DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Campus "Unrest" demonstrations and consequences, 1970-1971 | Newsletter: MEASURE, Documentary Supplements No. 3 Page 2

Transcribe
Translate

Campus "Unrest" demonstrations and consequences, 1970-1971

Newsletter: MEASURE, Documentary Supplements No. 3 Page 2

TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR SIDNEY HOOK OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY 
PRESIDENT OF UNIVERSITY CENTERS FOR RATIONAL ALTERNATIVES
BEFORE THE 
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION INQUIRING INTO THE CASES OF CAMPUS UNREST 
23 JULY 1970, CIVIL SERVICE AUDITORIUM, WASHINGTON D.C.

University Centers for Rational Alternatives is a grass-roots organization of scholars and teachers of different educational and political viewpoints. It is united by its dedication to three basic propositions. The first is that the entire academic community should freely and continuously participate in resolving all issues of educational policy. The second is that there is no place for violence or the threat of violence in this process of evaluation and decision. The third id that the academic community must gird itself against all threats to the academic freedom of scholars and teachers, from without and within,. 
American colleges and universities today face the gravest crisis in their history. Some university presidents to the contrary notwithstanding, it is not a crisis caused by lack of money. It is a crisis caused by the lack of a coherent educational philosophy and by a betrayal of the primary commitment of the university to the quest for truth and integrity in inquiry, in learning, and teaching. All the money in the world cannot remedy the failures of nerve and intelligence that follow from the loss of central purpose. Nor is the crisis one of student unrest - if unrest is related to the pursuit of an education, to interest in ideas and beliefs. Intellectual unrest is not a problem but a virtue, and no university can have too much of it if the university is engaged in genuine educational tasks. The problem and threat is not academic unrest but academic disruption and violence, which flow from substituting the political goals of action for the academic goals of learning. 
Some academic administrators are currently seeking to muddy the waters by pretending that the public is getting fed up with controversy, and that the chief threat to academic freedom today comes from without and not from within,. This i noisome hogwash - intended to draw attention away from what is actually happening on our campuses. The public's objection, of course, is not to controversy, for intellectual controversy is the life of mind. The public's objection is to how controversy is carried on - to the use of bombs, arson, vandalism, physical assault, and other expressions of violent and destructive impulses and desires. 
Most of the problems that plague the American university today and threaten its future as a genuine educational institution can be traced to one fundamental, poisoned premise. This is the view that unless "the major social and foreign policy problems of our society" are solved satisfactorily, campus disruption and violence will continue. Leading university administrators have endorsed this proposition. One of them has even proclaimed that academic violence in part "derives from the distance separating the American dream from the American reality" This view and the actions that flow from it lead first to the political alienation of the campus from the general community and, if unchecked, will result in "academic genocide", the destruction of academic freedom. 
What is wrong with this view? Many things. First, there will always be a disparity between the American dream and reality, especially when, as we raise our sights higher, we redefine the meaning and content of that dream. Second, in an open society of uncoerced opinion, there will always be social and foreign policy problems. In either case, if we accept the above view, we are confronted with a prospect of unending academic violence. 
Third, this view perverts the university's function, which in part, is to study social and political problems and to analyze alternative purported solutions to them. This view transforms an agenda of study into an agenda of action, and therewith converts the university into a political organization, agitating for the adoption of partisan political measures. It jeopardizes the university's tax exempt status and invites political reprisals from a public that does not share its political commitments. 
Fourth, and most important, it violates the fundamental principles of political democracy, by threatening resort to force and violence unless the community adopts he solutions to social and foreign-policy problems advocated not by the majority of the electorate, but rather by an elite minority. 
To whose satisfaction must the "major social and foreign policy problems of our society" be solved before we have surcease of campus violence and turmoil? Even if there were complete unanimity among students and faculty on how such problems are to be solved - which is far from being the case - what right would they have to demand that the solutions they advocate be adopted by the community? Such decisions are for the representative legislative bodies of a democracy to make ! The political process is open to students and faculty on the same footing as to all other qualified citizens. For a fanatical minority of students and faculty to use, or to threaten, or merely to condone violence when they have failed to persuade or convince the electorate, shows profound contempt for democratic due process. 
Suppose the trade unionists or the farmers of the nation, who are also minorities but much more numerous than students, were to threaten violence unless "the major social and foreign policy problems of our society" were met to their satisfaction? Everybody would recognize such threats as subversive of the democratic process, and as harbingers of fascist

Saving...

TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR SIDNEY HOOK OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT OF UNIVERSITY CENTERS FOR RATIONAL ALTERNATIVES BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION INQUIRING INTO THE CASES OF CAMPUS UNREST 23 JULY 1970, CIVIL SERVICE AUDITORIUM, WASHINGTON D.C. University Centers for Rational Alternatives is a grass-roots organization of scholars and teachers of different educational and political viewpoints. It is united by its dedication to three basic propositions. The first is that the entire academic community should freely and continuously participate in resolving all issues of educational policy. The second is that there is no place for violence or the threat of violence in this process of evaluation and decision. The third id that the academic community must gird itself against all threats to the academic freedom of scholars and teachers, from without and within,. American colleges and universities today face the gravest crisis in their history. Some university presidents to the contrary notwithstanding, it is not a crisis caused by lack of money. It is a crisis caused by the lack of a coherent educational philosophy and by a betrayal of the primary commitment of the university to the quest for truth and integrity in inquiry, in learning, and teaching. All the money in the world cannot remedy the failures of nerve and intelligence that follow from the loss of central purpose. Nor is the crisis one of student unrest - if unrest is related to the pursuit of an education, to interest in ideas and beliefs. Intellectual unrest is not a problem but a virtue, and no university can have too much of it if the university is engaged in genuine educational tasks. The problem and threat is not academic unrest but academic disruption and violence, which flow from substituting the political goals of action for the academic goals of learning. Some academic administrators are currently seeking to muddy the waters by pretending that the public is getting fed up with controversy, and that the chief threat to academic freedom today comes from without and not from within,. This i noisome hogwash - intended to draw attention away from what is actually happening on our campuses. The public's objection, of course, is not to controversy, for intellectual controversy is the life of mind. The public's objection is to how controversy is carried on - to the use of bombs, arson, vandalism, physical assault, and other expressions of violent and destructive impulses and desires. Most of the problems that plague the American university today and threaten its future as a genuine educational institution can be traced to one fundamental, poisoned premise. This is the view that unless "the major social and foreign policy problems of our society" are solved satisfactorily, campus disruption and violence will continue. Leading university administrators have endorsed this proposition. One of them has even proclaimed that academic violence in part "derives from the distance separating the American dream from the American reality" This view and the actions that flow from it lead first to the political alienation of the campus from the general community and, if unchecked, will result in "academic genocide", the destruction of academic freedom. What is wrong with this view? Many things. First, there will always be a disparity between the American dream and reality, especially when, as we raise our sights higher, we redefine the meaning and content of that dream. Second, in an open society of uncoerced opinion, there will always be social and foreign policy problems. In either case, if we accept the above view, we are confronted with a prospect of unending academic violence. Third, this view perverts the university's function, which in part, is to study social and political problems and to analyze alternative purported solutions to them. This view transforms an agenda of study into an agenda of action, and therewith converts the university into a political organization, agitating for the adoption of partisan political measures. It jeopardizes the university's tax exempt status and invites political reprisals from a public that does not share its political commitments. Fourth, and most important, it violates the fundamental principles of political democracy, by threatening resort to force and violence unless the community adopts he solutions to social and foreign-policy problems advocated not by the majority of the electorate, but rather by an elite minority. To whose satisfaction must the "major social and foreign policy problems of our society" be solved before we have surcease of campus violence and turmoil? Even if there were complete unanimity among students and faculty on how such problems are to be solved - which is far from being the case - what right would they have to demand that the solutions they advocate be adopted by the community? Such decisions are for the representative legislative bodies of a democracy to make ! The political process is open to students and faculty on the same footing as to all other qualified citizens. For a fanatical minority of students and faculty to use, or to threaten, or merely to condone violence when they have failed to persuade or convince the electorate, shows profound contempt for democratic due process. Suppose the trade unionists or the farmers of the nation, who are also minorities but much more numerous than students, were to threaten violence unless "the major social and foreign policy problems of our society" were met to their satisfaction? Everybody would recognize such threats as subversive of the democratic process, and as harbingers of fascist