Analyses

id
656196
level (num)
2
level (text)
subseries
identifier (local_mss)
909686
max depth
2
boost queries
add/edit
created
2013-05-08 18:02:46 UTC
updated
2021-05-17 19:30:52 UTC

Description data TOP

unitid
{"value"=>"909686", "type"=>"local_mss"}
unitdate
{"value"=>"1961-1987", "type"=>"inclusive", "normal"=>"1961/1987"}
unittitle
{"value"=>"Analyses"}
bioghist
{"value"=>"<p>As early as May 1968 the SDS and SSCC were moving apart; some members of the Committee wanted to continue working for a new attack on Columbia and for a societal revolution, while others favored a shift to University reform. Although SDS did not neglect University reform, their focus shifted to the residential community around Columbia in an attempt to \"restructure society\". Those students seeking University reform broke with the SSCC and formed a new group, Students for a Restructured University (SRU). Although they supported the strike, the demand for amnesty, and greater student and faculty power, they disagreed with some of the tactics and aims of the SSCC, specifically the campus disruptions. Also at this time the newly created Executive Committee of the Faculties requested a fact-finding commission be formed to investigate the campus disturbances. The purpose of the investigation was to address the chronology of events up to the intervention of the police and the underlying causes of the disturbances. The trustees and administration gave their support to the investigation and cooperated fully with the commission which was headed by Archibald Cox, Professor of Law at Harvard University. Although the commission attempted to be thorough, two groups pivotal to the events refused to testify: the Black students who occupied Hamilton Hall and the Student Strike Coordinating Committee. The report concluded that while some African American students acknowledged that a public gymnasium would be \"beneficial to the community...the project could not be judged out of the context of Columbia's relation with its poorer neighbors and society's treatment of racial ghettos\". The report criticized Columbia's administration, but did not indict those empowered with setting the philosophy and policies of Columbia as strongly as many considered necessary to bring about basic changes.</p> <p>Following the strike, one of the critical issues which remained to be resolved was the question of amnesty for protesting students and those who had been arrested. SDS and others believed charges should be dropped and the University should take no disciplinary reprisals against the demonstrators, a demand strongly opposed by President Kirk. He retired in August 1968, and Andrew Cordier, Director of the School of International Affairs, was appointed Acting President. Relations with students improved somewhat after Cordier sought to have police charges for 400 students either dismissed or lessened. At the same time, the Joint Committee on Disciplinary Affairs, composed of seven faculty members, seven students, and three administrators, issued directives and recommendations concerning disciplinary action against students for their involvement in the campus demonstrations.</p> <p>Also in the aftermath of the protests, the Columbia University Senate was formed. The Senate was a response to the evident lack of communication within the University community. The first meeting was held in May 1969, and was an experiment in self-governance. The 101 member body consisted of representatives from the administration, faculty, alumni, research and library staff, and institutions that were not part of the Columbia Corporation but were affiliations (including Barnard College, Teachers College, the Pharmacy School, and Union Theological Seminary). At its inception, the Senate created thirteen committees; among them, the Community Relations Committee, of which George Collins was a member. This committee dealt with the licensing of the TRIGA nuclear reactor, housing of individuals affiliated with Columbia, and the redesign of Morningside Park.</p>"}
scopecontent
{"value"=>"<p>This subseries provides diverse viewpoints on the protests. The Cox Commission Hearings folders consist of notes, reviews of the commission's report, and related printed information regarding the lease of Morningside Park for Columbia's construction of the gym. The administration's perspective is represented in the publication, <span class=\"title\">Columbia College Today</span>. Printed material prepared by the Students for Columbia University represents a conservative approach, while publications of the Columbia Strike Committee explain the reasons for the strike. The \"Remembrances of 1968 student protest\" folders (1968-1987) consist of articles and booklets written by Columbia faculty and students and the regular press on subsequent anniversaries of the strike. Folders labelled \"Academic Articles\" refer to published and unpublished articles written by Columbia professors and academicians not affiliated with that institution.</p>"}
date_start
1961
keydate
1961
date_end
1987
date_inclusive_start
1961
date_inclusive_end
1987

Repository Assets

No UUIDs attached.

Resources TOP

File attachments

No files attached.

Child components TOP

  1. Cox Commission Hearings re Student Disturbances
  2. Columbia College Today and Responses - Administration Response
  3. Students for Columbia University - (Conservative Students)
  4. Remembrances of 1968 Student Protest Published by Columbia Strike Committee [6/1]
  5. Academic Articles [5/1]
  6. Chronology of Protest Activities Prepared by Christiane Collins