ole miss and berkeley: paradox of a decade
TRANSCRIPT
1
OLE MISS AND BERKELEY: PARADOX OF A DECADE
Maria C. Leite, M.A.
9975 University Parkway apt. 40
Pensacola, FL 32514
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of EDF 8992 From Camelot to Chaos: The Upheaval of
the 1960s.
The work I am submitting is original and completed to the best of my ability.
2
Introduction
The 1960s was a decade replete of changes that would mark the history of the
United States. During these years of political, social, and cultural turmoil, universities
became common scenarios for students’ demonstrations. This photographic inquiry will
explore two significant events occurred in universities during the 1960s and will provide
an individual analysis, as well as an investigation of their differences and commonalities.
The first event, not officially characterized as a university protest or coalition in
defense of a cause, occurred in Oxford between 1961 and 1962 when the University of
Mississippi administration, refused to register James Meredith, an African American
former air force official (Doyle, 2001). This episode eventually occasioned the admission
of the first African American to the all-white institution and made James Meredith a
symbol of persistence and courage in the Civil Rights Movement. The subsequent event
to be investigated is The University of California Free Speech Movement (FSM)
occurred in 1964, at Berkeley campus. Rooted in the civil rights principles, the FSM
became the first significant students’ movement involving civil disobedience and mass
arrests (Cohen & Zelnik, 2002). Emerged from a predominantly white-middle-class
higher education institution, the FSM aimed to fight restrictions to students’ political
activities imposed by the university. The Berkeley Free Speech Movement of 1964
became a model for series of future students’ demonstrations during the decade (Litwack
as cited in Cohen & Zelnik, 2002).
The analysis of photographic and written material will trace the parallel between
two central figures in the events, James Meredith, the lone fighter against white
supremacy, and Mario Savio, the talented orator of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement
3
who conducted thousands of students in demonstrations against university reactionary
determinations of suppressing students’ political activities (Miller, 1996).
Final considerations regarding the analyzed material will expose the common
aspects and disparities between the events that, even though had the civil rights as the
common trigger, promoted the students’ group formation for very different purposes.
The University of Mississippi Libraries Archives and Special Collections
courteously conceded the use of photos of James Meredith and the University of
Mississippi. Berkeley Free Speech Movement images from The University of California,
Calisfere Themed Collections, did not require a permission request to use the
photographic material. Communication via e-mail assured the legality to use copyrighted
material for research purposes only, excluding publication or any other action that might
imply reproduction for profitable ends.
Meredith, Mississippi, and The South
Background
While in Japan at an American Air Base, the U.S. Air force sergeant James
Meredith, followed the news about events occurred in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957.
Nine African American students, enrolled to attend Little Rock Central High School,
faced a battle for their right to equal education, assured by the Supreme Court decision in
Brown vs. Board of Education, in 1954. The Little Rock Nine episode involved daily
white mob hatred demonstrations against the students in every trial they made to attend
classes. Eventually, “for the first time in the century, an American president was forced
to send combat troops into action to protect the rights of citizenship for black
4
Americans.” The Little Rock Nine episode progression would powerfully influence
Meredith future actions and his irrefutable “impact on Mississippi history” (Doyle, 2001).
Considered a “brilliant strategist” and owner of an enigmatic and “mystical
personality,” James Meredith demonstrated excessive pride in his ancestry. Tracing his
lineage with a great-great-grandfather who was an African prince, a great-grandfather
who was a Native American General, and a white great-grandfather who was a colonel in
the Confederacy, Meredith connection with all these symbolic characters might have
happened mostly at the mythological realm rather than in “physical reality” (Doyle,
2001). Nevertheless, the distinguished figure of his father, Moses Meredith, was
unquestionably of great influence in Meredith’s life. An independent farmer, son of a
slave, who was also a registered voter, in contrast to the majority of African Americans in
Mississippi, Moses Meredith successfully transmitted values of “pride and self-
sufficiency” to James Meredith and his siblings (Doyle, 2001).
Moved by the desire to “break the system of white supremacy” and inspired by
Little Rock (Doyle, 2001), Meredith believed that civil disobedience was an ineffective
strategy to be applied in Mississippi. He defended confrontational use of “physical force
and firepower” as strategies to fight for overthrowing white supremacy in his birth state
(Doyle, 2001).
