September, 1964, Berkeley, California - the campus was still serene. I had completed the stressful first year of Berkeley's Ph.D. agricultural economics program. We had passed those tough theory courses in the economics department. Now we could get back to agricultural economics courses for that second year, and cast about for a dissertation project for the third year.
How does one get through such stress? By giving up everything else in life. And why? Because if you could get through that mill during that era: With a Berkeley Ph.D. you were practically guaranteed a good job with which to start your career.
The first of the baby boomers - those born between 1946 and 1964 - were hitting college age. Tenure-track positions were opening up at colleges all over the country. It was a good time to hit the job market.
The nation was going through great turmoil - racial unrest, the push for civil rights, and the escalation of American involvement in a controversial war. These conditions along with a flood of students with high expectations hitting college in unprecedented numbers created conditions ripe for cultural revolution. The spark that set it off occurred at UC-Berkeley.
It started ridiculously simple. A former graduate student set up a table near UC's Administration building. Against campus rules, he was handing out political literature. Only sanctioned college Republicans and Democrats were accorded that privilege.
When asked for his identification, the former student refused. He was promptly arrested. Just as promptly, the police car was surrounded by students protesting the arrest. After all, a university campus is supposed to be a place for free exchange of ideas. This was a clear violation of free speech.
With that, Berkeley's Free Speech Movement (FSM) began with a vengeance. The administration refused to back down - rules were rules. In an attempt to change the rules, several thousand students occupied the administration building in December. Some 800 were arrested. When the university brought charges against the organizers, it brought even larger protests, thus escalating the brouhaha.
UC-Berkeley became synonymous with civil disobedience and protest. As an outgrowth of the FSM, the campus became a center of activism for civil rights and the anti-war movement.
It had been a year since the assassination of JFK. LBJ had just used the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to escalate American involvement in Vietnam. The war itself would divide the nation. Many, if not most, observers either favored the war and thought protesters a bunch of traitors, or vice versa - lionized the protesters and believed those who favored war, and volunteers and kids drafted to fight it, to be warmongers.
With any semblance of thought, life isn't that simple. I had been out of the Marine Corps for six years and still wore my hair short and a spit shine on my shoes. In that sense, I could neither identify with the protesters nor agree with their tactics. However, just because I wore the eagle, globe, and anchor for three years didn't meant that I believed American foreign policy to be intelligent.
Heck, just because the protesters didn't spit shine their shoes - nobody else does either - doesn't mean that they didn't have a good point. The "domino theory," that if Vietnam goes Communist, the Commies will take over Asia and soon be on the shores of Hawaii, never made any sense whatsoever. Even conservative Gen. Douglas MacArthur had counseled not to use American troops on Asia's mainland.
But as Republicans during that era were beating up on Democrats for having "lost China," never mind that it was never "ours" to lose, neither JFK nor LBJ wanted to be accused of "losing Vietnam." And upon his election in 1972, Richard Nixon escalated it further.
We, Americans in general, viewed it as war against Communism. They, Vietnamese in general, viewed it as continuing war against Colonialism. First the French, then the Japanese, then after WWII the French again, and now Americans taking up where the French left off.
So while the anti-war folks had a point, the antagonism against those doing the fighting should have been directed solely at the politicians responsible for the decision. It wasn't just at Berkeley - many veterans in rural/small town America were reluctant to wear their uniforms during that era.
While Berkeley was seen as a hotbed of protest, we graduate students had our hands full just getting through that Ph.D. program. Some of us were vets, most of us were married and either had kids or soon would. While our sympathies varied, we just wanted to get through that stressful program and on with our lives.
During my third year of graduate studies, our daughter, Kara, now an Army Major, was born. When she discloses her birth place as Berkeley, people - especially Army types - do a double take. What? Real people, normal people, are actually born in Berkeley?
At the end of year three, I had nearly completed my dissertation. I deferred steady employment for a year to accept a legislative internship with the California Legislature in Sacramento - my introduction to the non-world of politics.
It was also the year for which UC-Berkeley paid a price for its activism. Ronald Reagan was elected as governor with the promise to "crack down" on the University of California.
So, there were mixed results of the entire brouhaha. The university administration eventually backed down and allowed the university to serve a purpose for which they are intended - to foster free exchange of ideas, however controversial. The university now celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement.
However, the FSM is arguably responsible for generating a backlash that launched Ronald Reagan on his political career.
