11 10 250 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/1144764bf3676b33d340e61f8ff8d8d7.jpg 4277be9fbdb1f85ea1a33f61eccecd3a https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/aa7a86b8002899d90d7351c3e845a42e.mp3 146e5c28e2c364f7a012369cdef5993e Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Norman J. Ornstein Date of Interview ND Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 1 Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 46:33 Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Dr. Norm Ornstein is a writer, editor, columnist for National Journal, and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. He also serves as an election analyst for CBS News. Ornstein received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Michigan."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":13059,"3":{"1":0},"4":[null,2,16777215],"11":4,"12":0,"15":"Arial","16":10}">Dr. Norm Ornstein is a writer, editor, columnist for National Journal, and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. He also serves as an election analyst for CBS News. Ornstein received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Michigan.</span> Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"The nineteen sixties; Baby boom generation; Kent State shooting; Jackson State killings; Watergate; Voter rights act; Civil Rights Movement; Vietnam Memorial."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":513,"3":{"1":0},"12":0}">The nineteen sixties; Baby boom generation; Kent State shooting; Jackson State killings; Watergate; Voter rights act; Civil Rights Movement; Vietnam Memorial.</span> Subject LCSH Authors; Editors; Journalists; American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research; Ornstein, Norman J.--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Norman Ornstein Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Ornstein, Norman J. ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Authors; Editors; Journalists; American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research; Ornstein, Norman J.--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Norm Ornstein is a writer, editor, columnist for National Journal, and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. He also serves as an election analyst for CBS News. Ornstein received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Michigan. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource ND Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.144 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 46:33 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/df9edd0945268ba518dba0a04e06737a.jpg 9ba326a76f28ccbc41e7eaa175e233a3 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/4d971c1d49ee7c5d3fa1b6de545ed6ca.mp3 ca1b13de66ce0321a05cf1adf0c5a7b1 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview ND Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Dr. Paul Stoller Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 1:29:19 Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format MicroCassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Audio Rights Statement This audio file and digital image may only be used for educational purposes. Please cite as: McKiernan Interviews, Special Collections, Binghamton University Libraries, Binghamton University, State University of New York. For usage beyond fair use please contact the Binghamton University Libraries Special Collections for more information. Transcribe This Item Daniel Berrigan.mp3 Prev Item Next Item Edit View Public Page Delete Public: No Featured: No Collection McKiernan Interviews File Metadata Daniel Berrigan.mp3 Output Formats atom csv dcmes-xml json omeka-xml Bibliographic Citation “Daniel Berrigan,” Digital Collections, accessed October 12, 2020, https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/admin/items/show/1904. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data MicroCassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Biographical Text Dr. Paul Stoller is a a professor of Anthropology at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He has been concussing anthropological research for 30 years. His early work concerned the religion of the Songhay people who live in the Republic of Niger and Mali in West Africa. Since 1992, Stoller pursued studies of West African immigrants in New York City. Stoller's work has resulted in the publication of 11 books. In 1994 he was awarded the prestigious Guggenheim fellowship. In 2013, he was awarded the Anders Retguis Gold Medal in Anthropology. Stoller lectures all over the world and has appeared on NPR as well as the National Geographic Network. Keywords Baby Boomer; Generations; Revolutionary; 1960s; Women's Liberation Movement; Race problems; Social change; Vietnam War; Vietnam memorial; Healing; Lyndon Johnson; John F. Kennedy; Protests. Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Paul Stoller https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/65829d97b5e87e01bfb4eca9cf8f290c.jpg 96123d3f7b6889b06c9c8014011cfb05 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/84fb5c1eb3283eb5222bc550d5deccae.mp3 7bf130560ee93de761daf1a646bd58f5 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Paul Von Blum Date of Interview 2010-02-12 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Dr. Paul Von Blum is Senior Lecturer in African American Studies and Communication Studies at UCLA. He is the author of six books and numerous articles on art, culture, education, and politics. He recevied his Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, and Ph.D. in History from New York University."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":13311,"3":{"1":1},"4":[null,2,4884200],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"10":2,"11":4,"12":0,"15":"Arial","16":10}">Dr. Paul Von Blum is Senior Lecturer in African American Studies and Communication Studies at UCLA. He is the author of six books and numerous articles on art, culture, education, and politics. He received his Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, and Ph.D. in History from New York University.</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 150:50 Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Ku Klux Klan; racism; Communist; Paul Robeson; free speech; Anderson School of Management; Universities; students; Ann Coulter; Columbia University protests of 1968"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":513,"3":{"1":0},"12":0}">Ku Klux Klan; racism; Communist; Paul Robeson; free speech; Anderson School of Management; Universities; students; Ann Coulter; Columbia University protests of 1968</span> Subject LCSH College teachers; African Americans—Study and teaching; University of California, Los Angeles; Von Blum, Paul--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Paul von Blum Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 13 July 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:03): The first question I have is what were your ear early years, where did you grow up, where did you go to high school and college, and who were the greatest influences in your life early on? Was it parents, teachers? What was it in your environment that made you who you are? PVB (00:00:20): Yeah, I grew up in Philadelphia, so I am a Philly kid, but I grew up in a very politically active household. The family background was crucial, both in terms of my intellectual consciousness and my political activism. I come from a Holocaust background. My father was the sole survivor of his family. I actually have a memoir coming out in about a month and a half where I detail all of this. But my father was the sole survivor and very early on in my own life, it was perfectly clear that he understood that racism, that the same racism that killed his entire immediate family was virtually identical the racism that was oppressing the African-American population in the United States. Very early on in Philadelphia, I learned the kind of profound and vigorous anti-racism growing up. From early childhood, I grew up in a progressive family in Philadelphia, and I think probably the seminal event growing up, not in Philly, although I was born in Philly, we lived in a variety of suburbs, Delaware County, Montgomery County, and then most significantly, in Bucks County. As a kid, I went to the Philadelphia public schools and the variety of suburban schools, but the most seminal event occurred in 1957, one of the huge racial crises of the United States. The early civil rights movement occurred there in 1957 when I was 14. My parents and several other families broke the color line in Levittown. Levittown, as you may know, was one of the large post-second World war suburban development. My parents moved there because it was an opportunity for World War II veterans in particular to buy low cost housing. We moved there from Philly. What my parents did not realize was that Levitt would not sell to African Americans. I think we moved there in 1955 when I was 12, and by the time I was 13, my parents were involved in an almost conspiratorial way with a variety of other families, almost entirely, not completely, but almost entirely Jewish in meeting to do something about the break from the color line. By August of 1957, they had arranged for the first black family, Bill and Daisy Meyers moved in. The story of the Levittown integration crisis is well known, and in 1957 in August, there were huge riots, white racist riots in Levittown testing the entry of the first they called Negro family. I was the oldest of four children then there. Now, there were five. Another one was born afterwards and I was the oldest of the five, so I was involved as a spectator in all of the meetings. I was curious, so I went to all of those. I was there when the Myers then moved in, I was there when the mobs gathered and I was there less than a month later when they get Ku Klux Klan in Pennsylvania right across our lawn. In fact in December of 1957, I actually testified against the Ku Klux Klan in Doylestown. My activism started very early on and I saw the kind of vicious hate-filled white racist mobs. They called themselves the Levittown Betterment Committee. Even as an early teenager, I was exposed to the horrific character of American racism and those were probably the seminal events that molded my anti-racist attitude that have remained to this day. Still, I am a professor of African-American studies at [inaudible] and there is a direct connection between my teenage experiences in Levittown and my professional and activist life year. SM (00:05:07): I think there is a book that just came out on Levittown about that. PVB (00:05:10): I have read it. SM (00:05:11): Yeah, and I bought it. I got so many books I bought, I have not had a chance to read. Obviously, what a great upbringing in terms of learning early on and helping shape who you are, particularly when you see injustice and you want to fight it. Would you say that your parents were your heroes because your parents were taking the lead there? PVB (00:05:32): They were the daily role models. They stood up courageously and at a great cost because in 1957 it was kind of late McCarthyism. McCarthy himself had faded, but there was still a great deal of retribution against what was then called premature anti-racist. My father kept losing his jobs, politically inspired losses obviously, and that is what in 1959 of our move to California. My parents traveled in kind of left-wing circles, and so I was exposed early on to that whole leftist culture, not a communist culture by the way. It was a very radical culture, but my parents were never in the party. When I was five years old living in Philadelphia, my parents were active in the Progressive Party campaign by Henry Wallace, party Turgeon campaign in (19)48. But my parents, unlike many of the progressive party supporters, were not communist party members. They were in the non-communist left. SM (00:06:51): Yeah. I mentioned there, and I noticed in reading that you are a big fan of Paul Robeson- PVB (00:06:57): Extremely. SM (00:06:58): I want to tell you a story, but this is your interview, but I think it is important to the question. I know all about what happened in 1947 in Peekskill New York. I found out about this many years after my grandfather died. My grandfather was the Methodist minister in Peekskill from 1954, no, excuse me, 1936 to 1954. I never knew any of this because he died in 1956, but in reading the history books, I could not believe that my grandfather lived in a town that did such terrible things to Paul Robeson. PVB (00:07:31): It was horrible. SM (00:07:32): Pete Seeger was there with him too. PVB (00:07:34): Absolutely, so