The 1960s: Student Protest and the Politics of
Campus Dissent
When people think about student politics and the sixties, they
usually imagine a nation thrown into turmoil by antiwar demonstrations led
by unkempt and wild-eyed radicals shouting through megaphones and
marching in the streets. Certainly, such events did occur. The histories of
student protests at some of the nation‟s best-known schools -- Columbia,
Cornell, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of
Wisconsin, Kent State University in Ohio -- highlight the roles played by
militant student activists in sparking national debate over the Vietnam War
and other issues of a social, cultural, or political nature. Nevertheless, the
stereotype of 1960s student activism obscures the much more complicated
reality of student politics and student life during a tumultuous decade
beginning in the 1960s and continuing into the 1970s.
This activity uses the story of the student protests at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute (known then as both VPI and Virginia Tech, its current
moniker) in the spring of 1970 to trace the larger landscape of student
politics during the Vietnam War years. Located in rural southwest Virginia,
VPI was a large, up-and-coming state university that had yet to achieve
national prominence by 1970. Its predominantly white, upwardly mobile,
working- and middle-class student population, largely attracted to the
school because of its affordable state tuition, made VPI typical of many
other large state universities. Although its geographic isolation prevented
national trends from arriving on campus in full force until the close of the
decade, VPI embraced the advent of the sixties as other campuses across the
nation already had.
The documents in this activity explore student politics during the
Vietnam War era at a state university with a fairly typical student body. The
example of VPI will help you answer a number of important questions
concerning student activism in the sixties. What political views, for
example, did students at the time hold? What were their primary concerns?
How did they express their beliefs and convictions? And, finally, how did
their actions compare with the highly publicized protests taking place
elsewhere at the time?
The Spring of 1970
The demonstrations that consumed VPI and other colleges and
universities in the spring of 1970 grew out of a long history of student
activism in movements for social change. The protests at VPI also testified
to the expanded reach of the American peace movement, which, by 1970,
had grown in less than ten years from a small group of ardent pacifists into
a mass movement opposed to the U.S. war in Vietnam. In April and May of
1970, however, student protesting had turned into widespread outrage. On
April 30, President Nixon announced that U.S. bombing campaigns had
pushed the Vietnam War into neighboring Cambodia. Activist frustrations,
escalating as the war continued, erupted in blatant anger when, several
weeks later, National Guard troops shot and killed unarmed student
protesters at Kent State University. Although VPI at the time had not
experienced the same level of political conflict that other campuses had, the
events of April and May 1970 drew the university into the whirlwind of
national events.
Students and political rebellion became seemingly synonymous in
the 1960s. From the earliest months of the decade, students had
successfully engineered the era‟s most important movements for social,
cultural, and political change. The first indication of the new role that young
people would play in the struggle for equality and justice came in February
1960, when four young African American men, students from North
Carolina Agricultural and Technical College, staged a dramatic sit-in at a
racially segregated Woolworth‟s lunch counter in Greensboro, North
Carolina. Their demand of service equal to that given to whites sparked a
student sit-in movement that spread across the South and led, that April, to
the founding of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).
SNCC, known later as the most militant wing of the growing civil rights
struggle, placed college and high school students at the forefront of protest
against racial injustice, a move that earned them national renown for their
daring and courage.
The work of SNCC inspired both white and black students, many
of whom went south to assist the black freedom struggle. Many took part in
the Mississippi Freedom Summer project of 1964 and then returned to their
college campuses ready to continue the fight. The passage of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, however, decreased
the urgency white students felt for fighting for civil rights. Nevertheless,
college students were not lacking in targets for political protest. In the fall
of 1964, students at the University of California in Berkeley, many of them
veterans of the Freedom Summer campaign, launched the Berkeley Free
Speech Movement to protest university limits on political expression on
campus. Then, in 1965, activist students and their cohorts at other colleges
and universities turned their attention to Vietnam, which was just then
becoming an issue of national concern.
Students neither launched the movement against the Vietnam War
nor spearheaded many of its efforts, although they came to play a visible
and pivotal role in its activities as the sixties progressed. In the spring of
1965, the predominately white Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)
organized a peace march in Washington, D.C., that attracted a record 20,000
protesters, making it the largest antiwar demonstration in the capital‟s
history at that time. Student activists also gained publicity through the
spread of campus teach-ins on the war, draft-card-burning exercises, and
draft resistance movements. As the war in Vietnam escalated over the next
several years, first under President Johnson and then under President Nixon,
so, too, did campus protests against the war and student involvement in
regional and national demonstrations. Although Americans of all ages and
from all walks of life led and participated in the broad-based antiwar
movement, the image of youthful militants, rebelling against the political
status quo, captured much of the public‟s attention.
The changing lifestyles and cultural mores of college-aged
Americans likely inspired as much public fascination as did student political
protest. What began, in the early 1960s, as a small Beat-inspired rebellion
against the cultural constraints of 1950s America had, by the late 1960s,
grown into a full-fledged countercultural movement that attracted millions
of young people in pursuit of “authenticity” and “freedom.” Shedding the
constraints of their parents‟ generation, large numbers of America‟s youth
by the late 1960s had decided to “let it all hang out.” Men grew their hair
long, untucked their shirttails, and traded neatly pressed pants for a new
uniform of ragged and well-worn jeans. Young women similarly eschewed
makeup, raised their hemlines, and donned ragged attire similar to that of
their male counterparts. Their behavior as well as their appearance
generated concern among older Americans, who disapproved of young
people‟s loose sexual standards, their use of illicit drugs, the raucous and
psychedelic rock-and-roll music they listened to, and their general lack of
respect for traditional authority figures. To many observers, the hippies‟
cultural revolt and student protests against the war became one and the
same.
The cultural and political revolts continued into 1970. In fact,
characteristics of the period known as the “sixties” carried over well into the
following decade. Not until the 1970s did the social and political
movements generally associated with the sixties finally take hold. The
contemporary feminist struggle that emerged with the founding of the
National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1966 and the 1967 decision of
women‟s liberationists to separate themselves from male radical activists
became a powerful mass movement and cultural force only in the early
1970s, when legions of women joined consciousness-raising groups,
founded rape crisis centers and women‟s health initiatives, and spearheaded
efforts to open educational, political, and professional opportunities to
women. The environmental movement, long considered an outgrowth of
late 1960s hippie counterculture, can likewise trace its formal birth to the
first celebration of Earth Day in April 1970.
Political struggles rightly associated with the 1960s, most notably
the movement to end the war in Vietnam, also continued at full strength into
the 1970s. Many scholars and historians point to 1968 — the year that saw
the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Senator Robert
Kennedy, ongoing escalation in the Indochina War, and the frightening
conflict between police and antiwar demonstrators at the nationally
televised Democratic National Convention in Chicago — as the pivotal year
of the decade, although the antiwar movement grew in numbers and
influence in the years that followed. Some of the largest national peace
demonstrations occurred in 1969 and 1970; the October Moratorium, which
attracted the participation of over a quarter of a million Americans across
the country, took place in 1969; the November 1969 Mobilization march
drew a crowd of 800,000 to the streets of Washington, D.C.; and a
spontaneous wave of nationwide protests erupted in April 1970 in response
to the U.S. invasion of Cambodia. Such demonstrations continued right up
to the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.
As with other large state universities, the sixties as a cultural
phenomenon came late to VPI, although when the revolution hit, it hit in
full force. VPI‟s student activists of the era often bemoaned the factors that
cut the growing state university off from the trends that defined national
politics and student unrest during the 1960s and 1970s. Located in the
Appalachian mountains of rural southwest Virginia in a region known for
its cultural isolation and social and political conservatism, Blacksburg,
Virginia, VPI‟s home, hardly attracted young people in pursuit of cultural
and political revolt. Nor did VPI offer an environment particularly open to
hosting the social and political movements then sweeping the nation.
Predominantly male (the university did not become co-educational until the
mid-1960s), VPI had a strong military tradition. Until 1964, the university
required all freshman and sophomore men to join the Virginia Tech Corps
of Cadets (VTCC), a military service corps whose members lived in
barracks-style dormitories, wore military uniforms to class, and participated
in military training exercises on and off campus. The school‟s technical and
engineering orientation, which persisted even after VPI transformed itself in
the 1960s from a college to a full and modern state university, similarly
limited possibilities for a serious student protest movement to take hold.
VPI‟s vocationally minded students were less exposed to the types of
cultural experimentation fostered at schools with strong liberal arts
traditions.
Nevertheless, with over 10,000 students, VPI strongly resembled
many other non-elite, non-cosmopolitan state universities that attracted
students from “middle American” families. Like their counterparts at
universities such as Indiana, Ball State, Kent State, and SUNY Buffalo, the
students at VPI were primarily concerned with getting a decent education
and training for future employment. At the same time, however, they could
not help but feel the political winds blowing across the nation. Indeed, hints
of antiwar activity appear in VPI‟s student newspaper from the mid-1960s
on. VPI‟s peaceful sit-ins, teach-ins, and campus-wide meetings resembled
those taking place at many other state universities: they were few in number
and sporadically attended. Nevertheless, VPI‟s increasingly diverse student
population, which grew by approximately 1,000 students a year throughout
the 1960s and early 1970s, together with its move away from the Corps of
Cadets towards an increasingly civilian student body, meant that new ideas
and behaviors were bound to arise.
