History of Student Activism at the University of Texas at Austin (1960-88)

Beverly Burr
TC 660H
Spring 1988

Supervising Professor
Harry Cleaver, Economics

 

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION:

The eyes of Regents are upon you all the livelong day.
The eyes of Regents are upon you, you cannot get away.
Do not think you can escape them when you're so near the Cap'tol ground.
The eyes of Regents are upon you 'til Longhorn liberty is downed!
-Song anonymously written in 1944 by UT student

American students have often been rebellious. Sometimes their rebellion has been limited to their own immediate concerns, such as the conditions of work and life on campus. But, sometimes their anger has been motivated by and linked to events off campus and little connected with the immediate processes of education.

The first recorded student rebellion, according to historian Ralph Brax, occurred in 1766 at Harvard University and concerned "the poor quality of butter served in the commons." The students' battlecry was "Behold our butter stinketh!" (Brax, 1981, p. 3).

UT STUDENT HISTORY PRIOR TO 1960

The earliest recorded student protest at the University of Texas also concerned campus issues but, setting a pattern that would be often repeated down through the years, involved a conflict with state politicians.

The University of Texas, being a state institution, funded by the people of Texas and run by the state government, was politically controversial from its beginning. As early as the 1850's some state representatives voiced concern over the very idea of creating an institution which would produce a handful of people better educated than their numerous peers. The sons of poor men would be "scoffed and sneered at by the proud popinjays who collect there. It would build up a class of aristocrats," one roared. (Daily Texan, November 3, 1944, p. 3).

With such an anti-elitist attitude on the part of many, and with the university organized as a largely self-contained enterprise, isolated from the rest of the community, it is perhaps not surprising that most early student rebellion rarely had an ideological basis or a concern with social issues beyond the campus. Most student activists in the nineteenth century, Brax has argued, "were not interested in changing the nature of society and possessed no real political or ideological differences with their teachers and administration officials." (Brax, 1981, p. 5) As a result, their resistance to authority often involved supporting the University's administration against political attack.

The first such controversy flared up between the legislature and UT over the issue of "Yankee" professors and radicalism brewing on campus. In this case the Board of Regents mediated the state-university conflict while students, apparently, looked on. In June of 1897, a Texas House resolution demanded a probe into university affairs to discern whether or not faculty members either were in sympathy with the North or teaching "economic heresies in place of our cherished economic system" (Daily Texan, November 30, 1944, p. 3). The Board of Regents of the institution issued a long statement to the legislators in response to their concerns, explaining that only three subjects were taught which related to politics and that "the University teaches methods of study rather than conclusions," (ibid.). The central issue was that of academic autonomy from state politics.

The second such controversy exploded in 1917 and this time the students swung into action to protect their school from outside interference. In this case the recently elected populist governor James Ferguson, complaining about the "under-education of the many and the over-education of the few," decided to make some changes at the university. "Suspender-snapping 'Farmer Jim'" as he was called, demanded that six University of Texas faculty members be fired and that social fraternities be abolished. He did not cite any reason for the purge other than his power to do so. Students went on strike and marched to the Capitol to protest the arbitrary action. They sang "The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You" to the governor who responded by shaking his finger at the students and later by vetoing university appropriations. The six-month controversy ended with the impeachment of Ferguson. In this instance, student interests coincided with those of the school's administrators against those of the populist governor (Vertical File - Demonstrations, Barker Texas History Center).

The depressed economy of the 1930's and the social turmoil that boiled up in those years significantly affected students around the country. They turned outward from their insular world and became concerned with larger issues. During this decade many students opposed militarization and U.S. imperialism, studied Marxist economic thought, formed cooperatives ("co-ops") to cut living costs, and supported change in economic policy. According to a 1934 study by Theodore Brameld of students at eastern schools, a large majority agreed that future depressions would result "if capitalism continues" and indicated support for at least some nationalization of industry (Brax, 1981, notes).

This trend was also reported on the UT campus. Daily Texan editor D.B. Hardeman wrote that "the rah-rah days of the twenties are gone." The editor of the student newspaper argued that the greater use of the libraries, the increased interest of students in politics, and the de-emphasis on fraternities and athletics, show the college man is thinking more and playing less," (ibid.).

The movement reached its peak in the years 1934-6 when national Student Strikes Against War were held annually. The largest strike was held in 1936 when students reported an amazing 50% participation rate on a national level. Students at the University of Texas also participated in these student strikes to the chagrin of the administration. One dean commented that "the whole thing was started by a bunch of Russians from the East Side of New York," (ibid.).

Several national student organizations coordinated protest activities. During the mid-1930's these groups were quite militant and radical; many of the leaders were socialists. Some of the groups were the National Student League, the Young Communist League, the American Student Union and the Student League for Industrial Democracy.

Although the student movement collapsed at the end of the decade, it was significant for several reasons. First, it broke the tradition of student isolation. Second, it left a legacy which would reach through the years to influence the generation of activists in the 1960's. Many of the student protesters of the 1960's were "red-diaper babies," children of the student radicals of the 1930's. In addition the Student League for Industrial Democracy (SLID) would turn out to be the predecessor for the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the major student organization of the late 1960's.[1]

In most areas of the country campuses remained relatively quiet following the beginning of World War II until 1960. However, UT students erupted on at least one occasion during the war. The entire student body went on strike in November of 1944 in protest against the heavy-handed politics of the Board of Regents, the governing body of the school. Leading up to the mass student action was a four-year conflict between the liberal UT President Homer Rainey and the regents. In 1941 Rainey had publicly opposed the conservative Board in its attempts to fire three professors for opposing them on a state labor law issue. Despite great opposition from Rainey and the faculty, the regents eventually denied tenure to the professors effectively terminating their employment. During the controversy, the regents attacked academic freedom by banning Dos Passos' USA and by threatening to censor the Daily Texan. In 1944 the conflict culminated when the regents demanded Rainey's resignation and Rainey refused. On November 1, Rainey was fired. Two days later students closed down the campus demanding an investigation by the state. Many students called for the dismissal of the regents. Perhaps student opinion can be summed up in the following letter which appeared in the Daily Texan:

Many things have taken place on our own university campus which profoundly attack the basic principles of free democratic action. These Regents - the dictators of our University - are appointed for six-year terms [by the Governor]. At the present most of the Regents are the directors, or the attorneys of the directors, of Texas' biggest monopoly concerns. The direct purpose of these monopolies is to manipulate the educational system in such a way as to dictate the educational policies throughout the state. Thus by establishing control over the thinking of the future voters of the State of Texas they will be able to maintain control over state politics and have free reign. If the freedom and progress of education is restricted then democracy is doomed. We must not permit our educational system to be controlled ("Firing Line", Daily Texan, Oct. 5, 1944). Three of the regents resigned in protest, allowing the governor to appoint new regents and continue to control the Board. Rainey was not reinstated despite faculty and student opposition and international press coverage of the incident. (Vertical File - Demonstration, Barker Texas History Center).

Following the Rainey incident the UT campus appears to have been tranquil until the spring of 1960 when students exploded into action throughout the South in opposition to racial segregation and discrimination.[2] It all started in February when four black freshmen at A&T College in Greensboro, North Carolina sat in at a "whites only" lunch counter at the local Woolworth's Store. The sit-in idea spread like wildfire to students at predominantly black schools around the South (in Nashville, Atlanta, Jackson, Houston and many small towns as well). Two months later 126 student delegates from 60 centers of sit-in activities in 12 different states held a conference in Raleigh, North Carolina at Shaw University. The Raleigh conference marked the beginning of a national student movement for civil rights and a New Left organization called the Student Non- Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).

In March of 1960 on the University of Texas campus at Austin, a group of black students picketed a meeting of the Board of Regents to protest the university's policies of racial segregation and discrimination. At the time UT refused to allow blacks in University housing, athletics, the Longhorn Band, drama productions, student employment, student teaching, the University Queen competition, among other activities.

As SNCC was getting organized, UT students were picketing segregated restaurants on Guadalupe St., a commercial street bordering the campus on the west and commonly referred to as "The Drag." The Campus Interracial Committee, which had been formed the previous year, was politically active in advocating racial equality at UT as well as in the Austin community.

PURPOSE AND PERSPECTIVE OF THIS PROJECT

These activities mark the beginning of the history I am writing. Although I recognize that previous history very much effected the period after 1960, I have limited my study to this time period for the following three reasons:

1. The research methods for compiling the history of this period do not vary greatly whereas, a history of earlier periods would entail less precise research.

2. It limits the project to a workable size.
3. 1960 marks the beginning of the national student movement for social change.

My goal is to compile a history of student activism at UT over the years 1960-88. In addition, I intend to contextualize and analyze this history.

My own involvement as a student activist on this campus motivated me to do this project. Several mistakes in recent years could have been avoided if we had known the history of student struggle on this campus. For the most part, the administrators and the police are much more familiar than the students activists with past events. The administration's historical knowledge empowers it and gives it a distinct advantage over the students. Thus, my purpose is to contribute to future victories on the part of students by acquainting them with the successes, tactics, failures, beliefs, activities and actors of the past.

As a fervent disbeliever in objectivity, I make no pretense to write an "objective" history. As long as the university is administered like a corporation by a handful of wealthy authoritarians, there will be an "us" and a "them." As long as there is an "us" and a "them," historians will tend to write from one perspective or the other. The ones who will receive financial and institutional support in publishing their works will write from the administrative viewpoint or some "objective" variant thereof.

