University of Notre Dame - Dome Yearbook (Notre Dame, IN)

Page 15 text:

: ' STUDENT POWER: The growth of radicalism at Notre Dame has paralleled the disintegration of its tra- ditional student community.

Page 14 text:

The issue in student politics this year was bluntly: student power. The Action Student Party, after narrowly losing last year ' s student body presidential race, this year elected 13 members to Student Senate on a platform calling for student self-government the right of the students to make and enforce their own rules of behavior, as well as to participate in decisions of academic policy. Bills were passed by the Senate to implement these proposals, a student judi- ciary was set up, and course and teacher evaluation was begun. But repeated attempts by various halls to follow their own rules, especially in the area of parietal hours, were stopped by the administration. Fin ally, a General Assembly of Students was con- vened in February, and after two tumultuous sessions, passed bills endorsing self-government, stay hall, parietal hours, and academic reforms. Two weeks later, Richard Rossie, campaigning strongly for student power, was elected student body presi- dent by an unprecedented landslide of 60 percent. This enthusiastic endorsement of the principles of student power and the mandate for their implemen- tation was the result of many years of activity by gradually growing numbers of students. Nationally, student power has developed as a reaction to certain trends in the university. The first is the gradual disintegration of the university community. The second is the metamorphosis of the university into a full fledged business enterprise, concerned primarily with production (students, re- search, and publications), rewards, and image. It also expresses the growing estrangement of the younger generation from the traditional American society and youth ' s growing frustration at its own lack of power and ability to control their own lives and to bring about needed social change. The growth in student radicalism at Notre Dame has paralleled the disintegration of its traditional student community. This disintegration with its re- sulting alienation and frustration first manifested itself in the Corby Riot of 1960 when hundreds of angry students snowballed Corby Hall and the Dean of Students. But the change had begun earlier. The composition of the student body was changing; the effects of Fr. Hesburgh ' s academic excellence were being felt. The new type of student was different; he was better prepared, more intelligent and ques- tioning. He did not come to Notre Dame to accept answers but to seek them for himself. The new students found themselves increasingly unable to identify with the traditional image of the Notre Dame man and increasingly unable to integrate themselves into the student community founded on this image. The rules which reflected the old com- munity no longer served their purpose of unifying the student body and had become repression rather than regulation of order. And in turn this repressive atmosphere tended to increase student distrust of the administration, as well as further alienation and frustration. Football, once a unifying factor, was in inj new lac- tor of unity arose to replace athletcis and image. At the same time, Notre Dame was rapidly ex- panding until it began to resemble the multiversity, concerned with much more than just education. Academe is no longer a quiet oasis of intellect, a retreat from mundane cares where scholars can pursue their work in meditative silence. Research, great conferences, construction, and fund drives have become full-time activities. Students at any university are no longer the central object of con- cern that they once were, so they seek to offset this loss of status by achieving a position of influence and power within the university. But power can only be achieved by men working together in groups, and is impossible for men alien- ated from one another to exercise. Environments of alienation and frustration produce radicals and Notre Dame is an excellent example of this. Alien- ated men seek community and the radical commun- ity, beginning with the Popular Front, has grown as an answer to the distintegration of the old com- munity. Most have become members not out of intel- lectual conviction but in search of the intangibles that cannot be found in isolated existence. It is a loosely defined group suffering in varying degrees of alienation from the system. They cannot iden- tify with the old image, but seek to create a new one. The growth of the radical community as a sociological group with group symbols and activities can be measured by the increase in its power and influence over the last few years. This year the com- munity has become strong enough to support the Delphic Oracle, a coffee house, and a radical news- paper, the River City Review. They are numerous enough to man a student political party and to hold large demonstrations against the war and for free speech on campus. There has been a gradual acceptance of their solu- tions to the problems that exist at Notre Dame. But the most important single contribution that student radicalism has made at Notre Dame is to make the students aware of the problems confronting them and of their power to effect change. Apathy is de- clining and activism is now ascendent. This shows not only an awareness of Notre Dame ' s problems, but also of those which afflict America. For student power ultimately aims beyond the university, seek- ing to change our society as well. Since the univer- sities are becoming key institutions in this country, they can eventually change society, but only if they are transformed first. This is what student power is trying to do restructure the universities into democratic educational communities which will be- come the bases for an eventual transformation and liberation of the whole society. Jon Sherry