The changes erupted in full force in the spring of 1970. Early that
April, a student named Toby Cole caused a small uproar by wearing an
American flag on the seat of his pants. Countercultural protest tactics had
finally made their way onto the VPI campus. University administrators
promptly reprimanded Cole for his unconventional attire, but in doing so
raised the ire of the small community of campus activists who called for
protests against a number of university policies and traditions, including
support for the VPI Corps of Cadets. In mid-April, protesters put their
words into action by disrupting the Corps‟ regularly scheduled drill on
VPI‟s central grassy campus area known as the Drillfield. The
administration again responded quickly, this time issuing an injunction
against similar protests.
The demonstrations quickly escalated, turning VPI into a small but
vibrant microcosm of 1960s protest. The day after the Drillfield protest,
students organized an impromptu “teach-in” and then marched on the
university‟s main administration building, Burruss Hall, when they learned
of the just-issued injunction. On April 30 came the news that the United
States had invaded Cambodia. Student activists at VPI responded to
President Nixon‟s announcement of the expanding war in the same way that
their counterparts did at colleges and universities across the nation: by
calling for the strongest protests they could muster. It was at one such
protest, at Ohio‟s Kent State University on May 4, 1970, that National
Guard troops opened fire on demonstrating students, killing four of them.
Photos of the dead bodies appeared on TV news programs and in daily
newspapers across the nation, arousing an even greater sense of outrage
among student activists. At VPI, this translated into calls for a militant
student strike and the seizing of a university building, Williams Hall. VPI‟s
administration responded swiftly and with precision, as it had before.
Administrators called in the Virginia State Police -- who quickly ejected the
students from the building and carted them off for arrest -- and suspended
the 107 students involved shortly thereafter. The campus climate, once
serene, became polarizing. Students found themselves forced to take stands
on both campus and national events.
The events that took place at VPI in the spring of 1970 -- and the
varied responses they elicited in the days, weeks, and years that followed -largely paralleled those taking place at colleges and universities across the
nation. Most of the students at VPI refrained from joining the militant
antiwar cause, although student radicals did play an important role in
campus and national politics. The small but visible and outspoken coterie of
militant VPI activists worked hard to make as powerful an impact as they
could. Their mediagenic and dramatic tactics drew the attention of
journalists, photographers, and TV news shows. Young rebels seemed
“newsworthy,” and their newsworthiness turned student radicals at VPI and
elsewhere into highly publicized objects of fascination and fear and
imprinted their images on the collective memory of the nation.
Nevertheless, as articles, editorials, and letters from The Collegiate
Times make clear, student radicals comprised only a minority segment of
the total student population at VPI. Most students were apathetic, more
concerned with succeeding in their classes than with joining an activist
movement, and many students supported the Vietnam War as strongly (and
sometimes as vocally) as their antiwar counterparts protested it. As for the
students who did oppose the war in Vietnam, most preferred to work for
change within existing governmental and institutional systems rather than
protest outside of them, and they prided themselves on developing a far
more moderate and liberal antiwar stance than that of their more radical
classmates.
Like other students around the nation, an overwhelming percentage
of VPI students tended to rally more around the politics of cultural rather
than political change. The enormous demonstrations against VPI‟s “open
door” policy in the spring of 1971, which dwarfed on-campus protests
against the Vietnam War, highlight just how important students considered
the battle over culture and lifestyle. They may not have willingly rallied on
the campus Drillfield to abolish the Corps of Cadets or to end the war in
Vietnam, but they eagerly gathered in astonishingly large numbers to
protest any university policy that infringed on their personal freedoms or
attempted to stamp out the budding sexual and cultural revolutions taking
place on campus. Notably, it was in the latter area of concern that student
activists achieved lasting success: the sexual autonomy and social freedoms
that young people fought for in the late sixties have become an accepted
part of college and American life today, along with the tie-died T-shirts,
ragged blue jeans, and rock-and-roll music that horrified parents four
decades ago.
Lifestyle concerns in fact comprise a significant part of the legacy
of the sixties “revolution,” with key aspects of the countercultural revolt
now incorporated into mainstream American life. Political rebels, in
contrast, were not nearly as successful. Radical activists did not manage to
shift the politics of the United States left along the political spectrum. As
the story of VPI illustrates, radical activists simply did not represent the
majority opinion. Instead, in an era generally characterized as one of
militant dissent, the conservatives won the political contest, as evidenced by
the election of Presidents Richard Nixon in 1968 and Ronald Reagan in
1980. Sixties radicals and their hippie cohorts, as the events at VPI suggest,
succeeded in ushering in an era of profound social and cultural change,
although they ultimately lacked the support to enact their political agenda.
TASK
After carefully reading the documents and keeping notes on the “Questions
to Consider” for each document, answer the following questions. (Make
sure to turn in your notes with the answers to the following questions.)
1.
Imagine that you‟re a student at VPI in the spring of 1970. Choose
one of the following four positions: radical protester, moderate
antiwar activist, someone who chose not to get involved, and
Vietnam War supporter. Now write an imaginary letter to the
editor of the student newspaper, The Collegiate Times, explaining
your stand vis-à-vis the campus unrest, why you‟ve taken that
stand, and why you believe your position is superior to those held
by the other three groups of students.
2.
Analyze the dominant activities on the VPI campus in the spring of
1971. How did the demonstrations against the university‟s “open
door” policy build on the events of the previous year? What
seemed similar in terms of tactics, rhetoric, or demands? What
was different about these protests? Why do you think they
attracted so many more students than the protests against the
Vietnam War?
Evidence:
Questions to Consider:
The following evidence, drawn primarily from the pages of VPI‟s student
newspaper, The Collegiate Times, provides insight into the complex politics
that defined and influenced student life and priorities during the 1960s and
1970s. Student publications such as The Collegiate Times provide a unique
and, in many ways, comprehensive view of the values and interests of
college and university students. Because they exist in large part to report on
campus news and events, student newspapers provide extensive coverage of
what students, professors, and university administrators did and discussed.
Just as importantly, campus periodicals must appeal to as broad a segment
of the student body as possible, so their editorial pages and letters-to-theeditor sections often present a multiplicity of views, especially on
contentious campus events. The documents and images below highlight the
variety of responses among VPI students to the antiwar protests of April
and May 1970. Organized according to position along the spectrum of
student political beliefs, the evidence raises a number of questions about the
nature of student politics during an era generally characterized as a period
of youthful dissent.
Section 1: The Protesters Speak Out
Document 1:
Ed Miller, “What caused demonstrations, what now; discussed in
special CT analysis,” The Collegiate Times (15 April 1970), 1.
The article below, from the front page of the April 15, 1970, issue of The
Collegiate Times, explains some of the reasons why approximately 200 VPI
students chose to disrupt the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets‟ regularly
scheduled military drill on the central campus green space known as the
Drillfield.
Why did the protesting students believe their demonstration to be both
legitimate and reasonable?
Why did antiwar protesters feel like they had no other option but to
disrupt the on-campus military drill?
What was the university‟s response to the protestors, according to the
article? How did the protesters feel about the official response?
Many Tech students are probably still wondering what caused
approximately 150 students to march in their own formation and disrupt a
regularly scheduled ROTC drill on Tuesday. Many of these students, plus
about 200 of their fellow students, marched on Burruss Hall [university
administration building] on Wednesday demanding to see Dr. Dean and to
have a court injunction dropped against 10 students involved in Tuesday‟s
activities by Dr. Hahn and Dr. Dean.
What caused the student unrest at VPI? While seeking information
from Student Personnel needed for an article which this writer was doing,
this reporter was asked by Dean Brown, “What‟s your hurry?” Statements
such as this are one of the main reasons for the student demonstrations.
Many of the demonstrators and their faculty supporters felt that they were
getting nowhere by trying to go through legitimate channels. For example,
they‟re asking, “Where did [we] get by going through the channels?”
These students are refusing to accept the old line of reasoning used
by the administration that if you go through channels, you may eventually
get what you want. The students feel that the legitimate channels were not
effective enough and expedient enough to meet their needs.
The demonstrators mainly used the ROTC drill to dramatize their
feelings about the ineffective input they have into these channels. . . .These
activist students are tired of being told “to wait.”
The action taken by the administration will only lead to more
demonstrations and possibly violence. By using coercion (i.e. the injunction
brought against the Blacksburg Ten [those people specifically named by the
university as instigators of the drillfield demonstration]), the people in
Burruss will force the demonstrators to take a harder stand for what they
want.
One of the prime concerns of the leaders of the activist group is to
get the University Council meetings open to all students. That proposal was
made and defeated by the University Council Wednesday afternoon.
Another legitimate channel for communication which the demonstrators felt
that Tech students deserved has been closed....
What can the administration do to bring the crisis to an end? One
possibility is to have a committee composed of students from various
segments of student life at VPT. This committee would meet directly with
some of the top administrators on the Tech campus monthly or whenever
necessary to air their views. This committee idea could alleviate the feeling
of many students that they are not represented. This could also prevent the
occurrence of more demonstrations. Something must be done soon or VPI
may no longer be known as “A serene university in southwest Virginia.”
Document 2:
“Free the University!!!” Virginia Tech University Archive, T. Marshall
Hahn Collection, Box 46, Folder 1695.
The following excerpt from a flier circulated by activists on campus to
publicize and explain the April 14, 1970, anti-corps protest on the Drillfield
provides even more insight into the demands and attitudes of activist
leaders. With fliers like the one below, they hoped to convince large
numbers of VPI students to join them in continuing protests against the
Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets.
