DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1965-1967

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1965-1967

31858064848116_047

[handwritten]
DI 
12/6/67

Demonstrators should support McCarthy

What was accomplished by Tuesday's demonstration?
Some more provocation; some more brutality. Some more arrests; some more martyrs. Some more inflated egos; some more bruised bodies. 
But Dow remained on campus - as it had a right to - and the practical effect of the protest was nil. 
The time has come to ask some basic questions about the motivation of the demonstrators: Just what is it they seek to accomplish? Why do they resort to such melodramatic tactics? Why don't they attempt to channel their frustration into more responsible, effective channels?
I speak, of course, only for myself. And I emphasize that I am not a haw. In Iowa City's hothouse atmosphere it's difficult to try to remain moderate or objective because the climate of opinion here has become so polarized. 
According to some of the more aggressive and articulate demonstrators, if you're not a full-feathered dove, you automatically must be a war-monger.
This raises the question of the demonstrators' motives. Are they really trying to influence opinion, to change attitudes, to promote the pacifist cause?
If so, it's my opinion that they're having the opposite effect. Attitudes are becoming more rigid, and the man on the street now is inclined to brush off a demonstration as nothing more than a bunch of kids trying to publicize themselves. 
There was, to be sure, and effort to conduct a responsible debate on the issues last Monday night. It was the symposium on the military-industrial complex. But its organizers expressed smug surprise when no devil's advocate showed up, and so they all sat around pretty much agreeing with one another that the military-industrial complex is wicked. 
These same persons would be quick to criticize Dean Rusk for issuing self-fulfilling prophesies. But only the most naive freshman could have expected to have heard a genuine, pro-and-con debate at the symposium. 
The cards simply were too well stacked, and this is typical of the effect of the polarization of opinion on this campus. Intelligent discussion has become inhibited, thanks mainly to the demonstrators who are so totally convinced of the righteousness of their opinions. 
One of the more flagrant examples of this was the case of David Grant, the student who went skulking around campus gussied up in sack cloth and a scythe. He finally was arrested and now must feel well-persecuted. 
The fact is, an individual who would so attire himself surely must be motivated less by a concern for altering attitudes, than by a personal desire for publicity. 
To dress in some outrageous fashion, to go on hunger strikes, to hold slumber parties in pup tents, to play cops and demonstrators - these tactics should be labeled for what they are : adolescent shenanigans by individuals seeking personal publicity. 
Only by a wild jump of the imagination can a sensible person agree that Dow is intimately involved in the war. Of course Dow makes napalm. But why not picket the corner service station since petroleum firms manufacture gasoline which goes in to napalm? Why not burn all one's cotton clothing since cotton is used to make Army uniforms? Why not have a giant bonfire to burn any publication that disagrees with one's opinion? Why not go goose-stepping around the campus and have a pogrom against the hawks? Why not send off for a mail-order rifle? 
I don't question the motivation of the protesters. They are fed up with the war and frustrated by the seeming lack of outlets for dissent. The Johnson administration has been notably insensitive and downright stupid in regard to demonstrations. Freedom of speech and assembly have taken some hard knocks in the last several months. 
But there is an alternative to such tactics as storming the Union. There is another way of expressing one's opposition than by parading around in a ridiculous costume. 
Specifically, the recent emergence of Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota has given all of us who dislike the war a responsible channel of dissent. The Chicago conference last weekend indicated considerable grass roots support for a Democrat who would oppose Johnson on the Vietnam issue. This alternative is in the finest tradition of American political dissent. It has worked before. and it can work now. 
McCarthy may not be nominated, it's true. But if the size of his support were significant, it would measurably influence Johnson and the Democratic convention. 
I suggest that those demonstrators who are less concerned about getting their pictures in the paper and on television and more interested in doing something effective, rally behind McCarthy. He has started late and with little professional support. He will need doorbell-ringers envelope stuffers and fund-raisers. 
In other words, it seems to me that more would be accomplished by supporting a responsible alternative to the Johnson policy than by scampering around campus all day tilting with windmills - Gordon Young 

[cartoon]
B.C.
by Johnny Hart

HEY THOR . . . WANNA HEAR SOME GREAT ONE-LINERS?

NO I'D RATHER TALK ABOUT MORAL DECADENCE, DEATH, PHILOSOPHY AND STUFF. 

GOOD! ... i CAN USE SOME NEW MATERIAL.

[handwritten]
DI
Dec. 6, 1967

[insert]
Io

Q --
person le
affairs a
Dean of
somewhat
cruiter's
represent
available
formation
tunities
service
pus and
the 11,500
concerne
the Univ
informati
where th

A -- S
students
assistant
He can
classificat
with it, a
forward n
   Rauker
qualified
programs
For this
dent to 
son Coun

Q -- W
for the

A -- A
or of par
tween 15
serve lo
The char
mit is $1
versity h
although
indoor pa
ture date
   On a
Sales and

[part of cartoon]
BEET

Saving...