Furthermore, my perspective is colored by my belief that the control of this institution by a handful of wealthy business people ensures that education will favor the interests of capital. This is what produces the students' outlook on education as a necessary evil to gain entry into the ranks of white-collar America. Unfortunately, many students internalize the elitism of the institution and see themselves as superior to those members of society who have not received a college education, further dividing the members of society who gain their livelihood by selling their labor power. Divided physically from the community, students generally do not feel a duty to better society; they seek credentials for middle class status and a $30,000+ income level. Required course work is more often drudgery than intellectually stimulating. The students are taught not to question the authority of their teachers, but to regurgitate the information and opinions being shoved down their throats by professors. When they follow this path, students become sheep (metaphorically speaking), a trait suitable to their future roles as corporate lackeys.[3] Fortunately, despite the forces opposed to the development of an independent critical spirit, there have always been some students who have rebelled against the subordination of their lives to the needs of business. It is their story I intend to tell here.

I offer no apologies for my political views or for writing this history from the perspective of students. But I do apologize for any errors or inconsistencies in this thesis.

I extend my gratitude to Alan Pogue and Phil Prim for providing me with back issues of The Rag newspaper, to Akwasi Evans, Alice Embree, Jeff Jones, Gavan Duffy, Pat Cuney, Raul Valdez, Cyndi Stewart, Harold McMillan, Patricia Kruppa, Danielle Jaussaud, Scott McLemee, Isolda Ortega, Gilbert Rivera, Joe Krier, Cynthia Perez, Frank Rodriguez, Ronnie Phillips, Lori Hansel, Erik Devereux, Michael Lacey and sources who requested anonymity for their helpful information. In addition, I'd like to thank my supervising professor Harry Cleaver for his insights, ideas, and especially for his refreshing tendency to point out the gains of student struggle rather than dwelling only on failures and mistakes.

 

CHAPTER 1
STUDENT MOVEMENT FOR RACIAL EQUALITY

Under the tree ... blood on the limbs and blood at the roots, black bodies swinging in the breeze ... Bulging eyes and the twisted bowels and then the sudden smell of burning flesh ... Here is a strange and bitter fruit.

-Billie Holliday

THE EARLY STUDENT SIT-INS

In the spring of 1960, black students (and some whites) around the South began a militant extra-legal struggle for racial equality and justice. Eventually the students were at the forefront of a grassroots movement of southern blacks. Although the civil rights struggle had begun earlier in the 1950's with the NAACP-led legal battles for desegregation and the mass action of the Montgomery bus boycott of 1955, the Greensboro sit-in heralded in a new era which broke dramatically from the past.

"It is hard to overestimate the electrical effect of that first sit-in in Greensboro, as the news reached the nation on television screens, over radios, in newspapers. In his Harlem apartment in New York City, Bob Moses, a former Harvard graduate student and mathematics teacher, saw a picture of the Greensboro sit-inners. 'The students in that picture had a certain look on their faces,' he later told writer Ben Bagdikian, 'sort of sullen, angry, determined. Before, the Negro in the South had always looked on the defensive, cringing. This time they were taking the initiative. They were kids my age, and I knew this had something to do with my own life ...'" (Zinn, 1965, p. 17). Moses later became one of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) leaders.

The Greensboro sit-in struck a chord among southern black students. The idea of nonviolent direct action spread quickly throughout the South, spurring thousands of students and later others to action. Nashville, Tennessee became one center of sit-in activity. Nashville students displayed a level of dedication which was to set the tone for the movement. Those arrested there refused to pay bail, choosing to remain in jail instead. By this, they denied the legitimacy of the legal system in their struggle. In February of 1961, the 'jail, no bail' strategy was adopted as SNCC policy.

Marion Barry, a Fisk University graduate student and later the first chair of SNCC, took a leading role in the Nashville sit-ins. "I came to Fisk ... inquired about forming a chapter of the NAACP ... but we didn't do much ... We had not at any time thought about direct action. In the meantime in Greensboro, N.C., the student movement began on February 1, 1960. So we in Nashville decided we wanted to do something about it ... I remember the first time I was arrested, about February 27 ... I took a chance on losing a scholarship or not receiving my Master's degree. But to me, if I had received my scholarship and Master's degree, and still was not a free man, I was not a man at all," said Barry (ibid., p. 19). Not only did the students risk their academic careers, they braved incarceration and violent reaction to their nonviolent sit-ins. It was not long before they had to prepare themselves to sacrifice their blood and even their lives.

The sit-in movement was soon characterized by skillful organization, creative and sophisticated tactics, and highly principled and disciplined participants. The fundamental nature of the discrimination they were attacking and the level of dedication of the sit-inners earns them the title of social revolutionaries. Though they were unarmed, they were at war with white supremacy, one of the basic tools used by American business to divide and rule the workers in this country. Impatient with the slow pace of desegregation, the legal system, concessions, and traditional black organizations like the NAACP, they turned to the use of the extraparliamentary tactic of civil disobedience and were soon quite successful in the upper South and peripheral southern states. By addressing their grievances illegally and victoriously, they posed an enormous threat to the American political system, delegitimizing it in the eyes of many of its citizens.

At the April 1960 Raleigh conference, which brought 126 student delegates together, the students decided to remain independent of adult organizations (like the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Congress of Racial Equality) but to maintain friendly ties. At the conference, a keynote speaker Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. articulated the movement's rejection of the NAACP and other "old" black middle-class groups. King characterized the sit-in movement as a "revolt against those Negroes in the middle class who have indulged themselves in big cars and ranch-style homes rather than in joining a movement for freedom," (West, 1984, p. 47).

This desire for autonomy distinguishes the student movement from the 1930's movement and from their white contemporaries of SLID who didn't break from their parent organization until 1962. This mood has characterized the student movement in the U.S. ever since and forms the beginnings of the New Left movement.

In the statement of purpose adopted at the Raleigh Conference, the students declared:

We affirm the philosophical or religious ideal of nonviolence as the foundation of our purpose, the pre-supposition of our faith, and the manner of our action. Nonviolence as it grows from Judaic-Christian traditions seeks a social order of justice permeated by love. Integration of human endeavor represents the first step towards such a society ... (Cohen and Hale, 1967, Appendix).

They decided to set up an office, hire a secretary to staff it, print a newsletter called The Student Voice, raise funds, plan nonviolent training for the summer and coordinate the various activities in the South. Their goals were to end segregation and discrimination, assure southern blacks of the right to vote, and to seek fair employment laws among others.

For the most part, the participants in the sit-ins were "not middle class reformers who became somehow concerned about others. They come themselves from the ranks of the victims, ... [in general] they are young, they are Negro, they come from the South, their families are poor and of the working class, but they have been to college. Northern middle class whites and Negroes are a minority," (Zinn, 1965, pp. 9-10).

Black students first began to confront the UT Regents around this time.[4] After months of discussion, on March 11, 1960 a group of students held the first civil rights protest conducted by students at UT. They demonstrated on the fringe of the campus calling for university integration. The following day, they wrote a letter in response to a public statement made by UT President Logan Wilson the previous day. Wilson had stated that:

In response to queries to [UT] regarding the policy of integration, it should be pointed out that there is complete integration with reference to all educational opportunities and facilities ... [and] forced integration in social and extracurricular areas has not yet been established. In view of our known achievements in meeting what is everywhere a difficult situation, I am surprised that our institution should be made a target for provocative demonstrations (Daily Texan, March 13, 1960, p. 1 - emphasis added).

The group of less than 50 students picketed a regents meeting which was being held on the campus that weekend. A group of black women presented a petition to be read at the meeting. These women wrote:

Be it resolved that we, the undersigned Negro women of the University of Texas deem the designation of certain specific living units for the exclusive use of Negro women, or the restriction of Negro women to certain specified dorms a deprivation of our recognized right as University students to select the living facilities of our choice, (Duren, 1979, p. 7).

The student demonstrators also wrote a letter to UT President Logan Wilson citing housing, sports and public performance restrictions as areas which needed to be opened up to blacks. In part the letter read:

We recognize the University of Texas was one of the first universities in the South to take significant action toward integration with the admission of Negro undergraduate students in 1956. However, significant advances in this direction have ceased. Our present concern is for a resumption of this policy of leadership and for desegregation in all areas of University life, (ibid.).

Despite Wilson's earlier derogatory statement about the demonstrators, that weekend the UT administration decided to convert International House into a dormitory for black women at a cost of $30,000 and to open other dorm space for black men. At this time the administration was only bound by the "separate, but equal" doctrine; it had no intention of desegregating further. The concession was called "only a token answer to the urgent question of 'When?' ... A satisfactory answer doesn't seem likely for quite a while. For it is probable that the public relations-conscious university will continue to move just as slowly as in the past - in spite of the protests of the Negro students who desire only to be first class students in a University of the First Class," (Daily Texan, March 13, 1960). The student protesters echoed these sentiments when they walked out of a meeting with UT Vice President Harry Ransom on March 15 after their demands for integration of housing, athletics and drama productions were not seriously considered (Daily Texan, March 15, 1960).

The March protest was the first student action since the Rainey incident and signaled the beginning of the UT student movement for civil rights. It is significant that the black enrollment at UT was very low at this time and the character of protest was different at the predominantly white university than it was in other areas of the South where much of the protest activity was led by students at black colleges. UT students were, however, quite aware of student activities around the South as some UT students 9 went to centers of sit-in activity throughout the early 1960's to support other activists and to learn from them.

Students from UT and Huston-Tillitson (a predominantly black college in East Austin) actively sought desegregation in the Austin business community in the late spring. They began picketing restaurants on the Drag in April and started sitting in at downtown lunch counters in May. They also sought to integrate Drag theaters, holding stand-ins and pickets.

That fall, a new student group was formed which reflected the spirit of SNCC. The organization was called Students for Direct Action and its concern was that "integration is practically at a standstill in the university area. Most of the students are not even aware of the segregation tactics employed by the university and by business firms in the area," according to Chandler Davidson, a leader of the group (Duren, 1979). The Students for Direct Action maintained ties with SNCC, continued with sit-ins and pressured the university for change.