Note the spelling of “America” in the second paragraph. Militant
activists often inserted the letter “k” to imply links between the nation
and fascistic tendencies. What does this suggest about the political
orientation of the activists and of their belief (or disbelief) in the utility
of working within existing political and bureaucratic structures? How
does this help explain their call for ongoing protests?
If this were William and Mary or UVa [University of Virginia], you would
be well on your way to achieving those rights which are yours. But this is
VPI. The old established ways of implementing change do not work
because they were created in Burruss Hall [the university administration
building] with the express purpose of preventing change. Dr. Hahn himself
that there will be no change from a Corps of Cadets to civilian ROTC.
PEOPLE, THE CORPS MUST GO!
We are starting with the Corps because it is a convenient example of
everything that is wrong with VPI. It is little more than a symbol of the
system itself, and it is the system which is the real enemy. It is this system
which denies us (Toby Cole included) our right to individual expression. It
is this system which makes a mockery of education by turning the colleges
and universities of Amerika into employment bureaus turning out wellordered machines. And finally it is this system which turns a students‟
school into an administration-controlled fascism which constantly denies
the students the right to self-rule, which tells professors they cannot cancel
classes, and which tells women that they are not mature enough to decide
for themselves what hours they will keep. It is the presence of these and
many other abuses that has dictated that we “Bring the war home to VPI”,
tomorrow, April 15th. We well be down on the drillfield form noon to four.
We challenge you to be there, also.
We challenge:
Questions to Consider:
1.
Why were these students so opposed to the corps‟ presence on their
campus? What else did they stand in opposition to?
What did they think their fellow students should be doing with their
time?
2.
3.
The members of the Block and Bridle Club and their supporters to
explain why they had the right to hold Toby Cole against his will.
All red, white, and blue, apple eating Americans to explain why
the American flag should not be worn on the seat of your pants.
The SGA president and his cronies to explain why they have acted
as salary-collecting agencies, rather than mobilizers of student
demands for change -- real change!
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
We challenge Dr. Hahn to explain why the University Council has
to meet in private to discuss policies which will affect the student
body for years to come.
We challenge the University Council to explain why three weeks
ago they voted against real student representation in the council.
We challenge the Highty-Tighties to explain why Dixie and the
Confederate flag still exist at VPI when they are an affront to our
black brothers.
We challenge Don Norris to explain why demonstrations won‟t
work at VPI when they have worked at William and Mary and
UVa.
We challenge the administration to stop feeding us the garbage
they have been and to open the university to student control of
student life.
We challenge the Corps of Cadets to justify their existence on this
campus.
HOW MANY TIMES ARE WE GOING TO SIT BACK AND
RATIONALIZE EVERYTHING? STAND UP AND SAY, “NO MORE!”
BE THERE ON THE DRILLFIELD TOMORROW FROM NOON TO
FOUR.
FREE THE UNIVERSITY!!!!!!!!!!!!
FREE THE UNIVERSITY!!!!!!!!!!!!
FREE THE UNIVERSITY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Document 3:
Protest at War Memorial, April 15, 1970. Virginia Tech University
Archive, http://spec.lib.vt.edu/archives/unrest/warmempr.htm
The photograph below captures a protest at VPI‟s War Memorial chapel one
day after activists disrupted the Corps of Cadets‟ Drillfield practice. The
photograph provides a glimpse of what a typical campus protest looked like.
Questions to Consider:
How would you characterize the students in the picture? What do they
look like?
What is the implied message of hanging a “peace” flag between two
American flags?
The War Memorial is located at the top of the grassy area known as the
Drillfield. What was the significance, if any, of holding the rally at this
particular location on campus, rather than in front of the campus
student union?
Document 4:
“Strike Out?” The Collegiate Times (13 May 1970), 2.
The Kent State shootings in early May 1970 was a violent end to one of
many spontaneous demonstrations against Nixon‟s announcement of the
widening of the Vietnam War into neighboring Cambodia. In the aftermath
of the tragedy, students at campuses across the nation grappled with how to
show solidarity, support, and protest. At VPI, as at other campuses, student
activists organized a strike that would close the campus. The editorial below
from the May 13, 1970, issue of The Collegiate Times explains the rationale
behind calling for a student strike and why the most militant members of the
campus community advocated what they called a “hard strike” -- a complete
and total shutdown of the university for the remaining weeks of the
academic quarter.
Questions to Consider:
What does the editorial reveal about the goals student activists hoped to
accomplish through a student strike?
Why was the writer so adamantly opposed to the proposed “soft
strike?”
What would a “hard strike” accomplish that a “soft strike” would not,
according to the author?
On Friday night, the SGA [Student Government Association]
Senate passed their proposal for a so-called “soft strike.” This proposal calls
for each student to voluntarily strike his classes and asks the university
administration to give credit for those classes which the student would miss
while on strike. We cannot support such a “soft strike” proposal and we call
on every student with the intention of striking to examine his conscience
and reasons for striking before he makes what we feel is a bad decision by
striking under the present plan.
In the first place, the objective of a strike is to show Mr. Nixon that
we disapprove of the present United States‟ policies in Southeast Asia and
here at home. The only way this could be effective is for the entire school to
shut down in protest to the Nixon policies. A halfway strike such as the
“soft strike” proposal of the SGA will accomplish nothing in the way of
persuading Mr. Nixon to change his foreign and domestic policies as a fullscale or “hard strike” would.
Secondly, the student who does strike under the “soft strike” plan
is uselessly depriving himself of academic credit in a futile attempt at
protest. The Commission on Undergraduate Studies has recommended to
the University Council that striking students be given only two options in
relation to grades for missed courses. Either the student will be permitted to
take a deferred grade in the course, the exam to be made up by the Fall
Quarter, 1970; or he will be permitted to resign from school without
penalty. We feel that both of these alternatives are too high a price for a
student to strike and risk his academic career when his striking will have no
chance of having the desired effect on Mr. Nixon. Finally, the strike, if it is
“soft” will lose any effect it may have by the fact that many of the student
who are supposedly striking will actually be trying to get a better grade by
deferring it or be taking an early summer vacation.
When we called for a strike last week, we were referring to what
has come to be known on the Tech campus as a “hard strike.” We do not
think of it this way only as a strike. The object of a strike is not merely to
allow an individual student to strike so that he can show his opposition to
Mr. Nixon‟s policies. Rather, it is for the entire university community to
show its revulsion over the events of the last few weeks at home and
abroad. Only if the university community acts as a whole will a strike have
any meaning to the administration in Washington. A “soft strike” is a
meaningless gesture on behalf of the Senate in an attempt to appear liberal
by using a watered down strike proposal so the Senate can say that they
supported a strike.
If the students of the university really do want to say to Mr. Nixon
that they are protesting his policies, then we suggest that they do not
support the so-called “soft strike” but urge the SGA to sponsor a complete
strike supported by all members of the Virginia Tech community. If the
students do not want a complete strike, then we would urge them to support
no strike at all. The halfway attempt of the Senate embodied in the “soft
strike” proposal will only succeed in weakening and sullying the strikes at
the other universities around the country. If the Senate wants to do
something either do it right or don‟t do it at all; leave the halfway measures
that only succeed in eroding the SGA‟s prestige.
Document 5:
Document 6:
Student Activist With Student Strike T-Shirt, May 1970. Virginia Tech
University Archive, http://spec.lib.vt.edu/archives/unrest/protsym.htm
The End of the Williams Hall Occupation, May 13, 1970 Virginia Tech
University Archive, http://spec.lib.vt.edu/archives/unrest/intro.htm.
The image of the raised and clenched fist was popularized by members of
the militant Black Panther Party in the late 1960s and then quickly adopted
by other white radical activists as a universal symbol of defiant resistance.
The photograph below features Sandy Hawthorne, President of VPI‟s
Student Government Association (SGA), modeling VPI‟s Student Strike Tshirt. According to articles in The Collegiate Times, stencils for making the
shirts or signs with the same symbol could be obtained from the SGA
office, which suggests that the SGA and a majority of its student
government leaders supported this kind of protest.
The following three photographs present contradictory images of the end of
the Williams Hall occupation, a protest that marked VPI activists‟
heightened frustration with the war in Vietnam, with the apparent war by
police and military troops on antiwar student protesters (as evidenced by the
killings at Kent State University that May), and with VPI‟s unwillingness to
support a “hard” student strike. The first two photographs show State Police
forcibly removing students from Williams Hall in the early morning of May
13. The final photograph presents a different image of what student activists
were like, since it captures students leaving Williams Hall peacefully at the
end of the occupation.
Questions to Consider:
What is the significance of the symbol on Hawthorne‟s T-shirt?
What message were students wearing the T-shirt trying to send?
Questions to Consider:
Although much of the general public opposed the war in Vietnam by
1970, many also opposed militant and seemingly anarchic forms of
political protest. How do you think the adult residents of the
community surrounding VPI would have responded to such images?
How do you think the student activists involved in the protest would
have responded?
Do you think such police actions would confirm or undermine the
students‟ commitment to a “hard” and total student strike?
In the aftermath of the occupation, the VPI campus found itself
consumed by a debate over what actually happened in Williams Hall
and whether the student occupiers were potentially violent and
destructive or inherently peaceful. What does the third photograph
below suggest about the nature of student protesters at VPI?
SECTION 2: Voices of Moderation
Document 7:
“The right to speak, the power to punish,” The Collegiate Times (15
April 1970), 3.
The editorial below from The Collegiate Times, written in response to
antiwar activists‟ disruption of the Corps of Cadets‟ public drill the day
before, presents a different perspective on campus protests than those
expressed by student radicals. A large number of VPI students, including
student leaders who later advocated a “hard” student strike and who
unsuccessfully tried to call off the Drillfield demonstration, shared the
sentiments expressed below.