After honorable air force discharge in July 1960, he returned to Mississippi and
registered at all-black Jackson State College to complete his bachelor’s degree in political
science. At this point, the cultural and social shock was inevitable. Spending most of his
childhood isolated in his father’s farm, being part of the integrated U.S. Air Force, and
living the previous three years in Japan, made Meredith’s experience with white
5
supremacy very limited (Doyle, 2001). Disgusted by the white citizens control power
over most institutions in Mississippi, which restricted tremendously African America
citizens’ rights, Meredith initiated the Mississippi Improvement Association of Students
(MIAS) at Jackson State. The MIAS was a “small secret society of campus intellectuals”
that promoted the break of white supremacy, through the distribution of subversive
material (Doyle, 2001).
Following his childhood dream to enter the University of Mississippi, and with a
“Divine Responsibility” in mind, in January 1961, Meredith took the “center stage”
(Doyle, 2001) in the confrontation that would challenge white supremacy eventually
resulting in the admission of the first African American student at the all-white Ole Miss.
Application and Refusal
On January 21, 1961, James Meredith requested an application form to the Office
of Registrar at University of Mississippi, at Oxford (John F. Kennedy Presidential
Library & Museum, n.d.). The institution was popularly known as Ole Miss, “the
nickname used by antebellum slaves for the white mistress of the house” (Doyle, 2001).
Controversially, the University of Mississippi was an institution with reputation of being
“multiracial,” and “multiethnic.” Opened to “almost every ethnic group on Earth,” Ole
Miss had white students as well as, Hispanic, Vietnamese, Korean, and students from
Pakistan and India. However, since 1848, when it was opened, the University of
Mississippi always refused admission to African Americans (Doyle, 2001).
Meredith received a letter accompanied by application forms from Ole Miss in
January 26. He completed the application forms and additionally wrote a letter to Robert
B. Ellis at the office of registrar, who had previously sent him the application forms. In
6
this letter, Meredith expressed his appreciation regarding the treatment he received from
Mr. Ellis when he requested the application material. The letter, sent on January 31,
contained the statement that Meredith was an “American-Mississippi-Negro citizen,” as
well as his optimistic expectations regarding the institution’s attitudes toward him as a
member of the “students body” (John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum, n.d.).
Advised by Medgar Evers, Mississippi Field Secretary for NAACP “who in 1954
had unsuccessfully explored registering at Ole Miss law school” (Doyle, 2001), Meredith,
on January 29, wrote a letter to Thurgood Marshall, “who won the most important legal
case of the century, Brown v. Board of Education, ending the legal separation of black
and white children in public schools” (Williams, 1998). He asked for legal support
anticipating possible difficulties during his admission and registration processes at the
institution. As expected, on February 4, Ole Miss Office of Registrar sent Meredith a
telegram stating his application for admission at Ole Miss had been discontinued. The
reason presented was the application was received after January 25. The telegram finally
stated that Meredith should not “appear for registration” (John F. Kennedy Presidential
Library & Museum, n.d.).
The events occurred following James Meredith admission denial at Ole Miss
included series of letters, court trials, hearings, and continuous publicity on the case that
involved federal and state administration strenuous negotiations, as well as the coalition
between Governor Ross Barnett and the white supremacist body of students against the
university integration (John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum, n.d.). From
January 1961 until October 1962, Meredith’s battle for his admission and registration at
Ole Miss promoted tremendous exposure of the South and its extreme racism.
7
Figure 1. Over a thousand University of Mississippi students gathered to protest the
university’s integration on September 20 1962. Ed Movitz Integration Collection,
Archives and Special Collections, University of Mississippi Libraries.
Court Battle
In a letter addressed to the U.S. Justice Department on February 7, 1961,
Meredith expressed his feelings of alienation as a member of a free democratic nation,
who was exposed to public embarrassment and personal humiliation having his
admission refused at the University of Mississippi solely based on his race. In addition,
Meredith protested against the culture of intimidation toward millions of “Negroes,” who
had been deprived to develop their full potential due to extreme control of their rights as
American citizens (John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum, n.d.).
8
On May 25 1961 the office of registrar formally rejected Meredith’s application to
Ole Miss. Supported by the NAACP, Meredith took the case to court on May 31.
Alleging his admission to the University of Mississippi was denied based on his race, he
filled a suit against the “Board of Trustees of State Institutions, the Chancellor of the
University of Mississippi, the Dean of College of Liberal Arts, and the Registrar of the
University” (John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum, n.d.).
Figure 2. Sign directing students who arrived in campus was altered. The image shows
the word “white” glued over the word “new.” September 20 1964. Ed Movitz
Integration Collection, Archives and Special Collections, University of Mississippi
Libraries.
Turbulence increased as the case progressed in a sequence of malicious legal
encounters involving biased and unfair questionings intended to promote Meredith’s
9
image as a mentally unreliable individual, and an unlawful citizen, demoralized by
fabricated criminal actions. On February 3 1962, Judge Sidney C. Mize determined that
James Meredith could not prove Ole Miss “had a policy of denying admission to Negro
applicants” (John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum, n.d.).
