In the late 1960s the Vietnam War provoked student protests on university campuses nationwide. These protests exposed a variety of student concerns and provided a major platform for discussion on important issues of the time. Due to the increased media coverage and negative press of the war, citizens, especially students, felt that the government was ignoring their demands for peace, spurring feelings of distrust in the government and other institutions. This led to an emergence of concerns including lack of student involvement on campuses, institutionalized racism, brutality of the Vietnam War, and declination of democratic values. Students of the University of Puget Sound (UPS) protested against the administration for more student involvement in administrative decisions, presenting three demands for the creation of a dean of students, that “the Board of Trustees will suspend the review procedures, pertaining to the University Council,” and for one third of the trustees to be selected by student body. 1 Although various universities differed in their specific focus, the student led protests on the University of Puget Sound campus were influenced by and reflect other peaceful students protests for more student involvement around the nation.
Both the anti-war movement and UPS student protests endorsed peaceful means to achieve change. In 1969, the UPS student newspaper, The Trail, discussed the meeting of 500 to 600 students to vote on the three demands; if the administration’s response was “inadequate,” then a strike would be held, and another student meeting would take place. 2 According to The Trail, amidst all this action, the Associative Students of the University of Puget Sound (ASUPS) President, specifically stated that “no violence [was] endorsed, nor anticipated.” 3 This notion of peaceful protests was prominent across the nation in the anti-war movement. In 1967, the Washington Star published a famous picture of a protester putting flowers in the American soldiers’ rifles, when they were approached during a peaceful rally in the Pentagon. 4 These movements represented the shift to creating change in a peaceful manner, in contrast to the American government’s engagement in the Vietnam war to stop communism.
Similar to anti-war protesters around the nation who felt that American democratic values were decreasing, UPS students desired a more democratic voice in administrative decisions. Many anti-war protesters believed that the Vietnam war was shattering American democratic values; these included “going to war without a formal declaration of war from Congress, presidential secrets and lies, FBI surveillance of peace protesters, and unjust draft deferments for middle and upper-class men who could afford to go to college.” 5 Citizens began to view the government as corrupt, and desired more voice and power. Similarly, UPS students felt the administration and Board of Trustees contained too much power, and thus they desired more voice on important decisions. Prior to the students’ demands, The Board of Trustees reviewed all proposals of the University Council, which consisted of “students, alumni, trustees, faculty, and administrators,” even though the students did not vote for the members of the Board. 6 The students’ second demand would stop the Board from reviewing and potentially vetoing the University Council’s ideas, and the third demand would allow students to vote for one third of the Board. 7 This would create a more democratic system for the student’s voices to be heard, and not be reviewed by people whom they did not vote for.
The UPS community was divided in its response to the students’ threat of a strike, with some alumni and members of the administration criticizing the strategy while others claimed that such radical action was necessary to enact change. The 1970 issue of the Alumnus magazine includes the opinions of seven alumni on the student protest, most of whom appear to approve of the students’ activism but disapprove of the methods of said activism. Dave Hedberg ‘56 sums up this attitude perfectly: “I do not think the administration should bow to student demands… they should be good listeners, but not when the advice is made in the form of a demand…. They [the students] need a strong voice, but not in the form of a demand.” Robert Meyers ‘50 takes a slightly more subtle approach, expressing his concern about the consequences of allowing the administration to “proceed down the road of permissiveness.” 8 Both of these responses imply a resistance to the student’s use of threats while providing support for their desire for institutional change. Conversely, the administration tended to simply downplay the whole episode. In the same magazine article, the president claimed that two of the three demands “were already under way” and that “there was little chance” that the third demand would be met. He does not legitimize the methods or even the validity of the student movement as a whole, and his statements can be considered to be in line with the attitude of the Board of Trustees.
Further, the administration deemed the students efforts as “unorganized and biased,” emotionally charged and expressed discomfort with decisions being made by “a minority.” 9 David E. Miller, a member of the student steering committee, explained that the ASB president, John O’Melveny threatened to resign from his position if the administration did not follow through on the three demands adequately. If the students’ plan was not effective in swaying the administration, according to Miller, O’Melveny stated it would at a minimum be an opportunity for a “groovy vacation.” However, in “Letters to the Editor” O’Melveny defends the student position by explaining that ASB officers must attend to their moral commitments to “the betterment of the University community.” 10 Miller and O’Melveny’s points of view highlight the divergent perspectives of protests by administrators and students.
The demands for more student involvement of Puget Sound students were similar to those of by other university students, especially Columbia University, however, the differed due to their focused agenda of more student involvement in administrative decisions. Columbia University students broader agenda called attention to a variety of issues including institutionalized racism on campus, the collaboration of the University to the Vietnam war due to its relationship with the Institute for Defense Analysis. The campus protests reflected the nationwide student led anti-war movement called the New Left. The New Left consisted of a coalition of student based organizations that were against racial discrimination, poverty, and the war. 11 These student lead organization were so frightening to university administrations that university had to set up means to contain the damage that they could do. An example of this was the University of California banned student political debate or discussion regarding the war. 12 Puget Sound also had to take measures in order to keep their campus controlled by creating a system for when the police would be called to campus if an uprising were to become unmanageable.
Of the three demands, the first two were met and established by the University and the third was voted down by the Board. Although not all the demands were met, this was a win for the UPS students and the threatened strike did not come to pass. The UPS student movement reflected other student and anti-war protests occurring around the nation, in their values and means of change. Puget sound students today can thank the students of the 1960s for all their hard work.
- “Mass Student Assembly Shows Unity, Concern” Puget Sound Trail (Nov 21, 1969) in University of Puget Sound’s Archives and Special Collections, Collins Memorial Library
- “Students Await University Response” Puget Sound Trail (Nov 21, 1969) in University of Puget Sound’s Archives and Special Collections, Collins Memorial Library
- “Students Await University Response” Puget Sound Trail (Nov 21, 1969) in University of Puget Sound’s Archives and Special Collections, Collins Memorial Library
- Jennifer Keene, Saul Cornell, and Edward O’Donnell, Visions of America: A History of the United States (Boston: Pearson Education, 2015), 782.
- Jennifer Keene, Saul Cornell, and Edward O’Donnell, Visions of America: A History of the United States (Boston: Pearson Education, 2015), 800.
- “Administration Statement” Puget Sound Trail (Nov 21, 1969) in University of Puget Sound’s Archives and Special Collections, Collins Memorial Library
- “Administration Statement” Puget Sound Trail (Nov 21, 1969) in University of Puget Sound’s Archives and Special Collections, Collins Memorial Library
- Donald A. Jaenicke, “The student trustee: Confrontation crisis or opportunity?” Alumnus (Winter 1970) in University of Puget Sound’s Archives and Special Collections, Collins Memorial Library, 10-13.
- David E. Miller, “To Whom It May Concern/Addenda V” (Nov 19, 1969) in University of Puget Sound’s Archives and Special Collections, Collins Memorial Library
- “Letters to the Editor” Puget Sound Trail (Nov 21, 1969) in University of Puget Sound’s Archives and Special Collections, Collins Memorial Library, 3.
- Jennifer Keene, Saul Cornell, and Edward O’Donnell, Visions of America: A History of the United States (Boston: Pearson Education, 2015), 832.
- Jennifer Keene, Saul Cornell, and Edward O’Donnell, Visions of America: A History of the United States (Boston: Pearson Education, 2015), 832.