U.S. Campus Riots Intensify

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31986, 13 May 1969, Page 17

U.S. Campus Riots Intensify

<N .Z.P.A.-Reuter—Copyright) NEW YORK, May 12. Student revolts have again grown steadily into a major domestic issue during the last week in a dramatic intensification of campus clashes in the United States.

The disorders have alarmed Government authorities and have created anger, fear and puzzlement among wide segments of the public. Congressional pressure has mounted for university authorities to check the unrest. One legislator says that tough new Federal laws to stop campus violence are unavoidable. Another has given a warning that time is getting short and that the public is demanding a quick solution.

But the troubles have intensified, and militant student leaders have renewed vows of a relentless campaign that will include violence, “when necessary,” to reform American education.

The worst campus battle of the week occurred at the City College of New York, where bloody fights and fires brought to a climax two weeks of protests by Negro and Puerto Rican students. The college president (Mr Buell Gallagher), who had been negotiating with the rebels, resigned. Violent demonstrations occurred at other New York City colleges and at several more elsewhere, including Dartmouth College, one of the country’s most distinguished universities, and Howard University, where there is the largest Negro campus. There, about 200 policemen used, tear-gas to oust about 1000 Howard University students from occupied buildings. As usual, complex specific issues and demands touched off the disorders, but the general theme of student discontent is lack of substantial voice to control their education, and denunciation of military .activities on campus, of the Vietnam war and of racialism.

A variety of Negro militant groups and the Radical Students for a Democratic So-

ciety—the two major forces of campus dissent—appear to be gaining support from student moderates, who comprise the majority of the estimated 6,700,000 college students in America. In a recent speech, President Nixon sympathised with what he described as “responsible” student protest, but urged the university authorities to exercise more toughness in dealing with violence. Mr Nixon, who is due to speak at three colleges early in June, has urged no compromise with lawlessness and no surrender to force.

The public has been quick to react with bitterness and condemnation to much of the student behaviour, although many people admit they have neither investigated nor understand the causes of the revolt.

But the spectacle of students carrying firearms and seizing control of buildings, and school officials apparently surrendering to their demands, has brought piles of letters accusing the administrators of cowardice.

Mr Nathan Pusey, president of Harvard University,

appealed last week for the colleges themselves to be allowed to try to restore calm.

Mr John Lindsay, the Mayor of New York, who is a strong supporter of many student grievances, has nevertheless given notice that in extreme cases of campus violence the police will be sent in, even if not requested by the college. Mr Lindsay cites the Vietnam war and military conscription as the key causes of student revolt. But, like many students, Mr Lindsay has refused to condone the violent tactics used by rebels to dramatise their demands. It is the violence that has aroused the greatest anger and indignation and prompted some Nixon Administration officials to suggest the suspension of Federal funds to schools wrecked by disorders. However, the Secretary of Welfare (Mr Robert Finch) has argued against the withdrawal of Federal funds on the ground that such a move would penalise innocent students. The campus revolts, he said, were a phenomenon and not a conspiracy.