On June 25 1962, Judge Mize decision was reversed when Fifth Circuit Court
found Meredith rejection to Ole Miss was based on his race. On September 10, Supreme
Court Justice Hugo Black ordered Meredith admission to Ole Miss (John F. Kennedy
Presidential Library & Museum, n.d.). Meredith’s battle against public opinion and
segregationist politicians began on September 13, when Mississippi Governor Ross
Barnett broadcasted his declaration to the people of Mississippi, in which besides
attacking the Federal Government, he incited the population to join him against
Meredith’s registration at Ole Miss and the integration of schools in the state of
Mississippi (John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum, n.d.).
10
Figure 3. Confederate flags and white students in the background and
Governor Ross Barnett (foreground) cheering at Ole Miss homecoming on
October 1962. Russell H. Barrett Collection, Special Collections, University
of Mississippi Libraries.
Figure 4. Governor Ross Barnett bumper sticker. Russell H. Barrett Collection, Special
Collections, University of Mississippi Libraries.
Facing the Mob
September of 1962 was a month of strenuous negotiations between Governor
Barnett and the Kennedy Administration regarding Meredith’s entrance at Ole Miss. On
one side, the Federal Government intended to assure Meredith would be registered
without force or civil disorder. On the other side, Mississippi administration and the
segregationist mob violently prevented Meredith’s registration at the University.
President Kennedy’s efforts in working cooperatively with Governor Ross Barnett were
not enough to avoid series of brutal confrontations. The failure of conciliatory actions
culminated in the Federal government decision to federalize the Mississippi National
Guard on September 29. Armed Federal Marshals and troops occupied the University of
Mississippi campus on September 30 (John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum,
n.d.).
11
Figure4. “Student shouts insults at a U.S. Marshal awaiting the
arrival of James Meredith on Campus” on October, 1962. Ed
Movitz Integration Collection, Archives and Special Collections,
University of Mississippi Libraries.
12
Figure 5. The Mississippian, October 2 1962. Special Collections, University of
Mississippi Libraries.
13
Regardless President Kennedy national announcement of a peaceful resolution on
September 30, white segregationist students viciously protested against the decision
during the whole night. As a result of the riot, three people were killed and 160 U.S.
Marshals were wounded in a demonstration of hate and intolerance (Branch, 1998). On
October 1st 1962, escorted by U.S. Justice Department Attorney John Doar, James
Meredith registered at Ole Miss (John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum, n.d.),
and became the first African American student registered in a previously all-white
University of Mississippi, marking a significant victory in challenging white supremacy
in the South.
Figure 6. “James Meredith and Justice Department attorney John Doar on their way
to attempt to enroll Meredith in the University of Mississippi.” September – October
14
1962. Mississippi Highway Patrol Collection, Special Collections, University of
Mississippi Libraries.
Figure 7. James H. Meredith graduated in August 1963. James Meredith at
commencement, University of Mississippi. Russell H. Barrett Collection, Special
Collections, University of Mississippi Libraries.
On November 6, 2012, just after the 50th anniversary of the riot against
Meredith’s registration at Ole Miss, a group of 30 to 40 students gathered to protest
against President Barack Obama reelection. The group demonstration grew as the news
spread quickly through social networks (Washington Post, 2012). This unfortunate event,
which had aftermath of 400 people shouting racial insults and two reported arrests, was a
sad example of historical retroceding. On November 6, nearly 700 people counteracted in
a demonstration supporting racial harmony (Washington Post, 2012).
15
Sadly, in a state in which African Americans compose 37 percent of the overall
population, such demonstration exposed reminiscents of white supremacy in the South.
Ellen Meacham, an Ole Miss journalism instructor, declared: “Now, 50 years later, about
2 percent of the overall student body goes out to protest when their guy doesn’t win the
presidency and a portion of that small percentage displays the ugly strain that still infects
too many in our student body” (Washington Post, 2012).
Savio, Civil Rights, and FSM
Background
In 1964, the University of California Berkeley campus became the scenario of
“the first massive eruption of student dissent complete with civil disobedience and mass
arrests,” the Free Speech Movement (FSM). The unprecedented movement had the intent
to seize the restrictions of students’ political activities imposed by the institution (Cohen
& Zelnik, 2002).
Traditionally, Berkeley, as the majority of campuses, was a predominantly white,
middle-class institution characterized as “a heaven of privilege and conformity.” By the
mid-1960s, the University administration kept an ingrained structure that made the
institution “immune to ideological contamination.” Political activity was viewed as
inconsistent to higher education “goals and professionalism” (Litwack as cited in Cohen
& Zelnik, 2002).