We do not agree with the existence of the corps on this campus,
and we do not approve of the American military system that it symbolizes.
We do, however, recognize the rights of those individuals in the corps to
take part in the drills without being physically hampered in doing so.
People who scream for their own rights while they deprive others
of theirs are dictators. As we defended [student] Toby Cole‟s right to
display the American flag as he saw fit [on the seat of his pants], we also
defend the right of others to parade with a flag across the drillfield. As we
defend the rights of those who have long hair and rags for clothes, we also
defend the right for cadets to have their heads shaved and wear the uniform
of the corps....
Questions to Consider:
Document 8:
Where did students such as this editorial writer stand on the war in
Vietnam and the presence of military institutions on campus?
Plum Burruss, “SGA Senate Calls for Soft Strike,” The Collegiate
Times (13 May 1970), 1.
What did such students think of the “hippie” protesters in their midst?
What kind of political climate did the writer advocate?
As we look back on the occurrences of the past week, we see many
incidents that have left their mark on this campus. Most of them we do not
like.
All sides in these issues were guilty of mistakes, so we cannot
endorse the overall actions of any group. We do wish to cite several
incidents that took place during the week and evaluate the handling by those
concerned.
When the corps of cadets were disrupted during their Tuesday
drill, a clear case of depriving the rights to participate in a scheduled
function existed. Physically preventing the corps activity was an abuse of
the rights that the demonstrators pleaded.
The following article chronicles the campus debate over the type of student
strike to launch in response to the National Guard troops‟ killing of student
protesters at Kent State University in Ohio. As the headline and article
indicate, VPI‟s Student Government Association (SGA) ultimately passed a
resolution calling for a “soft strike.”
Questions to Consider:
How does the SGA‟s strike proposal compare with the proposal
advanced by activists who wanted a “hard” strike (see Document 4)? Is
it more moderate or more radical?
How many students attended this meeting? How many students attend
student government meetings at your school today? In 1970, VPI had
approximately 11,000 students. What does the number of students
attending the meeting suggest about how important students
considered the strike?
Assuming that the SGA, its popularly elected members, and the
students attending the meeting represented a cross section of the
student body, what does the SGA‟s decision suggest about where most
students stood politically, what they believed in, and what kinds of
political statements and protests they wanted and were willing to
make?
“Strike” became the password at an emergency SGA [Student
Government Association] Senate meeting Friday night.
The meeting was called in response to the situation on campus last
week, and to decide which of four proposals concerning the strike would be
presented to the administration. The proposals were drawn up by separate
Senate committees, and consisted of “no strike,” “soft strike,” “hard strike,”
and executive committee proposals.
The meeting had been announced during the rally earlier in the
day, and over 1,000 spectators crowded into the large ballroom at Squires to
watch the proceedings.
First on the agenda were the president‟s and vice president‟s
reports. Sandy Hawthorne, SGA president, said it was time to act
“effectively and immediately” and that over 200 colleges and universities
has already shut down.
David Vice, vice president, reiterated the events of the past four
days.
Although the hard and soft strikes were debated long and hard, no
action was taken until Senator Pete Balas reintroduced Senator John
Graham‟s motion to vote on whether to strike or not. The motion to strike
was passed, although Senator Russ Daniels put up a determined fight to
defeat it.
Next, the Senate had to choose between the hard and soft strike
proposals. Basically, the hard strike would shut down the University for the
remainder of the quarter, giving students four options concerning their
grades and credits. Later these four options were included in the soft strike
proposal.
The soft strike is essentially a voluntary one -- classes would be
held as usual, but students who chose to strike would be allowed to make up
the work without penalty.
Most senators supported the soft strike with certain clarifying
amendments as proposed by Senators Keko Swain, Pete Balas, and Sam
Cravotta. Reasons for supporting the soft strike over a hard one included the
basic right of a student to attend class, and the wish of the majority of the
students not to go too far. When the final vote was taken, there were no
dissenting votes against the soft strike.
Before a vote was taken, several faculty members and a student
leader were extended the floor. These included Becky Ellsworth, president
of Women‟s Interdormitory Council, Dr. Russell Cressimano, sociology
department, Dr. J.T. Regan, College of Architecture, and Dr. T.A. Travis,
political science department.
Most spoke in favor of the soft strike, although Dr. Regan asked
the students to utilize University government and Dr. Travis said only half
of the political science department was in favor of a strike.
Joe Jennelle, an author and ardent defender of the hard strike
proposal, summed up the reason behind the strike. He stated that the system
of checks and balances in our government was in question, and that we
must strike to show Nixon that he cannot supercede the wishes of the
people.
SGA STRIKE PROPOSAL
Whereas: The escalation of the war into Cambodia by President
Nixon is an act of aggression that deeply frightens the American students
and is an action in which he consulted neither the elected representatives of
the people nor some of his close advisors.
Whereas: The killing at Kent State was the result of student protest
of this action and the indiscriminate killing, without warning, of students by
the National Guard.
Whereas: The administration in Washington has been completely
ignoring the dissatisfaction with their supposed efforts for peace.
Whereas: The administration in Washington, instead of moving for
peace, has escalated this war considerably. The SGA Senate hereby
encourages all students at VPI to express their concern within the following
guidelines.
1. All regularly scheduled classes will continue as scheduled.
2. Student Life Policies pertaining to classroom attendance, “...Professors
understand they should not raise or lower grades on the basis of class
attendance alone...” will be strictly enforced. We hereby ask that
university Council aid us in this enforcement.
3. Any student has the right to voluntarily strike on an individual basis.
Those students will receive full academic credit for their work, with the
various options recommended to the University Council:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Taking the grade at present with the pledge that required work will
be completed by Fall 1970.
Taking an exam covering the quarter‟s work at a time mutually
agreeable to the professor and student.
Taking credit for the course, if he is passing, with a pledge that
required work will be completed by Fall 1970.
Taking an incomplete and rescheduling the course work with the
individual professor. Students must inform professors of their
intention to accept an incomplete grade within one week of the
University Council‟s adoption of this policy.
No university fees will be refunded to the student as a result of
this action.
Evidence 9:
“From Cambodia to Williams Hall,” The Collegiate Times (15 May
1970), 2.
The Collegiate Times editorial below, published several days after the
debate over the student strike (see Document 8) and immediately following
the student occupation of Williams Hall, suggests the limits of what many
students considered to be acceptable forms of protest, even at the height of
the sixties.
Questions to Consider:
What did this writer think about the utility and impact of the Williams
Hall occupation?
What does the editorial reveal about what many students believed were
acceptable and unacceptable actions?
What were the limits beyond which students no longer supported
protest?
Occurrences of the past few days have demonstrated the
unfortunate consequences that result when people lose perspective of their
own purposes. The occupation of Williams Hall by a group of students
whose objective several days ago was to protest the war in Southeast Asia is
a debasement of their original cause and an act that we admonish.
This newspaper has condemned the invasion of Cambodia and the
entire involvement in Southeast Asia. We urged the students to support the
one day strike last week. We backed a hard strike by the entire university.
But the takeover of an academic building, which prevents students from
attending classes and forces a strike on others, is something that we cannot
condone.
The direct cause of the occupation was the disagreement between
the students and the administration on academic provisions for those
wanting to strike. When the university refused to grant the group‟s
demands, the takeover took place.
We feel that the provisions outlined by the administration were
accommodating to the purpose of the strike and that students who wanted to
spend extra energies in working for peace could have done so with little
sacrifice on their part. By exercising the rights put forth on the university‟s
statement, a striker could remain a full time student while going to only one
class the rest of the quarter. By taking deferred grades in all courses but one
and then not attending any classes in the one except for the final exam, a
student would lose no credit for their work this quarter and still have time
off to strike.
The trouble was, the group did not want to make even a small
sacrifice for their purpose. They became more interested in fighting the
university than in working for the worthwhile cause of peace. If these
students were sincere in their claims, they would have taken deferred grades
and one exam or dedicatedly skipped the exam and failed the course.
Instead they decided to disrupt the campus in hopes of gaining sympathy.
We do not see how anyone can sympathize with them and support their
reinstatement on the basis that they are fellow students. We feel no common
bonds with those who would deprive others of an education, which is the
reason most students are here. The eviction and arrests that took place
Wednesday morning were necessary steps taken by the university to uphold
the rights of the student body to attend classes. The administration was
acting in support of the majority of students by preserving these rights and
we therefore support the administration in their actions to clear the occupied
Williams Hall.
There are those who contend that the administration could have
gone about the removal in a better way. Many think that more talk and
negotiations should have been used. This method was used Tuesday when
Cowgill Hall was occupied and the result was canceled classes until noon
and another takeover that night.
The forcible eviction by police was not uncalled for. And while
some contend that the police were rough, the removal of 106 people amidst
a screaming crowd with the only injuries being scratches and bruises can
hardly be classified as brutal.
We hope that all students involved in the incident will receive due
process in determining disciplinary action against them. We again feel,
however, that we must take the side of the administration that acted in the
best interest of ALL students by suspending those involved summarily. At
Kent State, students arrested for rioting were admitted back into the
university upon posting bail. Continued campus disruptions involving the
readmitted students resulted in the killing of four innocent students.
In taking this stand, we have supported the actions that we feel were taken
in the best interests of ALL students. We plead for fairness and urge all
students to think before the act, and not just REact. Things cannot be settled
when a disruptive atmosphere prevails.
