Episode 145: Student Protests

[00:00:00] Ben Wright: This is 15 Minute History, a podcast for educators, students, and anyone interested in history, featuring the minds and voices of the University of Texas at Austin.

Over the course of the academic year, student protests have roiled college campuses like at no other time in recent memory. Going further back though, historians see plenty of parallels, as well as some key differences, with the student protest movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s, and again in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

In those decades, issues like Vietnam, civil rights, and divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime spurred students onto the streets, and indeed onto the college quad, to demand justice, peace, and solidarity. Student protests in the late 90s and early 2000s, by contrast, just wasn’t what it used to be.

But it sure is now. Kinda. I’m joined today by Jeremy Suri, a professor at UT Austin Department of History and LBJ School of Public Affairs. Professor Suri is the author and editor of 11 books on politics and foreign policy. Most recently, Civil War by Other Means, America’s Long and Unfinished Fight for Democracy.

And also power and protest, global revolution and the rise of the taunt. Professor Suri welcome to 15 minute history

[00:01:32] Jeremi Suri: great to be with you Ben

[00:01:33] Ben Wright: as a scholar of the 1960s and 70s among many other areas I’m curious what resonates with you today as we look at what’s going on on campuses across America.

[00:01:46] Jeremi Suri: Well, I think there are two parallels that I see, uh, to the 1960s, or maybe they’re just echoes from the 1960s. Uh, first is a sense of alienation among young people. We have a very talented, large cohort of students in our universities, and they’re anxious about the future. They’re eager to see a better world, and they feel that they are, uh, stuck, that they don’t have influence, that they’re not represented.

They feel alienated. And I think that sense of alienation, which young people always have a bit of, it’s crossed a certain threshold, as it did in the 1960s. In the 1960s, it was because of civil rights and, uh, the Vietnam War. Today I think it has to do with, uh, not just U. S. policy in the Middle East, although that matters, but the ways in which our electoral system seems to be, uh, selecting people for office who are so fundamentally at odds with the demographics, perspective, and interests of young people.

So that sense of alienation has grown incredibly sharp as it did in the late 60s, and you’re seeing a similar discourse of alienation. And then I think a second parallel that’s very important is that the leadership of our has become very alienated itself from the students, which is to say that university leaders have very few connections to what’s happening on campus.

There’s a wide gap, not just between our political leadership, but between our university leadership and what’s happening on campus. This was the classic criticism made of the University of California Berkeley system, uh, by students in and in later years, that those running the university We’re not in touch, uh, with the interests of those who were in the university.

And that’s, I think, what we see today. I’ve written a bit about this recently. I think there’s an administrative logic and a logic of, uh, seeking donations that leads university leaders, who are good people, to spend all of their time, quite frankly, off campus. All of their time not talking to students, not talking to faculty, and that sense of being out of touch combined with the alienation that students have, that to me is a classic replay of what we saw on our campuses in the late 60s.

[00:04:01] Ben Wright: Well, Jeremy, if those are the similarities, what what strikes you as different? History repeats. Well, what’s the phrase? History rhymes rather than repeats.

[00:04:11] Jeremi Suri: Well, or as Mark said, right? History repeats. The first time is tragedy. The second time is farce. Uh, and, and, and there is perhaps some of that. There are some very big differences.

And one of the reasons we study history is to see these echoes, but to see how they play out differently in different times. So the patterns mean different things in different moments. Three big differences. First of all, the students who are protesting today, they are not facing the possibility of a draft and being sent to Vietnam.

That made things very different. in the late 1960s. And by the same token, the police officers who are being brought onto campus, they are not the brothers, uh, and sisters of veterans from the war. What you had in the 60s, where you had police coming onto campus, resenting the students who were not fighting in Vietnam, while the police siblings were fighting in Vietnam.

That divide is not there, thankfully today. Uh, another big difference is Uh, right now, uh, we are coming out of COVID, and COVID has had a big effect on all of us. Our social skills are different. The ways we interact with one another are very different. I see that in all of my students. It’s quite extraordinary.