were other luminaries like Howard Bass and a variety of others. SM (00:07:41): I am a big fan of Paul Robeson too. He was a, what do you call, man for all seasons. He was town in so many different ways. PVB (00:07:48): Everything. I am the first person ever to do an entire university course on Paul Robeson and it is fair to say that from early childhood, I was introduced to Paul Robeson, not only as a singer but as a political activist. My parents said that they introduced me to him in 1948 at the Progressive Party Convention. I do not recall it, but from early childhood on, and this continues through my adult life, I would say that of all the people in America, he is my biggest inspiration. One for his extraordinary courage and two for his multidimensional talents with a sole exception of his problematic personal life, which I do not particularly admire. But other than that, he would be my kind of role model, somebody who was brilliant at everything he did and who had the courage of his convictions throughout the entirety of his life. SM (00:08:59): One thing I find about when you study America in the beginning, near a time when boomers were born after World War II, that period between (19)46 and (19)60 really is that many of the people that were persecuted, I think, whether it be the Hollywood Ten or people in government, professors in universities, all kinds of people, and Paul Robeson being one of them, is that many times the reason they became linked to the Communist Party is because that was the only party that dealt with the issue of race. PVB (00:09:37): They were among the best on the issue of race. Going back to the (19)30s, they were upfront about the Scottsboro case. My parents, they always knew communists. They were always fond of them, but they were themselves never party members. I have ambivalence about the communists, I have always respected them. And this is also generational, when I was born in 1943 and was very much active vigorously in the (19)60s, and so my generation of activists hardly ever joined the Communist Party. I always respected them for what they did. The other hand, I was never blind to their blindness about the Soviet Union challenge. I was always critical of that. I remained so in my teaching, I always point out about the Communist Party blindness toward the Soviet and Stalin's crimes, including Paul Robeson. I am well respected in the ropes and community, but I have never been reluctant to criticize him for his own blindness about Stalin and the Soviet Union. SM (00:10:53): Would not you say though that there was some truth in that late (19)40s and 1950s, maybe even the first few years of the (19)60s, that the people that had some people who had been communists really disliked Stalin, disliked him immensely. They only cared about the issue of race, so, and they got caught up on being blamed for liking the communist system, which they did not. PVB (00:11:16): Sure. Now, there were some like that. There were well-meaning people and I continued to have respect for a lot of them. Many of those people are no longer around. I mean, that is generational. Many of them have passed along. I concur with that. SM (00:11:34): I want you to put your teacher's cap on now because I have some really cross questions to ask about you, not as a student now, but as a young professor in the (19)60s and (19)70s. As a teacher, beginning at Berkeley in the (19)60s through today at UCLA, what in your view, did the university learn from student activism and protests on their campuses? PVB (00:12:00): They did not learn enough. This is extremely important to me. I went to Berkeley in the (19)60s, was very active in the free speech movement, and I think that was one of the moral highlights of the entire history of the University of California. Beyond the specific issue of free speech, what we tried to do in the free speech movement at Berkeley was to reform the university so that it would make the big prestigious research universities to make undergraduate education a much higher priority. As a personal academic, 42 years standing, that has been my highest priority. I am sorry to say that at the institutional level, I have not been particularly successful. At the individual level, I have been spectacularly successful. But the university's priorities have at places like at the University of California, the University of Wisconsin and Michigan, places like that, by and large, they are indifferent to the needs of undergraduate students. What they have learned from the (19)60s, unfortunately, is how to be more clever at containing student protests. SM (00:13:20): Yeah, they are much more subtle, so to speak. PVB (00:13:25): They are. With a couple of exceptions, they no longer bring in the police and the storm troopers to beat people up. They have learned to be much more adaptable, they have learned how to pat students on the head and referred things to committees that never do anything. They no longer use the tactics of brutality that they used when I was a student. SM (00:13:53): What I find interesting, and I do not know about every campus here just from what I know, is that universities have designated spaces where students can protest. Obviously, you do not want them in front of a building when a person's teaching a class, so I think one of them they had learned that disrupt classes time is not the right thing to do. It creates a negative image. But if I were a student today, knowing what happened back then, I would be protesting. The fact that I have to... This is my space, it is the only place that kind of- PVB (00:14:37): Some schools have attempted to do that. Universities are within their constitutional rights that say that there is certain places you cannot... You cannot walk into a professor's class right in the middle of a class because any public entity has legitimate time, place mannered regulations. On the other hand, you cannot just take one small part of a campus and say, this is your free speech area. That violate the First Amendment. I should add here, I am not sure when you have looked me up, I am also a lawyer. SM (00:15:06): No. PVB (00:15:08): I know something about the First Amendment. I have an undercurrent of political legal experience. It is not a major part of my professional or personal identity, but I paid $410 a year to keep my state bar membership up. SM (00:15:24): Well, that is good. PVB (00:15:25): But I know something about this. SM (00:15:27): Yeah, I remember recently in the interview process, I interviewed Dr. Arthur Chickering. I do not know if you know him. PVB (00:15:33): Yeah, he has done a lot of writing on higher ed. SM (00:15:37): He wrote Education and Identity, the Seven Vectors of Development, and he is anything but a radical. He is retired now but I asked him in the interview, is there anything in the universities today that you regret or any thoughts? He says, "Yes, I regret the corporate takeover again of universities." PVB (00:15:59): That is a huge problem and it is moving vigorously in that direction, and I regret it profoundly. SM (00:16:08): These are some specific things here. Now, what did you learn from the free speech movement itself in (19)64 and (19)65? PVB (00:16:15): What I learned was that in order to get anything done in a university, you need sustained collective action. I know from my own career that the successful mobilization of student power can be extremely effective. There have been several instances in my own unusual career trajectory when I have been under attack by university authorities, where I have been able to mobilize student power. It is not so much that they have saved me, which they have, but they have been able to mobilize on behalf of the educational ideals that I have represented for over 40 years. SM (00:16:59): Obviously, these are all issues that were important in the (19)60s and (19)70s. It was even still, some of these things were happening in the (19)80s and (19)90s, but seemed to not be happening today. What did the universities learn about military recruits on campus because they were back? PVB (00:17:14): They were back. I remember both as a students, as young faculty member at Berkeley, we tried to resist that. It is an ongoing problem. At a place like UCLA, we do not have a lot of military recruitment. Basically today, military recruiting is done in working class and neighborhoods where you have a proportion of very poor people and especially people of color. It is not as huge deal as it was because we do not have a draft. SM (00:17:49): We have already talked about this, but what did they learn about too much corporate control or respect to fundraising, which fundraising is such a big thing that the presidents do at all universities, so they may have control over speakers or ideas. Just your thoughts on fundraising within universities today- PVB (00:18:09): That is all basically all they really care about, it is money, and increasingly, you have a corporate dominated university, even a public university, which remains a public entity, you now have corporate sponsorship of research projects, you have corporate sponsorship of athletic programs, you have corporate sponsorship. Even of buildings in the new school of management is now the Anderson School of Management, expect soon with this trajectory that they will start naming the restrooms after- SM (00:18:48): Yeah. I was joking after spending 22 years at a university, and I said, "Well, I wonder what they had put my name on." I think someone joke and said, "Gee, you might get a stall in one of the restrooms," but it would still cost at least a minimum of 10 grand. PVB (00:19:06): 10 grand. I was thinking that would cost me that for a urinal. SM (00:19:12): Good. Who knows? What do you think the universities learned from activist students, the concept of student empowerment? Because students have power today because they control budgets, and I know that students are somewhat linked to presidents overall. Presidents are trying to link up with students more and more. There is a really good website yesterday on CNBC about the president of George Washington University trying to get close to his students. PVB (00:19:40): Yeah, I hope I do not sound excessively cynical, but it seems to me that universities have learned and effectively how-to co-op their students. What they do is they take student leaders to lunch, they promise them letters of recommendation for law school, they bring them to banquets. They do a variety of things in order to neutralize them, in order to keep them from becoming basically a significant effect of oppositional element. Students and administrations are naturally and should be naturally at odds with one another, but university administrators become increasingly sophisticated at muting those tensions. It varies obviously from campus to campus year to year, but they have done a basically good job of keeping student oppositional forces. Although, sometimes they cannot do very much, much about it. Last November, for example, when the regents of the University of California hit the students with a 33, 34 percent fee increase, there were huge rallies throughout the university, and I was one of the speakers. I am an effective public speaker and I will continue to do that a long time to come. SM (00:21:12): In some sense, the students of the (19)60s and (19)70s really did not fear about being active with respect to getting a job whereas the students of the day, if they act, they might not get the recommendations they need to- PVB (00:21:26): Yeah, they are very worried. I understand that it is a tough economy. I have a lot of friends who are very, very active 40 years ago, and many of them remain as I do, very politically active, and we talk about these things. We were never really concerned about what the implications would be, we were out on the streets doing what we did with very minimal concern about what the future implications of our activism would be. That is not the case with a lot of young people today. When I tell them that I got arrested several times, they say, "But did not it hurt your career?" I said, "Obviously, it did not hurt my career. I am standing in front of you in a classroom." SM (00:22:14): What did the universities learn from Kent State and Jackson State in 1970? I am going to preface this with just a comment. PVB (00:22:25): Go ahead. SM (00:22:26): You never hear about it. PVB (00:22:27): No, you never hear about it. My students have occasionally heard of Kent State, they have never heard of Jackson State. Never. Every time I mentioned Jackson state, it is absolutely new. I think what the universities have learned is that in both cases, it was a public relations disaster. They have