Remember what the goal of everyone is. . .PEACE.
Evidence 10:
Ann M. Allred, Letter to the Editor, The Collegiate Times (27 May
1970), 2.
In the letter to the editor, a female VPI student tries to set the story straight
about the protests and student politics on campus.
Questions to Consider:
How does the author characterize student opinions and beliefs?
Did most demonstrators resemble the frightening radicals or
countercultural hippies that the local media likened them to?
Out of approximately 11,000 students enrolled at VPI at the time, how
many students actively supported the strike? How many ignored it?
What do the numbers suggest about overall student attitudes toward
political protest?
According to the writer, what represents the best political path to
follow?
Editor, Collegiate Times:
This is an open letter to the news media and its representatives that
have been covering the last week‟s happenings in Blacksburg. I would like
to strongly urge that the newsmen be very conscience of reporting what has
and is actually happening. On the evening of the occupation of Williams
Hall, I watched the eleven o‟clock news on television to find out what had
happened. On one station it was reported that the University Council had
approved a “soft” strike. I changed the channel to discover that the
University Council had vetoed strike proposals. These are completely
opposite versions of the same story. Since that time, I have questioned
anything the mass media have said about the situation at Tech. I would also
encourage parents and other interested individuals to accept the news
media‟s version as only one of many versions of what the situation is in
Blacksburg.
The protests originally were supposed to represent the
dissatisfaction with Nixon‟s Cambodian policy and the killings at Kent
State. From my knowledge, this was one of the reasons for protest at Tech.
But general discord with the administration was also cited as a cause for the
students to be heard. Today I have questioned people as to their motives for
supporting the strike in an effort to discover what the real issues are. From
what I can gather, students at Tech are now protesting the actions taken
against the students who occupied Williams. On the day of this incident,
opinion was moderate for the most part. Today I became more and more
convinced that the students and the faculty are being split into two factions,
either pro or con. The middle of the road is disappearing. This is regrettable.
But the reporters covering the story should be aware that this demonstration
is no longer on the national level of issues on the Blacksburg campus. And
these reporters should investigate more closely and report this to the public
if this is what is actually happening as I and others believe it is.
I regret that some reporting has been slanted toward the
sensational. I cannot believe that the situation is as bad as the television film
of the student arrests would seem to imply. There was no mention of the
nine-thousand plus students who did go to class as usual. If I were not on
this campus to see and hear for myself what happened, I would have to rely
upon reports that have not been as accurate as they should have been. I
realize the position of newsmen as outsiders, but I would prefer the retelling
of the story by some intelligent individual who is more familiar with the
situation at Tech before the demonstrations.
Ask any Tech student about activism on campus and they will tell
you that the overwhelming majority if students are apathetic. But in the last
few days students have become more or less apathetic. These demonstrators
are not all radicals or hippies. A considerable number of them are straight.
The stereotyped apathetic Tech man is a rarity on campus as of this week.
Perhaps the real story at Tech is not being reported fully to worried parents
and concerned alumni. Please consider the possibility that more reporting
needs to be done on what has caused the students to demonstrate their
feelings and beliefs, not how they have chosen to do so.
Ann M. Allred
Class of „70
SECTION 3: THE SILENT MAJORITY
Evidence 11:
Ed Miller, Guest Editorial, The Collegiate Times (8 May 1970), 2.
Although written to applaud the wave of student activism that rocked VPI
in the spring of 1970, the editorial below reveals hidden dimensions of the
student political landscape at state universities like Tech.
Questions to Consider:
How does the writer characterize the political climate up to this point
in time?
How politically active and engaged had the university‟s overall student
population historically been?
Virginia Tech is finally entering the realm of student activism
which many other universities have experienced. The killing of seven Kent
State students and the news that the Nixon administration has gone from the
Vietnam War to the Indochina War was too much for even Tech students to
stomach.
On May 5, the SGA [Student Government Association] Senate
passed a motion supporting a student strike at VPI and an associate bill
allocating $700 to get Jerry Rubin, one of the Chicago Seven, to speak at
Tech May 7. Tuesday night, while the Senate was in the process of
considering the bills, approximately 40 students entered the SGA Senate to
show their support for the bill. This type of student support is very rare at
VPI. After the students left the Senate meeting, a larger crowd gathered and
they proceeded to President Hahn‟s home to ask for his support of the
student strike called for by the SGA Senate....
The SGA Senate is finally beginning to become more than just a
Tuesday night meeting. Students are beginning to take more of an interest in
their student senate. They are finding out that they can work through
channels if they show support for their own cause.
Tech students are beginning to show some concern for events
which will affect their own lives and the lives of other students. Many Tech
students are beginning to realize that much education is gained outside the
classroom.
If the students stick together in their demands, they can make their
views known and influence decisions both on their own campus and within
their environment. Perhaps if all students voiced their opinions, another
Kent State could be prevented and the future political leaders of American
would take the students‟ demands into account before entering another
Vietnam.
Go to Washington May 11 [for a major national march] to protest
Nixon‟s decision to involve U.S. troops in Cambodia.
Evidence 12:
Steve MacGregor, “Crowd of dissenters rallies in Wash. D.C.,” The
Collegiate Times (13 May 1970), 3.
Like the previous guest editorial, the article below from The Collegiate
Times celebrates the activist response to the U.S. invasion of Cambodia and
the killing of student protesters at Kent State. Steve MacGregor‟s writing
style gives readers today a sense of the free-for-all countercultural
environment that encouraged experimentation with unconventional forms of
expression. MacGregor was clearly excited about traveling to Washington,
D.C., to partake in the enormous May 11 protest against the war, a
gathering where committed activists and outspoken young radicals took
center stage. Yet a careful read of his account -- particularly of his
references to VPI in the second paragraph and at the end of the selection -reveals how anomalous his D.C. experience actually was.
Questions to Consider:
Why did MacGregor complain about his fellow students at VPI? What
did he critique them for?
What does his article suggest about the campus climate?
Gotta go to D.C...: Big rally...howcum nobody‟s got any room?...
What‟s wrong with you guys?...11:30 Friday night and I still can‟t get a
ride... Joe, can you go?... you can? WOW!... leave at 12... Man, we got a
long way to go... I‟ve got a map and we can stay at my roommate‟s house.
.... Look at all of the people sleeping...WOW...There‟s a fire, let‟s go over
and see what‟s going on...Hi people, what‟s going on?
Yeah, we just got in...Va Tech...No man, we havn‟t shut down yet
and I don‟t think that we will...Bunch of apathetic so and so‟s down
there...You from Kent State?...Sorry about what happened... Hope we can
stop it from happening again... Where you from?...Ohio State, Cornell,
U.Va., Berkley, Kansas State, Princeton...Nice to see you guys down here...
Let‟s split guys...O.K.... walk around monument... Look at the people...
Hey, this isn‟t 100,000 people.... Something is wrong...Hey Steve, I‟m beat,
let‟s go back to Bob‟s and go to sleep...O.K...Head back down 95 to
Alexandria....Hey there‟s one, no two convoys of National Guard...
“Remember Kent State, you murderers!”...Ah, there‟s Bob‟s house...Still
early...6:+30... Oh well...Here comes his father... “No sir, we‟re not outside
agitators, we‟re friends of Bob” ... Other three go in basement and go to
sleep... can‟t go to sleep... Drink coffee, wash Bob‟s car... Read
newspaper... What to do if you get arrested, get gassed, pass out, get food
poisoning, everything... Hope that none of this happens... Got to be a
peaceful demonstration...
What time shall we leave...Starts at 12:00... Guess we better get
there early... Leave about 10:00... No problem getting back to D.C... Not
too many cars... Park behind Smithsonian... Plenty of room... Where are all
of the people?...Walk down Mall towards Monument...A few more people,
but not enough... Plenty of button sellers and Coke dealers... WHERE IS
EVERYBODY?...Walk up Monument grounds and look over hill to white
house...There they are...Wow!...Look at all of those people... They‟re all
over the place... Let‟s go down there... Boy, It‟s getting hot.. Can‟t take my
shirt off... Has more lenses and film... Start looking at the people... I‟ve
never seen so many in my life... Everybody says HI... Start taking pictures...
Should have bought more film... Gaekscraggle... Look at those speakers...
Must be a fantastic sound system... Try to find a seat... Still can‟t believe all
of the people and they‟re still coming... Finally get a seat...HOT!...Listen to
announcements from the Medics... “Cover your Head”... “Take salt
pills”...”Drink water”... “Let the Medics through”... Where are the
speakers...They can‟t get through the crowd...There they are!... Too
hot...Gotta move...Look at all of the people!...Watch the people in the
fountains...Liberate the water!...Some girl liberates her blouse...NO
BRA!...Women‟s Lib...None of the girls have any bras...Look at all of the
weird people... “Getcha free copy of this or that”...Give some money to the
Black Panthers, MOBE, Women‟s Lib, SDS...Everybody wants
money...Still walking...Gotta get some breeze...Here comes a college
delegation with a big banner...Everybody cheers...Here comes
UVa....Standing ovation...Where‟s Va Tech?...Lousy COWCOLLEGE...
nobody cares...
Evidence 13:
Pam Wimmer, “101 fasters seek support,” The Collegiate Times (20
May 1970), 1.