During the fall semester the first violent reaction to the student movement occurred. White supremacists exploded a bomb in the stairwell of the YMCA while students involved in desegregation efforts were holding a meeting in the building. Fortunately no one was injured and two of the terrorists (who were UT students) were later charged with involvement in the incident (Duren Papers, Barker Texas History Center). The students used the University area YMCA as a place to conduct orientation sessions for black students and held their meetings there.[5]

The UT students who participated in the civil rights movement in 1960 were primarily motivated by self interest. As in other areas of the South, the participants were mostly black and poor; they were confronted with physical segregation both at school and in the community, as well as the reality of racial hatred. Their political rhetoric was rooted in both the American tradition of Judeo-Christian morality and an appeal to national political symbols (like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution), espousing equality and freedom.

It was this appeal to traditional moral and political beliefs which attracted the participation of white middle class students whose self-interest was not so directly effected by the civil rights movement. The participation of these white middle class students alongside the black students was crucial for the civil rights movement locally simply because of demographic differences between Texas and other areas of the South. While the populations of states like Mississippi and Alabama are around 50% black, Texas blacks compose about 12% of the state's population. Thus, the ability to mobilize white and middle class students through the appeal to traditional American beliefs was an important trait of the local movement.

Initial participants in the student movement for racial equality at UT were few in number. They were mostly black, poor and very dedicated. They were not only UT students but also Huston-Tillitson students who participated in the early sit-ins. The actions during 1960 by this relatively small group of committed activists had earned them a following of many whites in the university community by Spring of 1961.

GROWING MILITANCY AMONG BLACK STUDENTS

As previously mentioned in February 1961, SNCC adopted the "jail, no bail" strategy as policy. Ten students had been arrested in Rock Hill, South Carolina and refused bail. SNCC sent four people to join the others for the purpose of dramatizing the injustice. The fourteen young people spent a month in prison. 'Jail, no bail' spread quickly, first to Atlanta where 80 students from black colleges went to jail. As public opinion increasingly swung in their favor and more desegregation victories were achieved, the students became even more militant that summer with their involvement in the bloody Freedom Rides.

The northern civil rights group CORE organized the first Freedom Ride in May of 1961 to draw attention to the southern failure to enforce a Supreme Court decision to outlaw segregation in interstate travel. The thirteen Freedom Riders (some of whom were students) began the bus ride in Washington, D.C. with New Orleans as their destination. Although they encountered some harassment and a few arrests in the upper South, their passage through the Deep South (Mississippi and Alabama) proved the greatest obstacle. In Anniston and Birmingham, Alabama the Riders braved bombs, bus-burnings and beatings by white mobs. Police protection was almost nil. They decided to fly from Birmingham to New Orleans to participate in a mass rally there on May 17.

Students from Nashville and Atlanta refused to accept this victory for white supremacy. Although the student Freedom Riders went farther and received more protection than the first convoy, they too faced violent mobs, this time in Montgomery, Alabama. While they treated their wounds, they were met by more student Riders there and continued to Jackson, Mississippi where the 27 were arrested. They refused to pay their fines and spent two months on a penal farm where many of them were beaten.

The adult organization SCLC conceded to the federal government a temporary lull in the Freedom Rides, but the Attorney General had negotiated with the wrong group. A pilgrimage of students to Jackson continued throughout the summer. By August, over 300 had been arrested. The guards at the Parchman penitentiary used electric shocks, "wristbreakers,"[6] and other forms of torture on the students, but were unable to break their spirits. If the students had not remained so strong in their determination, it is probable that they would not have achieved the victory of September 22, 1961 when the Interstate Commerce Commission decided to desegregate bus and train stations.

After the Freedom Riders were released from prison in August, SNCC held a meeting at Highlander Folk School in Tennessee. At the Highlander meeting, the conflict between those supporting concessions to the political establishment (i.e. to the Kennedy administration) and those supporting a continuation of the uncompromising tactics of SNCC. "In the eyes of many SNCC members, the 'Establishment' against which they were struggling began to encompass both the Democratic Party's liberals and the SCLC's black activist liberals. This slow rupture would result in some glaring defeats in the civil rights movement, most notably the Albany, Georgia Movement in December 1961, and also led to the gradual breakaway of SNCC from the techniques of nonviolence," (West, 1984, p. 48). The student factions compromised, deciding to continue the direct action strategy and also to pursue voter registration of blacks in the Deep South. The activists then headed south.

Meanwhile at UT, the controversy over segregated university facilities was heating up. In January 1961, students began picketing the segregated theaters on the Drag in increasing numbers following scuffles between hecklers and picketers. By February, the stand-in crowd had grown to over 500 students. Faculty members began to support the protesters at this time, with 260 signing an Austin American Statesman advertisement for theater integration (Duren, 1979).

Segregated university housing was increasingly opposed by students during the spring. In May, the regents received petitions from the Student Assembly and the Faculty in favor of integration of housing and athletics; over 7000 signed the pro-integration petition. However opposition continued; 1300 students signed a petition opposing the integration of dorm (ibid.). The majority of students did support integration by this time. A poll conducted in May 1961 indicated that roughly 60% of the students favored "equal access to all University-owned facilities," (ibid.).

The Board of Regents ignored the opinions of the faculty and students by unanimously adopting a policy opposing integration at its July meeting. They issued a statement saying:

Whether or not we agree with the decisions of the Supreme Court on racial integration, we shall in good faith proceed and have heretofore proceeded along this path with all deliberate speed ... We have a heavy responsibility to perform, and we respectfully ask you to trust our judgment. We do not feel that any substantial changes should be made in the immediate future, but we shall continue to move forward with due and deliberate speed as we think advisable under all the circumstances which exist from time to time (ibid. - emphasis added).

This statement reflects the paternalism, arrogance and intransigence on the part of the regents which has been a characteristic attitude of the body toward social change. The decision was a slap in the face to the university community and demonstrated the lack of democracy within the university structure.[7] The fact that they reached this decision during the summer months when most students were not on campus reflects their fear of opposition to this undemocratic move.

When the students returned to campus in the fall of 1961, they resumed their efforts to integrate university housing. At the time, black women were housed in Whitis Dorm and Almetris Co-op under much poorer living conditions than those enjoyed by white co-eds. The housing for black men was also inferior to that of Anglo men.

Black students were enraged when they found out about an incident at Kinsolving Dormitory. Student advisers had briefed the female residents on the rules of race relations within the dorm. They told the students that black women visiting in Kinsolving could not use water fountains or restrooms and that black men should not be inside the white women's dorm unless they were workers (Duren Papers, Barker Texas History Center).

On October 13, three young black women tested the rules by visiting a white student. No confrontation resulted. So the women organized a larger scale violation of the dorm's rules for the following week. On October 19, approximately 55 black students (men and women) went into the dorm's parlor and held a sit-in. When dorm supervisors told them to leave, they refused. As had been predetermined, they left of their own volition after one hour. Thirty of these Kinsolving sit-inners were targeted by the UT administration for disciplinary procedures. Their "crime" was failure to obey "properly constituted authority" when asked to leave the dorm.[8]

More demonstrations followed. White students joined the picketing of Kinsolving. The picketers received national media attention because they pointed out that the Vice President's daughter Lynda Bird Johnson (a Kinsolving resident) was living in segregated housing (Embree interview). The General Faculty voted 308-34 against disciplining the students and in favor of integration of dorms and eating facilities. Students turned out in record numbers to vote in an election referendum favoring integration. The Students for Direct Action agreed with UT President Joseph Smiley to a cooling-off period in exchange for amnesty for the protesters. Despite all of this, the thirty black students were placed on yearlong disciplinary probation (Duren, 1979).

In addition to the unpopular disciplining, the university formalized the previously informal rules against racial interaction on November 6. The statement of rules for university-owned housing declared: The social and dining areas of Whitis Dormitory and overnight privileges for women guests in the dormitory are available only to Negroes.

The social and dining areas of other [white] women's residence halls and overnight privileges in these dormitories are not available to Negroes. Students living in these residence halls may invite other girls to their rooms as personal guests, but are expected to respect the rights of their fellow residents at all times. Students living in men's residence halls may invite other men to their rooms, but are expected to respect the rights of their fellow residents at all times.

These residence halls are not public buildings, but are reserved by contract with the occupants for their use and enjoyment subject to dormitory rules and regulations. All persons entering these dormitories are expected to observe all university rules and regulations ... and to respect duly constituted authority vested in University personnel (ibid).

The students, not a little disheartened by the administration's refusal to be swayed by the mandate of the students and faculty, decided to seek recourse through the legal system. Three black students filed a federal lawsuit against the university seeking a court order to abolish dormitory segregation. To support the legal effort, student activities switched from demonstrations to fund raising.

This decision on the part of the Students for Direct Action presents an obvious contradiction to the actions of students throughout the South who opposed taking their struggle to the legal system. Obviously, black students at UT did not subscribe to this rejection of the judicial system. Why not? I conjecture that the black students, who numbered less than 200 at the time, could not afford to pursue the militant "jail, no bail" strategy which had worked in desegregating other areas of the South. Had they done so, the university could have pressed criminal charges against them and kicked them out of school, defeating the entire purpose of integrating the dorms by purging the school of most of its black students.

It must also be said that although the militancy of students was increasing during this period, UT students were more conciliatory than were the majority of student civil rights activists. This can be partially explained by their absorption into the academic community. Comparatively, a large number of the SNCC militants had taken leave or dropped out of school in order to participate in the activities of the civil rights movement, especially when the emphasis of their activities shifted to the Deep South in late 1961. The UT activists, for the most part, remained in school to pursue both desegregation and their own education. By being enrolled in school during their struggle for racial equality, they were subject to the numerous rules and regulations of the school in addition to the institutionalized racism of the university. The fact of their education by white professors and the ubiquitous whiteness of all authority figures within the institution certainly played a role in mitigating their militancy.

In immediate response to the students' legal action, UT bypassed regular legal procedures by hiring three special attorneys to plead its case. Normal procedure would have been for the state attorney general to argue UT's case for segregation of housing. However, power and money enabled UT to circumvent the usual course of action.

