During the past year, college campuses have often been in the news. As an NROTC Midshipman at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, I was:
Concerned when a group of students protested on-campus recruitment by the CIA;
Disturbed when a minority of students disrupted an on-campus speech by then Vice President Hubert Humphrey;
Confused following Martin Luther King's death when the ROTC units were advised not to wear uniforms for fear of militant black attacks;
Alarmed when the NROTC annex at Stanford was set ablaze;
Astonished when the nearly rebuilt annex was set afire for the second time and burned to the ground.
Are these incidents indicative of large scale Communistic movements on college campuses? Should college and university administrators clamp down on protests and demonstrations? Has the current generation of young people fallen to such a level that Americans should now fear that "the torch" that John F. Kennedy referred to in his Inaugural Address, which "has been passed to a new generation of Americans," will be used to burn their country to the ground?
This nation is now experiencing more dissidence and discontent than any time since the Civil War. The Vietnam conflict and the civil rights crises have been the focal points of what seems to be a much deeper problem—a problem that, at one time or another, has been laid at the door of over-mechanization, over-population, de-personalization, or to the discovery and uses of nuclear energy. While the exact cause of the current unrest remains open to question, one point is clear: nowhere in the United States is this current discontent more obvious than on college campuses across the country.
The bulk of the protest seems to have come from one principal source, broadly categorized by news media under the heading of the "New Left.” But, today's Leftist may be the most unusual in American history. For, no longer are such liberals as Hubert Humphrey considered "liberal" to the majority of college students. In the minds of the college students, the former "liberals" are now members of the "The Establishment," a term used to characterize the hierarchy of American society which, supposedly, is either committed unwaveringly to the status quo or is doing entirely too little to change it. Upon detecting something that it considers unjust, the New Left will attack it unrelentingly by any means considered workable. Such has been the case with Vietnam and various civil rights questions. The original handful of protestors has now grown into a great number of demonstrators using widely varied forms of protest.
Questions are now being raised by The Establishment concerning the legality and permissibility of some of these forms. Indictments are now being sought against those who refuse induction, who burn draft cards, or, who participate in any of the other increasingly common forms of protest.
Should such demonstrations be limited, or does this infringe upon the traditional guarantees of the Constitution?
As a midshipman on a civilian college campus, my position is midway between these two polarized groups. I believe that there is a "generation gap." I believe that those under 30 years of age do not understand those over 30. And vice versa. One manifestation of this mutual misunderstanding is the tendency of some adults, to, refer to all demonstrators as "draft-dodgers" or "card-carrying Communists." And, conversely, some students refer to all those who wear uniforms as "warmongers" or "fascists," or "pigs." Clearly, the gap is wide, and understanding is the only hope of bridging it and perhaps bringing order out of disorder, unity out of disunity.
This is, of course, familiar ground we are covering. The news media have made it so. In the safety of their homes, most Americans have watched, on their television sets, the turmoil, the tumult, and the shouting that have made today's college campus such a prime source of "news." Yet, how many people have watched—or heard about—the protestors, and demonstrations against demonstrators?
One year ago at Stanford, a group of students protested on-campus recruitment by the CIA. The University administration charged these New-Leftists with obstructing the meeting—a charge later denied by the students—and placed them on suspension. The charge was appealed by the students to the judicial system of the University. The appellate body also upheld the University's original charge. In response to this action, a sit-in at the administration building was called. About 100 students gained admittance to the building and protested by remaining there for two days and nights. After two days, the Leftist-oriented associated student body president called for an all-campus rally at the administration building, hoping that his followers and/or sympathizers would constitute a majority. Instead, the ratio was 2 to 1 in favor of the more moderate students who voted "for the immediate cessation of the sit-in." The students who were in the building did not comply until 12 hours later.
In this incident, the Leftist element was clearly defeated by a strong majority, but the news media did not carry this story, possibly because it did not have the same news value as did the burning of the annex or the harassment of the CIA recruiters.
Clearly, the newsmen are trying to carry the most interesting and eye-catching material in their various media, but accuracy and clarity clearly suffer in the process. For example, in the coverage of Vietnam, headlines have trumpeted stories concerning the Tet offensive, the threat to Khe Sanh, and the tenuous position of Saigon itself. But little is said about the "other war" in Vietnam, the massive pacification program being conducted alongside the more newsworthy "guns and bullets" war.
