The Vietnam war caused a great deal of strife in the United States of America. The country was split like a ripe melon between those who supported the war effort and those who wanted to see America withdraw from Vietnam. Students are famous for being a very protest-y demographic, and at college campuses all across the country students lead protests against America’s involvement in the Vietnam war. The University of Puget Sound was no different. During the course of the Vietnam war the students of the University of Puget sound held multiple protests on campus, and also wrote articles in the Trail. That was irritating enough to the administration, but what really ruffled their feathers was when the faculty began to get involved as well.
On Tuesday, January 17, 1967, 18 professors and faculty members from the University of Puget Sound took out an advertisement in the Tacoma News Tribune stating that they believed that the United States should not be involved in the war in Vietnam. This greatly upset, among other people, President Thomas, and a board member, the mysterious Mr. G.E. Karlen, who appeared to live at the Thunderbird Country Club in Palm Springs, California. Upon catching wind of the advertisement, Mr. Karlen wrote a letter to President Thomas, expressing his displeasure. Then, on Friday, February 3, 1967, another group of University of Puget Sound professors and staff, this time numbering 84, took out another advertisement in the Tacoma News Tribune that detailed their reasons for believing that the US ought to remain involved in the war.
Although this was not even close to being the end of the controversy on the UPS campus, let alone in the wider United States, it is enough to provide a background. We are interested in exploring whether the subject which a professor taught had any impact upon the statement to which they decided to add their name. Was an art professor more likely to be pro-war, or anti-war? Why? What about a biology professor? Or a business professor? Did the difference in area of expertise have any bearing on the professors opinions about the war? If so, why?
Before researching each professor that took a stance on either the pro-war or anti-war side, our group deliberated over which side different faculty members would be likely to take depending on their department. We hypothesized that hard sciences, business, and economics would be more likely to lean towards the pro-war sentiment, while those in the humanities and soft sciences would lean towards the anti-war side. We discussed how, historically, political ideologies and profession can go hand in hand.
Of the 18 professors who felt that The US should not be involved in Vietnam, four each were professors of religion, english, of library staff. Two each were professors of philosophy or music, and three were professors of either biology, psychology, or sociology. One could not be located. Although this does make it seem as though there are 19 signatories of the anti-war document, several of these people were professors of more that one subject, which can account for any possible confusion. Our hypothesis concerning professors of the humanities tending to fall into the anti-war category seems to pan out. Of the 18 signatories of the anti-war advertisements, 12 of them were either involved in the english department, the religion department, or in the library, and six of them were involved in the soft sciences. Only one, a professor of biology, broke the mold by joining the anti-war camp.
Why is it that such a vast majority of the anti-war professors came from either humanities or from the soft sciences? One possibility could be that having a different field of study could lead people to have different worldviews. It makes sense that a professor who specializes in the humanities or in the soft sciences would become used to looking at the world through a human-centric lens and would be more in tune with human sufferings, leading them to be more anti-war.
After the first advertisement in the Tacoma News Tribune, eighty-four UPS faculty members decided to take out another advertisement in the same newspaper, only this time signing their name in support of the war. Of those 84, our group was able to find 64 faculty members and track down their area of study and teachings. Of those 64, ten were professors of business or economics. There were six professors of physical education, five from the education department, five deans or administration roles, and five from the arts department. The other department members that signed were from biology, psychology, chemistry, music, physics, history, french, math, sociology, home economics, political science, and occupational therapy. The vice president was also among those to sign in support of the war. Somebody who specializes in business or in the hard sciences would view the world with a more analytical, business-centric lens, and perhaps they would be less in tune with the human costs of war, causing them to be more likely to be in support of the war. Something that is interesting about the physical education professors and the business professors was that a great number of them were a part of the military at some point in their life. That would definitely explain their support for the war.
We have shown that there is a rather clear divide between the specialities that tended to be in the pro-war camp and those in the anti-war camp, and we have given our speculation as to why that is. Of course, it is entirely possible that people who already have a tendency to view the word from a human lens are more drawn to the humanities and to the soft sciences, and the more calculating, analytical people were more likely to be drawn to business and to the hard sciences. It is not possible to say what came first, the worldview of the profession. Either way, though, it is very interesting that a person’s area of special concern can predict whether a person would support or oppose the Vietnam war with such startling accuracy. It would be very interesting to see if this trend held firm on other campuses throughout the country, or if the University of Puget Sound was an outlier.
Altbach, Philip G., and Patti Peterson. “Before Berkeley: Historical Perspectives on American Student Activism.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 395, 1971, pp. 1–14. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1038571.
Burgess, Philip M., and C. Richard Hofstetter. “The ‘Student Movement’: Ideology and Reality.” Midwest Journal of Political Science, vol. 15, no. 4, 1971, pp. 687–702. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2110048.
Cohen, Robby. “Berkeley Free Speech Movement: Paving the Way for Campus Activism.” OAH Magazine of History, vol. 1, no. 1, 1985, pp. 16–18. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25162448.
Dodds, Gordon B. “Oregon Historical Quarterly.” Oregon Historical Quarterly, vol. 103, no. 1, 2002, pp. 126–128. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20615212.
Edwards, G. Thomas. “Student Activism at Whitman College and Willamette University, 1965-1971: A Photo Essay.” The Pacific Northwest Quarterly, vol. 99, no. 4, 2008, pp. 173–180. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40492174.
Edwards, G. (2001). Tradition in a turbulent age : Whitman College 1925-1975. Walla Walla, Wash.: Whitman College.
“HistoryLink.org.” Tacoma Students March for Peace on April 22, 1936., historylink.org/File/11170.
Langer, Elinor. “Crisis at Berkeley: (I) The Civil War.” Science, vol. 148, no. 3667, 1965, pp. 198–202. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1715515.
“Student Protest.” AAUP Bulletin, vol. 55, no. 3, 1969, pp. 309–326. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40223829.
“University of Puget Sound Bulletin 1967-1968, 1968-1969”,Volume LVIII, December, 1966, No. 5.