At the end of the fall 1961 semester, a federal action occurred which had a big impact on the political situation at UT. The Peace Corps, which had planned to conduct a multi-million dollar training program at UT, decided to transfer the project to the University of Oklahoma instead, following its realization of the university's policy of segregating dormitories. This was the first act of federal intervention at UT; it served to galvanize faculty support in favor of desegregation (Duren papers, Barker Texas History Center).

In January of 1962, the lawsuit for integrated housing was threatened when the Texas Attorney General filed motions for the suit to be dropped; despite repeated delays in the case, the students continued to support it, but began to turn back to the confrontational tactics previously used. One of their targets was the Forty Acres Club, a newly opened private 'whites-only' faculty club often used for university meetings and entertaining official university visitors (Vertical File - Minority Groups UT, Barker Texas History Center). Students for Direct Action began picketing the club, much to the chagrin of the faculty members who supported integration of the students' dorms but were much less vocal about integrating their own club.

Students actions in the community received a good deal of publicity during 1962. The sit-ins and pickets of segregated businesses in the campus area continued. Students challenged racial segregation off-campus more during this period and achieved a victory in desegregating the two campus-area theaters. In the fall semester, the Students for Direct Action found out that a UT ice-skating class was to be taught at a segregated ice-skating rink. They picketed and held stand-ins at the Austin Ice Palace and were able to have the class cancelled. During the summer of 1962, a token change was made allowing blacks of the same sex visiting privileges in white dorms.

In the Fall of 1962, Rev. Martin Luther King of SCLC came to Austin. His aid was enlisted by the students in planning non-violent activities to achieve total UT integration. At the time, they listed the activities to be integrated as housing, intercollegiate athletics, faculty, student teaching, Longhorn Band, drama productions, student employment in all areas, the Brackenridge Apartments and the university Queen competition. In the form of the newly organized group Negroes for Equal Rights (NER), they also asked King for moral and financial support for the housing lawsuit (ibid.).

The Campus Interracial Committee (CIC) made a presentation at a Board of Regents meeting in late September. The CIC called for immediate and full integration of university housing, athletics and employment. (Duren, 1979). Although the regents refused to change their policy, they did approve a provisional admissions program, a plan to admit students in the summer who did not qualify for admission in the long session. The stipulation was that the students could qualify for fall admission if they did satisfactory work in certain courses over the summer. The program was not designed for minority students but enabled many to enter the university. The main reason the program did help minority students enter the school is because the cultural and social bias of the SAT and ACT tests required for admission had prevented many qualified minorities from matriculating (McMillan interview).

Later in the semester, the Student Assembly rescinded a previously passed bill calling for a referendum on integration of university housing and athletics (Duren, 1979). The student government of the university has often been characterized as an impotent body of yes-men which serves only to pad the résumés of those who enjoy holding powerless political positions. As indicated by the two previous incidents wherein students voted for integration to no avail, the referendum likely would have made no difference to the intransigent regents.

In the spring of 1963, the NER staged numerous non-violent activities. It also focused some of the students' efforts on the Austin community. In February, the NER began pressuring the Austin City Council to pass legislation outlawing discrimination practices in restaurants, motels, hotels, and recreational facilities. When their proposal was rejected, they began picketing of segregated businesses in the downtown area with vigor. In April the students staged a parade depicting the burial of Uncle Tom in protest of segregation in the downtown area. An increasing number of whites were participating in the protests. The students in May targeted the campus area restaurants persistently holding several sit-ins and frequent pickets (Duren Papers, Barker Texas History Center).

THE WALLS COME TUMBLING DOWN

The UT civil rights movement finally tasted victory in the fall of 1963. After two days of picketing a regents meeting by the CIC for the removal of all racial bars at UT, the Board ruled on November 9 to "remove all student restrictions of every kind and character based on race or color," (Duren, 1979) permitting widespread integration in student activities at the school. Because of UT's participation in southwest regional athletics, the ruling also opened up Southwest Conference intercollegiate sports to black athletes.[9]

However, the ruling left untouched the university-owned dormitories, boarding houses and dining halls because these "are auxiliary enterprises which do not constitute part of the educational process of the university." At this time the lawsuit over university housing integration was still pending. Therefore, on December 19, 1963 the CIC held a demonstration at Kinsolving. They sang, marched and protested the segregated housing policy (Daily Texan, December 20, 1963).

In January, the Forty Acres Club served a black newsman working as associate press secretary to President Johnson. The club, which had practiced a strict "whites-only" policy up until this point, began systematically admitting black guests the day following this incident. The club did not allow black members however until March of 1965.

STUDENT VICTORY: UT-OWNED HOUSING INTEGRATED

During the Spring of 1964, the CIC and the Students for Direct Action continued their protests against dormitory segregation. Due to these protests and the fact that UT wanted a federal agency to underwrite a construction contract for new accommodations for married students, the regents approved integration for the proposed married students' dormitory as well as for summer seminar participants at all dorms.

In May of 1964 after years of legal stalling and a lack of financial support for the plaintiffs, the students who had filed suit against UT housing integration dropped their case. In response, the regents voted 6-1 (with two abstaining) to remove all racial barriers in housing. Also the first black faculty member was hired at this time - Dr. Ervin Perry, an assistant professor in the engineering department.

Although the housing integration policy had been made known in May following the regents' meeting, its institutionalization began on June 1, 1964 when UT President Norman Hackerman sent out a memo representing both capitulation to pressures for integration and a clever move to maintain the status quo. The memo resulted from a decision of the regents to integrate student housing and activities. It read:

With respect to the admission and education of students, with respect to the employment and promotion of teaching and nonteaching personnel, with respect to student and faculty activities conducted on premises owned or occupies by the university, neither the University of Texas nor any of its component institutions shall discriminate either in favor of or against any person on account of his or her race, creed, or color. (Duren, 1979 - emphasis added).

This ruling signaled capitulation on the part of the regents to student and faculty demands for racial equality within the institution. The victory followed ten years of difficult struggle on the part of southern blacks and five years of student protest at the university. The factors leading up to this change of heart on the part of the regents include widespread student and faculty support for complete integration, the publicity-grabbing protest tactics of black and white UT students, the building momentum of the civil rights movement, President LBJ's humiliation over Texas' segregated university[10] and the threat of federal intervention (as exemplified in the annulment of the Peace Corps contract).

However, the ruling effectively outlawed minority recruitment and resulted in a decrease in black enrollment in 1965 and 1966. It served to maintain the status quo by making no positive statement favoring the increase of minority enrollment. The ruling also violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (which was passed a month later), which stated that "previously discriminatory recipients must take affirmative action to overcome the effect of prior discrimination." It would be another eleven years before UT was forced to comply with Title VI.

SIGNIFICANCE - NATIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

It is significant that the university decided to integrate student activities before the Civil Rights Act was passed. Although the decision to integrate can be partially attributed to the fact that President LBJ was scheduled to speak at the May 30, 1964 commencement ceremonies and security concerns related to this presidential speaking engagement, the decision also demonstrates the effectiveness of the civil rights movement in 1963 as the previously middle class student movement was drawing in the participation of the black working class. The civil rights movement culminated in the 1963 Birmingham protests where mass nonviolent direct action led to the arrests of over 3000 people and televised newscasts aroused the sympathy of many Americans. One civil rights leader Bayard Rustin wrote about Birmingham:

It was the loss of all fear that produced the moment of truth in Birmingham: children as young as six paraded calmly when dogs, fire hoses and police billies were used against them ... Thousands of teenagers stood by at the churches through the whole country, waiting their turn to face the clubs of Bull Connor's police, who are known to be among the most brutal in the nation ... Day after day the brutality and arrests went on. And always, in the churches, hundreds of well-disciplined children awaited their turns. (Zinn, 1973, p. 207).

As the movement was broadening its demands to encompass the needs of its new participants, change occurred among the movement's leaders some of whom were willing to make concessions to the federal government. As the victory of black enfranchisement was becoming a reality, there was some hesitation on the part of the movement's middle class leaders to incorporate the demand of economic justice for the black underclass.

The March on Washington in 1963 (when King made his famous "I-have-a dream" speech) reflected a central dilemma: "the existence and sustenance of the civil rights movement neither needed nor required white aid or allies, yet its success required liberal support in the Democratic Party, Congress and the White House. ... With white liberal support, the movement would achieve limited success, but slowly lose its legitimacy in the eyes of the now more politicized black petit bourgeois students, working poor and underclass. Without white liberal support, the movement could raise more fundamental issues of concern to the black working poor and underclass, yet thereby render the movement marginal to mainstream American politics and hence risk severe repression," (West, 1984, p. 49). An example of this conflict can be seen in King and other civil rights leaders' censoring of SNCC activist John Lewis' prepared speech in the 1963 March on Washington. Lewis' original speech had lashed out at the Kennedy administration for its slow pace of change and failure to ensure that the constitutional rights of blacks in the Deep South were upheld.

Middle class blacks were the ones who would benefit from the civil rights movement; their ability to address the economic issues which affected most of the new black working class participants[11] posed a threat to the American status quo. As black unity strengthened and became more radicalized, the government realized it would have to make concessions to avoid a revolution; thus the 1964 Civil Rights Act. With its passage, the first stage of the black freedom movement ended because it had achieved its liberal goals.

The student civil rights movement did not end at UT in 1964 with the integration of dormitories. Many Austin businesses remained segregated in 1964, as did some university-owned housing. However, the movement did begin to change at this time. Working class and poor black involvement in the civil rights movement necessitated a transformation. The gains of 1964 threatened to divide educated students and middle class leaders from the poor blacks involved. After 1964, blacks in the ghettoes began rioting and were brutally repressed. Black power began to emerge in the mid-1960's and served to unify members of the black freedom movement who were beginning to be separated by socio-economic status. This black power movement also served to continue the demand for change in the status of blacks. To their credit, the SNCC activists continued in their dedication to the black underclass through voter registration drives and the Freedom Schools in the mid-1960's. The student struggle against racism will be discussed further in detail in Chapter 3: From Civil Rights to Black Liberation (1964-8) as well as in subsequent chapters.