learned to take all kinds of steps, never to replicate that again. It is extremely unlikely that we will ever see that kind of fatality on a university campus of that magnitude. They will never let that happen again. SM (00:23:05): What do you think the university has learned from controversial speakers on campus? One of the criticisms of the new left today is that the controversial speakers that were on college campuses in the (19)60s and (19)70s, whether Kathleen Cleaver, the Black Panthers or like that, some of the universities did not really like for public relations reasons, has now shifted where the new left of liberal professors and administrators do not like conservative speakers on campus like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. Really, what the liberals are doing is exactly what the administrators were thinking back in the (19)60s. What are your thoughts? PVB (00:23:49): I am a strong believer in free speech and where you have leftist attempts to censor people, I would resist that. Having said that, there is no particular reason to ask a Michelle Malkin or an Ann Coulter to come to her university. They have nothing to offer. I have no problem with having thoughtful conservatives, and there are many, but neither Ann Coulter nor Michelle Malkin fall into that category. They are not serious thinkers. SM (00:24:21): How about Pat Buchanan and Bay Buchanan? PVB (00:24:25): They would be worth hearing. I would easily chop either of them up in a debate, but I would not debate an Ann Coulter. The last time I had a debate with somebody as that, I debated the former Congressman William Dannemeyer from Orange County, he was a moron. I could have had a lobotomy and beaten him in the debate. If you are going to have a debate, you should have somebody of reasonable stature and somebody who is not a buffoon like Ann Coulter. SM (00:25:01): I know that the two that seem to have the greatest strengths is William Bennett and Dinesh D'Souza because they are... PVB (00:25:08): They are smart enough so that they are entitled to make a debate. I just dislike both. I do not know either of them, but I just like their position but either of them would be a significantly worthy adversary. SM (00:25:26): I am almost done with this little thing, these are all important. What did they learn from Columbia University? What happened there and the Harvard Yard and protests? PVB (00:25:37): Oh, they have learned to be much more clever. It is extremely unlikely that you will have another Columbia in (19)68. Today's administrators are just a lot more clever than they were a couple of generations. That is going to happen again. They know how to do it, they have become much more patient. They have social control experts and they just know what they are doing more. In some respect, we would be better off if we had better have these more vigorous confrontations, but we will not. SM (00:26:21): What did we learn from, and this happened on my campus, Tommy the Narcs? PVB (00:26:26): They came. SM (00:26:26): Yeah, they came looking for drugs. PVB (00:26:35): Well, that is part of the anti-drug hysteria in this country. I would hope that in [inaudible], some of that will dissipate. Yeah, you hardly have any of that. Certainly, you have drugs on every campus, but the biggest drug abuse on most campuses that I can certainly say that with a lot of confidence at UCLA is alcohol abuse. SM (00:27:06): Two more here. What did they learn from affirmative action and from curriculum reform? Those are the two... PVB (00:27:13): Well, I have been a proponent for 40 years for both. In California, of course, in affirmative action, we have the Notorious Proposition 209, and so we have been fighting... One of my departments is African-American Studies, and I am a member of the Ralph Gate Bunche Center for African-American Studies. We have been in the forefront about trying to do something about the profound underrepresentation of African-American students. We have made modest progress, but I am a strong and vigorous supporter of affirmative action. We need another generation of affirmative action. We have a long way to go. In terms of curricular reform, we are not even close to what we need. We have had some modest curricular improvements since the (19)60s. The wave of student activism in the (19)60s generated important reforms. We would not have had ethnic studies. I was involved in the first wave of protests that created black studies, now African-American studies, which gave rise to Chicano studies, Asian-American studies, Native American studies, and then women's studies. But alpha (19)60s activism, we would not have any of that, so that is been important. Another area that came out of (19)60s activism was a greater commitment toward interdisciplinary studies. We have made significant progress, but we still have a long way to go. In a university, the disciplinary nomination of the curriculum still remains the fundamental reality, and I still think we need to make major progress. I am not an objective observer, I have been a player in this realm for my entire academic career. I am contemptuous of the traditional academic disciplinary structure, I am fond of telling my students that I have plenty of discipline, but no discipline. SM (00:29:28): One of the things when you are talking about the curriculum is liberal arts. Seems that liberal arts really was strong in the (19)60s, particularly mid-60s and beyond, because it really was the epitome of what Mario Savio was saying at the Free Speech Movement in (19)64 and (19)65, that the universities need to be about ideas. PVB (00:29:51): And we need- SM (00:29:52): Ideas and not about corporate control or preparing people for jobs like the IBM mentality. PVB (00:30:03): Mario was absolutely right. He was a wonderfully, thoughtful and eloquent person, and his view on the university I think was extraordinarily perceptive, and I absolutely agree with them. I think we need a much greater commitment to the liberal arts tradition. The idea of transforming the university into a practical job preparation institution is a profound mistake because the jobs that we are preparing them of young men and women for today will be obsolete in a generation. The most practical thing that we can do is to give them the most rigorous liberal arts education combined with the traditional skills of critical thinking, writing, public speaking, and the like. SM (00:30:57): Do you think that is certainly a positive that came out of the boomer generation and the professors and students of that era? SM (00:31:03): ...boomer generation and the professors and students of that era. I fear that liberal arts is really being threatened today. PVB (00:31:10): It is, and partly it is a lot of the boomer parents who have, I am sorry to say, very minimal vision about the fundamental value of a liberal arts tradition. They keep pushing their students, not their students, their sons and daughters into practical things. Learn about computers, learn about engineering, learn about accounting. And I can understand the parental need to do that, but it is short-sighted and mistaken. SM (00:31:47): Yeah. How often have you heard, in your time at UCLA, and I have heard it wherever I have worked is, "What are you going to do with a philosophy degree?" PVB (00:31:57): I hear it thousands of times. SM (00:31:59): Yeah. There is still people that just do not get it, the importance of... My golly, if you read Bertrand Russell, oh my god, there is things in there that you will remember the rest of your life. PVB (00:32:10): Absolutely. And it is something that is, in fact, perfectly practical, that if you unite what you are going to do day in and day out with a deeper philosophical vision, one, you will do your work better, and two, your life will be infinitely more meaningful. SM (00:32:31): Just a little commentary here on comparing the students of the (19)60s and (19)70s to the students of the (19)80s, (19)90s, and even the (20)10s today. I know it is very difficult, you cannot talk about... the boomer generation is 74 million and only a percentage went to college, so you cannot just be talking about college students here, but we are talking about young people overall. But you have been in the classroom and you have seen the students of all these eras. There is smart kids in every generation, so it is not about smarts. But I guess the areas that I am most interested in is activism, overall knowledge of what is going on in the world, students that challenge their professors more, that like to interact with professors in the classroom, and being up-to-date with the news. PVB (00:33:22): They are not, they are not. I have immense popularity with my students. I have done extraordinarily well. I have won every conceivable teaching award you can win, but I am very blunt when I tell my students that, in the aggregate I have a lot of really good students, who are extraordinarily critical and extremely knowledgeable, but in the aggregate, my students are not particularly knowledgeable. And even more insidiously, not particularly intellectually curious. They do not know what is going on in the world. They can tell you all about Lindsay Lohan and Lady Gaga and they cannot tell you what the hell is happening two days ago in Uganda, and that is not good for democracy. SM (00:34:07): I agree, I agree. A typical college scene in the (19)60s, and again, it does not always have to be technology changes, but at Binghamton University, I can remember people buying the newspaper, The New York Times, The Binghamton Press. They were- PVB (00:34:23): Nobody reads the newspaper. SM (00:34:24): ...reading the newspapers. They subscribe to Time and Newsweek. They were reading them. And I know now we have the computer and they can get access on the computer. The question is, are they going to CNN? Are they going to the news or are they going to see Lindsay Lohan? PVB (00:34:35): Their protestation's that they read the news on the internet. I believe they think they are reading the news on the internet, and I believe what is actually happening is that they are glancing at the headlines on the internet. That technology... and look, I use the computer every single day, I could not live without it, but it is not a substitute for in-depth reading. You cannot follow the news by itself on the internet, unless you are ready to devote a huge amount of time, and that is not what they are doing on the internet. They are doing Facebook, they are doing email, they are doing whatever it is that they are doing, but they are not reading the news in a thoroughly systematic way. There are exceptions, but not many. SM (00:35:31): You were- PVB (00:35:32): [inaudible] out of 100 of my students, if that, reads the newspaper in a sustained way. SM (00:35:39): I am going to go back here to the Free Speech Movement again, you were there for the Free Speech Movement in (19)64 and (19)65. Would it ever have- PVB (00:35:47): Beginning to the end. SM (00:35:48): Would it ever have happened if they gave in and allowed the group to hand out the political literature? PVB (00:35:55): No. SM (00:35:55): Would the Free Speech Movement ever really have happened? PVB (00:35:57): No. They would have aborted it. And the University of California at Berkeley administration was colossally inept. Did you ever see the documentary Berkeley in the (19)60s? SM (00:36:12): Yes-yes. Yes, I have it. I own it. PVB (00:36:17): Yeah. I am no great fan of Professor John Searle, but he said in there the administration blew it again. They were colossally inept. Every time they could have aborted what happened, they did not. They just committed another atrocity. And so, they made it absolutely easy for us to do what we did. And I was involved in every single demonstration of the FSM. SM (00:36:50): Hmm. Clark Kerr is interesting, because when I went to graduate school, we had to read his book Uses of the University. PVB (00:36:56): I bought it. SM (00:36:57): Yeah. Oh, you did? PVB (00:36:58): I did. SM (00:36:59): Yeah, well I loved the book and when I interviewed Bettina Aptheker when she was on sabbatical in New York this winter, she just really did not like Clark Kerr, but then later on she somehow met him and she said she liked him. But Clark Kerr's interesting, because he is the man that talked about the knowledge factory and that higher ed was heading to the knowledge factory and more people had access to education than ever before. And my question is this, Clark Kerr said in the book The Uses of the University that higher education had become a knowledge factory where students were learning skills to prepare for the world of work. Students at that time had an issue with a factory