There’s not a student I have who was not affected by COVID one way or another. And that hangs over things. In a way, it didn’t in the 1960s. We were coming out of a period, we might say, of great health and prosperity in the United States in the 1960s. And then a third difference is, and maybe the most important one, our college campuses are much more diverse.

Campuses were largely white still in the late 1960s. It’s not true today if you look at our campuses. We could do more for diversity, but we were a much more diverse set of university campuses. and, uh, virtually every campus. with very few exceptions, is integrated male and female, many with more women than men.

I remind people that the campuses, uh, many of them, Harvard, Yale, and others in the late 60s, were still male only. So, uh, so there’s a big difference in the nature of who the students are. And that of course plays out in the debates today, because many of these students who are protesting are non white students.

And I think that affects the ways people see them off campus.

[00:06:19] Ben Wright: I guess one, one thing I’d like to. Explore a little here. When we think about the 1960s, these campus conflagrations are happening within the context of civil rights, within the context of the sexual revolution, and today these protests are happening in the context of Black Lives Matters, Confederate statues coming down a few years ago.

Uh, the social media revolution. Is that a fair analogy?

[00:06:46] Jeremi Suri: Well, I think there are serious debates about civil rights today as there were in the sixties, uh, and black lives matter, uh, was the largest set of public peaceful demonstrations, uh, in American history. with a majority white participation. So there is a serious movement there, but I think it’s less coherent than what we had with the civil rights movement.

It doesn’t have the same kind of obvious leadership and the backlash, such as there is one, and there’s certainly one in Texas and elsewhere, that backlash is also less coherent. So what I would say is the issues were more obvious and clearly polarized on civil rights in the late 60s. They’re more diffuse.

more complex today. They’re not issues of integration on campus. They’re issues related to diversity training, sensitivity, affirmative action. So these are more complex issues. They play a role, but I think, um, they’re not as mobilizing on both sides as they were in the late sixties.

[00:07:49] Ben Wright: And then I guess one, one.

One other parallel, maybe television was relatively new and photojournalism was, was a, such a big factor in how campus protests were covered in the sixties. Uh, social media has obviously changed the game for coverage today. Do you see a parallel there? The things we can learn about. How television changed the game that that may apply to how we think about how social media factors into these protests.

[00:08:15] Jeremi Suri: Fantastic question. Yes. One of the things we’ve learned as scholars is that the media depictions of the protests and for that matter, the media depiction of the reactions to the protests were terribly distorted. And even some members of the protest movements, most famously Todd Gitlin, who was a leader of Students for Democratic Society, have in retrospect said that Too often we were posing for the cameras and what you saw on the camera was not actually what was happening.

Uh, and I think that’s the case today. I think what social media has done is it’s privatized our views. We’re able to, all of us become cameramen and camerawomen and we send out our image of our little place in the movement or in the protest or in the audience. And that becomes a generalized vision to our audience.

And so we get little snippets that are overgeneralized and polemicized very easily. And that also contributes to reinforcing what we already believe, and that was true in the late 60s too, from what we can tell as scholars. Most people who were critical of protesters became more critical when they watched, uh, CBS News coverage.

And those who sympathized with protesters were more sympathetic when they watched the coverage. And I think we’re seeing that today in social media even more. Uh, those who are sympathetic to the protesters are on social media networks. where they’re getting all kinds of information that further juices them up.

And those who believe that protesters are rude and threatening, um, they get more evidence of that. So the media, I think in both cases, but especially now in a concentrated, rapid way, it reinforces our preexisting biases.

[00:09:49] Ben Wright: That’s fascinating because in the sixties. People were having different experiences to essentially the same social flow of information and today that social flow is privatized.

So people are actually getting different sets of information or curating, curating a portfolio of information from which they’re basing their thoughts on.

[00:10:06] Jeremi Suri: Yeah, I think that’s right. And I think it reinforces that phenomenon we already saw. It makes it harder to break out of that. There were moments in the late 60s and early 70s when a particular event did seem to shock people.

Out of their pre existing biases, Kent State being the most obvious example of this, the May 4th shooting by National Guard soldiers. of four students and the injury of others. There were many people who sympathized with law enforcement who were, uh, repulsed and changed their views, at least temporarily, by what they saw happen at Kent State.