CHAPTER 2
BEGINNINGS OF SDS

Come out Lyndon with your hands held high. Drop your guns, baby, and reach for the sky. I've got you surrounded and you ain't got a chance. Send you back to Texas, make you work on your ranch.

-Country Joe and the Fish

NATIONAL WHITE STUDENT MOVEMENT FORMED

The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) formed a chapter at UT in the early spring of 1964. From 1964-7, the UT chapter of SDS began to build the local white, radical student movement. Although they were unable to attract much support from their fellow students prior to the free speech movement of 1967, their activities during this period helped lay the groundwork for the post-1967 period.

SDS was a national organization founded in 1960, but its roots date back to 1905. Formerly the Student League for Industrial Democracy (SLID), the group had been funded and supported by its parent organization the League for Industrial Democracy (LID).[12] In January 1960, SLID members expressed a desire to break from its LID elders; they changed their organization's name to Students for a Democratic Society but continued to receive financial support and office space from LID (Sale).

The first SDS conference occurred at the University of Michigan in May of 1960 during the nascent southern student sit-in movement. Several civil rights activists attended, as did mid-western and northeastern students. After the conference the organization received a grant from a Detroit union which enabled the creation of a permanent staff (ibid.).

Al Haber served as the first SDS president from 1960-2. During the early 1960's, much of SDS work was in supporting the civil rights movement. Haber commented on student activity around the country during that first year:

We have spoken at last, with vigor, idealism and urgency, supporting our words with picket lines, demonstrations, money and even our own bodies ... We have taken the initiative from the adult spokesmen and leadership, setting the pace and policy as our actions evolve their own dynamic. Pessimism and cynicism have given way to direct action (ibid.).

Until 1962, SDS remained very dependent on LID and fairly disorganized. The political views of the participants evolved rapidly during this time. In 1961, SDS field secretary Tom Hayden wrote an essay called A Letter to the New (Young) Left in which he called for a "radicalism drawing on what remains of the adult labor, academic and political communities, not just revolting in despair against them," (Sale, 1973, p.37).

Sale cited the reasons for the resurgence of the student left as follows: 1) the social fabric of the nation was tattered (i.e. dissolution of the family, increase in drug and alcohol use, higher crime rates), 2) the artificially supported economy began to show signs of deterioration like high unemployment and inflation and the increased monopolization of industries, 3) the nation was seen as politically corrupt and the bureaucracy was seen as impersonal, 4) a crisis of belief in traditional politics led to the delegitimization of authority, 5) the large size of the student population during the 1960's (the first Baby-Boomers turned 18 in 1964), 6) most students were children of parents who lived through the Depression and World War II; the students had rejected their parents' concept that money buys happiness, and 7) the increased reliance of the government on universities as management training centers and providers of military and economic research enhanced the power of students.

In June of 1962, about 60 students from northern colleges and various student organizations met at an SDS convention in Port Huron, Michigan to draft a founding document. The 66-page Port Huron Statement established the organization SDS and its principle of participatory democracy (in which they saw politics as a public, positive and collective decision-making process). The preamble to the document read:

Students for a Democratic Society is an association of young people on the left. It seeks to create a sustained community of educational and political concern: one bringing together liberals and radicals, activists and scholars, students and faculty.

It maintains a vision of a democratic society, where at all levels the people have control of the decisions which affect them and the resources on which they are dependent. It seeks a relevance through the continual focus on realities and on the programs necessary to effect change at the most basic levels of economic, political and social organization. It feels the urgency to put forth a radical, democratic program counterposed to authoritarian movements both of communism and the domestic right. (Cohen and Hale, Appendix).

Following the conference, LID called in the two executive SDS officers for a "hearing" in which LID threatened to cut off all support for SDS because it perceived SDS to be a pro-Soviet, popular-fronting, Communist-infiltrated organization. The clash between the Old and New Left organizations continued but LID finally agreed to maintain its financial support of an autonomous SDS (Sale).

The Port Huron Statement was widely distributed among students that year. Over the next few years, SDSers supported the SNCC movement, began discussing university reform, and established a leftish peace and foreign policy research clearinghouse (the Peace Research and Education Project). In 1963, a large number of the predominantly white middle class students began to leave the universities and to denounce their privileged backgrounds. Some registered black voters in the Mississippi Delta while others did such things as organizing unemployed workers in the decaying inner cities. They attempted to model themselves after SNCC by leaving school to organize the poor and the unemployed. To carry this out, they founded the Economic Research and Action Project (ERAP) in September of 1963.

At the SDS summer 1964 conference at Pine Hill, New York several factions emerged. The strongest was the ERAP group which supported the notion that bourgeois students leave school and work for the poor. The campus-organizing group wanted more focus on radicalizing middle class students. The realignment faction supported working in electoral politics. The factions compromised with each other, deciding to continue doing as they had; SDS remained intact. At this time, it had grown to include 29 chapters, one of which was the newly formed UT chapter.

UT STUDENTS FOUND SDS

Alice Embree, one of the early participants in SDS at UT, said that when she went through registration at the beginning of the Spring 1964 semester, there was an SDS information table. She conjectured that four or five people started the group (Embree interview - March 1988).

The early focus of the group was participation with black student activists in the sit-ins at downtown Austin restaurants. Also SDS worked with CIC activists on campus to get the university-approved housing to include only integrated housing. In the spring of 1965, SDSers supported the Student Interracial Committee's picket of a "whites-only" restaurant - Roy's Lounge - on the Drag (Embree interview).

FIRST ANTI-VIETNAM WAR PROTESTS AT UT

In mid October 1965, SDS held a death march protesting U.S. policy toward Vietnam. This protest, which coincided with the international days of protest, was apparently the first antiwar demonstration on the campus during the 1960's.[13] About 70 students participated in the march and rally. A surprise speaker Dr. William Sloane Coffin, a chaplain at Yale University, spoke to the demonstrators about the economic reasons for the war. SDS had attempted to get a parade permit to march in the streets during the rally but the permit had been refused by the City Council; this spurred SDS on to file a lawsuit in the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals for the right to assemble freely. The Student Assembly narrowly deplored the City Council's permit denial to SDS by a vote of 14-13 (Vertical File - SDS, Barker Texas History Center).

The counter-cultural orientation of some of the SDSers was apparent at the protest. A Dallas Morning News article described the antiwar protesters as "shaggy maned" and "homegrown leftists," and referred to their "shoulder-length hair," "T-shirts, sandals, leotards and dirty jeans." The article noted that most of the UT participants in SDS were white and of upper middle class backgrounds. In the same article, SDSer Scott Pittman responded to a question about the group's funding, "armchair liberal professors get rid of their conscience steam by slipping us $10 occasionally." He also commented that the group had trouble "scraping up professors to speak at our rallies," (Dallas Morning News, October 24, 1965).

Reaction to the antiwar march was quick, the Young Republicans formed a Committee to Support U.S. Policy in Vietnam to show that the SDS position was not representative of the student body. The group was able to collect 3700 signatures on its petition (ibid.). Also that month, Regent Frank Erwin threatened to abolish the editorial page of the Daily Texan after it printed an editorial criticizing the killing of Vietnamese children.

STUDENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DENIED

In February 1966, the Texas Student Publications (TSP) Board of Directors censored a Ranger cover[14] because as Dean Jack Holland explained, its caricature of Lyndon Johnson would put the President in a "ridiculous situation." Another member of the board supported Holland saying, "after all, this is the President's University."

Following these incidents, students became increasingly concerned over their lack of over their newspaper but the Texan staff members were intimidated to such an extent that they did not advocate autonomy in their editorials. At one point the Texan's faculty censor was actually ordered by the TSP Board to stop any editorial criticism of the Board of Regents. In March of 1966, quickly sprung into and out of existence free. The Texas Student League for Responsible Sexual Freedom had formed to lobby for an amendment to Texas' sex laws. The League first obtained notoriety when it passed out a handbill outlining its goals and calling for membership (Daily Texan, April 30, 1967).

University rules then stipulated that the Dean of Students Office had to approve all leaflets; the Dean declared the particular leaflet in bad taste and withheld it. The League had extra copies and distributed it anyway. The following day Chancellor Harry Ransom banned the League from campus citing the League as an unofficial lobbying group and in violation of its probationary period for distributing unapproved literature (ibid.).

That evening an off-campus meeting of students was held. A large group of people joined the League transforming it into a free speech movement. The group questioned the universities' policies, in particular its right to review literature before distribution. The group decided to question the existence of free speech at UT and set up a panel discussion for 10 days later; they chose Ransom as one of the panelists. Three days before the forum, Ransom cancelled claiming that he had another engagement. The new free speech movement cancelled the forum and did not mention the incident again. Though a large number of people were initially attracted to this short-lived free speech movement, a lack of direction, political experience and leadership apparently led to its quick demise.[15]

STUDENTS CHALLENGE AUTHORITY

SDS held its first fall 1966 meeting in late October. Although the group got started late in the semester, it was becoming more organized and productive. At the meeting, several committees were formed: a national student strike against the war committee, a speakers bureau, a conscientious objectors bureau, a Gentle Thursday Committee (Gentle Thursday was being planned as a day for gentleness and friendship) and a General Booth Committee (which planned to set up a booth to recruit for peace and love next to the military recruiters' booth).

At the same time, students organized an underground newspaper called The Rag. The paper was the sixth underground newspaper to be formed in the country; it was perhaps the first to embody the new ideals of participatory democracy and a combination of culture and politics. Most of the staffers were SDSers who created the paper not only to publicize issues of importance to the movement but also in reaction to the corporate controlled mainstream media. The weekly paper was structured as a collective with no editor; it was highly imaginative, graphic and counter-cultural. Its news coverage concentrated on university issues as did its political analysis. The Rag would become an important medium and organizing tool as more students became involved in the student movement.