The intent to suppress the traditional role of Berkeley as a non-political higher
education institution was the major force in launching the FSM. A multilayered
movement, the FSM was aligned to the civil rights struggle in the fight for “dignity and
freedom” for all, including students at Berkeley, “disenfranchised in the South”, and
16
those who suffered “racial discrimination in the Bay Area.” Civil rights organizers in the
South were considered heroes who risked their lives for freedom. At Berkeley, students
found the way to connect to the civil rights struggle through the support to the FSM
(Cohen & Zelnik, 2002).
Among the supporters who contributed in shaping a decade of fruitful political,
social, and cultural revolution, Mario Savio would be known as the FSM “most eloquent
orator.” Savio for the first time spoke to students on the top of a police car, an act that
would become the most popular symbol of the movement (Cohen & Zelnik, 2002).
Mario Savio
Mario Savio was a product of the first generation that grew up “under the treat of
a bomb” led by the desire to question “reality itself.” He explained his view of the Civil
Rights movement in “religious terms” (Savio in Cohen & Zelnik, 2002). He believed that
the ethical fundament “of ‘do good’ and ‘resist evil’,” present in most religions, was the
key aspect that had attracted people from diverse religious backgrounds – including
dissidents as himself - to join the movement (Savio in Cohen & Zelnik, 2002).
A member of an “upper working-class” family, Savio declared that the
“comparative prosperity” of the 1960s created favorable conditions to a movement that
emerged from middle-class students who could afford orienting “a large segment of their
lives along a moral axis.” In other words, he defended economic concern was a
significant factor in shaping one’s determination “to be drawn to something for ethical
reasons” (Savio in Cohen & Zelnik, 2002).
At Berkeley, Savio was a philosophy student who embraced both analytic
philosophy and existentialism. Strongly drawn to the analytical perspective, he gradually
17
conceived that the analysis of “everything to the root” integrated to the “spirit of
existential philosophy,” which is “the [notion that the] really important things are the
decisions you make and the life you choose,” in combination with the Civil Rights
Movement produced the attitude that was rising outside the campus (Savio in Cohen &
Zelnik, 2002).
Figure 8. Mario Savio Speaking from top of Police car on
October 1 1964. Photo: Steven Marcus. Steven Marcus Free
18
Speech Movement Photographs, UC Berkeley, Bancroft
Library.
Savio and Civil Rights Influences on the FSM
Inspired by the Birmingham protests, “lead by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in spring 1963,” the succession of
demonstrations that shook the Bay area between fall of 1963 and summer of 1964, set the
stage to the FSM “by sensitizing students to civil rights and providing a model for action”
teaching the logic of sit-ins as a “response to injustice” and setting the “standards for
commitment” (Freeman in Cohen & Zelnik, 2002).
These “militant demonstrations brought results” and encouraged activists to
continue. For instance, students protested against unequal hiring policies in local hotels
and stores. They defended “a response to ‘de facto’ discrimination”, which meant the
determination of hiring practices as discriminatory, just by the examination of the number
of people from different races who were hired in those local businesses. That would be
called later, affirmative action. On March 7, 1964, Savio was arrested at the
demonstration against discriminatory hiring policies at the Sheraton-Palace Hotel in San
Francisco (Savio in Cohen & Zelnik, 2002).
The Civil Rights Movement influenced Berkeley in the philosophical, structural,
and organization aspects. SNCC “devotion to grassroots democracy and consensual
decision making,” undoubtedly shaped the “group-centered” character of the FSM.
Controversially, the FSM was a predominantly white movement that gradually expanded
Berkeley to “a more open and tolerant community” (Martin in Cohen & Zelnik, 2002).
19
After participating in the Mississippi Freedom Summer and dealing with the
difficult realities of the segregationist South, Savio returned to California as “the
incoming president of the University Friends of SNCC” (Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee). At Berkeley, by that time, new University policies determined
the embargo of political demonstrations within University property, which immediately
banned the “card tables to distribute literature,” collection of money, and circulation of
leaflets, all instruments used by students to disseminate the new social order ideas (Savio
in Cohen & Zelnik, 2002).
Students at Berkeley formed a group and met with the Dean Katherine Towle
demanding a plausible explanation for the restriction. Dean Towle explained that the
determination was made because Berkeley campus was University property. Frustrated
and outraged by the discretionary nature of the decision, besides the fact that the campus
being University property was not a reason, but a fact, students formed the coalition
known as the Free Speech Movement in response to the University determination to
suppress their political liberties (Savio in Cohen & Zelnik, 2002).
