrong direction.
Cambridge is run by an elite group of weak officials with a relaxed rectitude. Check out my videos on YouTube to see what I have to say about Cambridge. Your wishes sound like they come from city officials and Harvard administrators. I wonder why you sign as anonymous?
Roy Bercaw, G.S. 1970
Chairman Student Representatives
to the Special Committee of the
Trustees, 1968-69
The voice of reason. Thank you for seeing that Mr. Bercaw wears no clothes.
I disagree that Columbia is worse off because of the student protests. There was more learning going on, on campus during and after the occupation of the University President's office than at anytime before or since. There was open and passionate communications between groups and individuals that would never have spoken to each other. Groups of varied politics formed on an ad hoc basis. The group that I chaired met with the Trustees. We created it after the Trustees ignored the individual students elected to represent the 21 schools of the university. Our group included conservatives and liberals. Some supported the protests, others opposed them. Radicals opposed our group's existence and boycotted the elections. In spring semester 1969 we sponsored (funded) a conference of student leaders to create a proposal for student participation in university governance. The University Senate was the proposal of the Faculty Committee. We supported including the students as members of the Senate. Graduate student Harold Wechsler, now Professor at NYU preferred a separate student organization. I think he was right. Because of the media focus on campus many faculty members and administrators were recruited to higher positions. Examples included David Truman, Vice President at the time, left the University and became President of Mount Holyoke College. Alan Entine went to be President of SUNY Stony Brook. Clarence Walton went to Catholic University as its president. Most important was that students were not ignored for many years.
Roy Bercaw, G.S. 1970
Cambridge MA
Chairman Student Representatives
to the Special Committee of the
Trustees, 1968-69
As a classmate of Roy Bercaw I also witnessed the 1968 mess and its aftermath. His assumption that David Truman and others left because of increased media attention is absurd. People left, both professors and students because they wanted to get away from a thoroughly unpleasant and unacceptable situation. The riots did not contribute to increased interchange and dialogue, as all that existed before in what was always a very vibrant intellectual environment. The riots, the pervasive use of drugs and an unrealistic view of the importance of students in society all led to the mess that resulted. A great university had its reputation, and the value of the degrees that it awarded, sullied. For years alumni refused to contribute and students declined to apply. We still have a faculty that refuses to allow the return of ROTC to campus, even though a majority of students would approve of the reintroduction. There is simply no viable defense of what happened.
You are correct on all counts. I was there also and noted the pervasive use of drugs by the "pukes," as the strikers were called.
There are some relatively unbiased ways to assess the impact--positive or negative--of the '68 strike. Its purpose, as Mark Crudd said at that time, was to end U.S. participation in the Vietnam War. Since we did not leave until 1973, five years later, the strike was, objectively, a failure.
In fact, it's fair to say that most Americans were so disgusted by the strikers that they opposed their mission, thus unnecessarily lengthening U. S. involvement.
Again, I note that while many students and adminstrators at the time recognized the serious negative impact on the University caused by the "protests", we are in many ways worse off today because the leftist agitators of that time are now disproportionately represented in academia, here and elsewhere. Until the tenure-holding faculty and department heads now in power are put out to pasture, the corrosive impact of the "protests" will linger.
It should be noted that the protests were not universally supported, in fact there was vocal student opposition to them, that they carried more than a whiff of drug abuse, and perhaps most importantly they did considerable damage to Columbia. Applicants for admission declined and standards had to be lowered, professors left, fundraising was severely impacted for decades, and service organizations such as the Blue Key Society, which had existed for many years, simply disappeared. The quality of life on campus was unpleasant for a long time. It is true that the slope of Morningside Park was preserved, but it was so dangerous in those years that students were admonished by the Physical Education coaches to only visit the athletic fields in groups. Mark Rudd, who is at least occasionally "lionized" for his role, was viewed by many before and after as a bit of a jerk.
The problem is, ironically, that the romantic rebels of '68 are the faculty members and department chairs of today's Columbia.
Looking back through memory's rosy haze they are, for the most part, intellectually incapable of critically assessing the highlight (or lowlight) of their own "golden days".
Post new comment