The threat of a 100% tuition hike at the beginning of the spring 1967 semester served to unite the forces of such disparate groups as the Young Republicans, the Young Democrats, the Student Religious Liberals, and SDS. The coalition sent information packets to students' parents about the tuition increases, lobbied politicians and circulated petitions. Their opposition to the tuition increase was based both on self interest and on a belief that public higher education should be affordable. Radical students declared that students shouldn't have to pay tuition at all, pointing to examples in several foreign countries. During the fall ten SDS and Rag women had held a sit-in protesting the draft at the Selective Service office in Austin.[16] In January of 1967 several demonstrations were held against Secretary of State Dean Rusk while he was in town. The first protest was held at the Capitol where Rusk was speaking to the state legislators; one protester was arrested for bringing anti-war leaflets into the Capitol building and charged with disorderly conduct.[17] Over 200 came to the second protest which succeeded in canceling Rusk's dinner at the UT Alumni Center. Thorne Dreyer wrote an article about the protest in The Rag:

[Rusk's] mission ... was to brick up the Credibility Gap, to lay it on the line why we'uns is over there protecting freedom and the American Way. In true bureaucratic form, he spoke not to those who have to fight in his war, not to the protesting students or the confused populace, but to the glib, fatassed yes-men of the Texas legislature and the board of regents ... (Rag, Jan. 30, 1967: p. 1).

In another Rag article about the Rusk demonstration, Sara Clark called for circulating the struggle against the war into the larger Austin community. She wrote:

Perhaps we [the protesters] have been captivated by the idea of being the valiant minority, the downtrodden ... Perhaps we have come to feel that we have failed unless we are opposed on every side, attacked, vilified. If this is so, if we consciously court defeat, then we are going nowhere, while the war is headed everywhere ... you and I and a fistful of signs and a runic rhyme cannot end the war. We can work toward its end, but only when massive numbers of the American people disagree with the government policy will the war end ... (ibid., p. 10).

The vision and creativity of these early anti-war protesters is striking. Their rebellious language and willingness to experiment were characteristic of the New Left's open-mindedness. The honest self criticism revealed in Clark's article became a hallmark of Maoist oriented students several years later.

Criticism of the university at this time included the rumblings of the emerging student power movement. A Rag article orienting new students to UT warned:

Welcome to the ranks of the disenchanted. Later on you may discover that your professors are dull, your classes too large, and the omnipresent grading system simply stupid, and far from an exciting and challenging adventure, college is mainly just a drag ... [in addition is] the university's failure to instill a sense of creative purpose and community (Rag, Jan. 30, 1967).

The writer went on to encourage students to challenge their professors' views, to dress as they wished, to work in radical politics and to make love on the steps of the Main Building.

In March, some faculty members began to oppose the more brutal goings-on of the Vietnam War. Twenty percent of the UT faculty signed a letter to President Johnson urging an end to the bombing of North Vietnam. Although this was a clear minority, it was the first time that UT faculty members had taken a collective public stance on this issue.

PROTEST AND COUNTER CULTURE

The first conflict between SDS and the university occurred later in the spring of 1967 during Flipped-Out Week. This week (April 10-16) coincided with the national Spring Mobilization against the War in Viet Nam as well as Roundup Week - a raucous Texas tradition of spring celebration sponsored by the fraternities and sororities. SDS had planned a week of activities including a speech by the prominent black student activist Stokely Carmichael, poetry reading, a picnic, an anti-war march to the Capitol, and Gentle Thursday, a day when friendship and love were encouraged along with balloons, kissing, gentleness and mellow yellow (banana peels which were smoked for a mild hallucinogenic effect).

Gentle Thursday came under fire from the administration. UT coordinator for Student Activities Edwin Price claimed that the events were too ambiguous and that the university could not condone kissing, balloons, mellow yellow and en masse love. UT's hard-line position on the innocent Gentle Thursday activities earned the administration quite a bit of ridicule. SDS' Flipped Out Week proved to be a success in combining counter-cultural activities with politics; the activities attracted several thousands and would remain a major annual campus event for the remainder of the decade. Gary Thiher wrote in a Rag article about the university's reaction to Gentle Thursday:

It is important to note that the administration was so frightened by the prospect of Gentle Thursday that they wanted to be able to punish sds for anything that might occur on that day ... Bureaucrats warp the supple flesh of human beings into the processable form of 'student' in order to control them. Anything outside the 'proper channels and procedures' is outside the bureaucrat's control. (Rag, April 24, 1967: p. 10).

A few days after Stokely Carmichael's speech, the UT administration again came down on SDS - this time for collecting money at the speech to cover the speaker's travel costs. The alleged violation was sent to a committee for consideration.

In early April, The Rag announced that a radical slate of candidates was running for the Student Assembly (SA); the elections were scheduled for early May. Gary Thiher was running for president, Alice Embree for Vice President, Dick Reavis for an at large position, along with three other SDS affiliates. Thiher described their ticket as "an attempt to offer a real alternative to the usual student politicians who accept the powerlessness of the SA. The student officials must be prepared to go outside administrative channels and rally the student body to unite independently of the administration in order to gain bargaining power," (Rag, April 15, 1967). Perhaps the administration's harassment of SDS stemmed from a fear that growing discontent on the campus would lead to the election of the radical slate of SA candidates.

THE FREE SPEECH MOVEMENT EMERGES

The week after Flipped Out Week, SDS distributed flyers about a Sunday meeting on campus to plan a Monday protest against Vice President Hubert Humphrey who would be speaking at the Capitol. On Saturday, Chancellor Ransom declared that the handbills had been distributed without approval and warned SDS not to hold the protest. On Sunday, over 200 students met on the West Mall to discuss the rally the following day. On Monday, about 150 students protested at the Capitol against the war in Vietnam. Later that day, UT withdrew recognition of SDS as a campus organization for "holding a rally (the planning meeting) without authorization." Arrests and disciplinary proceedings against the leaders of the group ensued. The University Freedom Movement emerged from all this. SDS had (with the help of the administration's overreaction) finally mobilized a large number of outraged students into action.

On a national level, the counter-culture and SDS had begun to attract more support. White students had been very much effected by involvement in, or knowledge of, the black student movement led by SNCC. During the summer of 1964, over 700 white student volunteers from the North and from the West Coast had congregated throughout Mississippi for Freedom Summer, teaching freedom schools for black children, registering blacks to vote, seeking support for the Freedom Democratic Party and demonstrating for the rights of blacks. The experience was a toughening one; the white volunteers had suffered hunger, arson, bomb threats and even murder. Yale University student Bruce Payne participated in Freedom Summer. He wrote:

Police harassment is a constant factor in all Mississippi civil rights work, and I went to the state fully expecting to be arrested. Instead, I was beaten up and shot at ... The war in Mississippi is a quiet war, a war that has been fought so long that those who live it and those who observe it can no longer distinguish it from peace ... The weapons of the civil rights movement and of SNCC in particular are the weapons of peace and decency ... [with which] it is possible to end the awful quiet that surrounds the war in Mississippi [and] ... to call the attention of Americans to the conflict and combat, ... the explosions and the screaming ... (Bruce Payne, The Quiet War: The Activist, Vol. 4, 1964).

In the fall of 1964, students at the University of California at Berkeley had become outraged over the school's limits on student political activity. The students, who were veterans of civil rights sit-ins, soon formed the Free Speech Movement (FSM). Thousands participated, and over 800 were arrested in December during an occupation of the administration building. At this time the teaching assistants went on strike, paralyzing the university. The administration finally conceded to the FSM demands. The Berkeley students saw themselves in a battle with the liberal university administration. Mario Savio, one of the leaders of the FSM, likened the Berkeley struggle to the Mississippi struggle, "the same rights are at stake in both places - the right to participate as citizens in democratic society and to struggle against the same enemy."

Savio identified the problem as a depersonalized, unresponsive bureaucracy. He wrote:

This free speech fight points out that students are permitted to talk all they want so long as their speech has no consequences ... Society provides no challenge ... it is simply no longer exciting. The most exciting thing going on in America today are movements to change America ... an important minority of men and women coming to the front today have shown that they will die rather than be standardized, replaceable and irrelevant, (Savio, "An End to History," Humanity December 1964).

In April 1965, SDS organized the first sizeable anti-war demonstration in Washington, D.C. About 25,000 participated. Later that year, at the November March on Washington, Carl Oglesby of SDS made a speech to the marchers linking the bloody ghetto riots, the U.S. intervention in the throughout the Third World, the repression of civil rights demonstrators and the large American military budget. Oglesby defined the problem as corporate liberalism and the answer as humanism and revolution (Cohen and Hale).

The white middle class students formed the core of the draft resistance movement. "As early as June 1965, Richard Steinke, a West Point graduate refused to board an aircraft taking him to a remote Vietnamese village. 'The Vietnamese war,' he said, 'is not worth a single American life. Steinke was court-martialed and dismissed from the service," (Zinn, 1973, p. 227). Others followed suit. Students began burning their draft cards on some campuses in the fall of 1965. By mid-1968, the government had prosecuted 3308 draft resisters; and by 1970, perhaps half of the draftees did not respond when they were called to serve in Viet Nam (ibid.).

CHAPTER 3
FROM CIVIL RIGHTS TO BLACK LIBERATION (1964-8)

Say it loud, I'm Black, and I'm proud.

-James Brown

One of the most disturbing things about almost all white supporters of the movement has been that they are afraid to go into their own communities - which is where the racism exists - and work to get rid of it. They admonish blacks to be nonviolent; let them preach nonviolence in the white community. They come to teach me Negro history; let them go to the suburbs and open up freedom schools for whites. Let them work to stop America's racist foreign policy. Let them press this government to cease supporting the economy of South Africa.

