In the absence of any other recourse, in extreme situations of mismanagement on the part of the administration, students are obliged to take action to ensure that the administration follows through on its humanitarian educational mandate.
Students may make "recommendations" to the administration, but that is all. They may run candidates for Student Senate and may approve the most strongly worded statements demanding action from the administration and from the Board of Trustees. But the administration and the Trustees are free to ignore the requests of the students. All too frequently, that is precisely what they do.
In 1979 the SA Senate and a broad cross section of the students strongly urged the Board of Trustees not to invest in companies which supported the South African Government and which didn't adhere to the "Sullivan Principles." It was argued that these companies supported the racist oppression and terrorism of the South African Government. The Board failed to carry out this recommendation and instead continued to buy greater and greater amounts of stock in companies doing business in South Africa.
In 1985 the SA Senate again recommended that the Board sell its South African related stock. Once again the Board refused to comply. This time however a large group of students built a movement to end UVM´s indirect but very real support for the South African Government. They carried out a massive educational campaign, gathered signatures, developed and implemented curricula and mobilized a broad coalition to persuade the Trustees to change their decision. After several months of frustration, the students sat-in in front of the Administration offices at Waterman to call attention to the undemocratic nature of the university. They had clearly tried every possible means of implementing change, and they clearly were acting to enforce the student Senate decision which represented the entire student body. Sixteen of these students were arrested, but soon after their arrest the Trustees reversed their decision and voted to disinvest from companies doing business in South Africa. It is important to note that no charges were ever pressed against these students by the University or by the District Attorney. It is also important to note that overall members of the Board of Trustees publicly admitted that it was the disruptive actions of these students which caused them to comply with the recommendations of the Student and Faculty Senates.
During the Fall of 1987 and the Spring of 1988 a coalition of student groups organized to promote a more racially and ethnically inclusive "multicultural" community at UVM. Despite long negotiations with UVM President Lattie Coor and despite the strong support of the Student Senate, these students found their attempts consistently thwarted by an unresponsive administration. Even the most basic educational projects which the students sought to implement were stonewalled by the administration and channelled into ad hoc committees whose recommendations were ultimately ignored by the administration.
In the Spring of 1988 a group of students walked into the President´s Row in Waterman and demanded immediate negotiations with President Coor. Over the next week they remained in Waterman and along with Lattie Coor hammered out the historic "Waterman Agreements" in which the administration promised to implement the long delayed reforms. None of the occupying students were arrested or subject to any disciplinary action. They were widely lauded both at UVM and in the wider community for their courage in pushing for the reforms.
Over the next several years it became clear that the Administration was not carrying out its side of the Waterman Agreements. This came as a particularly harsh slap for the many students who were expending large amounts of their time in developing and enacting programs to increase multicultural awareness and sensitivity at UVM.
Once again the Administration was unresponsive to the recommendations of the Student Association. All existing channels of discussion were shut off when President Davis announced his intention to rescind the Waterman Agreements. We are all aware of the subsequent occupation of the President´s office and of President Davis´ decision to have the students arrested. What we must clearly understand is that these current prosecutions of student dissidents are utterly unprecedented. In a past years it was understood that student demonstrators were acting on the highest moral principles, and at great personal risk. They were not prosecuted or threatened with expulsion. Rather, they were recognized as making important contributions to the campus community and as being an important check upon the arbitrary power of the Administration.
Consider the irony of this current situation. Students have been prosecuted for attempting to ensure that the University lives up to agreements which were made due to identical activism of students four years ago. Four years ago the Administration responded with negotiations and a good faith effort to reform the University. Now in a situation in which all that is required is a recommitment to a previous agreement the Administration has instead chosen to criminalize student protest.
