DOCUMENT RESUME RD 011 988 24 80 005 497 AUTHOR Bressler, Marvin; Higgins, Judith TITLE The Political Left on Campus and In Society: The Active Decades. Final Report. INSTITUTION Princeton Univ., N.J. SONS AGENCY Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C. Bureau of Research. BUREAU NO BR-9-0442 PUB DATE Dec 72 GRANT 0EG-2-9-400442-1058(010) NOTE 67p. EDRS PRICE MF -$0.65 MC-353.29 DESCRIPTORS *Activism; College Students; Communism; *Comparative Analysis; Dissent; Generation Gap; *Politica... Attitudes; Political Influences; Political Issues; *Social Action; Social Attitudes; Social Change; .Student Attitudes; Student College Relationship IDENTIFIERS *Counter Culture ABSTRACT A comparative analysis is made of the similarities and differences between youthful activists of the1960's with earlier periods, focusing upon the 1920's and 1930's. Thereport briefly sketches the political and romantic Student Left during thedecade of the sixties; delineates the characteristics of non-campus-based youthful radicalism as exemplified by the action and thoughtof the Young Communist League between 1922 and 1943; explores the nature of the student movements which emerged during the immediately ensuing period; and specifies resemblances and differences between thepast and present in order to better anticipate the future. Whilemuch of the data of the study are derived from conventional bibliographical sources, the main historical sections are based on an intensive analysis of all named issues of youth-oriented radicalperiodicals or newspapers. Findings for both past and present youth groups indicate they were preoccupied with social issues ofpeace, poverty, civil liberties, and racial discrimination, and withcampus issues of corporative control of the university, academic freedom, economic issues, and academic offerings. The greatest divergence betweenthe two groups lies in the recent intrusion of *generationgap," *the counter cultures', and *student power,' into radical politics. (Author /SJM) FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLECOPY CC) U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. CO EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION C THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEH REPRO DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG INATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR °PIN IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSA911 O REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU CATION POSITION OR POLICY Final Report Project No. 9-0442 Grant No. 0EG-2-9-400442-1058(010) The Political Left On Campus And In Society: The Active Decades Marvin Bressler and Judith Higgins Princeton University N Princeton, New Jersey O December 1972 O U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Office of Education Bureau of Research Table of Contents 1. Summary 2. Background of the Study 3. Methods 4. Findings a. The Foundations of StudentRadicalism in the Sixties b. The Young Communist League: An Instance of Prototypical YouthfulRadicalism Be- tween the Wars c. The Young Communists andStudent Activism 5. Conclusions 6. References Final Report Project No. 9-0442 Grant No. OEG -2 -9- 400442-1058(010) The Political LeftOn Campus And In Society: The Active Decades Marvin Bressler and JudithHiggins Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey December 1972 The research reported hereinwas performed pursuant to a grant with the Officeof Education, U.S. De- partment of Health, Education,and Welfare. Con- tractors undertaking suchprojects under Government sponsorship are encouragedto express freely their professional judgment inthe conduct of the project. Points of view or opinionsstated do not, therefore, necessarily represent officialOffice of Education position or policy. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Office of Education Bureau of Research Summary The current study is a comparative inquiry into the resemblances and differences between youthfulac- tivism in the 1960's and earlier periods withspecial emphasis on the decades of the twenties and thirties. The major topics are: (1) the foundations of student radicalism in the sixties,(2) the Young Communist League as an illustration of prototypical youthful radicalism, and (3) young communists and studentac- tivism. The chief sources of data, in additionto con- ventional bibliographical sources,are the following periodicals and newspapers: The Intercollegiate $o- cialist, Young Worker, Young S;artacus,SLudent Review, Student Advocate, Clai:Lly, and New Frundations. The analysis of radical youth groups past and present, both on and off the campus, indicates that despite their separaticn in time and profound differ- ences in philosophy they were preoccupied withst::-en principal issues throughout much of the period: society,(1) peace,(2) poverty,(3) civil libert_es, and(4) racial