-Stokely Carmichael

NATIONAL BLACK POWER MOVEMENT AND SNCC

Despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, civil rights activists were facing increased violence. This contradiction led to disillusionment with the federal government and with the doctrine of nonviolence. Then came the mass uprisings of blacks in urban ghettos from 1964-8; over 100 major riots occurred during this period, resulting in 142 reported casualties and over 20,000 arrests. Black youth were a major force in the uprisings. Black power was articulated by spokespersons such as Malcolm X as an assertion of black pride and a reaction against the entire system of racism; blacks denounced white culture, institutions, behavior, and liberal racists.

Blacks asserted that "black is beautiful," that they could be proud of their appearance and their culture. Part of black consciousness was the predominant belief that power would not be given to blacks, but that it must be taken by a powerful, organized black community. Thus, an emphasis on self-determination for black communities. Blacks began to fight back "by any means necessary," as Malcolm X preached.

In late 1964, Malcolm X told a group of black students in Mississippi:

You'll get freedom by letting your enemy know that you'll do anything to get your freedom; then you'll get it. It's the only way you'll get it. When you get that kind of attitude, they'll label you as ... a 'crazy nigger.' Or they'll call you an extremist or a subversive, or seditious, or a red or a radical. But when you stay radical long enough and get enough people to be like you, you'll get your freedom. (Zinn, 1973, p.210).

The students in SNCC became disillusioned with King and SCLC following the Selma campaign in 1965. SNCC had been organizing in Selma, Alabama for two years when King decided that a march would help speed passage of the Voting Rights Act. SNCC opposed the idea because of King's lack of knowledge of the people there and because the people of Selma were not participating in decision-making; they felt that King was a leader too far removed from the people. Although SNCC went along with the march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, the group privately began to distance itself from King and the SCLC, especially after hearing that King was cutting deals with President Johnson.

SNCC began to turn away from nonviolence at this time. It continued its activities in the South and became interested in transforming the energy of the black slums into organized political power. SNCC denounced the war in Vietnam in 1965, recognizing that blacks disproportionately represented among the soldiers sent to fight white corporate America's wars.

In 1966, Stokely Carmichael, chair of SNCC, wrote the Vine City Project Paper in which he defined the role of whites in the movement against racism:

It must be offered that white people who desire change in this country should go where that problem (of racism) is most manifest. That problem is not in the Black community. The white people should go into white communities where the whites have created power for the express purpose of denying Blacks human dignity and self-determination ... This is not to say that whites have not had an important role in the Movement ... It is meaningless to talk about a coalition if there is no one to align ourselves with, because of the lack of organization in the white communities. ... There is in fact no group at present with whom to form a coalition in which blacks will no be absorbed and betrayed ... (Cohen and Hale, 1967).

Carmichael went on to discuss the past and future direction of SNCC. He wrote that the problem was much deeper than the right to sit at a lunch counter or to vote and that blacks could not relate to SNCC because of its unrealistic, nonracial atmosphere:

We cannot be expected any longer to march and have our heads broken in order to say to whites: Come on, you're nice guys. For you are not nice guys. We have found you out ... Integration today means the man who 'makes it,' leaving his black brothers behind in the ghetto as fast as his new sports car will take him ... Any program to end racism must address itself to the two problems that Black Americans face: that they are poor and that they are black ... The creation of a national "black panther party" must come about. There must be reallocation of land, of money ... We hope to see, eventually, a coalition among poor blacks and poor whites ... The society we seek to build among black people, then, is not a capitalistic one ... We are just going to work, in the way we see fit, and on goals we define, not for civil rights but for all human rights (ibid.).[18]

The Black Panther Party (BPP) was founded that year in Oakland, California. It would be two years before the BPP would be able to focus the energies of the black ghetto rioters. SNCC and the BPP formed alliances with the SDS activists despite efforts by the FBI (Operation COINTELPRO) to break up their communication and mutual support. The black power focus and these alliances did not develop immediately but over a period of several years. The period of 1964-8 was a period of transformation from civil rights to black power on a national as well as a local level.

STUDENT STRUGGLE AGAINST SEGREGATION CONTINUED

Integration occurred slowly in Austin. Roy's Lounge on the Drag had become the scene of civil rights picketing in the spring of 1965. The lounge maintained a policy of segregation against blacks as well as known members of the Student Interracial Committee (SIC). Hundreds of students picketed the lounge. In May of 1965, the SIC steering committee decided to work on other symbols of segregation such as UT's policy of maintaining segregated university-approved housing. The SIC held a rally against this policy in early May despite objections by Dean Holland. Also the SIC presented a resolution to the Faculty Council later that month.

In an October 1965 Daily Texan editorial, black students on campus gave some definition to black power as "being together to secure power for people," "to instill 'somebodiness' into the Negro community," "a racial consciousness," and "much like Hook 'Em Horns for other groups." In 1966, the Negro Association for Progress (NAP) was formed. They brought Rev. F.O. Kirkpatrick to campus to speak in February. Kirkpatrick, the Texas coordinator for SNCC, said: "this is our black power hope - that we can rise from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of equality for all," (Duren, 1979). The following year, Stokely Carmichael came to campus to speak. He was greeted by a demonstration by NAP. Carmichael spoke about the black power movement and criticized the "white racist press" for its unfair reporting.

During the spring of 1967, NAP focused on the lack of black participation in university athletics. Members converged on the office of the athletic director and the head football coach Darrell Royal to find out why UT was not accepting or recruiting black athletes. Coach Royal responded that blacks did not have the talent, nor the grades, nor the desire to attend UT.

During the fall semester, 40 black NAP members marched into the end zone seats of Memorial Stadium while the Longhorns were playing football. They displayed cards saying, "Bevo needs Soul," and "Orange and White (school colors) Lack Black." One demonstrator recalled, "we waited until halftime and got the cards up about two times - we were plenty bold." The UT police asked them to leave and eventually they did (Duren Papers).

The increasing militancy of NAP was apparent in October when NAP held an illegal demonstration for black student rights. No one was arrested, although the administration discussed levying disciplinary punishments against those involved. In November, NAP successfully urged the Student Assembly to pass a resolution for "the Department of History to initiate a course in Negro history" and another to withhold blanket tax monies from Texas Student Publications should it not reinstate its nondiscriminatory advertising policy statement for the Daily Texan. The administration ignored the students' resolutions.

In the spring of 1968, NAP was replaced by the Afro-Americans for Black Liberation (AABL). The transformation from civil rights advocacy to black consciousness among black UT activists was completed.

In 1968, the university denied funding to a provisional admissions program - the Program for Educational Opportunity (PEO) for undergraduates and CLEO, a similar program for law students - which had brought in many minority students who did not meet all the school's admission requirements. Black students were outraged by this action. During 1968, the program was financed through grants from the Hogg Foundation and the federal Office of Educational Opportunity. The students who succeeded in the program were not given any financial aid from the school (Duren Papers, Barker Texas History Center).

Many students voted to donate 20% of their University Co-op (bookstore) rebates so that PEO might continue, but the regents interpreted that gifts as well as appropriated funds and revenue from other funds could not be accepted under the 1964 nondiscrimination rule.

Ernie Haywood, a black vice president of student government, then founded Project Info. The program's purpose was to disseminate information to minorities on UT, but it was forbidden by the 1964 rule to conduct recruiting efforts. The program was funded by donations from Co-op rebate money and administered by student government.

KING ASSASSINATION SPARKS INCREASED PROTEST

In April 1968, following the assassination of Martin Luther King, students, both black and white, participated in a march to the Capitol and in a campus memorial service sponsored by the Austin Council of Churches. Two weeks later, in an increasing display of black awareness, the AABL sponsored a Black Arts Festival in the East Austin black community as a memorial to King.

Following an increased mobilization of black and white students on campus for civil rights, the Austin City Council finally passed a resolution banning segregation in the Austin business community and a fair housing ordinance which outlawed racial discrimination in the selling, renting, or financing of housing.

In May, an incident of racial violence led to picketing by SNCC, AABL and others. The owner of a Conoco station - Don Weedon - had attacked a black musician; he had been brought to court on a misdemeanor charge of "simple assault," convicted and fined a mere $20. Larry Jackson of Austin SNCC and Grace Cleaver, chair of AABL, called on all persons opposed to racism to picket Weedon's station on May 3 and to boycott it in the future. In a leaflet they circulated, they stated:

We can no longer afford to see black people mistreated by honkies without retaliation (Rag, May 1968).

Jackson requested that SDS participate in the action and the group agreed. The students held several sit-ins at the gas station. City police arrested about 50 in the demonstrations charging them with various misdemeanor offenses. The charges were dropped against all but four of the protesters who were eventually convicted and given varying sentences of fines and probation. That fall AABL won two new academic programs in Afro- American Studies. One course dealt with Afro-American culture while the other was a 10-part lecture series on Afro-American history taught by different guest experts from around the country.

In October, a SNCC activist from Houston spoke at an SDS meeting mentioning "by any means necessary" when asked what tactics should be adopted by Texans. The crowd consisted of blacks and whites who discussed the black freedom movement and revolutionary movements within the U.S.

Black students, militant and proud of their heritage and culture, continued to make demands on the racist UT administration. Soon Mexican-American students would also develop a similar racial pride which would lead to their own demands for change. Further developments in the fight against racism will be discussed in the following chapters.

CHAPTER 4
THE STUDENT MOVEMENT THRIVES

You say you want a revolution, well, you know we all want to change the world. You tell me that its evolution, well you know we all want to change the world.
You say you'll change the constitution, well you know we all want to change the world.

-The Beatles

UNIVERSITY FREEDOM MOVEMENT

In April of 1967, UT initiated disciplinary proceedings against six students involved in the anti-war protest held earlier that month against Hubert Humphrey. They were charged with "knowingly and willfully violating an order of the Chancellor." Simultaneously the UT administration revoked SDS official status on campus. In addition, the school called for the arrest of George Vizard, a non-student. Vizard was arrested by Austin police on an abusive language charge stemming from the Humphrey protest. The police brutally arrested him in the Chuckwagon, a cafe and radical hangout in the Student Union. Two others were arrested when they called the police "fascists" due to their treatment of Vizard. UT won a temporary restraining order which prevented the three from being on the campus. The arrestees suffered torn skin (from being dragged on their backs across cement) and one wrenched shoulder.