And that was a nationally curated moment. Many of us right now in our minds picture the famous images, uh, from that moment, many of which are actually at the, uh, Briscoe Center in the University of Texas. So there were moments because of a nationally curated media when you could break out of this partisanship.

That’s very hard today because we’re seeing, as you said, Ben, images that are curated with a pre existing privatized bias.

[00:11:05] Ben Wright: You mentioned Kent State. I’ve seen a lot of news articles. I’ve seen a lot of social media comments talking about Kent State and people referencing the 60s. I mention this because it seems interesting that there is a strong historical memory.

of the 1960s that’s operative in these conversations. Why are these things being remembered so well?

[00:11:26] Jeremi Suri: Well, there are a number of reasons why 1968 is iconic, and it’s something I’ve written about, of course. It’s iconic in many countries, right? You go to France and you say, Soixante Huite, people know what you’re referring to, or Achtung, Zeg, Zig in Germany.

Um, and I think it’s in part, number one, because of cultural factors, and the biggest one being music. There’s so much of the music that we now consider classic rock. Of course, those who were the performers never saw themselves as classic rock. But that is, that immortalizes, it freezes these moments in our memory in a certain way.

We were just talking about Kent State, so Neil Young’s Ohio is the most obvious example of this. So the music and the culture have frozen this moment in the way that the music and the culture did not freeze the anti apartheid moment, which of the 1980s, which might actually be more relevant for how we think of today.

That’s not frozen in our memories in the same way. Instead, from the 80s, we have the music of sting and nuclear conflict, not the music of anti apartheid. So there’s a cultural reason that we go back to the 60s. Then, of course, there’s a demographic reason, Ben. Many of the older individuals in our society who are the most likely voters.

are children of the 60s. We’re in a post Baby Boomer age. There still are a lot of Baby Boomers, uh, but it’s really, uh, a part of the Baby Boomer generation, the latter part, uh, that is, um, such an important part of our consumer culture, such an important part of our voting public. So I think that’s, that’s a reason.

And then the third is that the veterans of the 60s have spent a lot of time writing and reflecting on it. The veterans of Black Lives Matter, have not really had time to write and reflect. It’s there, but it’s not as obvious. So, so the memory is, is very strong from, from the 60s and, uh, that just carries on.

And that’s not just an American phenomenon. Uh, in Germany, uh, until recently, many, many teachers who I met, many professors were children of the 60s. Same in France. So there’s a way in this, in which this is built into our educational system also, just demographically, the way our societies have evolved.

[00:13:34] Ben Wright: I’m curious that there doesn’t seem to be a sort of, a similar sort of artistic outpouring, at least, at least it’s as obvious as rock music going on today with the protests.

[00:13:46] Jeremi Suri: Not yet. I mean, we’ll see what happens. It’s too early. It’s too, you, you probably wouldn’t have said that. In 1964, because the Beatles were not the story of the protest movement, right?

Uh, so it’s, it’s, it’s early. We might have a Neil Young and a Crosby, Stills and Nash and a Jefferson airplane out there. I don’t know.

[00:14:04] Ben Wright: So we’ll give the kids a chance to get writing. And I’d love to talk. You mentioned, uh, the apartheid protests in the late 80s, early 90s. You said that might even be a better um, historical analogy for us.

Could you, could you talk us through that a little bit?

[00:14:18] Jeremi Suri: Sure. And, and I’ve studied the anti apartheid movement and also was in college myself. So I remember it a little bit. It was very different from the sixties because it wasn’t actually about a war and it wasn’t about Americans going and serving somewhere else.

It was more about a morally abhorrent regime. And I think we can all agree. I think it’s a historical fact that the Afrikaner regime, the white supremacist regime in South Africa, was a morally abhorrent regime. Um, and it was a criticism young people were making about their own government, the Reagan administration, and then the George H.

W. Bush administration, not only maintaining ties with this horrible regime. government, but in some ways increasing our ties and supporting them. For the Reagan administration in particular, in the mid 1980s, South Africa was a key Cold War ally. The Reagan administration was very concerned about increasing Soviet and Cuban influence in Africa.

