University of Virginia Library

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.