Page 16 text:

We are the aggressors. We are in Viet Nam, says President Johnson, to honor a pledge to help an independent people defeat foreign aggression; those who oppose the war dis- credit our word and only prolong the conflict. The painful realization of many Americans is that these words are not true. Excluding forces in- troduced by the United States, there are no foreign troops in Viet Nam. The Geneva Accords which, ac- cording to Mr. Rusk (CBS-TV Aug. 23, 1965) , were embraced on behalf of the U.S. by Gen. Bedell Smith, made it clear that Viet Nam is a political and cultural unity: the provisional military de- marcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary. Viet Nam was to be unified in 1956 by national elec- t ion and the U.S. pledged its word of honor to support such an election: In the case of nations now divided against their will, we shall continue to seek to achieve unity through free elections super- vised by the United States to insure that they are conducted fairly. (Dept. of State Bulletin, Aug. 2, 1954.) It was well recognized what the outcome of these elections would be : President Eisenhower esti- mated that 80 per cent of the people would vote for Ho Chi Minh (Mandate for Change, p. 372). De- spite our pledge, the U.S. collaborated with the Diem government to prevent the elections from taking place. Diem ' s opponents, primarily the National Lib- eration Front (NLF), began working to overthrow his regime. These elements were termed aggres- sors both by Diem and the U.S. In this context it is interesting to note that Eisenhower, Dulles, and Nixon had called the Vietnamese struggle against French colonialism a case of aggression and allo- cated $15 million to the French cause. By word and action the U.S. has shown that the Vietnamese people still support Ho and or the NLF : Washington insists we must win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese before we hope to win the war, hearts and minds that now reside elsewhere. The U.S. has continually opposed self-determin- ation in Viet Nam. There is no peace because the Johnson administration refuses to accept any truly representative government in South Viet Nam. Re- garding Johnson ' s willingness to negotiate, the U.S. made no diplomatic efforts to resolve the con- flict before the escalation of 1965; since that time Mr. Rusk has made it clear that the NLF would be given no political influence in South Viet Nam. The U.S. demands a cessation of what we have termed aggression ; we will not negotiate, but demand that the Vietnamese people accept a government estab- lished with the support of a foreign power. To end the war we must win it Protest has supplied us with many distracting moments this year at Notre Dame. The main target of the protesters, moralists, and pragmatists alike has been the war in Viet Nam. Their rallying call : Hell no, we won ' t go. This conclusion is sur- prisingly plausible. However, it must be justified not on the basis of personal morality, but in the light of what is best for the continued freedom of the citizens of the United States. Only then can it be applied to national policy. The United States has poured billions of dollars into the Viet Nam war; thousands of Americans have died ; many fester in the prisons of North Viet Nam. But this was is unlike any other war in his- tory : the enemy ' s capital city and chief port remain untouched, while the American Embassy in Saigon is stormed. President Johnson warns us to expect more cost, more loss, and more agony while he reassures us that our goal is not victory, but a vague notion of peace in South Viet Nam. The President couples his support for the endless, winless war with requests for expanded trade with the Communist bloc. The dreamlike proportions of these forays into Wonderland include recommending the sale of Worden gravity meters to Poland, these delicate instruments used to determine the trajec- tory of guided missiles. Polish goods, including war supplies, stream into Haiphong harbor to support the battle against the American enemy. Meanwhile, the Johnson administration attempts to please world opinion by fighting the war on the enemy ' s terms. No will to victory accompanies the American forces in their treks through the jungle only promises of negotiations and lim- ited objectives enhance the future. Sent to fight with their hands tied by restrictions, sanctuaries, and a directionless foreign policy, American soldiers read hometown newspapers to discover that their President is constantly attempting to expand trade with their enemies. Consular treaties and cultural exchange programs are promoted to display the peaceful and mutual respect between the United States and the Soviet Union. We shall defeat the Americans with Soviet weap- ons, the Premier of North Viet Nam has claimed. Pham Van Dong goes on to describe the solidarity of the Russian people behind the Communist offensive against the Americans. Russians are bombarded with slogans calling for Communist victory in Viet Nam; Americans, on the other hand, are advised that there is no such animal, so they do their best to ignore the war, and return to their T.V. sets to watch the Americans fight the Germans. In our days of political doublethink, one could write off the normally treasonous policy of giving