Text Analysis #3 – Student Protest
Who wrote it:
Doc #1 “Student Power” – Edward Schwartz
Doc #2 “Columbia Strike” – SDS (Students for a Democratic Society)
Doc #3 “Counterthrust on Student Power” – Counterthrust (a conservative group at Wayne State University in Michigan)
Who is the audience:
Doc #1- fellow peers/classmates, college professors, educational board, anyone that would be interested in listening to their cause in hopes of recruiting more supporters.
Doc #2- fellow peers/classmates, Columbia trustees, Columbia professors, Columbia officials, anyone willing to listen to their cause or reason why they were protesting or using the actions that they were and why.
Doc#3- the audience is towards other students who are protesting.
Who do the writers represents:
Doc #1- Edward Schwartz is a student activist who represents the views of the National Student Association which happened to be the largest college student organization in the 1960’s. Edward also represents many other fellow peers who believe that they deserve more rights as a student and who also deserve a say in what goes on in regards to their educational curricular policy.
Doc #2- The Students for a Democratic Society aka SDS represent the many radical students who were engaging in protests and also the many people who supported them. The SDS represented individuals who believed in establishing a participatory democracy and had a vision for post Vietnam War America and called for students to join them to represent a higher value, which applied to equality for all.
Doc #3- Counterthrust was a large conservative group at Wayne State University in Michigan who were opposed to the many students who were choosing to express their freedom to protest. Counterthrust believed in the complete opposite of the SDS and the NSA. They felt that these protest groups were negative and even harmful to campuses at Universities.
What is being said:
Doc #1- Edward Schwartz and many other NSA members believed that students deserved a say in what their curricular policy should be. He goes on to say that “Let this principle apply – he who must obey the rules should make it.” Meaning that since the students are the ones who are attending the school and taking part on campus that they should be the ones to dictate what it is they are able to do and not able to do with the time that they spend here. He later follows by saying that “Faculty and administrators should advise – attempt to persuade, even.” “Yet the student should bear the burden of choice.” He ends by stating that student power does not eliminate authority but rather makes things more democratic for everyone.
Doc #2- The Students for a Democratic Society argued that Columbia University is corrupted too much by the government and influenced into doing things that outraged many SDS members and fellow students who found it not only unmoral but injustice. Take for example the many evictions of tenants, refusal to grant a decent wage to Puerto Rican workers, secret work for the IDA and the CIA. Although many professors will claim that Columbia is a neutral institution student protestors see right through that which is why in this document student protestors explain their actions and reasoning behind the five seized buildings at Columbia University.
Doc #3- The conservative group Counterthrust argues that student organizations such as SDS and NSA want to radically alter the university community, and that “Student power” is a Left-Wing catchword symbolizing campus militancy and radicalism instead of democracy on campus like they claim it means. They further argue that these specific organizations are ruining college education and that private enterprise is the biggest single taxpayer for schools and that they should just honor the opportunity that they were given by the school to come and learn instead of trying to radically alter the university community.
How is it being said:
Doc #1- In the first Document Edward Schwartz speaks in a very professional and academic tone. He is very well spoken and makes many good claims and arguments to back up his opinion on the subject. He also uses great persuasion and refutes any counterarguments that individuals may have preconceived. He not only speaks on behalf of the NSA and his fellow peers but also speaks to the entire universities faculty as well.
Doc #2- In the second Document the members of the SDS explain the corrupt behavior of the Columbia university. Many students are outraged by the many injustice acts that were committed over the years. They continue to expose the university of not being a neutral institution by saying things like “Columbia standing at the top of a hill, looked down on Harlem…People who survived in Harlem had been evicted by the Trustees from Morningside or still paid rent to Columbia…We walked to our classrooms across land that had been privatized; we studied in buildings that had once been homes in a city that is under housed; and we listened to the apologies for cold war and capital in our classes.” You can sense the disgust in their tone and outrage that they felt having to go to class in a building that they knew the university had evicted tenants from in order for them to learn in.
Doc #3- In the third Document you can feel Counterthrust’s criticism throughout the document. They continue to attack other organizations like SDS and NFA by using words like lie, alter, sinister, incapable, narrow, etc. They are out on a goal to prevent these organizations from furthering any of their protests or goals. They seem pretty angry and upset that these organizations in their opinion are trying to “alter the university community.”
