Proquest Dissertations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The dynamics of college student protest, 1930-1990 Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Van Dyke, Nella Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 30/09/2021 16:34:07 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/289051 INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly f^ the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter tece, while others may be from any type oT computer printer. The quality of this reproducticn is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broicen or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bteedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affiect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author dkj not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overiaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher qualify 6* x 9" islack and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directiy to order. Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zieb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 THE DYNAMICS OF COLLEGE STUDENT PROTEST, 1930-1990 by Nella Van Dyke A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 1999 UMI Number. 9957964 UMI* UMI Microfomi99S7g64 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Infomfiation and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Bell & Howell Information and Leaming Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA « GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Final Examination Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by The Dynamics of CoLlege Student Protest, 1930 — 1990 and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requi^^ent for the Degree of Doctor o£ Philosophy T f Doug , Date Sar^ Soule ^CAjl Ellsa^th Clenens ^ —, Date DavldSnow7 Date Date Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate's submission of the final copy of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirepmt. Dissertation^irector Date Doug McAdan^ 3 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation finm or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people assisted in the production of this dissertation, and I am indebted to all of them. I would especially like to thank my two dissertation co^hairs, Doug McAdam and Sarah A. Soule. Doug McAdam helped with every aspect of the project, finm the formulation of the project to the writing of the final chapters. He was an excellent mentor and advisor tlunughout my graduate school career. Sarah Soule was especially helpful with methodological concerns, and provided invaluable support throughout the final stages of the project My other committee members, Elisabeth Clemens and David Snow, also provided helpful feedback on the project Lis has been helpful throughout my graduate career, inspiring me to move my thinking to a higher level. A number of excellent undergraduate research assistants assisted with the data collection effort involved in this project. It is not an exaggeration to say that I could not have done this project without their help. I would especially like to thank Julie Lewis and Sara Prior for their months of hard work and high quality research assistance. Others worked on the project less time, but were invaluable nonetheless: Adia Bames, Tara Beal, Audra Belluomo, Tifl^y Ellis, Andrea Franco, Hattie Sabia, Peter Sandbothe, Holly Shinn and Amy Williamson. This project benefited enormously fit>m feedback provided by the members of the Contentious Politics Seminar at the Center for Advanced Studies in tfie Behavioral Sciences from 1996 to 1998. They heard about the project numerous times, but managed to appear interested and provide useful feedback each time. I would especially like to tha^ the faculty >^o were assigned to provide me with in-depth feedback, Sidney Tarrow and Chules Tilly. I also would like to thank others wiio provided helpful feedback at various stages of the project, including Natalka Bacqnusl^', tenee R. Beattie, Karen Christopher, Jennifer ^1, Leslie Gates, Miller McPherson, Mike Mulcahy, Dina Okamoto, James Shockey and Brenda Wilhehn. And, most of all, I thank my Mends and family members for years of support in spite ofneglect on my part as I was buried by data. This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant SBR9701S8S and two graduate research grants fix)m the University of Arizona. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOFnOURES 7 LIST OF TABLES 8 ABSTRACT 9 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 11 Political Opportunities and Student Mobilization 12 Protest Tactics: Political Opportunities and Organizations IS Inter-Movement Influence and Movement Overlap 18 Data and Methods 23 The Colleges 23 Protest EverU Data 27 The Structure of the Dissertation 34 CHAPTER 2: ELITE ALLIES AND ANTAGONISTS: POLITICAL OPPORTUNITIES AND STUDENT PROTEST, 1930-1990 36 Political Opportunity Theory 36 Political Elites: Political Parties 40 The Relationship Between Allies and Mobilization 43 Data and Methods 47 Variables 53 Statistical Method 56 Findings 57 Conclusions 65 Grievances and Access 67 CHAPTERS: WHY PETITION? WHY MARCH? HOW STRUCTURAL FACTORS INFLUENCE PROTEST TACTICS 72 The Tactical Repertoire 73 Political Opportunity and Tactic Use 75 The Role of Organizations: Institutionalization or Tactical Competition? 79 Data: College Student Activism 84 Protest on Can^m 88 Statistical Method 96 Dependent Variables 97 Independent Variables 98 Findings 100 Political Opportunities 100 Organizations 104 Conclusion 106 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED CHAPTER 4: THE FLUID BOUNDARIES OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: AN EXAMINATION OF MOVEMENT OVERLAP AND INTER- MOVEMENT INFLUENCE 110 Inter-movement Influence 113 Movement Overlap 118 Data - College Student Protest 123 Issues on Campus, 1930-1990 127 Overlapping Issues and Organizations 132 Quantitative Methods 137 Findings 140 The Social Movement Community - Harvard University 144 Conclusions 152 CHAPTERS: CONCLUSIONS 156 Political Opportunities 156 Protest Tactics 160 Inter-Movement Influence and Movement Overlap 165 Implications for the Future 170 REFERENCES 172 LIST OF FIGURES Figure LI. Total Protest Events, All Colleges 29 Figure 2.1. Tilly's Model of Mobilization 44 Figure 2.2. Eisinger's Model of Mobilization 44 Figure 2.3. Total Protest Events, All Colleges 50 Figure 2.4. Timeline of Protest Issues on Campus 52 Figure 3.1. Timeline of the Most Prevalent Protest Tactics on Campus, 1930- 1990 89 Figure 3.2. Graph of Tactics 90 Figure 4.1. Total Protest Events, 1930-1990 123 Figure 4.2. Number of Protest Events at Each College, 1930-1990 124 Figure 4.3. Timeline of Protest Issues on Campus 129 Figure 4.4. Issues on Campus, 1930-1990 130 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1. Sample Colleges, Organized by Selection Criteria 24 Table 1.2. Variables in the Dataset 31 Table 2.1. Sample Colleges, Organized by Selection Criteria 49 Table 2.2. The Impact of Elite Allies on the Likelihood of Student Protest Activity,l930-1990. Total Sample 58 Table 2.3. The Impact of Party Control and Divisions Between EUtes on the Likelihood of Student Protest Activity, 1930-1990. Total Sample 61 Table 2.4. The Impact of Repression and Elite Allies on the Likelihood of Protest Related to Individual Movements 64 Table 3.1. Sample Colleges, Organized by Selection Criteria 85 Table 3.2. Characteristics of the Protest Events 87 Table 3.3. Issues and Confrontational Tactics 93 Table 3.4. Involvement of Organizations in Events Using Different Tactics 93 Table 3.5. Confrontational Tactic Use by Organizations 95 Table 3.6. Efifects of Political Opportunities and Organization on the Likelihood of Conventional Political Action. Fixed Effects Partial Likelihood Model 101 Table 3.7. Effects of Political Opportunities and Orgam'zation on the Likelihood of Confrontational Political Action. Fixed Effects Partial Likelihood Model 103 Table 4.1. Major Issues on College Campuses, 1930-1990 129 Table 4.2. Inter-Movement Influence Correlation Matrix 133 Table 4.3. The Effect of Other Movements on Levels of Movement Protest, 1930-1990 141 9 ABSTRACT College students have historically played a prominent role in many movements and uprisings around the world. However, student protest has received little attention from social scientists.