[handwritten] DI 12/6/67 Demonstrators should support McCarthy What was accomplished by Tuesday's demonstration? Some more provocation; some more brutality. Some more arrests; some more martyrs. Some more inflated egos; some more bruised bodies. But Dow remained on campus - as it had a right to - and the practical effect of the protest was nil. The time has come to ask some basic questions about the motivation of the demonstrators: Just what is it they seek to accomplish? Why do they resort to such melodramatic tactics? Why don't they attempt to channel their frustration into more responsible, effective channels? I speak, of course, only for myself. And I emphasize that I am not a haw. In Iowa City's hothouse atmosphere it's difficult to try to remain moderate or objective because the climate of opinion here has become so polarized. According to some of the more aggressive and articulate demonstrators, if you're not a full-feathered dove, you automatically must be a war-monger. This raises the question of the demonstrators' motives. Are they really trying to influence opinion, to change attitudes, to promote the pacifist cause? If so, it's my opinion that they're having the opposite effect. Attitudes are becoming more rigid, and the man on the street now is inclined to brush off a demonstration as nothing more than a bunch of kids trying to publicize themselves. There was, to be sure, and effort to conduct a responsible debate on the issues last Monday night. It was the symposium on the military-industrial complex. But its organizers expressed smug surprise when no devil's advocate showed up, and so they all sat around pretty much agreeing with one another that the military-industrial complex is wicked. These same persons would be quick to criticize Dean Rusk for issuing self-fulfilling prophesies. But only the most naive freshman could have expected to have heard a genuine, pro-and-con debate at the symposium. The cards simply were too well stacked, and this is typical of the effect of the polarization of opinion on this campus. Intelligent discussion has become inhibited, thanks mainly to the demonstrators who are so totally convinced of the righteousness of their opinions. One of the more flagrant examples of this was the case of David Grant, the student who went skulking around campus gussied up in sack cloth and a scythe. He finally was arrested and now must feel well-persecuted. The fact is, an individual who would so attire himself surely must be motivated less by a concern for altering attitudes, than by a personal desire for publicity. To dress in some outrageous fashion, to go on hunger strikes, to hold slumber parties in pup tents, to play cops and demonstrators - these tactics should be labeled for what they are : adolescent shenanigans by individuals seeking personal publicity. Only by a wild jump of the imagination can a sensible person agree that Dow is intimately involved in the war. Of course Dow makes napalm. But why not picket the corner service station since petroleum firms manufacture gasoline which goes in to napalm? Why not burn all one's cotton clothing since cotton is used to make Army uniforms? Why not have a giant bonfire to burn any publication that disagrees with one's opinion? Why not go goose-stepping around the campus and have a pogrom against the hawks? Why not send off for a mail-order rifle? I don't question the motivation of the protesters. They are fed up with the war and frustrated by the seeming lack of outlets for dissent. The Johnson administration has been notably insensitive and downright stupid in regard to demonstrations. Freedom of speech and assembly have taken some hard knocks in the last several months. But there is an alternative to such tactics as storming the Union. There is another way of expressing one's opposition than by parading around in a ridiculous costume. Specifically, the recent emergence of Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota has given all of us who dislike the war a responsible channel of dissent. The Chicago conference last weekend indicated considerable grass roots support for a Democrat who would oppose Johnson on the Vietnam issue. This alternative is in the finest tradition of American political dissent. It has worked before. and it can work now. McCarthy may not be nominated, it's true. But if the size of his support were significant, it would measurably influence Johnson and the Democratic convention. I suggest that those demonstrators who are less concerned about getting their pictures in the paper and on television and more interested in doing something effective, rally behind McCarthy. He has started late and with little professional support. He will need doorbell-ringers envelope stuffers and fund-raisers. In other words, it seems to me that more would be accomplished by supporting a responsible alternative to the Johnson policy than by scampering around campus all day tilting with windmills - Gordon Young [cartoon] B.C. by Johnny Hart HEY THOR . . . WANNA HEAR SOME GREAT ONE-LINERS? NO I'D RATHER TALK ABOUT MORAL DECADENCE, DEATH, PHILOSOPHY AND STUFF. GOOD! ... i CAN USE SOME NEW MATERIAL. [handwritten] DI Dec. 6, 1967 [insert] Io Q -- person le affairs a Dean of somewhat cruiter's represent available formation tunities service pus and the 11,500 concerne the Univ informati where th A -- S students assistant He can classificat with it, a forward n Rauker qualified programs For this dent to son Coun Q -- W for the A -- A or of par tween 15 serve lo The char mit is $1 versity h although indoor pa ture date On a Sales and [part of cartoon] BEET