Free Exercise and the free speech movement and clark kerr

So, what is the "meaning" or "significance" of the Free Speech Movement? And, what is the legacy of the movement to me, who never participated in it? I confes that my dominant emotion after studying the movement is not optimism but fear; not hope but skepticism. This essay explores those two themes.

Interpretations

One prominent way to look at the FSM is to see it as a means by which the Civil Rights movement was able to come on to campuses to broaden the scope of protest in the mid-1960s. This not only bore fruit in the immediate aftermath of 1964 but, expecially, in the wake of the escalation of the Viet Nam War later in the decade. This view of the FSM looks at it as sort of a conduit of an idea-protest--entering into the privileged realms of the Anglo world with concerns that had long-simmered in the South. Another way of looking at the FSM is as a critique of the capitalist system and the participation/cooptation of the University by the system. In this way of looking at things, the protesters in Fall 1964 were doing more than they knew. They thought they were protesting limitations on speech while, in fact, they were reaching for another and more profound critique--of the underpinnings of American capitalism.

A third iway to look at the FSM is almost as if it was a sort of church or community, a chance for people to experience the first sense of community they ever really had. I think this interpretation helps explain why so many people seem to be "stuck" in the 1960s. It was either the experience of that time or the feeling generated by that exprience that they just find too alluring to discard or impossible to "get beyond."

Yet again there is the interpretation of these events by Clark Kerr, President of UC in those days. Kerr saw the FSM as derailing his successful progressive (liberal) agenda by unnecessarily pursuing an agenda that led to terrible publicity, opposition to the FSM by most Californians, and the eventual election of Roanld Reagan to the Governorship of CA in 1966 (who, it must be added quickly, canned Kerr in 1967). In other words, the FSM people had provoked a reaction that they didn't intend and that, in fact, worked far more against them than Kerr's genial progressivism would have done.

Then, there is yet another interpretation--of more recent days--that the FSM was really not run by radicals but consisted of a wide swath of students ranging from radicals to moderates. Indeed, the key to its victory is now attributed to its rather lack of hard-core ideological control at the highest rank of the movement. In addition, as befits historiography in general in our day, the emphasis is on divergent approaches to the FSM and to the campus reactions to it in those days.

Finally, one might look at the FSM as the culmination rather than the first step in something new. Under this way of looking at the FSM it is to be best understood as a way of putting the ghouls (Sprouls?) of the 1950s finally to bed. The restrictions of those days, symbolized by Joe McCarthy and his hearings, were now, once and for all, interred. Or, a variation of this thesis, is that the FSM finally allowed the first generation of post-War baby boomers the chance to declare their independence from parietals, sexual restrictions, and the in loco parentis role that the University had incarnate for more than a century.

I tend to look at the FSM as unleashing a powerful current of freedom- and equality-seeking in our culture. I see it as a plea for more transparency, for America to begin to live out its values as we shape our institutions. In that regard, I take seriously that the movement was about speech and the right not to have to compartmentalize life. I see it, fundamentally, as a hopeful movement, as a movement teaching that possiblities of improvement are all around us, and that we ought to begin that improvement-seeking with the university. Yet, even though I have such a positive appreciation of the FSM, I am filled with fear as I think about it.

Fears

As I was studying the FSM, I did so with the deepest sense of foreboding. Why? I think it was the sense of how pretext can so easily be used by powerful people to abridge freedoms. And, these pretexts are often couched in the language of "what is good for you." It is really "good for you" not to try to integrate your academic and "social" life. Why? Who knows, but it really is in the interests of the powers that be that you don't do so, so that they can be successful at getting more funds form the Legislature for the school. Again, the irrationality of those in charge often depresses and frightens me. Even though procedures are "in place" and discussion of policies should happen at the "highest levels," they often do not, and people react to pressure, irrational fears and other things so that restrictions are imposed. Finally, I am afraid that values that are central to our lives (such as free speech) can be explained away, whittled down and, for all intents and purposes, explained away by people who may give lip serivce to their importance but who say that now is not the "right time" to exercise them. I become afraid when I think that any concept (the current one is "terrorism") can be used as a justification for almost everyting--to increase airport searches, to pass legislation limiting rights to habeas corpus relief, and a host of other things. I was wondering this morning, for example, how I would react if a uniformed officer came up to me and said, "Sir, we just have to search you now, terrorist threats have been reported..." What would you do?

I think my fears are fueled by the awareness of how vulnerable we are in our individual lives. But I suppose at its base the FSM teaches us that there are people out there (are you one? am I one?) who will rise and point out the irrationality of policies when they abridge our rights, rights that we hold dear. The legacy of the FSM lives.

2116