The Free Speech Battle
At first, focused uniquely on campus free speech, the movement eventually
demanded, students should “be treated like citizens, subject to regulations only by the
courts.” Also, the FSM later criticized the University corporate behavior. The idea of a
“knowledge factory” with strained resources in which nearly thirty thousand students
were trained as “bureaucrats, engineers, and politicians” merely to maintain the
institution going was the opposite of any real search for knowledge (Adler in Cohen &
Zelnik, 2002).
20
On September 28, tensions caused by the embargo of students’ political activities
on campus did not seized, so Chancellor Edward Strong and President Clark Kerr
convoked the body of students to address the issue. During the session, about four
hundred students carried signs saying, “Vote for X (Censored) and Ban the Ban” (Adler
in Cohen & Zelnik, 2002).
On October 1st, Jack Weinberg, a civil rights activist, was arrested. A “growing
crowd” of students surrounded the police car impeding its motion (Adler in Cohen &
Zelnik, 2002). The group of near three thousand students (The Regents of The University
of California, 2012) held the police car for thirty-two hours (Miller, 1996). That’s when,
for the first time, Mario Savio “spoke from atop the police car,” which became a
powerful image of the movement (Cohen & Zelnik, 2002).
21
Figure 9. Jack Weinberg speaking from top of police car on
October 1964. Photo: Steven Marcus. Steven Marcus Free
Speech Movement Photographs, UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library.
22
Figure 10. Jack Weinberg in the back seat of the police car on October 1964.
Photo: Steven Marcus. Steven Marcus Free Speech Movement, UC Berkeley,
Bancroft Library.
Eventually, a supposed agreement was made and students ended the
demonstration. “Weinberg would be booked and released and the University would not
press charges.” A “student conduct committee of the Academic Senate” would analyze
suspended students instances and subsequently, the leaders of the demonstration would
meet with faculty, students committee, and administration “to discuss all aspects of
political behaviors on the campus and make recommendations to the administration”
(Adler in Cohen & Zelnik, 2002).
In reality, “a committee appointed by the chancellor” analyzed students’
suspension cases, rather than the student conduct committee as established in the
previous agreement. Considering this action offensive and feeling betrayed, students
resumed the protest and established FSM as the official name of the movement initiating
23
an organizational structure. This organization was composed by a “Steering Committee,
an Executive Committee,” with members from different political groups at Berkeley; and
press, communication, work, and legal affairs centers. The FSM’s newsletter was the
vehicle to disseminate criticisms to the “University’s paternalistic ideology” (Adler in
Cohen & Zelnik, 2002).
The FSM members proceeded with the demonstrations as they received “letters of
formal reprimand” from the University administration. Soon after a march occurred on
November 20, where a crowd of several thousands protesters wearing suits, ties, and
dresses participated, the Regents of The University of California began announcing
changes regarding political activities on campus “as long as they were legal.” Despite the
apparent final agreement reached by the end of November, when the University
administration had granted all the FSM’s demands, Mario Savio, Art Goldberg, Brian
Turner, and Jackie Goldberg received letters ordering their attendance to “hearings before
an administrative committee for illegal activities back in October”, when a crowd of
students surrounded a police car impeding its movement. Students felt betrayed again and
demanded the University administration to drop the charges (Adler in Cohen & Zelnik,
2002).
On December 2nd, Mario Savio delivered his famous speech “operation of the
machine” in front of Sprout Hall, where thousands of students were gathered in protest
against the charges. There was a call for “a tremendous sit-it.” About two thousand
protesters were led to the Sproul Hall by folk singer Joan Baez and Mario Savio. Students
were instructed in “nonviolent civil disobedience” and “how to go limp when arrested.”
24
During the sit-in, students sang, read, made speeches, and studied while the episode
gained tremendous press attention (Adler in Cohen & Zelnik, 2002).
Figure 11. Students singing inside building probably Sproul Hall during Dec. 2nd sit-in.
Photo: Steven Marcus. Steven Marcus Free Speech Movement Photographs, UC
Berkeley, Bancroft Library.
In the following day, both Berkeley and Oakland police officers arrested hundreds
of students. Scenes of students being dragged downstairs brutally by police officers were
under the target of all cameras. On December 5, students were released from Santa Rita
Jail after a body of faculty and students’ supporters raised bail money. After the near 800
arrests at the Sproul Hall, the FSM gained faculty support to the cause (Adler in Cohen &
Zelnik, 2002).