Similarly, on college campuses, newsmen tend to report the sensational and disregard the moderate and responsible actions of the students.
In saying all of this, however, I make no blanket apology for my generation. But I am ashamed when some of my contemporaries think that they must go beyond the law to effect change. Traditionally, the great advantage of the democratic system has been its ability to undergo change without violence or anarchy. Increasingly, however, violence has been espoused by those who "demand" immediate change—and, as loudly, demand amnesty when called to account for their violence. As this occurs, the other side, The Establishment, stands even more firm in the face of the challenge, as evidenced by events in Chicago during the Democratic convention.
A common indictment leveled at the protestors is that they would not stand up and fight for anything, not even for the very nation that has produced, nurtured, and educated them. Just as they would not fight in Vietnam, their seniors sneer, they would not fight to drive an invader out of Long Island. There is no more classic case of misunderstanding between the generations than this, in my judgment. I believe that many of the protesting students truly believe that the war in Vietnam is neither vital to the interests of the United States nor should it even involve the United States. Viewed through their eyes, it is a civil war.
The Vietnam dissenter seems to fall into one of three groups: the hard-core revolutionist, out to abolish many of the existing U. S. institutions; the self-centered cynic who Views U. S. participation in the war as disruptive to his personal plans, and is not willing to make the sacrifice; and the idealist who is attempting to change what he believes is an immoral policy. The first two groups of protestors merit little respect. But, who would dare ridicule the idealist who is willing to go to prison or otherwise sacrifice himself for his beliefs. Is this not one of the most admirable qualities of my generation? Would not such a man be a giant in any generation, any country?
Students who now face prison terms cannot, then, be written off as cowardly draft-dodgers. For, along with the revolutionists, and the cynics, sit many idealists. We cannot, then, speak of categories; we must try to assess a whole generation as it presents itself on our campuses. Would they fight for the United States if they believed it was in danger? In my opinion, there is no question that the current generation would support its government if they perceived a direct, clear-cut threat to the United States.
In this respect, there was a close parallel, in pre-World War II England, to the protests against the Vietnam war that we now see almost daily in the United States. In 1933, the students of the Oxford Union passed the resolution, "That this House refuses to fight for King and country." By the end of World War II, this group had produced a lengthy list of highly decorated heroes. Perhaps it was immaturity that caused them to sign the now infamous Oxford Pledge; perhaps it was youthful idealism. Such is the case with today's young rebels.
No one can, however, speak for a generation. Nor would I presume to speak for those who are both midshipmen, and, at the same time, civilian students of a university. But I can speak for myself. The most basic of my thoughts is my trust in the institutions of American government founded on law and order. I, therefore, renounce those who resort to unlawful violence in order to register their protest. I see, for example, the burning of the Stanford NROTC Annex one year ago this past spring as arson, a malicious, illegal act which is punishable under our law.
The world is indeed "going to the dogs," just as it has always been, throughout most of recorded history. The present period does present some unique problems, and the new generation has already put its collective shoulder to the wheel in their solution. Young people have been in the forefront of the battle for civil rights; they have worked tirelessly in the political arena, and they are far more interested in tomorrow and in tomorrow's tomorrows than were their parents at a comparable age. Most are responding in a responsible way.
Several years ago, the USS Oriskany (CVA-34) suffered a very serious fire. Time magazine reported: "Almost everyone aboard performed with distinction, but the kids, the teen-aged sailors of the Oriskany got particular acclaim for keeping her afloat. Said one seasoned chief: 'Those crazy, rock-n-roll jitter buggers, they saved this ship today. Getting into that fire and pushing those bombs over the side and volunteering for rescue parties—those kids were everywhere doing everything."
Perhaps the day is not far off when a protest or demonstration, conducted within the limits of the law by young Americans, kinsmen in blood and spirit to "those kids" of the Oriskany, will not cause older Americans to cringe. For, the United States remains one of the few places in the world where protests and demonstrations still can occur—as both young and older Czechoslovakians have recently discovered.
Midshipman Caldwell entered Stanford University in September 1966 as a member of the NROTC 4-year Contract Program. He studied at Stanford Overseas Campus in Vienna, Austria, from September 1967 to March 1968. Majoring in 20th century European history, he has been named to the Dean's List of Honors Students in 1966, 1967, and 1968, and expects to receive his A.B. degree in the spring of 1970.