discrimination; am::on the campus, (1) corporative control of the university,(2) acaderoic freedom,(3) economic issues, and (4) toa _ssPr ex- tet adrcilacv of academic nf5_erings. The greAtest divergence between the earlier and later periodslies in the recent intrusion of "generation gap,""the counter culture," and "student power" into radical politics. The final section incl udes speculationson the condi- tions under which latent dibcontent will beconverted into a protest movement. Background for the Study The mood of the camors circa 1972 is often de- scribed as "apathetic,' "apolitical," and "conform- ist." Such terms have not been applied to students since the "silent fifties" and they ring strange to anyone familiar with the events in American higher education during the previous decade. We need hardly be reminded that during the 1960's colleges and uni- versities were both a staging area andan arena for all manner of spontaneous and organized protest against the putative sins of the educational establishment and the broader American society. During the period cam- pus militants variously referred to as the "New Left," "activists," "radicals" or by the omnibus term, "The Move:Kmt," not only were instrumental in compelling educational reEorm but in expanding the American political spectrum, with consequences for electoral behm,ior, the two-party system, and the tactics ofpro- test, which taken collectively, may transform the basic premises of the polity. They have already moved liber- als to the left, have beer instrumental in deposingone president, and played an important role in r)minating the candidate who challenged his successor.. En view of these remarkable achievements the pres- ent tranquility in academe is a puzzle to pundits and scholars. The reasons usually adduced for the "return to normality" emphasize influences external to the cam- pus (e.g. President Nixon's skillful management of the Viet-Nam war issue), the venality of the students (e.g. the return to careerism as a result ofa tight job mar- ket), or the exhaustion of idealism after a decade of evangelism. Interpretations of this sort are plausible b'-t since they deal only with the present they overlook sipplementary modes of explanation which may be discov- ered in the recent history of student movements. The script for th3 early seventies was written in the sixties when student activists discovered that of their two major goals, educational reform and the radical transformation of society, the first was attainable and the second quite beyond their power. The collapse of loco parentis, increased curricular flexibility,new pedagogies, and changing patterns of governance havere- duced student discontent and the impulse to action. The invulnerability of war, racism, poverty, and bourgeois morality to the exhortation of young visionaries convinced even the most obtuse that radical social reconstruction could not be achieved by Marxist soldiers who did not stir -2- from the campus. We may be witnessing notso much the demise of student activismas the decline of hubris and the return to an older radicaldefinition of the scope and limits of student power. Throughout most of the twentiethcentury radical theoreticians have regarded studentgroups as one ele- ment of a greater constituency calledyouth, which in turn could play a limited roleas part of a lager so- cial movement. If this is to be the shape of thefuture we can profit from consulting the chroniclesof youth- ful radicalism between World WarsI and II when the proletariat rather than the affluentyoung was regarded by many as the chosen instrument ofhistory. It was during this period that theintellectual currency that still sustains the New Leftwas first released for mass distribution. This is, of course,a considerable method- ological advantage since shared ideologiesenhance the possibility of fruitful historicalcomparisons. The purpose of this report, then,may be summarized as follows: 1. to sketch briefly the major thesesadvanced by the political and romantic Student Leftduring the dec- ade of the sixties; 2. to delineate the characteristics ofnon-cam- pus-based youthful radicalismas exemplified by the action and thought of the Young CommunistLeague be- tween 1922 and 1943; 3. to explore the nature of the studentmovements which emerged during the immediatelyensuing period; and 4. to specify resemblances and differences be- tween past and present in order better to anticipate the future. Methods Much of the data of the studyare derived from conventional bibliographicalsources which al' treated according to the visual canons of scholarship. The main historical sectionsare based on an intensive analysis of all issues of the followingyouth-oriented radical periodicals or newspapers: The Intercollegiate Socialist, Volumes I-IV, 1911-1915;Young Worker, Vol- umes 1-14/417, 1922-1936; Young Spartacus,