25
Figure 12. Mario Savio and Martin Roysher leading students through Sproul Hall on
December 2, 1964. Photo: Steven Marcus. Steven Marcus Free Speech Movement
Photographs. UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library.
26
Figure 13. Sue Trupin being carried up steps to bus after
being arrested in Sproul Hall on December 3 1964. Photo:
Steven Marcus. Steven Marcus Free Speech Movement
Photographs, UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library.
On December 7, at the Greek Theater, president Clark Kerr addressed “law
procedures” and the continuation of classes.” He also announced that charges against the
four students were amnestied; the protesters involved in the Sproul Hall sit-in would not
27
suffer any disciplinary action, and the “rules for campus political activity would be
liberalized.” By the end of Kerr’s speech, when Savio walked towards the microphone,
he was immediately detained by two police officers. Later that day, Savio was released
and there was a rally at Sproul Plaza where 10 thousand demonstrators attended. Parallel
to the rally, the “Committee of 200”, a group of liberal faculty members, presented a
proposal in favor of the FSM’s demands, which was voted and approved the next day.
Subsequently, the Regents decided that the First and Fourteenth Amendments would
regulate political activity on campus, and students would be judged as citizens. The battle
was finally over, and the FSM had officially won it (Adler in Cohen & Zelnik, 2002).
Civil Rights - The Nature of a Protest
The analysis of the two events previously described provided a good picture of
how the civil rights movement triggered subsequent actions that resulted in social and
political changes during the 1960s. For instance, James Meredith admission to Ole Miss
encouraged a new generation of African Americans to continue fighting white
supremacy. After Meredith, Vivian J. Malone and James A. Hood became the first
African American students admitted to the all-white University of Alabama under the
same turmoil involving negotiations between Governor George Wallace and President
Kennedy, federalization of Alabama National Guard (Reeves, 2009) as well as
segregationist students’ demonstrations. Both admitted in 1963, Malone graduated in
1965 and Hood returned to the university receiving a “Ph.D. in interdisciplinary studies
in 1997” (The University of Alabama, 2012).
Similarly, the unprecedented Berkeley Free Speech Movement founded on civil
rights roots, became an icon of students movements in the 1960s that set the stage for the
28
emergent New Left, the anti-war movement, and the counterculture (Miller, 1996). After
December of 1964, when Berkeley sit-in and strike took place forcing the consensus to
seize restrictions to students’ political actions, the Students for a Democratic Society
(SDS), an organization representing the white New Left student movement, started
planning the “first national protest against the war.” The protest with nearly thirty
thousand participants happened on April 17 1965 when the antiwar sentiment was
widespread. The protest became the “largest antiwar gathering that the country had ever
seen” (Miller, 1996).
Under the collective perspective, both events proved to be different in terms of
defining reasons why students unified to protest. While students protests in the
segregationist South were limited to disordered riots and mobs that focused basically in
maintaining white supremacy denying basic rights to African American citizens,
demonstrations occurred in other universities, such as Berkeley, involved an organized
political coalition in which participants defended freedom for all. Ironically, most of
these students on the West coast were white Americans from “affluent backgrounds.”
Many embraced the Civil Rights Movement joining projects such as the 1964 Mississippi
Freedom Summer, which helped shaping their “tactics of protest” and “mood of
commitment” (Miller, 1996).
29
Figure 14. Jeering student foes integration on September 21 1962. Ed Movitz
Integration Collection, Archives and Special Collections, University of Mississippi
Libraries.
30
Figure15. Art Goldberg and other students on top of police car on October 1964.
Photo: Steven Marcus. Steven Marcus Free Speech Movement Photographs, UC
Berkeley, Bancroft Library.
Figure 16. Angry Oxford residents surrounded Governor’s mansion to prevent U.S.
Marshal invasion (October 1 1962). Ed Movitz Integration Collection, Archives and
Special Collections, University of Mississippi Libraries.
31
Figure 17. Committee on Campus Political Activity (CCPA) meeting. Left to right: Sid
Stapleton, Suzanne Goldberg, Bettina Aptheker, Mario Savio, and Charles Powell on
November 7 1964. Photo: Steven Marcus. Steven Marcus Free Speech Movement
Photographs.
Under the attitudinal and individual perspective, Meredith and Savio struggle was
by nature founded on the same basic principles of freedom, justice, and rights to exercise
citizenship. Meredith’s political philosophy was “rooted firmly in that most basic
principle of American civics – citizenship.” His main goal was not merely integrating the
all-white universities in the South, but completely eliminate white supremacy as the form
of control that deprived African Americans to employ their citizen’s rights (Doyle, 2001).