It is a little known fact that UVM exercised strict control over student living arrangements throughout the 1960s. The vast majority of students were required to live on campus and students, particularly women, were under tight curfew. Violators were subject to disciplinary proceedings culminating in expulsion. For years the Student Association and the women students´ governing body unsuccessfully tried to abolish these restrictions. As part of this effort, on February of 1967, the Cynic published the following editorial
..we refer all students to the Vermont Student Movement petition. In favor of a more liberal policy on off campus housing. Incorporating both overcrowded dormitory conditions and changing social attitudes into their argument the VSM offers a formidable protest against administrative control of student privacy.Their petition represents the first spark of life in a campus atmosphere which has previously been characterized by a spirit of hopelessness in the face of administrative regulation. If there are still those who doubt that university regulations can be changed we urge you to sign this petition. Put 3000 names on Dean {of Students) Patzer´s desk. Then wait. You won´t have to wait long. Dean Patzer is a very smart man....
Actually UVM students did have to wait. But on November 1st of that year, 2000 students violated the UVM curfew by marching across campus late at night. They marched to Church Street where they sat down and blocked traffic. Then they marched to President Rowell´s House where they again blocked the streets and chanted "No More Curfew!"
The next Cynic contained the following:
...ln light of Wednesday night´s effectiveness, it should be apparent to the student that we need only hand down an ultimatum to the Trustees; Curfews will be abolished by ThanksgivIng or we shall march every night and sit in every day until they are abolished.
It must be noted that the sit-ins and the blocking of the streets were both illegal, and both these actions and the curfew violations were in flagrant violation of UVM rules. However none of the students were prosecuted and the restrictive policies were soon abolished.
The point here is obvious. Today´s UVM students owe many of the freedoms which they take for granted to the disruptive and illegal actions of past generations of UVM activists. This sort of dissent must be valued and not stamped out through UVM's inflexible judicial proceedings.
The following figures, provided by Alexander Astin in his book The Power of Protest, indicate the importance of disruptive student activism in achieving needed reforms. Astin examined campuses at which arrests and other disruptive student activism occurred concerning particular issues during the years 1968-1969. He then compared the changes made on these campuses with the changes made on a representative sample of all university campuses during that same time frame.
These figures demonstrate the direct relationship between disruptive student demonstrations and positive reforms within various universities. Conversely, campuses at which students restricted themselves to non-disruptive protests were less likely (often far less likely) to implement needed reforms.
INCIDENCE OF REFORMS AT UNIVERSITIES
WITH AND WITHOUT SERIOUS PROTEST:1968-70
(Percentage of schools making reforms and adding programs in these areas)
Percentages are given both for schools which experienced severe (disruptive) protest and at all schools.
| Area of Change | Severe Protest Schools | All Schools |
|---|---|---|
| Ethnic Studies | 63% | 28% |
| Women´s Studies | 78% | 50% |
| Special Minority Enrollment Policy | 30% | 13% |
| More Black Faculty Hired | 40% | 27% |
| More Women Faculty Hired | 14% | 9% |
| ROTC made Elective | 10% | 3% |
| More Student Participation on Committees | 72% | 51% |
A legacy of former UVM Dean of Students Keith Miser has been a simplistic focus on the distinction between dissent (which is considered good) and disruption (which is considered bad). All punishment, we are told, should be based upon the side of this distinction upon which an action falls. When closely scrutinized however this sort of standard of judgement utterly falls apart. Most activities on campus are disruptive in one manner or another. Rallies, building and sidewalk construction, police searches, student strikes, faculty layoffs and class cancellations; all of these things are disruptive of campus life. We do not condemn them simply for that reason. We consider whether the disruption is justified and unavoidable. As reasonable people we can weigh each individual action and see whether it enhances or detracts from the overall educational and humanitarian mission of the university. In the case of the 1967 demonstrations it can be argued that the disruption of blocking the streets was a necessary part of abolishing anachronistic university curfew policies. Other means had been tried and had failed.
A similar case can be made for the activism of the current generation of students. When all other alternatives are exhausted, such activism, when intelligently and conscientiously carried out is an essential part of the university's educational mission.
Produced by Brian Perkins
Burlington Vt, 05401
This statement was presented on July 25, 1991 at the UVM trial of Marcy Allen