The South African regime, the white supremacist regime, was firmly anti communist. It was also a source of important minerals. For, uh, the global economy, and even for nuclear weapons, in fact, they were a source of uranium. And so, for the Reagan administration, there was a desire to work more closely with this regime.

Uh, and many students, uh, myself included, when I was in college, uh, we found this, uh, horrible. And as the world condemned South Africa, by the late 1980s, almost every country except the United States was condemning and joining sanctions against South Africa. The United States government was resisting that, and so this was pressure from students on campuses.

It was mostly peaceful protest, but it included encampments in many campuses, um, demanding that universities that have a lot of money invested in the world divest. from South Africa. And the parallels to today are quite obvious. Uh, for, uh, many people, the Israeli government is doing things that they find morally abhorrent.

Now, I think that’s a selective moral judgment, but nonetheless, I’m just observing it. I’m not just necessarily justifying it. But there is a sense that the Israeli government is breaking the rules for some people. And there’s concern that the U. S. government and U. S. universities are investing in using their money in ways.

That are supporting that regime, and there’s a desire to make sure that’s not happening. And so that divestment argument and the view of Israel, uh, are two parallels. Again, those are not necessarily parallels in reality, but they’re perceived parallels.

[00:16:49] Ben Wright: Yes, and obviously the language of apartheid is, is commonly used by protesters today.

Another interesting sort of historical memory dynamic there.

[00:17:00] Jeremi Suri: And one other thing that might be said, I don’t think most protesters know this, uh, but the Israeli government has off and on had pretty close relations with South Africa. It is in South Africa that Israel tested its first nuclear weapon. The South African government Has been a government, at least until recently, that was willing to work with Israel in a way that many other regimes were not.

That has changed. Recently, the South African government has been leading the charge in condemning what it sees as genocidal behavior by Israel. But there’s a strange overlap. in the arguments about apartheid and these two countries.

[00:17:34] Ben Wright: You know, I was, uh, you know, you speak about you being in college during the late 80s, early 90s.

I was in college during the Iraq war. Some of us protested and then we sort of got on with our classes and that was the end of it. Um, and I wasn’t on campus in America at the time this was in Britain, but, um, I, it does seem to be a sense that, The level of engagement we’re seeing from students today is of late 80s, late 60s intensity, rather than sort of 90s and 2000s.

[00:18:02] Jeremi Suri: Yes, I think that’s absolutely right. And I think that’s a good thing, if I might say so. I’m very happy to see students engaged and caring. Let’s just make one point that needs to be made, which is that, um, Authoritarians always rely upon disillusionment and cynicism. The authoritarian in any regime wants people not to care and not to believe they can make a difference when people believe they can make a difference.

That’s actually good for democracy. It doesn’t always produce order and the pleasant policies we might want. Um, but student engagement is one of the defining features of the sixties and the late eighties and early nineties, and those were good things. I think we would all argue as historians for democratic development, whether we agree with the policies that people were arguing for, uh, or not.

Uh, I think students are more engaged today than they were during the Iraq war because, um, they believe that their government is non responsive to their needs. I think during the Iraq war, there was a sense that the United States had been attacked. And whether rightfully or wrongfully, this was a war being fought to defend Americans.

And many people disagreed. Many on college campuses disagreed. Probably the majority disagreed with U. S. policy in Iraq. But there wasn’t the sense that it was being done despite American interests. There was a sense that it was being done in a misguided way for American interests, but yet out of concern for American interests.

Whereas today, I think there’s a belief that policy is being made so separate from what are the interests of the country. Um, and second, I think there’s also, uh, a belief among young people that they have a moral claim. Um, they, they feel that their future is at stake. And, uh, whether that’s in terms of climate, whether that’s in terms of economic development, whether that’s in terms of our policies in the Middle East.

Uh, I think coming out of COVID, there is a much more apocalyptic sensibility. And that drives a lot of this energy as well. Whereas during the Iraq war, there might have been opposition, but I don’t think there was that same sense of urgency that I see with young people today.

