University of Virginia Library

Columbia Academic Freedom Tradition
Led To Recent SDS Protest Over Gym

Copyright, Steven Leichter, 1968

This is the third article in a series
n the recent disturbances at Columbia
University.

Just under three weeks ago,
Mark Rudd, the head of SDS at
Columbia led a march of his
followers from the Sundial, the
Hyde Park of the Morningside
campus. The protesters went east
on 116th Street and turned down
Morningside Avenue toward the
construction site for the new
Columbia gym. They knocked
down a fence surrounding that
site, retraced their steps, and having
been sufficiently stimulated
emotionally, marched into the main
undergraduate classroom building,
Hamilton Hall, and sat down. By
dusk, seven hours later, the Dean
of the College had been imprisoned
in his Hamilton Hall office by the
demonstrators, Low Library, the
University administration building
had been occupied, and the office
of Grayson Kirk, the President
of Columbia, had been invaded
and ransacked. The national news
media began coverage of the situation
that evening, and SDS had
succeeded in creating a major disturbance
on the Columbia campus.

While it may have been ironic
that this happened at Columbia,
if the outbreak was really as well
planned as some have indicated,
it was also logical. More than
any other factor, the long-standing,
deep-rooted tradition of academic
freedom made Columbia
an excellent choice for such an
incident. Since the University's
tolerance for activism was extensive,
excesses were not likely to
be viewed as extreme aberrations
of conduct, because the accepted
range of "normal" was inclusive.
Furthermore, there was far more
debate on what form of punishment
should be applied to the
protesters without infringing their
academic freedom. The indecision
about the extent of the crimes
committed, and the consequent
doubt concerning the appropriate
punishment served to protect the
demonstrators and forestall action
against them.

Negro Militants

It was reported in the news
media that the presence of Negro
militants in one of the occupied
buildings delayed punitive action
against SDS and its supporters.
If this was true, it may not have
been as strong a consideration as
the press described. Because academic
freedom was a basic philosophical
question, it would be more
understandable, in terms of
Columbia, to think that the faculty
and its reaction to punishment
of the protesters was a major consideration
for the administration.
Whatever differences existed
among faculty members about the
new gym, the manner of protest,
or any other issue, one face is
certain: the faculty, almost unanimously
would have reacted
strongly to anything that resembled
an abridgement of academic freedom.
So long as it appeared that
SDS was sincere in its protest
and outrage at the new gym, strong
punitive action may have seemed to
be an administrative attempt to
penalize these students for exercising
their academic rights. As
abstract and unrealistic as this
may have been, it was nonetheless
extremely relevant to the faculty
and, in fact, to many students
as well. The faculty was therefore
guarded and hesitant in its
support of the administration as
the crisis arose.

The faculty was unenthusiastic
in asking for punishment for other
reasons too. For once, SDS had
selected an issue which was fast
becoming a popular, fashionable
cause at Columbia. Significantly,
this was not a problem SDS first
proposed or fostered soon after
its infancy. But when SDS did
adopt an anti-gym stand, it found
many of the faculty, including some
of the most respected teachers,
agreeing with it. About a quarter
of the faculty would have sympathized
with SDS in any case.
This minority, composed mostly
of junior faculty members, is
radical in political belief, and
threatened to resign during the
crisis if the protesters were not
granted a full amnesty. Other
faculty members, while condemning
SDS' actions, withheld support
of the administration as well. Some
undoubtedly felt that the demonstrators'
crimes were less serious
than the "injustices" Columbia
had committed, giving cause for
protest.

A number of senior faculty members
may have seen in the incident
an opportunity to redress some
grievances of their own with the
administration. To these scholars,
the University officials often
seemed isolated and unresponsive.
By refusing wholehearted support
to these officials, the senior faculty
members gained a chance to wield
power, adjudicate the dispute, and
accumulate bargaining leverage of
their own with the Columbia administrators.
Thus, as a whole, the
faculty offered many negatives
which stemmed from grounds of
common consensus, as protecting
academic freedom, but they could
not propose any positive solutions,
because motive and philosophy
differed so widely. There were
many things the administration
could not do in dealing with the
demonstrators, but there were few
alternatives it could follow which
promised to solve the crisis and
not compound it.

Challenge To Kirk

With students and so many
faculty members adopting an egocentric
view of the dispute, the
challenge for Columbia President
Grayson Kirk and Vice-President
David Truman was enormous. Barricaded
inside University buildings
were the protesters whose real
allegiance was probably to protesting
and not to the issues they
were demonstrating about. Meeting
in committees and speaking
out throughout the campus were
faculty members who could only
agree on two points: some form
of punishment should be meted
out to the SDS followers; and
things had to be changed. beyond
that they could not formulate
policy together, except for being
readily critical of administrative
action.

There would be little help from
the non-protesting students either.
This was predictable. Columbia is
composed of a number of fairly
decentralized, independent schools
and departments which forms spa-
rate social entities. Some of these
schools are not located on the
Morningside Heights campus and
are not involved with the life there.
It was doubtful that the students
in these divisions would counter protest.
Nor were many students
attending school on Morningside
Heights apt to feel outraged
enough to oppose SDS. Logically,
the students most committed to
the name of Columbia, and the
students, incidentally, who were
most likely to favor the new gym,
were the male undergraduates. This
is understandable; Columbia is
Alma Mater to them. Most graduates
who attended colleges elsewhere
are emotionally committed
to other schools. The undergraduates
number only 3400 students
out of 15,000 who study at the
Morningside Heights campus.

Student Council

The only established organ
which could have organized counter-protest,
the University Student
Council, was controlled by SDS
members and has always been a
meaningless body to most undergraduates.
If SDS was to face any
significant student reaction, it was
going to be an undergraduate reaction.

In truth, the undergraduates did
react. Lacking the highly structured
discipline SDS maintained,
hundreds of them met in the old
gym early in the crisis. Only the
persuasion of College Dean Coleman
prevented them from taking
aggressive action against the protesters.

Considering the possible violence
which might have resulted
from more active counter-protesting,
it was probably wise for the
administration to silence its strongest
potential supporters. Lacking
these voices, it had to face the
protesters and faculty alone and
without organized support. It is
possible that a more talented administration
may have resolved the
dispute. But even more capable
men would have faced an almost
hopeless situation, and Columbia's
President is not reputed to be
eminently capable.

It would be unfair to say that
Grayson Kirk has been a bad
president. His term of office has
certainly not been malevolent in
nature, and, as I mentioned, the
atmosphere of academic freedom
and inquiry has been maintained.
Kirk also inherited a host of major
problems, some of which required
a genius to solve. However,
he has never been an extraordinarily
good president either. During
my stay at Columbia, he was best
known among the undergraduates
for his love of taking African
safaris. The most relevant condemnation
of his office has been
its lack of responsiveness and communication
with the rest of the
University. This is not totally
Kirk's fault. Many decisions are
made by the Trustees, and their
availability has been non-existent.

Vice-President David B. Truman,
whose resignation the protesters
also called for once police
were called in to disperse them,
is not deserving of the same appraisal
as his superior. Truman
was Dean of the College during
my years at Columbia, and it is
hard to believe that he was unresponsive,
isolated, or bureaucrat-
tic. Instead, the students constantly
saw him at campus social functions,
meetings, and could interview
him at any time in an official
capacity. He is one of the
most eminent government scholars
in America, and many faculty
members and alumni were pleased
by his promotion from College
Dean to Vice-President. The recent
incident has not changed my
opinion of him.