Of the six students against whom disciplinary action was taken, three were running on the radical slate for student government: Dick Reavis, Alice Embree and Gary Thiher. The others were Tom Smith, David Mahler, and John LaFeber. All were involved in SDS except LaFeber who was chair of the Young Democrats. Although they were charged with willfully violating an order from the Chancellor, they were not in violation of any university rule. That evening, over 250 outraged students and faculty members met to discuss the day's arrests and the implications of the university's denial of students' constitutional rights to free speech and assembly. In attendance were representatives of the UT Veterans' Association (UTVA), the Negro Association for Progress, the Young Democrats (YD), Student Religious Liberals, SDS, and the Graduate Students' Association. Together with unaffiliated persons, they founded the University Freedom Movement (UFM). They set up a steering committee and the eight committees to deal with the following: demonstrations, speakers, finance, distribution, press, organizations, grievance, and faculty contact (Vertical File - Demonstrations, Barker Texas History Center).

On Tuesday, the UTVA held an unauthorized demonstration on the Main Mall, distributing unapproved leaflets beforehand to replicate the SDS incident. An overflow crowd of over 500 gathered on the Main Mall while Embree was undergoing disciplinary proceedings (the Discipline Committee had severed the group into separate hearings and denied due process to the defendants). Many faculty members and representatives of the UFM spoke at the rally denouncing the arbitrary use of power on the part of the administration and the abridgement of the rights to free speech and assembly. Frank Erwin, chair of the Board of Regents, personally appealed to the crowd not to "create on this campus the situation at Berkeley." Erwin claimed that the issue was not that of constitutional rights but that of the right of the administration to make and enforce rules, and implied that he would expel troublesome students - "we don't need 27,000 students at this University," (The Rag, May 1, 1967).

After her hearing, Embree spoke to the crowd about the need for a student union outside the channels of the administration, criticizing the SA as powerless.

The demands of the demonstrators were: that UT not obstruct peaceful assembly, literature tables, leaflets or the receipt of donations at literature tables; that campus newspapers be under full student control; and that UT not make regulations violating constitutional rights. They also demanded that UT rectify its violations of students' rights by not arming campus police (a week before the Texas Senate had passed bill 162 extending full police powers to campus security personnel), by dropping all charges against the six students, by reinstating SDS and by stating its adherence to the American Association of University Professors' Statement on Academic Freedom for Students. That afternoon, Erwin agreed to the final demand and not to arrest any more students for demonstrating.

On the following day, the newly formed UFM held another unauthorized demonstration. They protested the denial of free speech and assembly and asked for an open meeting with Chancellor Ransom.

Although an administrator gave the UTVA faculty advisor a talking-to, no official action was taken against either UTVA or UFM for holding unauthorized demonstrations. The arbitrary enforcement of the chancellor's order under the circumstance of the Vice President's presence in town and selective disciplining of those disobeying it were obvious. It is also clear that UT could not handle disciplinary proceedings against over a thousand violators of the rule, so it employed the age-old tactic of divide and conquer. The disciplinary proceedings continued.

Thiher wrote in a May 1, 1967 Rag article that:

The university has no rule requiring prior approval of meetings on the campus. It has always enforced unfairly what rules exist. Thus, by banning the meeting and disciplining a few of the students who were there, the University has arbitrarily abrogated the rights of students to free speech and assembly.

The reasons for restricting the rights of the sds-ers are fairly obvious. The Legislature of the state of Texas was in session at the time of the ban. Many persons attest to the fact that the legislators were extremely irate at the sds activities [during Flipped Out Week and after] on the campus ... No doubt neither the Legislature nor the President wanted Humphrey to be ill-received in Johnson's home state. The administration of any state university is under the control of the political hacks in the state capitol. In Texas this pressure is much stronger because of the one-party system and the fact that the President hails from here.

UFM ENJOYS BROAD SUPPORT

On Thursday, the Catholic Student Center, which has over the years been supportive of student activists, issued a statement opposing the arming of campus police and calling for UT to exercise restraint and to publish its rules and regulations.

Also that day, the UFM held a press conference and a rally clarifying both its relationship with SDS and its demands. In response to accusations that UFM was controlled by SDS, the UFM spokesperson said that its democratically elected five person steering committee included one SDS member. UFM issued the following nine demands: 1) that charges be dropped, 2) that SDS be reinstated, 3) adherence to the statement on academic freedom, 4) that rules be both voted on by students and printed and distributed, 5) that non-students be allowed on campus, 6) that official protest be lodged against the police brutality in the arrests of the non-students, 7) that UTPD Chief Hamilton be fired, 8) that a faculty-student review board be established to review campus police actions, and 9) that the Regents refuse to implement any portion of Senate Bill 162 (ibid.).

Conservative students held a small parallel demonstration on Thursday in support of the administration's action. Although this position did not receive much support from students, it was played up in the local dailies.

A meeting between the UFM steering committee and Erwin was set for Monday. UT conceded to form a committee to consider the academic implications of the legal procedures of the discipline committee and the status of SDS; also Chancellor Ransom made an ambiguous[19] statement that "there is no recommendation before the Regents to arm all campus security officers." Illegal protests drawing thousands continued on the campus and at the Capitol for the remainder of the semester despite efforts by the UT administration and the Texas Legislature to restore quiet on the campus. The students were supported by religious groups and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party among others.

STUDENTS OPPOSE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

On May 1, the six students were found guilty and received one year probations. In their decision, the Discipline Committee stated that "all six respondents have shown serious lack of respect for legitimate authority and are blamable for not having exhausted all avenues of recourse." In the SA elections the radical slate of candidates was defeated, receiving 20-30% of the student vote.[20]

While students were in the middle of final exams, the Texas House followed the Senate in passing Bill 162 granting campus security personnel "all the powers, immunities and privileges of peace officers" under 'emergency' conditions.

Charles O'Neill and Scott Pittman wrote in regard to the passage of the bill:

Frank Erwin is the Democratic National Party chair and chief of the "governing board" of the University of Texas. Judging from his past actions it can be believed, with only a slight bit of imagination that "unauthorized and undesirable" persons could be those who do not agree with the policies of the Democratic Party. In fact, any group or persons could be declared undesirable because the power to define that vague term lies with Frank Erwin and the Board of Regents. (Rag, May 1, 1967, p. 3).

The article cited a state representative as asking "Would this bill allow them to break up demonstrations such as we saw out here in front of the Capitol yesterday?" Following an affirmative, the lawmaker replied, "I'm all for your bill."

Thorne Dreyer wrote of the unfolding of the student movement:

If anything can seem significant in a world where the bomb is hanging from the ceiling and the draft board is lurking in the shadows, ... I would have to find it in that weird mixture of love and anger that has shaken students out of their horrendous stupor.

With the blacks and the hippies, the Student Awakening of 1966-67 is the hope for America ... The System is big and tight. But we must remember this: whispers in the academic community are shouts at IBM and the State Department. It is the university that forms the model, that feeds the organization. And as long as the university is a microcosm of that Organization, a model authoritarian structure, things will go smooth. Shall we say the water's getting rough? (Rag, May 15, 1967, p. 1).

The notion of student power was becoming fairly widespread. The solidarity exhibited by students during the SDS controversy illustrates this. Around this time The Student as Nigger by Jerry Farber was published and distributed in many underground newspapers (including the Rag) by Liberation News Service. The essay described students as slaves, forced to follow orders, brainwashed, segregated from the faculty, politically disenfranchised, subjected to a competitive, arbitrary grading system which divides them and often unaware of this oppression. Farber accused the more deeply brainwashed 'good students' of:

swallowing the bullshit with greedy mouths. They honest-to-God believe in grades, in busy work, in General Education requirements. They're pathetically eager to be pushed around ... These are the kids for whom every low grade is torture, who stammer and shake when they speak to a professor, who go through an emotional crisis every time they're called upon during class.

As a proscription for emancipation, Farber called on students to tap into their "immense unused power" by:

insisting on participating in their own education ... Students could discover community ... They could raze one set of walls and let life come blowing into the classroom. The could raze the other set of walls and let education flow out and flood the streets ... They could. Theoretically. They have the power. But only in a few places, have they begun to think about using it ... For students, as for black people, the hardest battle is with what Mr. Charlie has done to your mind (ibid.).

UT students continued to protest the Vietnam War in the fall, holding a large protest at the state Capitol in mid-October. By November, SDS had been reinstated.

COUNTER-CULTURE IN AUSTIN

Folk, jazz and blues music became popular among students, as did sex, marijuana and LSD. The underground newspaper The Rag increased its circulation and popularity; it provided news coverage of student protests around the world, U.S. intervention and domestic issues, UT issues, and the counter culture. It deplored racism and imperialism and advocated student power and revolution. The counter culture flourished. One expert described the counter culture in the following terms:

The interests of our college-age and adolescent young in the psychology of alienation, oriental mysticism, psychedelic drugs and communitarian experiments comprise a cultural constellation that radically diverges from values and assumptions that have been in the mainstream of our society at least since the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century. (Roszak, 1969)

Draft counseling services were provided to students as well as birth control counseling. Such were some of the positive developments of the 'Movement' in 1968.

In April 1968, SDS held an Anti-State Fair for two days and another Gentle Thursday. They decided not to call a boycott of school despite the national strike, "because it would only be 40% effective" according to one activist. But they held protests against the war which drew an increasing number of students.

STUDENTS DEMAND ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND END TO WAR

In May, students erupted again when SDS faculty adviser Larry Caroline was fired from his position in the Philosophy Department. Caroline had stirred up quite a bit of controversy after he to