Student Protest Movement example essay topic

A Battle of Rights The Student Protest Movement of the 1960's was initiated by the newly empowered minds of Americas youth. The students who initiated the movement had just returned from the "Freedom Summer" as supporters of the Civil Rights Movement, registering Black voters, and they turned the principles and methods they had learned on the Freedom Rides to their own issues on campus. These students (mostly white, middle class) believed they were being held down by overbearing University rules. Student life was governed by the policy of in loco parent is, which allowed colleges to act 'in place of the parents. ' Off campus, these young people were considered adults, but at school they were subjected to curfews, dorm visitation restrictions, close supervision, and rules against having a car or even renting an apartment.

Not only were these students being treated as children in this respect, but there were also heavy restrictions put on what they could and could not discuss. Any issues, especially political, not directly related to the university were strictly prohibited. Only sandbox issues, those related to university issues were allowed on campus. This created an extremely controlled environment and severely impinged on the students rights to free speech.

In reaction to such limitations, college students across the country decided to do something about it. The Student Protest Movement (SPM) began at the University of California at Berkeley in the Fall of 1964. In September of that year Berkley campus authorities declared the area directly outside of the main entrance to the school off limits for advocates of civil rights and other causes. For years the strip had been accepted as a place where students could hand out pamphlets, solicit names for petitions, and sign people up. This ban set the stage for the beginning of the SPM. On September 29, demonstrators defiantly set up tables on the Bancroft strip and refused to leave when told to do so.

The next day university officials took the names of five protesters and ordered them to appear for disciplinary hearings that afternoon. Instead of five students, five hundred, led by Mario Savio, marched to Sproul Hall, the administration building, and demanded that they be punished too. Three leaders of the march were added to the list of offenders, and all eight were suspended. On October 1 students on their way to class were greeted by handbills declaring that if they allowed the administration to suspend the "offenders" they will have given up on the fight.

That same day, close to a dozen solicitation tables were set up on the lawn in front of Sproul Hall. Some of the groups who set up these tables were CORE (Congress of Racial Equality), SNC C (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee), and SNS (Students for a Democrat Society). The assistant dean of students approached Jack Weinberg, attending the CORE table, and asked to identify himself. When Weinberg refused the dean ordered campus police to arrest him. As Weinberg was carried off by the guards, those around him quickly came to his rescue.

In minutes hundreds of protesters, singing the civil rights anthem, 'We Shall Overcome,' and chanting, 'Let him go! Let him go!' surrounded the car, preventing it from taking Weinberg off to security headquarters. One by one the protesters climbed to the roof of the vehicle to address the growing crowd. In complying with the idea of non-violent protesting, many speakers even removed their shoes before stepping up to the "podium", one of them being Mario Savio (one of the most prominent leaders of the SPM). This lasted for more than thirty hours and resulted in an agreement between Clark Kerr, president of the multi campus University of California, and the protesters resulting in Weinberg's release without charges. From this, yet another organization was created in attempts to fight for the students rights; the Freedom Speech Movement (FSM).

The FSM proposed that the freedom defined in the First Amendment be considered the only guide to political activity on campus. Savio, continuing his strong leadership of the SPM, declined a compromise proposed by the schools senate committee. In defiance, he led his fellow protestors and once again set up literature and Solicitation tables. While seventy five students were punished for this, it also gained the support of a number of graduate students, many of whom were poorly paid, overworked teaching assistants. The graduate student organization declared that it would preside over tables. They believes the administration would not dare suspend them since their role was vital to the university's functioning.

They were right. Bending under the pressure of the students, the faculty senate committee finally made a report on November 13 stating that six of the eight suspended students would be reinstated while Savio and Art Goldberg (another one of the protest participants) would be kept on suspension for six weeks. The FSM leaders decided to confront the university's Board of Regents, scheduled to meet on campus on November 20. Though three thousand students came in support of the cause, the outcome was not desirable.

Campus facilities were off limits for such causes and Savios punishment was increased. With a great passion for what he believed, and enraged by how he was treated, Savio addressed his fellow protesters, numbering about four to five thousand: 'There's a time when the operations of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part. And you " ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you " ve got to indicate to the people who own it that unless you " re free, the machines will be prevented from working at all. ' With this new drive behind them, empowered by Savios speech, the students made there way to the administration building once again, singing their theme song of 'We Shall Overcome.

' Using one of the many non-violent tactics learned from their experience in the Civil Rights Movement, they started a sit-in. Led by Savio and Weinberg, somewhere between one thousand and fifteen hundred students took over the administration building, sitting and singing. The arrests began, totaling to 773 students and twelve hours long, becoming the largest mass arrest in the history of California. That afternoon, eight hundred faculty members met with Professor Seymour Lip set of the sociology department to consider all that had gone on in relation to the protests, strikes, .

The majority of the Berkeley faculty, especially in the humanities and the social sciences, was liberal, and were against the actions of the heavy-handed authority. These faculty members were appalled at the violation of the haven for scholars to do their research, teaching, and learning. They believed that students belonged on campus, not police. It was recommended by them to lift any punishments on the students, and the faculty went to Alameda County Court House personal to post bail for the students who had been arrested. In hopes of ending the confrontations Kerr spoke to an amphitheater of sixteen thousand people. He read to the crowd a statement which dozens of department chairman had approved.

It endorsed 'orderly and lawful procedures' and condemned the sit-in as 'unwarranted' and as likely to obstruct 'fair consideration of the grievances brought forward by the students. ' The department chairmen also spoke against imposing further penalties on the arrested students and urged that classes start back up immediately. These were not well accepted by the FSM sympathisers. On December 8, at the academic senate meeting, the majority decided the university authorities were to have only minimum powers to prevent physical disruption of the campus.

Many endorsed the right to mount boycotts, stage sit-ins, and establish picket lines to protest injustices in the outside community without university interference. The faculty were greeted with outstanding applause, and the FSM issued the statement 'Happiness Is an Academic Senate Meeting. ' From this victory came yet another. The next day, at the annual student government elections, SLATE (part of the Free Speech coalition) swept the competition with double the usual voting numbers. When Chancellor Strong was replaced by Martin Meyerson, the SPM once again came out with another victory. Meyerson's first act was to agree almost totally to the Movement's fundamental demands.

From that time on, students would be allowed to set up tables on the Bancroft strip and other locations on campus. Student organizations using these tables could receive donations, distribute literature, recruit members, and sell buttons, pins, and bumper stickers. While the support from many faculty, TA's, graduate students and students came in great numbers, there were still many who did not share the same passion. For example: While hundreds of students gathered around Weinberg to protest his arrest, a much larger number than that were on the outskirts protesting against them.

Many students believed the SPM was nothing more than a copy cat of the Civil Rights Movement, with students just wanting to get in the spot light. Many had negative feelings towards the protests and sit-ins, arguing that they did nothing but impinge on classroom time and interfere with the students ability to carry out there education. Though the SPM may have created chaos around campus, it was well mano red and non-violent. The protestors took hold of the methods used in the Civil Rights movement, knowing that violence only made situations less credible and more difficult to keep under control. They were trained to simply go limp when arrested, not to resist the officers, therefore avoiding any danger to themselves or others.

The sit-ins were just that; a group of students calmly sitting around conversing and playing music, all the while getting the attention and recognition they strive d for. Whether the effectiveness came for the bottom up, with student organizations gathering to approach the administration, or top down, with the administration addressing the students, the issues were recognized and discussed. Both parties had their gains and losses, and the Student Protest Movement came out on top with a memorable place in.