Student Pam Wimmer‟s article from the May 20 edition of The Collegiate
Times chronicles an event that took place after the occupation of Williams
Hall and the university‟s decision to suspend 107 students involved in the
protest. As the article below indicates, a number of activists organized a
hunger strike shortly after the occupation to protest the university‟s refusal
to give the Williams Hall students amnesty. What remains most interesting,
however, is the number of students involved in the hunger strike.
Remember that, in the spring of 1970, there were approximately 11,000
students at Virginia Tech.
Questions to Consider:
What deductions can we draw about the level of political awareness
and involvement among students on the VPI campus based on the
article, the photograph description, and the number of people
participating in the fast?
How much support did the “Blacksburg 107” seem to generate among
their fellow students?
[Photograph Description:] a photo of a crowded dining hall where students
are eating. Caption: “The 101 strikers observing a fast urge students, like
those pictured above, to boycott dining halls and to join them in a one-day
fast tomorrow.”
The 101 hunger strikers are calling for all students and faculty
members to participate in a one day fast from sunup to sundown tomorrow
in support of the strikers and their petition.
As of Monday night, 44 sympathetic students had joined the 57
original strikers in protesting the summary suspension of the 107 students
who occupied Williams Hall.
The original strikers discontinued their small portions of bread
Monday and are now on water, vitamins, and salt pills only. Sympathetic
strikers are participating in the fast as long as they are able or want to.
The strike began last Thursday evening after students requesting a
statement from Dr. T. Marshall Hahn marched to the president‟s home.
When Hahn would not speak to them, Diane Curling announced that she
would return to the War Memorial and being a fast and urged others to join
her rather than resort to violence. Some of the fasters spent the night on the
Memorial, and other students joined them Friday morning, raising the
number of the original fasters to 57....
Since Saturday the fasters have been spending their days on the
War Memorial and their nights on the drillfield, in the dorms, and in various
buildings off campus.
Evidence 14:
Roger L. Crosen, “Protesters called a minority on campus,” The
Collegiate Times, (22 May 1970), 2.
While previous documents allude to the lack of student activism and
support for both militant and moderate protest, the letter to the editor below
provides a clear explanation for why most students acted the way they did.
Questions to Consider:
How does the letter characterize most of the students at VPI in the
spring of 1970?
What were their goals and priorities?
Why, according to the writer, did so few students turn out for rallies
and public fasts in support of suspended students?
Editor, Collegiate Times:
Not often am I prompted to write letters to the editor of this
newspaper, but recent events here on campus definitely warrant some
comments. I feel it is time that the small liberal group on campus, i.e. those
who participate in anti-war demonstrations and the like, realize that they do
NOT represent a majority of students at this university. In fact it is quite the
contrary. The majority of students at VPI came here to get an education- not
to act like babies and raise Hell when they don‟t get everything the want.
Why were the assemblies held on the drillfield in the past couple of weeks
so small? Why didn‟t students turn out for a meeting that was in fact called
by the SGA [Student Government Association]? Well, I‟ll tell you why!
The decent, conscientious students on this campus were attending classesthe same place every student should have been. Those students who
attended classes were speaking much more loudly than those gathered on
the drillfield -- blowing their horns, listening to a rock band, and in general
just making a bunch of noise!! The students in class were clearly stating
their position on the issues. They did NOT want any kind of a strike, but
rather they wanted to attend classes and obtain a decent education from this
university. I commend these latter students for their extremely strong
fortitude and true realization of their purpose for being here.
In view of the above statements, I commend and wholeheartedly
support Dr. Hahn for his decisions and acts of superior leadership during the
recent weeks, I think he tolerated as much student dissension and acts of
violence as he should have. When such individuals as call themselves
“students” take over university buildings, they depriving themselves and
many of the real students on campus from attending classes, then it is
certainly time to act. I also commend the State Police who did a magnificent
job in removing individuals from Williams Hall and who have restored
good order to the campus. My hat is off to all of them!!
In conclusion, I would like to re-emphasize the fact that most
students are indeed here to get an education. Most of them feel as I do about
national and international affairs -- Be aware of what is happening and
express yourself through the PROPER channels. Don‟t go off “half-cocked”
and act in accordance with high-strung emotionalism. Get the facts and
evaluate them. Then consider your position and ascertain your reasons for
being here. Are you a professional demonstrator or a conscientious student?
I wish to consider myself as a student and will, therefore, act accordingly by
attending classes and trying to learn all I can while at this university. Don‟t
get me wrong. Just because you don‟t see me with long hair, hippie beads,
and lying in the grass doesn‟t mean I‟m not involved. It just means I have a
little more respect for myself and for the high level of sophistication and
presumed decency of our society that I am not going to act or dress like an
undomesticated animal. Contrarily, I shall work within the structure of our
democratic society to express myself. Isn‟t it time that others on the VPI a
campus do the same and cease their gross display of ignorance and lack of
refinement???
Roger L. Crosen
Class of 1970
SECTION 4: PROTESTING THE PROTESTERS
Evidence 15:
Kevin Hunt, “Drill practice stopped by protesting students,” The
Collegiate Times (17 April 1970), 1.
Photograph: Virginia Tech
University Archive, http://spec.lib.vt.edu/archives/unrest/rotcdis2.htm
This front page article from The Collegiate Times describes the Drillfield
protest against the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets (VTCC), as well as the
response of those who supported the cadets and opposed the protesters.
Questions to Consider:
What do the counter-protester‟s actions suggest about the unanimity of
antiwar sentiment among college students at the time?
Drill practice stopped by protesting students
At 3 p.m. Tuesday, April 14, approximately 200 civilian students
gathered around the War Memorial for an anti-corps demonstration.
As the corps approached the field for drill practice, the students
formed a line to block their entrance. The first unit, A Company, was
diverted while the second company marched onto the drill field. The cadets
of I Company were completely surrounded and had to force their way
through the crowd.
More units were able to enter the field as the demonstrators broke
up into small groups. The protesters harassed the cadets and marched along
with them, causing several units to break rank. Some of the demonstrators
carried American flags and toy guns; one student had a large pink plastic
pig.
An unidentified student grabbed a flag flying upside down and
broke the pole in half. He then returned the torn flag and pieces of pole to
the protester. After the incident the student commented that the
demonstration was “very silly” and the “the flag should be flown right-sideup.”
Several civilians, including Sandy Hawthorne, candidate for SGA
president, tried to call off the demonstration but were unsuccessful. They
instead organized a group of marshals, consisting of six civilians and six
cadets, to try to prevent any form of violence.
As the individual companies tried to leave after the drill, the last
unit was detained by the demonstrators. The marshals eventually intervened
by encircling the cadets and escorting them from the field.
After the corps had withdrawn to the Upper Quad, the demonstrators
marched to Lane Hall, where they discussed the basic issues of the
demonstration with Dr. James Dean [Vice-President for Student Affairs].
Students objected to the noise of the Highty-Tighties [Virginia Tech‟s
military band] and to the corps‟ use of the drill field.
Following the discussion, the protesters marched around the cadet
dorms shouting, “Left, left, left.” The demonstration then broke up. . . .
Evidence 16:
John R. Coiner, Jr., and Lee P. Gibson, “Anti-corps demonstrations
debated,” The Collegiate Times (24 April 1970), 3.
The jointly written letter to the editor below expresses feelings similar to
those of the counter-protester who authored the previous document (see
Document 15) and of other students like him.
Questions to Consider:
For what do the two student authors criticize the campus antiwar
activists?
How do their criticisms compare with those offered in Document 7?
What do their criticisms suggest about the beliefs of the majority of
their fellow classmates?
Editor, Collegiate Times:
Congratulations to all students who took part in the demonstrations
of April 14 and 15. You have clearly shown to everyone now what many
people on this campus have known for a long time.
You violate those very rights which you say you are in favor of. By
attempting to disrupt drill Tuesday, April 14, were you not denying the
members of the VTCC [Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets] their right to a
scheduled class? How does attempting to disrupt drill, a class which is
scheduled in the “Time Table of Classes,” differ from disrupting any other
class on this campus?
There is need of change on this campus but the actions taken on
Tuesday and Wednesday of this week are not the way to accomplish your
goals. There is a framework at Tech set up for your use and protection. By
going outside of this framework you are only lessening your chances of
obtaining true change and demonstrating a lack of maturity and intelligence
that is appalling for an “enlightened and educated” college student.
John R. Coiner, Jr.
Lee P. Gibson
Evidence 17:
“Demonstrations and Williams occupation bring pro and con reactions
from students,” The Collegiate Times (15 May 1970), 2.
This collection of letters to the editor, written and published after a month
of escalating protests, presents a particularly strong set of opinions about
student activism and campus unrest.
Questions to Consider:
What reasons do the respective authors give for the widespread student
opposition to the protests that occurred in spring 1970?
What do the letters suggest about the sentiments and priorities of a
sizable proportion of the student body at VPI?
Editor, Collegiate Times:
We are writing to express our opinions on the recent strike on this
campus.
We object to the forceful seizure of Williams Hall by a small
majority of students on campus last night. They contend that they took this
action for several reasons.
They contend that this action was necessary to protest the decision
of the University Council. We fell that in making this decision, the
University Council bent over backwards to acquiesce to the minority‟s
demands. We feel that the decision was equitable because the students that
wished to strike were given an extended date to leave without penalty.
Those of us who came here for an education were likewise, given the
chance to study.
Secondly, the militant‟s claim that seizure was necessary in order
to prevent violence. If they had stayed at home and worked through
channels, which contrary to popular belief are available, we would have had
another peaceful night on the VPI campus.
Fortunately there was no violence after all. Some of us viewed the
incident this morning. And, we wish to congratulate and commend the state
police and the administration on the orderly and non-violent removal of
trespassers.