mentality, like they did with IBM mentality, where they were asked to conform if they wanted a job. Your thoughts on issues like this, just that boomers forced and challenged the universities that were heading toward the research universities of today. I know there is a lot here, but he seems to be a very important figure in higher education and even though- PVB (00:38:11): It has been years since I talked to Bettina, I am much more critical about Clark Kerr. I find him the architect of an institutional setting that I find repressive and extraordinarily unfortunate. I do not want the knowledge factory. I want a university that really generates truly liberal education, that allows people the kind of critical thought that will allow them to find their own way, and not one that will have them adapt to the demands advanced capitalist society. I really think that Clark Kerr is the architect of everything that is wrong with higher education. SM (00:38:50): What is interesting about Clark Kerr is he got fired by Ronald Reagan during the time- PVB (00:38:54): I know it. SM (00:38:58): ...that ...Because Ronald Reagan wanted to fight the students. PVB (00:38:58): No, I know. And I remember when he got fired, I was still a student at Berkeley then, before I started teaching, and I remember... I will never forget Mario Savio's kind of cryptic comment when he was interviewed on television when he was asked to comment about the recent firing of Clark Kerr, he said kind of off-the-cuff, "Good riddance to bad rubbish." Now, that is harsh, but I understand it, and at the emotional level, I agree with it. SM (00:39:33): Obviously, you knew Mario and Bettina and- PVB (00:39:38): Not well. SM (00:39:39): Not well. And I know David Lance Goines, who I have interviewed, too, was part of that. And he never came back to the university he was so upset. PVB (00:39:46): No, I know it, and I have read his book. I have read his book on the FSM. Again, I have met him but do not know him well. I knew some of the other people much better. The kind of official... it is a shame, I do not know if you ever interviewed Michael Rossman. SM (00:40:05): No. PVB (00:40:05): He died. But Michael was kind of the official archivist. He died about two years ago of leukemia. SM (00:40:12): Right. PVB (00:40:13): He was the one I knew the best. SM (00:40:18): The one that was in the car was Weinberg? PVB (00:40:20): Jack Weinberg. SM (00:40:21): Yeah. I would love to interview him, but you were there on that plaza that day, were not you? PVB (00:40:27): I was. SM (00:40:30): Can you describe what that day was like? I mean- PVB (00:40:33): It was wonderful. It was exhilarating. We had, I believe, a collective sense of our student power. We had a sense that we were challenging authority and that, indeed, we could win. When we stopped that police car from taking Jack Weinberg to jail, we had a sense of our extraordinary power. Now, I would add something. A very large number of the people who were there, myself included, had been veterans of the Civil Rights Movement. We knew that we could do that. We had had plenty of experiences. Jack Weinberg was a good example. We had been in the South. We knew the enormity of the impact of collective power. And we were not at all intimidated by the university. I mean, my god, we had challenged a racist southern church. We were not afraid of university deans. But it was an extraordinary day. I was there the whole time, and it was 30 some hours that Jack Weinberg was in there. I was there virtually the entire time. I think the only time I was not there was when I went into the student union to use the restroom. SM (00:41:56): Yeah, because the wide angle pictures that you see of that scene are thousands of students. I mean, and then you had this car in the middle that is not even being hurt. It is not even being scratched. PVB (00:42:12): People took their shoes off. Let me tell you, the only reason- SM (00:42:12): Let me turn my tape here. Hold on. All right. We are ready. PVB (00:42:22): I am an effective speaker. I have been a public speaker for 40 years, the sole reason I did not mount the police car to speak, was that I was on probation for an earlier civil rights arrest and I was operating in violation of my own probation order. If I had been photographed on top of that police car, and if that had gotten back to my probation officer, and the judge would sentence me to three years on probation, there is no doubt that he would have rescinded my probation and issued a warrant for my arrest, thrown me into jail. SM (00:43:03): I know, but when I interviewed Bettina, she said that was the time that she had never spoken before a large group like that before, but she said it gave her a lot of confidence. And she was not up there very long, but it just gave her a lot of confidence, and look she has gone on to become a great professor, so- PVB (00:43:21): No, it is true. I finally did speak the day of the mass arrests on the steps of Sproul Hall when were mobilizing for the strike. I got up and I took the microphone and I said, "We need to deploy students in front of this building and that building." And, to my astonishment, I spoke charismatically and people, they basically obeyed my suggestion, and I realized, at that moment, that I had the power to move people through my oratorical ability. SM (00:43:56): Wow, that is powerful. I know that Dr. Cohen at NYU has written a book on Mario Savio. I bought it when I was there, the day I interviewed Bettina, and I want to interview him, too. He is very busy. PVB (00:44:10): He is worth interviewing. I have read the book. It is very good. SM (00:44:13): Well, he never responded and finally he said, "Steve, I apologize. I have been inundated," three months after I sent my note. He said, "In the fall, when school starts, you can come in September and interview me," so I am going to do that. Final question on this, again, I may have asked this before, but what are the lessons, again, of the Free Speech Movement in your view? And what are some of the visible results of this action that you see on campuses today? In other words, what I want to know, I know how important it was, our students may not know the history of the free speech movement and how important it is for their rights on campus, but do you see the visible results at UCLA today and in other schools? PVB (00:44:52): A little bit. As a kind of indirect consequence of the Free Speech Movement, we were, as I indicated a few moments ago, able to make some curricular changes. If it had not been for the Free Speech Movement, we would not have an African-American studies and I would not be teaching African-American studies. But when I gave my own speech against the tuition hike, back in November at a mass rally on the UCLA campus, I said that when Mario Savio spoke on December 2nd, 1964 he said that there comes a time when the machine becomes so odious that you cannot take part. And I said, with today's prices at the university, it has become so odious, you cannot take part. And so, what I am hoping is that, especially with the repeated budget cuts and the organization of the university, that enough students will begin seeing that this is no education at all. So I am hopeful that there will be an increased student movement. I have no idea what is going to happen, but I would hope that with all of these kinds of cutbacks in education you will have a response from the student body at UCLA, the University of California and a number of places across the country. SM (00:46:17): There are some people, and I cannot name them, but I have read that they think that it is actually a conspiracy to keep students busy today by the fact that they all have to work, tuitions are rising, they have to work, they have no time to be involved in anything else on a regular basis. They join- PVB (00:46:45): It is a major problem. SM (00:46:45): ...fraternities and sororities, so I do not get it. PVB (00:46:45): Yeah, it is a major problem. On the other hand, when my students moan and groan about that, I simply ask them and I say, "How much time do you waste on the computer? How much time do you waste on social networking sites?" I spent 30, 40, 50 hours a week as an undergraduate in the Civil Rights Movement. I also worked 15 to 20 hours a week, and in the last two years of my college career, I got mostly As. A lot of their complaints... I feel sorry for working class kids that really do have to do it, but for upper-middle class kids, who are getting parental subsidies, a lot of that is merely whining. SM (00:47:28): And there is data to prove that those students who are more involved in activities outside the classroom do better in school. They really do. PVB (00:47:40): The more I was involved in the Civil Rights Movement, the more hours I put in, the higher my grades got. SM (00:47:44): You are a living example of that. One of the things I was reading about, and you probably are very proud about it, in fact Paul mentioned in a little note to me, is that you are a rabble-rousing teacher. PVB (00:48:00): I put on a very lively show. SM (00:48:00): And what was it like being a teacher? Now, this is very important, and I have an example. What was it like being a teacher at Berkeley in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s and even going onto UCLA? And did you fear the university would purge you and other teachers for political activities beyond the classroom? PVB (00:48:19): Yes, I did, and they tried and I beat them back. SM (00:48:20): Hmm. PVB (00:48:25): I was first fired in... or attempted to be fired four years into my Berkeley career in 1972. It was a massive student movement. It became a matter of major Berkeley controversy, it became a matter of national controversy. I think it was 1972, the journalist Nicholas von Hoffman wrote a column about me. I beat him back, I beat him. And several other times when they... They have always used other pretexts, budget, change of direction. SM (00:49:05): Oh, yeah. PVB (00:49:06): Mind you, it has always been political and I have always beat them back. SM (00:49:12): Yeah, it is amazing the people that shut up are the ones that rise oftentimes. When I was at SUNY Binghamton in 1960... I think it was (19)68, a brand-new PhD came in from Berkeley, it was a sociology professor named Dr. Mahovsky, and I remember Mr. Lipschitz, one of the students in our class challenging him. There was going to be a protest against recruiters on campus, and he came into the classroom, the student, and he said, "Are you going to come with us?" And Dr. Mahovsky said, "No, I am teaching a class." And he said, "Well, jeez, did not you just graduate from Berkeley? You should be coming over. You are a professor. You should be coming over with us and sitting in the administration building. And we are going to get arrested, but..." And I will never forget this, he said, " I am no longer at Berkeley, I am no longer just a graduate student, I now am a professor, I have a wife, I have a child, I have to provide for them, I am not going to get involved in this." So I will never forget that. PVB (00:50:17): I have managed to get involved for 40 years and I am still around and in next March I will have been married for 40 years. In L.A. you get to be in the Guinness Book of Records for that. SM (00:50:27): Wow, that probably is. What do you think of Reagan's war on students, that law and order mentality? PVB (00:50:35): That is how he got to be governor. He ran against me and my fellow students and Berkeley in 1966. That is what catapulted him to Sacramento, and then that is what catapulted him, unfortunately, into The White House. Now, people who say if it were not for the Free Speech Movement he would not have gotten there, I am not apologizing for anything. We had to do the FSM. The fact that Reagan was able to be a demagogue and to do that is a sad reality, but I did not make it happen, so I have no regrets about being involved as an activist. If he had not done it, somebody else would have. SM (00:51:18): I think Ronald Reagan heard about Ed Meese at that time, because he was the assistant DA of- PVB (00:51:23): I remember Ed Meese. I used to watch him when I was a young faculty member. He was Ronald Reagan's kind of field general. It was Ed Meese who was directing the kind of ground operations on the Berkeley campus. It was Ed Meese who directed... he was involved in the activity of the People's Park. SM (00:51:47): Yes, in (19)69. Yes. PVB (00:51:49): And it was Meese who directed the helicopters that made the first bombing of an American campus. SM (00:51:56): I interviewed him. PVB (00:51:56): Of teargas. SM (00:51:57): I interviewed Mr. Meese. I had a chance to talk to him, it was mainly