Accordingly, Savio defined the FSM as a continuation of the Civil Rights
Movement. He stated, after returning from Mississippi Freedom Summer:
This fall I am engaged in another phase of the same struggle, this time in
32
Berkeley. The two battlefields may seem quite different to some observers but
this is not the case. The same rights are at stake in both places – the right to
participate as citizens in a democratic society (Savio as cited in Miller, 1996).
Either Meredith or Savio, each one engaged in his own battle, became strong
elements in the decade that changed significantly the social order in the United States.
Meredith, the lone fighter, who did not believe in nonviolence as an effective strategy to
face segregationist realities of the South (Doyle, 2001), fought white supremacy using his
own tools, pride and persistency. Not recognized by his rhetoric or leadership, but as a
brilliant strategist (Doyle, 2001), Meredith irrefutably became the whole model for a
generation of African Americans who subsequently would break the color line in all-
white high education institutions.
Savio, a student who bridged analytic philosophy and existentialism (Savio in
Cohen & Zelnik, 2002), was the most prominent orator and leader in the unprecedented
Free Speech Movement. His leadership and passionate speeches mobilized thousands of
students in the fight for citizenship rights. Savio and his principles of freedom and
democracy undoubtedly contributed to the reverberation of Berkeley events in
“universities throughout the country” (Miller, 1996).
Conclusion
Irrefutably, the Civil Rights Movement was the initial force motivating a whole
generation to fight for major changes in the social, political, and cultural order in the
United States during the 1960s. Among all occurrences involving university protests of
any sort, Meredith’s admission to Ole Miss and the FSM are pointed in literature as
pioneer events that contributed to series of subsequent changes during the decade.
33
Regardless similarities or differences on structure, purpose, or goals, both
episodes were intrinsically connected to the civil rights cause, either as main purpose or
through the employment of principles of nonviolence and protests tactics. Ole Miss and
Berkeley activated new ways to disseminate ideas through individual persistence or
group coalition. More importantly, they contributed to the progression of university
protests as politically structured movements with higher levels of demands and successful
accomplishments.
Equally important, in terms of recording history, the media played a key role in
registering each significant moment in this period. Thanks to photographers and reporters
who were present during the manifestations, photographic and written material could be
analyzed in details providing a more comprehensive understanding of the historical
context in which each event was immersed.
In addition, documentation related to court cases as well as written material
including interviews with individuals involved in protests during those years, were
valuable materials that could be found in university archives and in series of books –
including biographical, historical, or compilations of individual accounts.
Finally, the analysis provided in this study was a snapshot of a decade and did not
intend in any instance to establish absolute truths about these two events. Connections
were determined based on photographic and written material from valid and mainly
primary sources. The historical timeline and sequence of events presented were
confirmed by the triangulation of different sources of information to assure consistency.
34
References
Branch, Taylor (1998). Pillar of Fire. America in the King Years 1963-65. NY: Simon &
Schuster.
Cohen, Robert, & Zelnik, Reginald E. (2002). Free Speech Movement : Reflections on
Berkeley in the 1960s. University of California Press.
Doyle, William. (2001). An American insurrection: The battle of Oxford, Mississippi,
1962. New York: Doubleday.
John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum (n.d.). Integrating Ole Miss: A Civil
Rights Milestone. Retrieved from http://microsites.jfklibrary.org/olemiss/home/
Miller, Douglas T. (1996). On Our Own: Americans in the Sixties. Lexington, MA: D.C.
Health and Company.
PBS (2005). The Sixties: The Years that Shaped a Generation. Retrieved from
http://www.pbs.org/opb/thesixties/timeline/timeline_text.html
Reeves, Jay (2009). A Changed Alabama Remembers ’63. CBS News. Retrieved from
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-558016.html
The Regents of The University of California (2012). The Free Speech Movement.
Retrieved from http://www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu/themed_
collections/subtopic6b.html
The University of Alabama (2012). The University of Alabama Touching Lives: History
of UA. Retrieved from http://www.ua.edu/history.html
Williams, Juan (1998). Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary. NY: Random
House.
35
Image Sources
University of California, Berkeley, Bancroft Library (1964). Steven Marcus Free Speech
Movement Photographs. Retrieved from http://www.calisphere.
universityofcalifornia.edu/themed_collections/subtopic6b.html
University of Mississippi Libraries, Archives and Special Collections. Ed Movitz
Integration Collection.
University of Mississippi Libraries, Archives and Special Collections. Russel H. Barrett
Collection.
University of Mississippi Libraries, Archives and Special Collections. Mississippi
Highway Patrol Collection.