[00:20:01] Ben Wright: Yeah. Uh, one thing we haven’t discussed here is climate change.

You mentioned one difference with climate change. The 60s being people weren’t being drafted into Vietnam, and that’s a difference, but I do think young people have this sense that they are being drafted into a climate future that they haven’t chosen. So I do see a similarity there.

[00:20:19] Jeremi Suri: I agree. I think that’s right.

It still has a difference in its immediacy. Um, in 1967, if you were graduating and not going to graduate school, and many went to graduate school to avoid this fate, You would possibly be sent to the jungles of Vietnam and possibly die there. Um, I think there is a sense, and my students use exactly the words you used, Ben.

They say they’re being drafted into a climate disaster. But it’s not the same as being shot at three months after graduation by someone else. There’s not the same level of immediacy. Uh, and there might even be more fatalism about it. I mean, to tell you the truth, one of the reasons I’m happy to see students engaged, though I don’t always agree with what they say, is because for a while I was fearful that they were just disillusioned and willing to accept that the world was going to end and they were going to end in a hot climate of one kind or another.

So the sense that they feel they have agency, that they feel they can change something, that’s actually probably a good thing and we’re seeing more of that now than we were even a year or two ago.

[00:21:18] Ben Wright: So Jeremy, if we’re, uh, looking to the late 60s, the late 80s for parallels, for differences, but also lessons, other things we can learn from, from how these protests de escalated then, I’m thinking Dow Chemical protests at Madison, in 67, even Yale University with President Kingman Brewster in 1970.

And of course, your own experience at Stanford.

[00:21:43] Jeremi Suri: It’s a terrific question. And as you know, we were talking about this a number of us and writing about it in the department here. Um, I’ll just, uh, pick out three lessons. There are more than three, but three lessons that I think come from studying this history and show why knowing history matters.

First of all, almost always, Lesson number one, when you bring police onto campus, it escalates the situation. It provokes more violence. Uh, the use of police should be a last resort after every other option is tried. There still are times when you have to bring police force onto campus. But it should only be a last resort, and it should be done with as light a hand as possible.

And I say that on behalf of those who are running universities, not on behalf of the students. It actually makes it worse if you’re a university leader when you bring police on campus. Only do it as a last resort and use as little force as possible. Uh, second. Um, when you are engaging with protesters, it is very important that leaders get out there themselves.

Uh, there’s a tendency to send surrogates and to communicate through the media. That never works. Uh, you have to get out there yourself. The example you already mentioned, uh, one of the few presidents in the late 60s who comes through this period with positive relations with his students is Kingman Brewster.

And Brewster was famous for going out and talking to the protesters himself, getting to know all the individuals. Personal connections matter. One of the big problems is that our institutional leadership. is so separated and not known by those within our institutions. The personal touch really matters.

Every university president should get out of their office and get out there and start talking directly, even with the students who they think are disruptive, because they’re still your students. They’re still your students, and same with faculty. And then the third point, I think, um, is that there has to be a plan for the day after.

You have to be thinking about building bridges. If you have to remove students who are blocking a building, if there’s a period of, uh, unavoidable conflict, there has to immediately be a plan to do something next to bring people together, to rebuild community. Community building has to be part of the story of dealing with the protest now.

It’s the same way we say when you go to war, you better have a plan for the day after the first battle. Once you’ve defeated the enemy, you better know what you’re going to do when you arrive in Baghdad. You better know what you’re going to do the day after. And the best leaders in the 60s and 70s, We’re able to think that through, we need this summer, the beginnings of major programming to build bridges on our campus, not just a quiet, quieting down period, but a period of bridge building.

And, and that has to follow what’s happened.

[00:24:27] Ben Wright: Jeremy, thank you so much for joining us today. This is, this was amazing.

[00:24:30] Jeremi Suri: My pleasure. Wonderful questions, Ben, as always.

[00:24:34] Ben Wright: Fifteen Minute History is produced at the University of Texas at Austin in partnership with Not Even Past and Hemispheres in the College of Liberal Arts.

It is recorded at the LAITS Development Studio. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts, follow us on social media, and visit our website for more information and resources. See y’all next week.