None of us like war! None of us like to see our fellow students
killed! But we came here for an education. Is a disruption of this education
going to promote peace and harmony? We think not!
Thomas M. Leonard „69
William S. Pafford „70
Barbara A. Ross „72
Stuart F. Updike Jr. „70
James E. Webster III „70
***
Editor, Collegiate Times:
Hooray for Dr. Hahn [President of VPI]! I, for one, and I am sure I
am not alone, applaud Dr. Hahn‟s decision to rid this campus of such
persons that would cause wholesale destruction to university property.
I do not oppose peaceful dissent and protest, rather, I approve of it
as a means to express dissatisfaction with a system and also, hopefully, to
express ideas on the improvement of that system. However, when dissent
becomes open rebellion with intent to destroy the property and rights of
others, that dissent is nothing more than anarchy and an attempt at nihilism
of government, These people do not believe in the rule of the majority, or
even in respecting the rights of anyone but themselves.
Again, I say, good riddance to those who wish to see democratic
rile destroyed.
Edward S. Miller
***
Editor, Collegiate Times:
Please allow me to take this opportunity to commend our law enforcement
officials for their fine work in removing the 168 students from Williams
Hall “in order that University functions may continue as usual.” Glad to see
things are back to normal.
Charles Volkstorf
Evidence 18:
Evidence 19:
Protester Supporting Troops, May 1970. Virginia Tech University
Archive, http://spec.lib.vt.edu/archives/unrest/forprot.htm.
Jo Anne Harvey, Letter to the Editor, The Collegiate Times (20 May
1970), 2.
The photograph below, taken at the height of student antiwar protests at
VPI, offers another perspective on “dissenting” politics on college
campuses during the sixties. The student‟s clean-cut appearance and
outspoken sign clearly indicate where he figured along the cultural and
political spectrum.
The letter to the editor below presents yet another dimension of student
opposition to the activities of campus radicals, combining the political
perspectives of the placard-holding student in Document 18 with the letter
writers in Documents 16 and 17.
Questions to Consider:
Questions to Consider:
Why does Jo Anne Harvey hold student protesters in such low regard?
What can the image tell us about the reasons behind students
protesting against the protesters?
How, according to her, should students spend their time?
How do her judgments about appropriate student behavior compare
with those given by her peers in Document 2? How would you explain
the difference between the two?
Editor, Collegiate Times:
The purpose of this letter is to ask one question -- Why? I‟m not
talking about the “Whereases” that the S.G.A. [Student Government
Association] proposed on Friday, May 8. I am convinced that each of those
statements was based on emotion and not fact. Who here on campus has
proof that President Nixon did not consult advisors before making his
decision on Cambodia? Who here on campus has completely investigated
the Kent State incident? Who here on campus knows what is going through
Nixon‟s mind at this moment? And who on campus can predict the future of
the war in Viet Nam?
Peace and student‟s rights are words that are heard everyday on
this campus. I ask this question: Why are the people crying for peace
throwing firebombs on Ambler Johnston [one of the campus buildings]?
Why do the people demanding rights prevent students from carrying on
their studies by occupying buildings where classes should be held?
The students are given the opportunity to leave school if they feel
they can not follow their conscience and continue their studies effectively.
Why do these students feel that they must impose their feelings on
everyone? Do they believe they are the only ones entitled to RIGHTS?
What happens to the student who can both learn and devise constructive
means to support his political views?
Tonight on WUVT [the student radio station] at 10:45 a statement
was made, “Get outside and join the fun.” Is that why students are out
there? No one has told me why the university must shut down to prove a
point. I have found time to support my beliefs and have continued to study
in the process.
Jo Anne Harvey
SECTION 5: THE MOST PRESSING CONCERNS
Evidence 20:
Jerry W. Lusk, Letter to the Editor, The Collegiate Times (15 May
1970), 2
In the midst of the furor over the Williams Hall takeover and the debate
between students over the pros and cons of antiwar protest, the letter to the
editor reproduced below appeared in The Collegiate Times.
Questions to Consider:
Why is the author so upset?
Why did the student editors of the campus paper consider such an issue
important enough to feature alongside lengthy and emotional letters
concerning the ongoing campus unrest?
What does the letter suggest about the importance of personal issues as
well as political concerns to college students at the time?
Editor, Collegiate Times:
I am usually a very easy person to get along with, ask anyone who
knows me and they will attest to that fact. However, there are certain things
that I just don‟t go along with, and I feel that I must speak out at this time
on a certain matter which concerns every student at Tech who has ever set
foot inside the Squires [student center] Snack Bar. The issue at point is the
policy that “Food may not be removed from the snack bar.”
On the night of April 23rd, after three hot hours of helping to
broadcast the President‟s Quarterly Meeting over WUVT [student radio
station], I stopped in the snack bar to quench a great thirst with just a simple
Coke. In addition, I had a very important phone call to make, so, after
purchasing the Coke, I left the snack bar by the door nearest the Information
Desk and started across the lobby to get to the telephones. At this point,
after only one swallow of my Coke, I was verbally challenged by the girl at
the Information Desk and asked where I was going, I replied, “to the phone
lobby.” She then replied in a very haughty tone of voice that I could not
take the Coke with me. I replied that she had to be kidding, the sign in the
snack bar said “Food” could not be removed, not food and beverages. She
then said that “Food” included my Coke, and that if I wanted to drink it, I
would have to do it in the snack bar. At this point in the conversation, dying
of thirst and in a hurry to make my call, I became extremely angry. Rather
than embarrass the girl by telling her what I thought she should do with the
Coke, I stepped back into the snack bar, left my Coke on the nearest table,
and then went to make my call without my Coke. The point I wish to make
is this. If the officials at Squires will now allow “Food” (by their definition)
to be removed from the snack bar or consumed anywhere else but in the
snack bar, why then do they have both drink and candy machines spread
throughout the building? If they do not wish to have crumbs, spills, etc. all
over the place, why then do they directly contradict themselves by
maintaining “food” machines in the building at other places than in the
snack bar?? Hypocrisy is one thing that I just cannot abide, and if the
officials of Squires are not hypocrites in this case, I wish they would tell me
exactly what they think they are. I can really see no difference between a
Coke in a can or the same drink in a paper cup. If they allow canned drinks
throughout the building, then they should not get all bent out of shape if a
student wishes to take a drink in a paper cup to a location outside the snack
bar, If the officials are going to have such a policy as „Food cannot be
removed from the snack bar,‟ then they should be prepared to completely
define their meaning of “food.” A complete list of all items which cannot be
taken out of the snack bar should be prepared and posted in the snack bar
for the convenience of all patrons. Any item which can be purchased in one
of their machines should not be included on such a list, not should any
student be reprimanded like a child for attempting to take any such item out
of the snack bar. In this manner, further confrontations between myself and
the girl at the Information Desk could be happily avoided!
In the future, I hope that the management of Squires will attempt
more to serve the students of Va. Tech rather than restrict their every
movement when they are on the premises.
Jerry W. Lusk
Evidence 21:
Gail Stagg, “Students protest Council‟s changes,” The Collegiate Times
(26 May 1971), 1
One year after the student protests of May 1970, VPI student activists
organized a memorial rally for the students killed by National Guardsmen at
Kent State University. The campus response was dismal at best. Only three
out of the eight scheduled speakers showed up at the event, while only
approximately 150 students attended. In just twelve short months, it seemed
that the student protest had lost its momentum, or, as this front-page article
from The Collegiate Times suggests, simply moved in a different direction.
The “open door” policy referred to below belonged to a larger set of
university policies for student life. Under the “open door” regulation,
students could entertain members of the opposite sex in their dorm rooms,
but only if doors remained open. Although quite a bit looser than previous
in loco parentis policies, which placed universities in the role of surrogate
parents and generally prohibited mixed-sex dorm-room socializing, the new
regulations appeared far too restrictive for VPI students (like their cohorts at
colleges and universities across the nation) to accept without a fight. As you
read the article below, place it within the context of the previous year‟s
protest activities and the meager attendance at the memorial rally described
above, which occurred less than three weeks before the demonstration
described below.
Questions to Consider:
How does the letter characterize students‟ priorities?
Why, in your opinion, might it have been easier to organize students
around personal lifestyle concerns than around overtly political
objectives?
To the chant of “One, two, three, four, we don‟t want your open
door,” approximately 1000 students congregated on the drill field Monday
night in the first large rally of spring quarter.
The rally was called to disseminate information and to protest
changes of University Policies for Student Life for 1971-1972, that were
enacted Monday by the University Council.
The rally convened with a statement by Fred George, SGA
[Student Government Association] President: I understand you people are
pretty upset, Sandy Hawthorne, past SGA president and the only student
member of the University Council spoke, explaining the actions of
Monday‟s University Council actions concerning Student Life Policies,
Hawthorne pointed out that regulations for student life at Virginia Tech are
“the most conservative in the state of Virginia.” Concerning the Council‟s
action‟s Hawthorne stated that. “The University Council has moved ahead
about thirteen years to 1984.”
He explained that a registration system for room visitation has
been enacted for next year, according to which a dorm resident would be
required to sign in any guest of the opposite sex during open house.
In response to questions on what alternative the students could
offer to the University Council concerning open house, Hawthorne stated
that he advocated the revision presented by the Student Life Committee of
the student senate and approved by the Commission on Student Affairs,
which proposed that those University regulations which conflicted with the
civil codes of the state be eliminated.
