![]() | The Cavalier daily Tuesday, May 14, 1968 | ![]() |
Columbia Alumnus Views Violence,
Causes Of Recent Student Protest
'Political Panty Raid'
By Steven Leither
The following is the first in a series
on the recent disturbances at Columbia
University. Mr. Leither graduated
from Columbia in 1966. He is currently
a second-year student in the
University's School of Medicine. He
has kept in close contact with Columbia
during the last week.-Ed.
Copyright, Steven Leither, 1968
The panty raid is an old tradition
at Columbia College. It usually
occurs on a warm, comfortable
night in the late spring, when
tensions are beginning to rise before
final exams. The chant of "On
To Barnard" begin to issue from
the dorms and fraternity houses
on West 114th Street; the crowds
of students form on the campus;
and, when the time is ripe, these
eager youths charge en masse
across Broadway to the appreciative
ladies in the Barnard dorms.
Supposedly, the fun of it all does
not lie in capturing one of the
silk or nylon prizes the girls toss
out of their windows. The real
excitement is found in carrying
out the raid itself.
To a surprising degree, the mood
of the recent disturbance at
Columbia resembled those nights
of youthful frolic: it was, in a
sense, a political panty raid. One
must be impressed by the comparative
triviality of the problems and
the extraordinary emotionalism
and violence of the response to
them. It is widely accepted that
this response was extreme and unnecessary,
but this conclusion,
while morally satisfying, is not
very helpful. Like the panty
raiders, the act of demonstrating
was all important to the protesters,
and the realization of their goals
may have been secondary.
In some respects it was ironic
that such an incident occurred
at Columbia. This University imposes
virtually no restriction on
conventional student activism as
Berkeley did, for example, before
its well-publicized troubles a
few years ago. Nor does the University
administration react with
the same irrational fear to student
assembly and protest as the
University of Wisconsin President
did last fall. Instead, Columbia
enjoys a well-deserved reputation
as a liberal, progressive institution.
Academic freedom and
respect for students' rights under
the aegis of that banner are proud
and zealously guarded traditions.
At least some top administrators
accept this intellectual respect as
a matter of school policy. I once
heard the present Dean of Columbia
College, Henry Coleman, defend
the admission of a student
who had participated in political
protest by saying that the fellow
was stimulating and well-rounded
because of his experiences.
Liberal Attitude
The students regard this
liberalism and tolerance with the
same sincerity that the rest of the
Columbia community feels. They
also utilize the freedom as part
of their educational experience.
While "protest" may be associated
with the image of unkempt radicals
and civil disturbances elsewhere,
at Columbia it has a more
general meaning: it is any
organized statement. To be sure,
one does see the stereotyped form
of protest on the campus. But one
may also watch non-fraternity men
protesting the existence of
followed by the fraternities
protest of the existence of the
non-fraternity men. For the student
who has been uninspired by
the various burning available,
"Jester," the school
magazine stages an "All Cause
Protest" annually. One prize souvenir
I collected from this affair
was a "Down With Up"
poster. However serious or silly
the demonstration, infringement of
the right to demonstrate by anyone
has always been viewed most
critically by the members of the
University. This would be a consideration
of paramount importance
during the recent disturbance.
The Protesters
Among the small minority of
students who view the act of protesting
as a serious and constant
occupation, a radical activist organization
was formed in 1962.
This was the Columbia chapter
of the Students For a Democratic
Society or SDS. In reality, the
formation of this group merely
gave University recognition to a
clique of students who had been
organizing demonstrations on the
campus for years. Although few at
Columbia agreed with the programs
of SDS, opposing its charter
by the University, given the tradition
of academic freedom, would
have been unthinkable. Even today,
most of Columbia's students
would probably support the grant
of recognition to such a group.
Empty Protest
The members of SDS quickly
began to agitate for one
or another but ten their efforts
met with only moderate success
at best. Their first cause celebe
was the lack of of
Columbia's dining
They this was an example
of University oppression and
of and
people. When Columbia gave the
dining all employees the choice
of or keeping an open
the union was rejected by
a four to margin, SDS next
turned its attention to Columbia's
abusive treatment of tenants who
lived in buildings Columbia owned.
This was a worthy cause. Columbia
had callously its tenants
whenever it to tear one
of its apartment buildings down to
make way for a new University
structure. However, Columbia had
simultaneously been reorganizing
its relocation offices which improved
its relationship with its
tenants and its image in the neighboring
community. Then, too, the
University had announced plans
to build a new gymnasium in
Morningside Park which would
provide a swimming pool and other
athletic facilities for the neighborhood
youth. Criticism of the
University by neighborhood politicians
turned to praise, and SDS
looked for another cause. This
time it was Queen Frederika, the
aged monarch of Greece. The
Queen was coming to Columbia
to accept an honorary degree.
SDS opposed this gesture, because,
it said, the Queen was a
"fascist" who had failed to abdicate
her throne during the Nazi
occupation of World War II. In
demonstrating their displeasure,
however, some of SDS' members
tossed eggs at the Queen, and in
doing so lost whatever support
their rather protest had gained.
It seemed that the issue
was almost of desperation,
and attempts of the SDS
at reforming again. The
focused on the small
NROTC unit at Columbia, ardently
the teaching of
to Columbia's students. But SDS
once more scuttled its own efforts
when its members threw
the NROTC men and tried to
cordon off Low Library, (which
they would forcibly three
years later). It was beginning to
seem that every attempts SDS
made at protest only around more
opposition to the group.
SDS Extremism
Some of the SDS
were well-founded. was -
ing by the
of the NROTC in early
that the Students. a
Society was very
-
were made by a
were never
to and file
SDS was a group
in was also an extra -
tion, which did not seem to
employing more methods
when
failed. Not was
facts or
some of its members when
the debate began to tem against
them.
At least part of these excesses
had to be ascribed to the
personality of the student who joined
SDS, rather than to SDS policy.
To be sure, some of SDS' members
were rational, intelligent students,
who had formulated their radical
philosophy in quite a respectable
manner. Their views therefore
commanded the utmost respect,
if not agreement. Other students
could appreciate the lack of repressive
administration action,
when talking to these classmates
and enjoying the interchange. Unfortunately,
not all the students
in SDS were as composed and logical.
One could not escape the feeling
that some had projected their
psychological inadequacies onto
the individual cause they were
favoring at the time. They identified
so closely with each issue it
became a personal crusade. Another
student, who did not agree
with the point of view the SDS
member proposed, thus became
an "enemy" who was not only
attacking the cause he was attacking
the SDS member.
Repressed Violence
This may explain why the less
lawful or rational modes of demonstration
were used to redress
when other, more acceptable
methods failed. But most
importantly, the constant procession
of causes, and the phenomenal
solidarity that SDS members
displayed for every cause,
which was supposed to
be and allow individual
choice, suggested confusion
the specific "" was
the act of protest
was to these
students. They did not care
much the of con-
as they enjoyed the
them. And, in fact, of the
SDS members were to -
of re-
. One member
me so he
in he
in a . -
-
the
system of
and government. Any they
was and
and any
was just -
to -
.
Thus for some in SDS, the -
activity they
in was . Although these
to find the
issue which would lead to a major
disorder, they had failed at every
turn. Yet, the cause they were
looking for lay before them
through the existence of SDS.
![]() | The Cavalier daily Tuesday, May 14, 1968 | ![]() |