University of Mississippi Libraries, Archives and Special Collections. The Mississippian,
2 October 1962.
36
Appendix
37
Timeline - 1960s University Protests and Related Events
1959 – “The largest campus-based radical organization in the early sixties,” the Student
Peace Union or SPU, was founded at the University of Chicago. By 1961, SPU “had
more than fifteen hundred dues-paying members (…) through the Midwest and the
Northeast.” Membership in 1963 was about four thousand (Miller, 1996).
1960, February 1 – “Four neatly dressed black students had made history by insisting on
being served at a segregated lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina” (Miller,
1996).
1960, April 15-17 – Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was founded
in Raleigh, N.C. by African American College Students (PBS, 2005).
1960, May – Sit-in in San Francisco City Hall. “San Francisco and Berkeley Students
demonstrated against the House-Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), the chief
symbol of post war witch-hunts” (Miller, 1996).
1962, February – SPU and Student SANE, another small peace group, promoted a “two
day demonstration against continuing nuclear tests.” More than six thousand students
participated (Miller, 1996).
1962, June – First SDS Convention – “60s student manifesto, the Port Huron Statement:
Agenda for a Generation” (PBS, 2005).
1962, October 1 – James Meredith registered at the University of Mississippi, Oxford
(John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum, n.d.).
1963 – Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) “emerged in the midsixties as an
embodiment of the New Left student Movement. By 1963, it “served as little more than a
national forum for ideas” (Miller, 1996).
38
1963 – Berkeley graduate student Jack Weinberg (head of CORE Berkeley chapter)
organized a picketing in downtown stores with approximately 150 students demanding
the increase of minority hiring (Miller, 1996).
1964, February – Berkeley Congress of Racial equality (CORE) protesters promoted a
“shop-in” in a regional groceries store. Demonstrators filled their carts with products and
abandoned them stating they would not buy groceries where blacks could not work
(Miller, 1996).
1964, March – Approximately fifteen hundred Berkeley students protested against
discriminatory hiring practices at Sheraton-Palace Hotel in San Francisco. After nearly
eight hundred arrests, including Mario Savio, “the hotel signed a minority hiring
agreement” (Miller, 1996).
1964, June 22 –SNCC organized Freedom Summer aiming “to increase voter registration
and build a grassroots political party in Mississippi.” Andrew Goodman, Michael
Schwerner, and James Chaney disappear in Mississippi. The bodies were found on
August 4, “buried in an earthen dam” (PBS, 2005).
1964, Summer – SDS launched the Economic Research and Action Project (ERAP), a
test for “participatory democracy”. Through Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, among other northern cities, “young volunteers established projects” to
organize the poor, moving to ghettoes, and living on insufficient wages (Miller, 1996).
1965 – SDS “became the major New Left organization, spurred by campus unrest, the
struggle for racial equality, and above all the Vietnam War” (Miller, 1996).
1965, March 24 – First Anti-Vietnam War Teach-In was promoted by antiwar professors
and the SDS. Nearly three thousand demonstrators participated (PBS, 2005).
39
1965, April 17 – SDS promoted the first and largest antiwar protest in Washington with
near thirty thousand participants (Miller, 1996).
1966 – “the draft had become a major driving force behind the younger generation’s
opposition to the war” (Miller, 1996).
1966 - University of Chicago – “Students occupied the administration building for five
days” (Miller, 1996).
1966, June 30 – The National Organization for Women (NOW) was created with the
purpose of “bringing ‘women into full participation in the mainstream of American
Society’” (PBS, 2005).
1966, June 16 – Stokely Carmichael took over SNCC rejecting nonviolence and
establishing the idea of “Black Power” (PBS, 2005).
1967 – Berkeley, Wisconsin, Michigan, Columbia, and Harvard, as well as University of
Maine, University of Nebraska, Kentucky State, North Carolina A&T, and many others,
experienced student-led antiwar demonstrations.
1967 – “Vietnam Summer,” a movement “modeled on Mississippi Freedom Summer,”
had the participation of nearly twenty thousand students who disseminated the antiwar
message door-to-door (Miller, 1996).
1967, Summer – San Francisco Summer of Love – The Hippie Movement (PBS, 2005).
1967, October – Berkeley students tried to close the Oakland Induction Center colliding
violently with the police on the streets (Miller, 1996).
1968, November 6 – “Five-month student strike begins at San Francisco University. The
protests result in the creation of the nation's first ethnic studies program” (PBS, 2005).
1968 – SDS membership reached more than one hundred thousand (Miller, 1996).
40
1969, February – “Weeks of violent student uprisings begin with an extended student
strike at U.C. Berkeley, and continue with takeovers and sit-ins at University of
Massachusetts, Howard University, and Penn State” (PBS, 2005).