“We don‟t plan to comply with any more dorm regulations...we
dislike,” Hawthorne went on. He also referred to University Council‟s
adoption of a no knock policy for entering student dorm rooms.
Concerning the University Council‟s decision to reserve the University‟s
right to suspend a student who is convicted on narcotics charges whether on
of off campus, Hawthorne stated, “I know no one at Virginia Tech smokes
dope.”
In response to a question relating to his suggested method of
reversing the Council‟s decisions, Hawthorne proposed various devices
such as letters, phone calls, personal visits, and “any means to
constructively convince the University Council, that‟s what I think.”
He added that he did not want to limit any creative actions by
individuals, however. He also noted that another rally is scheduled for
Wednesday night, by which time more information and copies of the
revisions can be distributed to students.
Copies of the 1970-71 university Policies for Student Life were
then thrown into the crowd. Hawthorne then explained that the copies
would be burned and thrown on that “trash heap- Burruss Hall,” [referring
to the university administration building] to show University Council that
“no student on this campus likes what they did.”
As the crowd moved to Burruss, the pamphlets were burned.
Throwing the flaming booklets resulted in a small fire in front of Burruss
that was extinguished by students. A sign reading “Shut doors or shut
Tech,” was displayed on the front door of Burruss.
The students then lined the streets in front of Burruss, obstructing
traffic for a few minutes. At one time, an unoccupied car was rolled into the
street, but it was immediately removed by a group of students.
After a short stop in front of Squires Student Center, the crowd
took to the streets, downtown. Town policemen directed traffic away from
Main Street. At the intersection of Main and Roanoke streets the majority of
students sat in the street. However, the “sit-in” lasted for only a few minutes
before the students moved back toward campus.
In the process of the street rally, windows were broken at First
National Exchange Bank of Blacksburg, Neily‟s Bookstore, and Hummel‟s
Jewelry. A crowd stood and watched after a burglar alarm was set off as a
result of the damage to Hummel‟s display window.
The crowd diminished, and a somewhat smaller group returned to
Squires [student center] to consider further actions. About one hundred
people hiked up to Shanks dorm, apparently to stage a dorm-in. However,
the dorm was locked and well guarded by resident advisors when they got
there. A second floor window was broken as the crowd surrounded the
dorm.
Gradually, the students drifted away in many directions.
Evidence 22:
Pam Wimmer, “„. . .to change the rules‟ Rally ends in sleep-in on
drillfield,” The Collegiate Times (28 May 1971), 1.
Two days after the march and demonstration described in Document 21,
students gathered again to protest the university‟s “open door” policy.
Questions to Consider:
How many students attended the rally? How do those numbers
compare with attendance at the Kent State memorial described in the
introduction to Document 21?
What does attendance at both events reveal about student priorities as
the sixties turned into the seventies?
What does this article, along with the previous document, reveal about
how student efforts at cultural rebellion absorbed the tactics of political
dissent?
“We‟re here to find out how best to change the rules,” explained
former SGA [Student Government Association] president Sandy Hawthorne
at Wednesday night‟s rally on the drillfield.
“We want the University Council and particularly the faculty
members not to sit back and laugh at how the students have to live on this
campus.”
The rally, called by the SGA Senate Monday night, was attended
by approximately 3000 students, faculty members, and administrators.
Beginning with 1500 students, the rally reached its maximum of
3000 students about 9 p.m. and ended in a sleep-in with about 500
participants.
The crowd, silent for the most part, punctuated Hawthorne‟s
speech with applause and shouts of approval while a helicopter circled
overhead.
A generator and microphone were set-up to provide a sound
system for the speakers.
Around 10:30 p.m., while the rally was in progress, Squires
Student Center was evacuated because of a bomb threat. No bomb was
located, but the building was not reopened that evening.
At the rally, Skip Schwab, SGA vice president, first urged
students, “Any booze, any dope, anything you can get busted for, get rid of
it.”
He added several minutes later, “For those of you who are worried
about protection, the state police are going to take care of us tonight.”
Schwab explained the results of Monday‟s Senate meeting to the
crowd and asked students to talk with faculty and administrators until the
University Council meeting scheduled for Friday afternoon at 2. He
explained, “What we have to do is give them one last chance to bring
democracy to Virginia Tech.”
Next on the agenda was a mock trial, charging the University
Council with trying “to reach 1984 as soon as possible and for having a
water bed.”
Senator Herbert Bateman, author of the Bateman Resolution, was
charged with being “a sexually deprived male and trying to return Virginia
to the Victorian Age.”
Last, [University] President T. Marshall Hahn was charged with
establishing “a dictatorship in a democratic society.”
Witnesses called to the stand included a group of “pregnant” girls,
wearing signs boasting “Open house did it,” and a dummy figure of Hahn.
The jury finally found all parities guilty as charged, and sentences were then
handed down by the judge. It was decided to hang Hahn from “any object
that can be found.”
Senator Bateman was confined to a “whore house for six months,”
while the University Council was ordered “to open their doors six inches at
all times and to run eight laps around the drillfield bare-assed.”
After the laughter had subsided, Hawthorne took the microphone
and announced that the campus has been blocked off by the police. He
stated that no one was allowed on campus and ended with, “So here we are
at Virginia Tech.”
Hawthorne described the students‟ problem as one of in loco
parentis. He remarked that most of the Faculty Senate members were
present in the group “to see how many students want civilized rules.”
Hawthorne urged the students not to take to the streets and “trash
the town... The students themselves are going to have to behave like
students, act like students...Our bitch is on this campus.”
Having decided that there was no need for a dorm-in, since the
dormitories “already belong to the students,” Hawthorne asked students to
“get some type of commitment out of every faculty member on this
campus.”
He urged students to “get them to say they don‟t have an interest in
controlling students‟ lives.”
He also told students that “the battle lies in the dormitories and
with your RA‟s.”
Students must demand autonomy, Hawthorne urged and if it is not
granted, “the autonomy rests on the students, who will have to take it.” Up
until now, “the people haven‟t had the volition to make the changes on their
own.”
As a final suggestion to current SGA president Fred George,
Hawthorne proposed a rally on the first night of the fall quarter, at which all
copies of the university Policies for Student Life would be burned.
“Then students can run their lives the way they see fit,” he
explained.
Schwab then took the microphone again to explain recent
University Council actions.
During his talk, George estimated the crowd at 4000 and warned
the group, “if we do anything tonight, it‟s going to kill us Friday.”
He asked students to pick up papers available in the lobby of
Squires Student Center, for faculty members and ask them to sign them and
send them to Dr. Hahn. “Students should take no cop-out from the faculty,”
he admonished.
In a final attempt to urge student action, George announced a
sleep-in on the drillfield, culminating in a walk to the Student Personnel
Building Tuesday morning.
By each student‟s asking to be informed in writing of his rights,
George explained, “You can bring student personnel to a complete
halt...let‟s see how many student life policies we can break tonight.”
George ended by telling students to “make your own party...We‟ll
do it all night.”
Music and films provided by the University Vietnam Committee
were scheduled for the rest of the evening as students settled down with
candles, blankets, guitars, Boone‟s Farm Apple Wine, and other assorted
items.
Evidence 23:
“Students employ new tactics,” The Collegiate Times (17 November
1971), 2.
This final editorial from The Collegiate Times highlights how, by 1971,
students had clearly prioritized culture and lifestyle concerns over directly
political issues.
Questions to Consider:
Compare the actions described in the document below to those
described in Documents 21 and 22. What does the editorial here suggest
about how students chose to wield their political power?
Did students still gravitate towards the old style of demonstrations, or
were they trying something new?
Where would you place the new tactics along the spectrum of political
revolt? Were they conservative? moderate? radical?
The students at Virginia Tech have openly confronted the
administration on the subject of Student Life Policies. In the past week,
newspapers throughout the state of Virginia have carried releases
concerning the students‟ discontent with the present policies.
A clear majority of dormitory residents have supported a move
toward dormitory autonomy. They have voiced their disapproval in a
manner which cannot be disregarded by the administration.
For too long, the average Virginia Tech student has said we must
proceed through the „proper channels‟ before taking matters into our hands.
They contended if nothing came out of this approach, then try a different
way.
We have finally realized that nothing will come out of the
University system of channels to benefit the students in the area of Student
Life Policies. The policies now in existence will remain so unless changes
are made outside of the channels.
The tactics employed by the students this year differ drastically
than those of past years. Rather than resorting to demonstrations, protests,
and much meaningless rhetoric, the students are substituting action in order
to effect change.
The newly formed Virginia Tech Coalition, comprised of those
dormitories which have voted in favor of going autonomous, has taken the
matter of Student Life Policies into their own hands. The state newspapers
have carried the students‟ plight across the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The Women‟s Interdormitory Council is initiating a program to
determine the status of Student Life Policies at Virginia Tech in comparison
with those of other state institutions of higher education in Virginia. They
plan to submit a report in an effort to change the present Student Life
Policies.
These actions are coming from the students themselves. The
administration is being forced to listen and to recognize the existence of
their concern.
No longer can the University continue to camouflage student
dissent at Virginia Tech. The issue of the Student Life Policies controversy
has brought the voices of dissent and protest into the open.
The revision of Student Life Policies will come up before the
University Council again next quarter. We are determined to face the
administration and faculty on this issue and present our arguments.
The students have overwhelmingly supported the autonomous
dormitory issue. When it is brought before the administration, our number
will be larger and our impact greater. The University Council will
undoubtedly receive the student input they claim to desire.