Would cultural change and conservative backlash have occurred without Berkeley's FSM? Most certainly, as there was such sentiment throughout the nation. But it was that spark at Berkeley that set off a cultural revolution that permanently changed America.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
How does one get through such stress? By giving up everything else in life. And why? Because if you could get through that mill during that era: With a Berkeley Ph.D. you were practically guaranteed a good job with which to start your career.
The first of the baby boomers - those born between 1946 and 1964 - were hitting college age. Tenure-track positions were opening up at colleges all over the country. It was a good time to hit the job market.
The nation was going through great turmoil - racial unrest, the push for civil rights, and the escalation of American involvement in a controversial war. These conditions along with a flood of students with high expectations hitting college in unprecedented numbers created conditions ripe for cultural revolution. The spark that set it off occurred at UC-Berkeley.
It started ridiculously simple. A former graduate student set up a table near UC's Administration building. Against campus rules, he was handing out political literature. Only sanctioned college Republicans and Democrats were accorded that privilege.
When asked for his identification, the former student refused. He was promptly arrested. Just as promptly, the police car was surrounded by students protesting the arrest. After all, a university campus is supposed to be a place for free exchange of ideas. This was a clear violation of free speech.
With that, Berkeley's Free Speech Movement (FSM) began with a vengeance. The administration refused to back down - rules were rules. In an attempt to change the rules, several thousand students occupied the administration building in December. Some 800 were arrested. When the university brought charges against the organizers, it brought even larger protests, thus escalating the brouhaha.
UC-Berkeley became synonymous with civil disobedience and protest. As an outgrowth of the FSM, the campus became a center of activism for civil rights and the anti-war movement.
It had been a year since the assassination of JFK. LBJ had just used the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to escalate American involvement in Vietnam. The war itself would divide the nation. Many, if not most, observers either favored the war and thought protesters a bunch of traitors, or vice versa - lionized the protesters and believed those who favored war, and volunteers and kids drafted to fight it, to be warmongers.
With any semblance of thought, life isn't that simple. I had been out of the Marine Corps for six years and still wore my hair short and a spit shine on my shoes. In that sense, I could neither identify with the protesters nor agree with their tactics. However, just because I wore the eagle, globe, and anchor for three years didn't meant that I believed American foreign policy to be intelligent.
Heck, just because the protesters didn't spit shine their shoes - nobody else does either - doesn't mean that they didn't have a good point. The "domino theory," that if Vietnam goes Communist, the Commies will take over Asia and soon be on the shores of Hawaii, never made any sense whatsoever. Even conservative Gen. Douglas MacArthur had counseled not to use American troops on Asia's mainland.
But as Republicans during that era were beating up on Democrats for having "lost China," never mind that it was never "ours" to lose, neither JFK nor LBJ wanted to be accused of "losing Vietnam." And upon his election in 1972, Richard Nixon escalated it further.
We, Americans in general, viewed it as war against Communism. They, Vietnamese in general, viewed it as continuing war against Colonialism. First the French, then the Japanese, then after WWII the French again, and now Americans taking up where the French left off.
So while the anti-war folks had a point, the antagonism against those doing the fighting should have been directed solely at the politicians responsible for the decision. It wasn't just at Berkeley - many veterans in rural/small town America were reluctant to wear their uniforms during that era.
While Berkeley was seen as a hotbed of protest, we graduate students had our hands full just getting through that Ph.D. program. Some of us were vets, most of us were married and either had kids or soon would. While our sympathies varied, we just wanted to get through that stressful program and on with our lives.
During my third year of graduate studies, our daughter, Kara, now an Army Major, was born. When she discloses her birth place as Berkeley, people - especially Army types - do a double take. What? Real people, normal people, are actually born in Berkeley?
At the end of year three, I had nearly completed my dissertation. I deferred steady employment for a year to accept a legislative internship with the California Legislature in Sacramento - my introduction to the non-world of politics.
It was also the year for which UC-Berkeley paid a price for its activism. Ronald Reagan was elected as governor with the promise to "crack down" on the University of California.
So, there were mixed results of the entire brouhaha. The university administration eventually backed down and allowed the university to serve a purpose for which they are intended - to foster free exchange of ideas, however controversial. The university now celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement.
However, the FSM is arguably responsible for generating a backlash that launched Ronald Reagan on his political career.
Would cultural change and conservative backlash have occurred without Berkeley's FSM? Most certainly, as there was such sentiment throughout the nation. But it was that spark at Berkeley that set off a cultural revolution that permanently changed America.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