I wanted to talk to him about the years before he worked for President Reagan in The White House. PVB (00:52:10): He was the prosecutor of the Free Speech Movement defendants. SM (00:52:14): Mm-hmm. Were you aware of any universities firing professors or purging so-called radical students from their campuses or any campuses in the late (19)60s and (19)70s? PVB (00:52:23): They were doing it, they are still doing it. SM (00:52:23): Because I know that, my first job was at Ohio University and they supposedly purged a lot of the students from the east off of that campus. PVB (00:52:37): I mean, they do not do it with quite the drama, but you have these events. I mean, you have these academic freedom cases every year. At Colorado, they got rid of Ward Churchill. I am no great fan, I must say, of Ward Churchill. I have signed all the petitions, because I think it was a pretty egregious violation of his academic freedom. I am not a great fan of the scholarship, but that notwithstanding, clearly, he was a victim of political persecution. At Bard College, President Botstein has fired Joel Kovel. SM (00:53:16): Oh, yeah. I remember hearing about that. PVB (00:53:21): And I think that is troublesome. I do not know all the details of that case, so I mean this kind of thing goes on and on and, as I said, when I have been the victim of that, I fought back. I mean, I have been fortunate that the nature of my teaching is such that I am always able to generate a huge amount of support from my student population, including, I might add, conservative students. I make clear my own leftist point of view, but my conservative students can speak any time they want and I will listen to them. I will not agree with them, but they are always open to say whatever they want in my classes. SM (00:54:04): Well, access to higher education is a major development in higher education during the (19)60s and (19)70s. And so, the boomer generation, like the GI Bill and the World War II generation really increased the numbers on college campuses never before. With access, including all ethnic groups, what new issues arose in your view, what were they in your eyes? PVB (00:54:32): Well, [inaudible] students, I mean, they were obviously... I mean, I think this is a good thing, but I would like to make higher education more accessible to larger numbers of people. One of the good things until there was a backlash for things like Proposition 209 is that we had increasing numbers of people of color, and they were obviously interested in learning more about their own tradition. Increasing numbers, especially in a place like California, for example, you had an increasing number of students of Latino cultures, and so that was good, it was a valuable thing for the curriculum. On the other hand, you still had a lot of students much more narrowly focused on job markets and more technical skills that would equip them for entry level jobs, and I think that that was short-sighted, as I talked about a couple minutes ago. SM (00:55:32): Being a lawyer, how important was the Bakke decision? I know that was at UC Davis and that was in the late (19)70s. That seemed to be an historic case. PVB (00:55:44): Well, it is interesting. I mean, in retrospect, I mean, nobody really liked the Bakke decision when it came down, but in retrospect, we would kind of like to have it now, because at least it will allow the use of race. It allowed Allan Bakke to go to medical school, I think at Davis. SM (00:56:02): Mm-hmm, yes. PVB (00:56:04): But now, I mean, it is hard to get to anybody. It has been a long time since I read the Bakke decision, but as I remember, the court said you have to let Allan Bakke in, but you can still use race as a legitimate consideration in making admission determination. So if we could go back to the Bakke decision, we would ironically be better off. SM (00:56:29): A lot of people did not realize it, and it was not really brought up, but he was a Vietnam veteran, too. PVB (00:56:35): I know it. SM (00:56:36): And the other thing, too, is what we also saw that is interesting in college campuses in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s, is the many Vietnam veterans coming on campuses and the discrimination that they were facing. In fact, they were actually put into affirmative action plans back at that time. PVB (00:56:53): Yeah, I remember that. At Berkeley, we had a few. I did not have a lot of Vietnam vets at Berkeley. And even now at UCLA I get a couple of veterans. It is not a huge percentage. In California, I would think that a much larger number of the military veterans probably go to the California State University system. SM (00:57:20): Right. Would you say, and this is just my perception that another big issue from the (19)60s and (19)70s, as a result of student protests and certainly with what happened at Kent State is the issue of who can and cannot come on campus with respect to police. That was a big issue when I was at Ohio State University as a grad student. And we had legal aspects in higher education classes and these were some of the biggest discussions we ever had, is who can and cannot come on campus. PVB (00:57:55): It remains an issue. Kind of piggybacking on what I talked about earlier, they are very-very careful about bringing large scale police presences on campus these days, because it inflames students. They try to defuse incidents, but we have had them. I mean, even last November when we had the demonstration against the tuition increases, they brought in a huge contingent of California Highway Patrol. And then, it inflamed student population, so they... There is no doubt at a public university campus, I mean, they have the right to come to campus. The issue is not whether they have the legal right, but the propriety and the wisdom of bringing them on. SM (00:58:53): I interviewed Phyllis Schlafly and I know David Horowitz has also said this in his books, that the troublemakers of the (19)60s and the (19)70s now run today's universities. And then, they comment they run the women's studies departments, Black studies, gay and lesbian studies, Native American studies, Chicano studies, environmental studies. Your response? PVB (00:59:17): I think that is moronic. There is a need for all of these studies. These are whole areas that were historically neglected. David Horowitz is his own... In both cases, you really have to look at the sources. Phyllis Schlafly is an old-time reactionary, and extraordinarily difficult to take her seriously. David Horowitz is another interesting guy. I do not want to psychoanalyze him, but the temptation to do so is almost irresistible, coming as he does as a red diaper baby, who is trying to, basically, exorcise the ghost of his left-wing past. But on the merits, he is wrong. On the substantive merits, he is absolutely wrong. When you look at things like African-American studies and Chicano studies and you look over the past 35 or 40 years, there is an impressive body of scholarship and teaching that stands extraordinarily well on its merits. Now, it is absolutely the case that in the ethnic studies and women's studies curriculum, they are going to point out the existence of racism and sexism, because they exist. And that people who spend their time in scholarly investigation looking at race are going to discover racism, and those people who spend their scholarly lives dealing with gender, are going to discover sexism as an institutional component of American life. Mr. Horowitz does not want to acknowledge that, but that is his intellectual deficiency. SM (01:01:17): See, I interviewed Michelle Easton from the Clare Boothe Luce Institute, a conservative female, and she kind of agrees with that, as well. And she says, in some of these courses, women's studies, that they are never going to teach about Phyllis Schlafly, they are never going to teach about Clare Boothe Luce, they are never going to talk about conservative women. I made a comment earlier, they are doing exactly the same things that they complained about when they were students back in the (19)60s or (19)70s or whatever, so- PVB (01:01:52): I do not think they are. I think it is perfectly appropriate to teach about Clare Booth Luce, she was an important journalist, she was a congresswoman. I think you want to talk- She was a congresswoman. I think you want to talk about people who made a significant contribution, that would by definition eliminate Phyllis Schlafly, she is not an important figure. SM (01:02:14): Some people will say she is, because she single-handedly defeated the ERA. PVB (01:02:19): Yeah, I know. But, in the scheme of American and [inaudible] important figure. These are intellectual judgements we have. SM (01:02:28): Right. The problems we have just, I got a lot of questions here and you are doing great, because you are one of the first, along with Dr. Chickering and one other person, really talking about higher ed, which is important, because it is such an important part of the lives of Boomers and in that period. The problems that we have in America today, go back to the (19)60s and (19)70s. I say this, because in 1994, if you remember when Newt Gingrich came into power, he made some commentaries about that period of the (19)60s and (19)70s as to the reasons why America's in the shape it is in and he was referring to negative shape. PVB (01:03:10): Of course. SM (01:03:10): George Will, oftentimes lights to in his commentaries, take jabs back to that period. Even today, and I do not even watch Fox News, but I hear that former Governor Huckabee is constantly making comments, as is Glenn Beck and Hannity about general commentaries about that particular era in history and how it is negatively affected our society and still does today. PVB (01:03:37): There is absolutely no doubt that the (19)60s was a cultural and political and emotional divide. George Will is a thoughtful, intelligent guy. I disagree with virtually everything he says, although I like his writings on baseball. Very political. Glenn Beck is a comedian and is not worth talking about, because he is not a serious intellectual. Gingrich is an interesting, problematic person in his own right. He is not stupid. Beck is just an entertainer and he is real. We do make intellectual judgements, but let me talk about the deeper issue. The (19)60s was a profound divide. It changed our consciousness of America. There were a lot of people who wanted America to be what it was before then a Baskin for white middle class people with a deeply institutionalized sexism and racism. That was the America that they liked. That was the America that gave them the privileges that they enjoyed. And that was the America that we took on. That was the America that they enjoyed with Dwight Eisenhower. But the Eisenhower administration favored the wealthy. It was contemptuous of racial discord and it was contemptuous of the rights of women. And the (19)60s challenged all of that and I believe properly so. SM (01:05:12): Excellent response. When you look at the boomer generation, it is anywhere between 74 and 78 million people. In fact, I just read an article that boomers can no longer say they are the largest generation in American history. There are now more millennials than there ever were boomers. PVB (01:05:32): Yes. That is not surprising. SM (01:05:35): And because boomers, the most would be 78 million, we are already over 80 million for the millennials. But what I am getting at here is when you look at this boomer generation and you think of the boomers that you knew in many different capacities, and when I say boomers, I do not like to, some people have had some difficulty with the timeframes here, because I know from all the people I have interviewed that those that were born between 1940 and 1946, a lot of them feel they are boomers in the way they think and the way they act. You are dividing me from somebody else who is only two years younger than me. Come on. So I know what I am asking really is what do you think were some of the good qualities and bad qualities about the generation? Some people will not even answer this question, because I think it is too general. PVB (01:06:31): I mean, a lot of the people, I mean, I am right before the technical beginning of the boomers and a lot of the people came right after really were fundamentally part of (19)60s activist generation and for all of the flaws, and there were many, and for all of the kind of shrillness and the irrationality, it still made a major moral difference. It was people like that who were the foot soldiers in the most making the major moral transformation of our society, which was the civil rights movement. It was people of that generation, people of my age, people