DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970 | 1970-06-03 Report: ""Campus Tensions -- A Report on Iowa and Elsewhere"" Page 2

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970

1970-06-03 Report: ""Campus Tensions -- A Report on Iowa and Elsewhere"" Page 2

- 2 -
INTRODUCTION
During 1968-69, an estimated 145 or 6.2% of the nation's 2,300 colleges and universities experienced incidents of violent protest; an additional estimated 379, or 16.2% experienced non-violent but disruptive protest. There were, according to this count, 524 institutions which experienced disruptive incidents.
Following the President's address on Cambodia and the killing of the Kent State students in April-May, 1970, over 500 institutions ranging in nature from Knox College to the University of Alabama experienced major disruptions. Never before in American history had colleges jointly been so affected by external events not of their own making. Several Iowa campuses, seldom disrupted in the past by more than few in number, were disrupted along with the rest of America.
In early May, 1970, the A.C.E. Special Committee on Campus Tensions Report, issued prior to the traumatic events of May, put the problems in perspective:
The HIGHER EDUCATION community cannot realistically hope to solve all problems that create campus tensions. It cannot alone stop war, eliminate poverty, rebuild cities, or expunge racism. It cannot afford to be indifferent to these problems, however, if only because campus turmoil is not likely to cease unless genuine progress is made toward curing the glaring social ills. The war in Vietnam and the draft system, in concert, contribute heavily to campus unrest. Until the nation ceases to force young men to fight in a war they believe unjust, a major source of campus tensions will remain. For the campus to be a haven for those who wish to avoid military service is an inequity of the draft ststem and a perversion of educational purposes.
Through educating decision-makers, conducting research, diffusing knowledge, and proposing solutions to social problems, our colleges and universities can have a considerable, if not decisive, influence on the decisions that affect the nation's quality of life. In each of these roles, colleges and universities serve society best by giving prime allegiance to truth. Truth-seeking, in turn, requires conclusions openly arrived at and receptivity to new ideas. First and foremost, then, our colleges and universities must be centers of free inquiry.
Efforts to politicize colleges and universities risk public reprisals with consequent restrictions on free inquiry. Legislative moves in this direction, at both state and federal levels, are already deeply disturbing. Likewise, demands made on the campus through intimidation or violence are inimical to the spirit of free inquiry. The search for truth is the first casualty.
Political exploitation of campus problems by some public figures has become one of the sources of polarization on the campus. Public officials and others having the public's attention should gauge their response to campus disruption by recognizing that repressive and provocative pronouncements by those in authority may have the same inflammatory effect that extremist rhetoric has on the campus.

Saving...

- 2 - INTRODUCTION During 1968-69, an estimated 145 or 6.2% of the nation's 2,300 colleges and universities experienced incidents of violent protest; an additional estimated 379, or 16.2% experienced non-violent but disruptive protest. There were, according to this count, 524 institutions which experienced disruptive incidents. Following the President's address on Cambodia and the killing of the Kent State students in April-May, 1970, over 500 institutions ranging in nature from Knox College to the University of Alabama experienced major disruptions. Never before in American history had colleges jointly been so affected by external events not of their own making. Several Iowa campuses, seldom disrupted in the past by more than few in number, were disrupted along with the rest of America. In early May, 1970, the A.C.E. Special Committee on Campus Tensions Report, issued prior to the traumatic events of May, put the problems in perspective: The HIGHER EDUCATION community cannot realistically hope to solve all problems that create campus tensions. It cannot alone stop war, eliminate poverty, rebuild cities, or expunge racism. It cannot afford to be indifferent to these problems, however, if only because campus turmoil is not likely to cease unless genuine progress is made toward curing the glaring social ills. The war in Vietnam and the draft system, in concert, contribute heavily to campus unrest. Until the nation ceases to force young men to fight in a war they believe unjust, a major source of campus tensions will remain. For the campus to be a haven for those who wish to avoid military service is an inequity of the draft ststem and a perversion of educational purposes. Through educating decision-makers, conducting research, diffusing knowledge, and proposing solutions to social problems, our colleges and universities can have a considerable, if not decisive, influence on the decisions that affect the nation's quality of life. In each of these roles, colleges and universities serve society best by giving prime allegiance to truth. Truth-seeking, in turn, requires conclusions openly arrived at and receptivity to new ideas. First and foremost, then, our colleges and universities must be centers of free inquiry. Efforts to politicize colleges and universities risk public reprisals with consequent restrictions on free inquiry. Legislative moves in this direction, at both state and federal levels, are already deeply disturbing. Likewise, demands made on the campus through intimidation or violence are inimical to the spirit of free inquiry. The search for truth is the first casualty. Political exploitation of campus problems by some public figures has become one of the sources of polarization on the campus. Public officials and others having the public's attention should gauge their response to campus disruption by recognizing that repressive and provocative pronouncements by those in authority may have the same inflammatory effect that extremist rhetoric has on the campus.