What proof:
Doc #1- He is a student who is attending the university which means he is somewhat knowledgeable and well spoken. He makes many good points like I stated earlier he says things like “Let this principle apply – he who must obey the rules should make it.” and “Faculty and administrators should advise – attempt to persuade, even.” “Yet the student should bear the burden of choice.” And refutes any counterarguments such as, stating that student power does not eliminate authority but rather makes things more democratic for everyone.
Doc #2- Throughout the whole second document the SDS give example after example of incriminating evidence of how their school is corrupted by not only the government but also by the unjust choices that they make in the process as well. They are very specific about exactly what outrages acts that their school has committed such as, evicting tenants, firing workers for trying to form a union, secret work for the IDA and CIA, etc. They use all of these examples of incriminating evidence to justify their actions in their participation in their student protest against their school.
Doc #3- The Counterthrust organization uses much of their own opinions and arguments to support and justify their claim that the organizations SDS and NSA want to radically alter the university community. They use many words to discredit their opposing organizations such as, lie, alter, sinister, incapable, narrow, etc.
Historical significance:
Doc #1 – Edward Schwartz was definitely a student activist who represented not only the National Student Association but also many other fellow peers. The historical significance behind this document was that during the 1960’s student protest occurred and the document portrays the view of a student but an actual activist who represented many other students who were looking for the same equality and freedom in the universities.
Doc #2 – The members of the Students for a Democratic Society were one of the longest and most violent student protests occurred in New York City during the 1960’s. They also represented many peers who wanted to expose their university of the corrupted behavior that the school was committing. They used many examples to justify their behavior during the protest.
Doc #3 – The Counterthrust organization was one of the few organizations out there that had opposing views on student protest. While many student organizations were protesting for equality in the dorms and classrooms the opposing organizations like Counterthrust were arguing that the student protests were trying to radically alter the university community and that they shouldn’t try and interfere with the education that they were invited to receive.
How does it fit:
The following documents fit into the historical context that I’m reading about currently in my textbook which is “Student Rebellion, the New Left, and the Counterculture.” It shows how student rebellion helped students fight for the equality and freedom and co-decide curricular policy. Not to mention that they were against the Viet Nam war. Against big monopolistic government. Against "big brother" behavior by the government, and for free speech.
First, I think you did a great job on the TA. I understand that as long as you were enrolled in a university during the 1960's you got a draft deferral and were not eligible for the draft and for service in Vietnam. That all seems patently unfair. Maybe had these sons and daughters of privlidge who were engaged in protest for the hell of it at Columbia and other Ivy League schools been eligible for the draft the Vietnam war would have either never happended or ended a lot earlier.
ReplyDeleteGood job TA! document-1 Edward Schwartz is stating that the students should essentially run colleges and that professors and administrative figures should be there merely to advise. To him and the National Student Association i think, anarchy would not arise from students taking over a college, but rather a “development of a democratic standard of authority.”
ReplyDeleteI agree with Geb about anarchy not arising if the NSA got their way. I thought that the third document was a bit extreme in their ideas about Leftists being militant and radical, and I definitely agreed with Schwartz when he said "Let this principle apply – he who must obey the rules should make it.”; students should have some say in how their school is run, but without eliminating administration and the faculty. Really good TA.
ReplyDeleteExcellent job done on your TA. In reading all the documents about student protests, Document 1 is one that I can relate to. I believe in that change is necessary for creating a better future and that we shouldn't live merely on our past. Without students, there is no university so why shouldn't students have more say in topics. I agree with Schwartz when he mentioned that the faculty should be included in issues as a way to advise or even persuade students, but not to make decisions on their own.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on Edward Schwartz who believe that they deserve more rights as a student. He really fought for students rights, because he said people thought students where anarchy, but for him that meant they had no ability to form community and to adhere to decisions made by community. He went on by saying that Student power is not the negation of rules, but it is the creation of a new process for the enacment of rules. He believed that student power is not the elimination of authority, but the development of a democratic standard of authority.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that the Vietnam War and other such events which were directly involving our government, played a major role in the explosion of student movements during the 1960s.
ReplyDeleteMost Americans were against the war, and college students provided some of the most effective forms of radical resistence.
College campuses were becoming the bedrock of revolution and student organizations such as the NSA and SDS, were some of the most powerful student lobbies during this era.
It was also an interesting struggle between conservatism and radical reform - as both factions were represented within the student body.
The interesting question I believe, is whether or not the student protest movement would still have commenced had there been no war in Vietnam and other parts of SE Asia. Meaning, would the Civil Rights movement would have been enough by itself in creating a desire for student revolt or other such uprisings?
Interesting debate!