born right before (19)46 and right after, who were the foot soldiers who took to the street and who supplied the bodies in the most important moral crusade of the 20th century, the American Civil Rights Movement. So for that minority of that generation, without being chronologically precise, that minority of that age group performed a service for which America ought to be grateful for centuries to come. My view. SM (01:07:47): Could you list some of the contributions in your eyes at the boomer generations, its members? In society as a whole, both good and bad? PVB (01:07:55): Yeah, it is that minority that had a vision of morality and social justice that carried forth. It is that vision that has allowed people of color to live in this country with assemblance of humanity and dignity and which among other things, shortly after the highlight of that, that helped to end a grotesque war in Southeast Asia. The wrong side of the boomers, and again, without being chronologically rigid, is that many of those people fell all too easily into Reaganism, which may seems to be the worst example with the Reagan administration. It institutionalized selfishness, [inaudible], if I can point a word, where it said that, what is in it for me and to hell with everybody else. So the other side of that generation seemed to me to institutionalize a vision that all we care about is our own advancement, usually financial advancement and the hell with the welfare of the rest of the American population, really the hell with the rest of the human population. So it had the best and the worst. SM (01:09:27): That is kind of the Christopher- PVB (01:09:27): The latter is more than the former. SM (01:09:32): That is kind of that Christopher Lash talks about in the culture of narcissism. Yeah. I see there is a Bruin Alumni Association that is not an affiliate one that has a web page- PVB (01:09:43): No, it has nothing to do with the Alumni Association. SM (01:09:45): It talks about dangerous professors on campus. PVB (01:09:45): Yes. SM (01:09:51): And you are on that list. PVB (01:09:52): I am only on number 21. When that came out, I went to my students and I said that I regret profoundly that I did so poorly in the rankings. I had several months to see if I could elevate. SM (01:10:06): That is kind of the what a lot of people said when they were on Nixon's enemies list. PVB (01:10:10): Yes. SM (01:10:13): Some people said, "Wow, geez, I am hurt, because I am not on it." PVB (01:10:16): Right. The day that came out, I was teaching a very large class. I got a standing ovation. SM (01:10:24): Do you compare this at all, even in a small way, to the witch hunts by [inaudible] in the late (19)40s and (19)50s and looking at communists, McCarthyism in the (19)50s, attacks on the new left liberals, the Hollywood 10. Do you see even in the small way, a continuation- PVB (01:10:50): Yes, but in a very small way. Strictly minor league SD. SM (01:10:56): Right. PVB (01:10:57): Major league stuff. Strictly Bush League. SM (01:11:01): The new right really came to power in kind of the mid to late (19)70s in reaction to the new left and liberal groups active in the (19)60s and early (19)70s, the rise of Reagan was part of that, because the concepts of law and order, he did not want a welfare state. The kind of mentality where you lift yourself up by your own bootstraps and do not concentrate on the government. PVB (01:11:27): ...yourself up by your bootstraps and also predisposes that you have boots. SM (01:11:31): Right. Good point. What are your thoughts on that rise of the right? PVB (01:11:38): I see that as a consequence of the cult. I see that as a consequence of Reaganism. For all of Ronald Reagan's crack pot economics, the more pernicious dimension of the Reagan era was the cultural consequence of selfishness, of narcissism, of this kind of contemptuous disregard of the marginalized population. It was Ronald Reagan, for example, who opened up the mental institution in California. It was Ronald Reagan who basically maligned for my view of any society is that the, well, the moral quality of any society is the way in which you treat the most disadvantaged. And the way America treats its most disadvantaged, it remains appalling to me. SM (01:12:31): Well, I know religious leaders became a very important part of this, whether it be Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Dobson. But when you see a Ralph Reed who has a PhD in history, who is so smart, I mean there were a lot of boomers who were part of this. PVB (01:12:53): I am sure. And they could always find people who can use the gospel. I mean, look, I am not religious. I mean, I come from a secular Jewish background, so I have no particular vision about the Christians whom I admire are people like Dr. King. SM (01:13:16): Right. PVB (01:13:17): For whom theology works for the betterment of the human condition and for people like Robertson and Buck [inaudible] and Reed, frankly, it strikes me that they are using theology as a cover for retrograde [inaudible] SM (01:13:37): Two religious leaders that seen, even though Billy Graham seems to be across a lot of currents and so does Father Sheen, the Catholic Church, they seem to be a little different, would not you say? PVB (01:13:51): Well, you mean Fulton Sheen? SM (01:13:53): Fulton Sheen, yes. PVB (01:13:54): Yeah. That goes back to the (19)50s. SM (01:13:57): Right. That is still part of boomers. When they were young, they saw these and- PVB (01:14:00): No, I used to watch them on television. I do not remember very much. He used to give these [inaudible] on television as a kid. I do not remember them specifically. Billy Graham has been around forever. I am no great fan of Billy Graham. I do not find him as reactionary as some of the other ones. But on the other hand, his palling around with all president will strike me is a bit of hollow. SM (01:14:29): Except Jimmy Carter for some reason. PVB (01:14:31): Yeah, no, I mean, but they share the born again vision. So there is not... SM (01:14:39): From your own life experiences and your knowledge of history through reading, describe what the following time periods mean to you. Since all these periods were at times when boomers have been alive and helped shape them and their multiple views on life. I have asked this to the last 50 some people that I have interviewed, and it has been very interesting what they say. This is just, when you look at this timeframe, what does this timeframe mean to you as a person, and what do you think it means to the generation that was growing up at the time and the period, 1946 to 1960? PVB (01:15:18): I found the, well that is basically 1946 to 1960, is the (19)50s, and I found that repressive. I have very vivid recollection. I remember the witch hunts. I was talking to my students yesterday. I teach at the summer course and I am using George Clooney's goodnight and good luck about Edward [inaudible], whom nobody had ever heard of until I mentioned. And I remember the Army McCarthy hearings, I remember the malevolent gaze of Joe McCarthy and his detestable sidekick, Roy Cohen. I remember the less than pleasant days of the Eisenhower administration. So I have very negative feelings about the (19)50s. I actually wrote an article many, many years ago about the (19)50s called Not So Happy Days, the Politics and Culture of the (19)50s. So I have very negative views, because it seemed to me that it was not happy if you were African American or poor or a woman, a variety of other people on the periphery of society. SM (01:16:28): What did you think of the TV of the (19)50s? Because when I think of the (19)50s, I think of Howdy Doody. I think of the Musketeers, Mickey Mouse Club. I think of Walt Disney, Ed Sullivan Show, a lot of comedy sitcoms, half hour shows, a lot of- PVB (01:16:48): I remember Westerns. I grew up in a very politically conscious and very politically critical family. So I was imbued with that. The only thing that I liked on television in the (19)50s was sports, baseball, football. SM (01:17:04): How about the period 1961 to 1970? PVB (01:17:08): I love the (19)50s and I am critical of its excesses, and I am critical of those people who said that they were involved in the (19)60s when they were young, and now they have matured and become mature. I think that is nonsensical. I am an unapologetic defender of (19)60s activism is pretty heard so far. Now, I think the (19)60s were one of the moral highlights of a relatively recent American history, especially the civil rights struggle, and especially the proceed to end what I think to be a monstrous war in Vietnam. SM (01:17:50): The period 1971 to 1980. PVB (01:17:53): Well, there was still a lot of activism in the early part of the (19)70s, and I supported that. I knew many of the people as the civil rights movement, for example, transformed from the kind of nonviolent civil rights movement to Black power. I understand that. And I was actually very supportive of the Black Power Movement. I retained a lot of associates and friendships with people who were involved in Black power, and I think that was very important. And in the early part of the decade, the anti-war movement accelerated. The war of Vietnam did not end until Gerald Ford withdrew American forces in 1975. So the first part of that was still part of the (19)60s. The latter part coincided with a much more passive era. Even though Jimmy Carter was president, it was moving toward the kind of passivity and narcissism of the Reagan era. My vision of the latter part of the Sotheby's becomes much more critical. SM (01:18:59): Yeah. Let me go right into that, 1981 to 1990. PVB (01:19:03): Not a particularly pleasant time. I mean, that was the era of Reagan, and that was the time where Reagan used his sometimes a very persuasive to communication power to malign and disparage. Before that was when he was utterly indifferent, for example, to people with aids. Not a pleasant time in our national history. And I am confident that few historians who validate my vision. SM (01:19:37): How about 1991 to 2000? PVB (01:19:39): And I think it continued. I am not, I mean on some levels things got a little better with Bill Clinton, but I am no Clinton fan. SM (01:19:52): Is there anything that stands out in that (19)90s that... PVB (01:19:55): No. I think on some levels, domestically things got a little better, but Clinton really continued the same irrational Cold War policies that actually were initiated under Eisenhower. I did not like his foreign policy adventures. I did not actually, this has to be apart from a lot of my colleagues on the left. I did not like his personal immorality. SM (01:20:22): And the one thing, he seemed to be very close to African-Americans, though. PVB (01:20:30): That is the popular view. I dissent when people said that he was the first Black president. His actual policies seems to me worked against the interest of the African-American population. I think he was particularly good with his rhetoric, but there is an enormous gap between his rhetoric and the day-to-day policies. SM (01:20:53): Where is this gap? PVB (01:20:55): No, I am not a Bill Clinton fan. I do not like what he stands for. I think that basically the Clinton influence in American life is a negative one. And I am in the minority on the left on this. SM (01:21:10): Where was that gap you mentioned? You can give an example of the gap? PVB (01:21:13): Yeah. He cut welfare payments, which I would not do, but I am unambiguously in favor of Democratic socialism still. SM (01:21:25): How about if- PVB (01:21:25): I was in Washington DC, I had about a 10-minute conversation with Ralph Nader, whom I like enormously. He would be worth interviewing, if you can get to him. SM (01:21:39): He is a tough man. He is never around. PVB (01:21:39): I know. SM (01:21:41): The last one of course is 2001 to 2010. PVB (01:21:45): Well, we will see. We will see. I mean, the Bush arm was grotesque. I mean, the worst president, arguably one of the worst presidents in our national history. SM (01:22:02): Let me change my tape here. Hold on. Very good. PVB (01:22:09): An absolutely horrible president, a horrible administration. A disaster will take generations to recover from his grotesque adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. SM (01:22:23): What about Barack Obama? Just your first- PVB (01:22:25): See, I am increasingly disappointed with Obama. SM (01:22:32): So the judgment is out on him. It is too early, so to speak. PVB (01:22:37): It is still too early, but I am not happy with the trajectory. I would like him to be much more vigorous. A lot of people in the left, feel that way. I am hardly unusual. SM (01:22:47): Would you say that if you talk about this 10 years between 2001, 2010, it is all about 911? It is terrorism? That is the- PVB (01:22:55): Yeah, I mean, there is no doubt. I mean, 911 was horrible. No humane human being can say anything other than that. It was horrible. I mean, Al-Qaeda and their operatives are mass murderers. Nobody could defend that, indefensible. And if somebody were to capture and kill Bin Laden, I would be perfectly ecstatic. But look at what has happened. There was this kind of hysteria about terrorism that can have catastrophic consequences for civil liberties. I mean, in the wake of 911, we passed this grotesque Patriot Act. Horrifying, in my view, as a civil libertarian. SM (01:23:41): Did you experience the generation gap in your family between your parents and yourself or any of your brothers and sisters? Was there any- PVB (01:23:52): Not really. SM (01:23:52): Did you witness the generation gap amongst any of your peers and their family? PVB (01:23:56): Not especially. I am the oldest of five. There is a 19-year difference between me and my youngest sister. We are all politically progressive, although I have always been the most active, and maybe that is the first child syndrome. I have always been the most verbal. SM (01:24:15): Did you see that there was the generation gap between the World War II generation and the boomers? PVB (01:24:21): Yeah, I respect the World War II generation, but I do not romanticize them. I think [inaudible] broke laws rhetoric about the greatest generation is overblown. SM (01:24:35): Some people have also said that we concentrate too much on the generation gap and the battles between parents and children. But we do not talk about the generation gap within the generation, which is between those who went to Vietnam or served in the military during this timeframe and those who evaded the draft. PVB (01:24:57): Yeah, there was that. And I regard myself as a Vietnam vet. I fought the war. I would not have served in Vietnam. I think it was a grotesque score. I got a high draft number. So I was lucky I would not have fought that war. It was monstrous. Whenever I go to the Vietnam wall in Washington, and I certainly empathize with the people who lost relatives, and it is very touching and very moving to see that. But it is a horrible war. I would not demonize people who went and I would not spit on them or call them baby killer. But we should not have fought that war. We should not have fought in Iraq and should pull out of Afghanistan. SM (01:25:43): James Fallows- PVB (01:25:44): Very much, I mean, my views, they are minority views. Not North Vietnam, but certainly with Afghanistan. But large numbers of Americans feel the same way that I do. SM (01:25:57): Yeah. James Fallows has written years back, the writer for Atlantic Monthly, that he was in Harvard at the time, that he feels real guilty and has been honest about evading the draft and not protesting the draft, because a lot of those students evaded the draft, but put no effort into protesting against the war. And so there is some lot of issues there. So do you see any different- PVB (01:26:24): I have no such issues. I would not have fought in that warrant. I protested it. SM (01:26:28): Were your thoughts on those who went to Canada? PVB (01:26:31): I understand it. I would not have done that. I am an American. I belong here. I was born here. I have lived here. I am critical of my country. Therefore, I want to work assiduously to try to change it. SM (01:26:48): Yeah. I think Dr. King used to always say that if you need to not worry about being arrested when you protest, because that is part of the game, and those people, that is the nonviolent protest. PVB (01:27:02): Right. SM (01:27:02): And he always stressed that. And so those who did alternative service and did not go to Canada and some went to jail, like David Harris. PVB (01:27:12): Exactly. SM (01:27:13): And served time. Those people seemed to be admired more. Those who did alternative service and went to jail and then those who evaded the draft or went to Canada. PVB (01:27:24): Or who, I mean, I am in a different category. I fought the war in Vietnam from the time of the Gulf of [inaudible] in summer of 1954 until the final withdrawal in 1975. I was always outspoken against the war, 11 years. SM (01:27:46): Well then you are part of that then. In your opinion, what is the major event or happening that shaped the entire generation of 74 million? Is there one event that you think shaped it more than any other? PVB (01:28:00): There is too many. I do not think historically you can name one. I mean, obviously young people today in college, they all remember 911. But look, I remember, everybody remembers where they were when Kennedy was assassinated. But that could be overblown. It is too simplistic. It is really a complex of events that give rise of the ones individual events can help you locate a conscious, but it is individual psychology and human history are more complex. SM (01:28:40): We are is a follow-up. Maybe you will have the same answer. When did the (19)60s begin in your eyes and when did it end? PVB (01:28:47): The (19)60s began, I do a course in this and I date it on December 1st 1955 when Rosa Parks got arrested, or you could date it on May 17th 1954 when the Supreme Court handed down Brown v Board of Education. And it ended largely when President Ford withdrew the troops in Vietnam. So somewhere in the mid-(19)50s to the mid-(19)70s. SM (01:29:18): Wow. April 30th 1975. PVB (01:29:20): Yep. So around then. SM (01:29:22): Do you think this- PVB (01:29:25): Basically 20 years. SM (01:29:26): This may be a repeat of the earlier question, but was there a watershed moment or you just cannot say? PVB (01:29:31): I cannot really say. There were too many events and I was involved in too many of them. SM (01:29:38): Do you think a quality that this generation has is a quality that they do not trust? PVB (01:29:46): Hard to know. I mean, one of the things that I am sad to say it that I see among my own students is a reluctance to take risks. And I am bothered by that. Even at the interpersonal level. I see too many young people, some of who are kind of reluctant to do anything that would be risky. They are afraid of the consequences. And I sometimes looked and said, my god's going to be afraid to do it at 21. What the hell are you going to be like at 40? SM (01:30:22): Right. Do you feel that the issue of trust is an issue within the boomer generation that has a lack of trust in leaders? Because so many lied to the boomers as they were growing up, and they were given lies in terms of why we got involved in Vietnam. We had the Watergate- PVB (01:30:42): They say that. I hear that a lot. I wonder however, whether there is so much of that is just a rhetorical cover. I am not sure how deep that really goes. I mean, every generation gets lied to. Political leaders always lied, endemic of the operations. SM (01:31:10): Would in response... I do a follow-up to this question. That is, when you think of a lack of trust, you really think of liberty and the definition of liberty. That was a political science major and well and history major. And one of the first thing things you learn in political science is that trust and lack of trust is a very positive quality in a democracy, because that means you do not trust your government, keeps them on their toes. And the dissent is alive and well in a democracy. Do you agree with that? PVB (01:31:38): No, that is good. I mean, one ought to be skeptical. But one ought to be skeptical when people say they are doing it for your own good. And you should say, show me that it is for my own good. Explain that further. Now I have, as a teacher, my job is to try to tell my students or urge them to be a lot more skeptical of authority wherever they encounter it. At home, at school, at both at the micro and macro level politically. Democracy requires skepticism. SM (01:32:19): Where were you when you heard President Kennedy was assassinated? Do you remember the exact moment? PVB (01:32:25): Yeah, I was an undergraduate. I was just kind of walking and somebody said, they said like many other people, I did not believe it, until actually until everybody started buzzing about it. SM (01:32:39): Were you at the Berkeley campus? PVB (01:32:40): No, I was in San Diego. I went as an undergraduate at San Diego State. SM (01:32:46): So you heard of it just walking across campus? PVB (01:32:48): I was on campus. It was between classes. SM (01:32:51): And did you go to- PVB (01:32:55): I remember sitting down with a friend, we were kind of joking about something, having nothing to do with that. And some professor- PVB (01:33:03): ...about something having nothing to do with that. And some professor came and started ... gave us a really dirty look. And I could not figure out why the hell was he this off with us, but I had not heard anything. We were outside. We had no, people were not wired up. And [inaudible] 63. SM (01:33:18): Did you? PVB (01:33:23): I think he was pissed off that we were joking, but we did not know anything. I would not joke about something like that. SM (01:33:29): Did your class continue or was it canceled? PVB (01:33:33): I think it was canceled. SM (01:33:35): And were you like many that just watched TV all weekend or? PVB (01:33:40): Yeah, I watched it. I watched it all the way through. I watched it incessantly. I watched Oswald being assassinated by Jack Ruby. SM (01:33:46): Yep. And you probably remember the announcers. PVB (01:33:51): Yep. SM (01:33:52): Tom Petit. PVB (01:33:54): Yep. SM (01:33:54): And Ike Pappas. PVB (01:33:56): Yep. SM (01:33:58): They have both passed on now. But those are the ones, NBC and CBS. PVB (01:34:03): It was incredible. SM (01:34:04): Yeah. Another important question here. Do you mind if we go over a couple minutes here? Because we are going over? Sure. Because I got, I have got the civil rights questions here. But this is a question I have asked everyone, all 170 people, a question that our students came up with when we took a trip to Washington DC in the mid (19)90s to see Senator Edmund Muskie. We had a leadership on the road program through Gaylord Nelson from Wisconsin, and we set up about nine meetings with senators, and this was our last one. And he was not very well. He had just gotten out of the hospital. And the question the students came up with, because they knew that he was the vice president of candidate in 1968 when all that terrible thing happened there and all those tragedies, assassinations that year. So they wanted to know, number one, were we close to a, they wanted to ask him, were we close to a second civil war in 1968 due to all the divisions? And secondly, do you feel that because of all the divisions between black and white, male and female, gay and straight, those who supported the war and against the war, those who supported the troops or against the troops, and they brought in all the burnings of the cities in the (19)60s, and Watts and the burnings after Dr. King died and the assassinations. Do you think that this generation, because of all these terrible things, is going to go to its grave, like the Civil War generation, not truly healing? And so they wanted a response from him, I will tell you his response after I hear yours. PVB (01:35:44): No, we were never close to a civil war. The Civil War was really a major division about states’ rights and slavery. We were in a period of great turmoil and tension, but nothing qualitatively similar civil war. But many of the tensions remain unresolved. I mean, I still think that many of the tensions that existed forty-something years ago remain. We still have racism, we still have sexism. I am extremely close to the African-American community, and I know definitively that they still see racism very pervasively in American society, notwithstanding that Barack Obama is black. And a lot of these tensions are going to remain unresolved. And a lot of people, especially the generation before me, are going to die with a lot of unresolved issues. And I am not sure that they will be resolved in my own lifetime. But it is not a civil war, and it never was, was not even close. SM (01:36:54): Do you think that there is a problem with healing within any segment of the boomer generation or as a whole? PVB (01:37:08): Yeah, but it is not... I mean, time heals. Time itself works. I mean, it has an effect though, on the rougher edges, but I am not sure. I do not want a cheap healing and I do not want closure, and I do not want healing unless there is resolution and resolution in certain directions. I do not want healing without... I do not want to heal unless the underlying issues are resolved. I do not want to heal if there is still racism or there is still sexism or homophobia. I do not want to play kumbaya if we still have these problems. I would rather have tension and discord. SM (01:37:57): That is an excellent response because Senator Muskie did not even respond about 1968. He mentioned nothing in his reply. It was simple and direct. He said, "We have not healed since the Civil War because we have not healed over the issue of race." And then he went on to describe the North and the South and all the divisions, and that is all he said. And he did not even mention... and he had just seen the Civil War series on TV in the hospital, the Ken Burns series, and he said, "Ask yourself this, young people. Almost 430, 000 people, men, died in that war. Almost an entire generation was wiped out in the south." So ask yourself, the issue of race. He said that... he actually had tears in his eyes when he was talking to us. He had said nothing about the (19)60s. So that is how he responded. What has the wall done, in your opinion? Have you been there? You already said you have. What was the first response to the black granite wall about a mile in? What came to mind when you first saw it [inaudible] PVB (01:39:03): Oh, I have seen it a dozen times. It is tremendously moving. What makes it such a remarkable piece of public art is that it allows people of both sides, the protagonists who fought in Vietnam and people who fought against the entire war like me, to stand in the same space and to share their... well, not to share, but to experience their own private emotion. I mean, the people who lost people, you can see them rub the names. But people like me stand there and I see the 58,000 and odd names of people, and I think what a tragic, tragic waste. SM (01:39:46): See, I think maybe I should have rephrased the question. I have said this to other people when I talked about healing, is really... has the healing truly happened between those who went to war in Vietnam and those who were the anti-war movement? PVB (01:40:00): Probably not. But I think the edges are off as we have gotten older. But I really think that the issue, I agree with Senator Muskie, the issue of race is a deeper divide. When Dr. Dubois in 1903 wrote that race is the defining issue of the 20th century, it remains so. SM (01:40:24): I know Jan Scruggs, the founder of the Wall, wrote that book To Heal a Nation, which you probably read because he wanted to heal the veterans. And I know it has done a great job for the veterans and their families, which was... PVB (01:40:36): It is very important for them. SM (01:40:37): But they still have a lot of healing to do. You just see when you go to the wall. PVB (01:40:39): There is no doubt. SM (01:40:41): But he wanted to heal the nation. So I do not know if that that is going to be possible by... PVB (01:40:46): It is not going to be possible. I think the edge is off, but it is not going to heal. Life does not work that way. And I do not know that healing is in the way in which that is expresses ability [inaudible] desirable. SM (01:41:03): You are a scholar and you have obviously not only written great books, but you have read great books. What are the books that most influenced you as a scholar, as a thinker? People that have written books that you may have read in the (19)50s, (19)60s, and (19)70s, or even through today that are truly inspirational? PVB (01:41:29): I have read so much, and I mean, I think about that, but I have... at this juncture of my life, I have read so much. I mean, there are books that are profoundly influential. I just got done teaching Camus' The Plague, which is to me tremendously influential, it is a novel of resistance. And if there is any word that I would summarize what I have tried to do with my, not just my adult life, but with my life in general, it is resistance. It is to resist what is wrong, to resist illegitimate authority. And Camus' novel is a novel of resistance, and I have taken that to heart. I read that as a young undergraduate and I have taught it for 35 years. And I keep changing my reading list, I have been doing that for 42 years. That is the really the only major exception. It has been a constant. SM (01:42:32): Well, that is good. Because you- PVB (01:42:33): I never tire of it. SM (01:42:35): Hey, you are changing it around. You are not doing the same thing every year. That is good. PVB (01:42:38): No, I change it all the time, but not that, I weave that in somewhere kind of once a year and I never tire of it. And the students never tire of it. SM (01:42:47): Two books that I really liked when I was in grad school, and again, I had interviewed Daniel Bell, so he is 92 years old, I was lucky to get an hour with him. But Bell, I mentioned these two books, The Making of a Counterculture by Theodore Roszak. PVB (01:43:03): I used to kind of informally debate Roszak. SM (01:43:07): Yeah well that was, well, I tried to get him to be interviewed, but he was not well, he is not well now, so. PVB (01:43:13): He has got to be in his seventies. SM (01:43:15): Yeah, he is retired and I do not know if he is fighting cancer. I do not know what it is, but I just know he is not well, and he said he did not have the energy to talk for a half hour on the phone. And the other one was Charles Reich's The Greening of America. I do not know if you know it. PVB (01:43:31): Oh, that was all part of the whole counter culture. SM (01:43:33): Right. PVB (01:43:34): Yeah, I remember all that. That was big at a particular moment. SM (01:43:39): And Erickson wrote some great books too. And Kenneth Keniston and yeah. PVB (01:43:44): Exactly. What is Charlie Reich doing these days, is he still around? SM (01:43:48): My understanding is he is like disappeared. He left, I guess he left Yale a long time ago. Lives in the Bay Area. I guess he is, hibernating. I do not know. He is just like doing nothing. I guess he is retired and I do not know what he is doing. PVB (01:44:03): Yeah, he would be in his seventies as well. SM (01:44:05): Yeah. Now this is the area that I think you will have the greatest enjoyment in responding, because actually what is interesting, you do not know anything about me, but African American history and issues dealing with African Americans is the center core of my life as well. You are a senior lecturer of African-American studies at UCLA, and you understand the history and the culture of the civil rights and civil liberties. Could you comment on these African-American leaders that were important during the lives of Boomers? And I got a list here, you may have others, but these can just be brief comments on people. My advisor was Dr. Roosevelt Johnson, who was my graduate school advisor at Ohio State. And you can go on the web, see Dr. Roosevelt Johnson, he has a big practice in just outside Washington DC. But he was a great inspiration and he brought us into prisons and got us involved in issues dealing with African Americans. It is just like, and I have been reading ever since, and Dr. King is my hero, and in many respects. First person to respond, just a few comments on Malcolm X. PVB (01:45:18): I am an enormous admirer of Malcolm X, especially near the end of his life, that remarkable transformation when he moved from a more narrow based Islamic identity with the nation of Islam into a much more, much broader vision of humankind. I think his assassination in 1965 was a horrible tragedy. I liked his vision of universal human brotherhood and black militancy, which he was able to fuse tremendously. SM (01:45:53): But do you believe that when he has had that slogan by any means necessary, did he mean violence? PVB (01:45:59): If necessary, I have no problem, I am not a pacifist, so I think that appropriately conceived the violent response can be legitimate. Nelson Mandela realized that during the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, when with some reluctance, he decided that they had no choice except to move to the armed struggle. SM (01:46:20): I know Malcolm had a big debate with Bayard Rustin on that. PVB (01:46:25): I am an admirer of Bayard Rustin, but I am not a pacifist. Bayard Rustin was. He was an official, the fellowship of reconciliation. SM (01:46:34): And he is from Westchester, right where I live. PVB (01:46:37): Yeah. Now he is a very important figure. My students have never heard of him. SM (01:46:42): Dr. King and Mrs. King. I want to include both of them. PVB (01:46:45): Yeah. They were tremendous. I mean, arguably Martin Luther King is one of the great human beings of the millennium. I mean, there is no doubt. I mean, and certainly America's greatest orator, and Coretta another extraordinary human being, no doubt. I mean, unbelievably powerful. I was there when he spoke at the march on Washington and I- SM (01:47:13): Wow, you were there? PVB (01:47:15): So I was there. It was when we were in Washington for the spring quarter. My wife and I walked there and I showed exactly where I sat when he gave the speech. SM (01:47:26): Wow. PVB (01:47:27): I am a tremendous admirer of him. I have [inaudible], his letter from the Birmingham Mail was one of the great militant civil rights document ever. His pilgrimage, that nonviolence is important, and I disagree with it. I prefer Malcolm's view on the necessity of violence, although I prefer to avoid it. SM (01:47:54): How about John Lewis? PVB (01:47:56): One of the great men, I mean, and he is still at it as a congressman in Georgia, wonderfully eloquent. He just gave a speech the other day when he looked in Congress in the house, when he said he was speaking to the Republicans, do not you people have a heart? There are people out there who need their unemployment insurance. Wonderful man. SM (01:48:20): He spoke at Kent State, and I was there recently, and I interviewed him for my book. I brought him to Westchester when we did a tribute to Bayard Rustin as well. Julian Bond? PVB (01:48:31): I have known Julian. I was a SNCC worker when he was the office manager. Wonderful, wonderful man. Unbelievably eloquent as a speaker. I had the good, the privilege when he was our guest at UCLA. I interviewed and I introduced him at a big public speech. I have known Julian for 40-some years. Tremendous. I admire verbal eloquence, and he has it. And his writings are tremendous. He has done tremendous writings on all kinds of issues that go far beyond Rice alone. SM (01:49:11): He is also the voice at Kent State when people do the tour now. PVB (01:49:15): Oh, he is the greatest. SM (01:49:16): At Kent State site. James Farmer? PVB (01:49:19): James Farmer, the former head of CORE. I heard him a dozen times. He faded into historical obscurity. But should not, he was an unbelievably eloquent man. He was in a Louisiana jail. He was the only major civil rights speaker during the march on Washington. SM (01:49:37): Yes. We had him on the campus. A lot of these people I have met myself. A. Philip Randolph? PVB (01:49:46): One of the iconic figures. I have written at length about A. Philip Randolph, the major figure that merged the civil rights and the labor movements. SM (01:49:59): And I think more students need to know about him, because when I mention his name, people say who? PVB (01:50:05): I know. SM (01:50:05): Where have they been? PVB (01:50:09): I have a class, I have a history of social protest movement, and I had 330 and last four. And when I mention Randolph, I think two or three heard of him. That is typical. SM (01:50:23): How about Roy Wilkins? PVB (01:50:25): A very important figure, too moderate from my perspective, too wedded to the more legalistic tradition of the NAACP, but certainly very important. But during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, the NAACP was among the more conservative forces in the Civil rights movement. And Wilkins classically in that tradition, but certainly he devoted his whole life to the movement, and one has to give him huge credit for that. SM (01:50:56): Whitney Young? PVB (01:50:58): Even more so. He was the head of the Urban League, but he and Wilkins were on the conservative wing of the Civil Rights Movement. I mean, Whitney Young was a trained social worker and kind of therefore less given to the kind of confrontation on the street. I worked with SNCC, and SNCC was the youngest group, and I shared that to you. Still do. But I like free confrontation. SM (01:51:30): How about Ralph Bunch? PVB (01:51:33): Bunch is an iconic figure. I mean, I work in the Ralph Bunch Center for African American Studies. An extraordinary diplomat. One of the early PhD scholars, political scientists, and I know all about Ralph Bunch, he is an extraordinarily admirable figure. SM (01:51:54): Rabbi Hesburgh? PVB (01:51:57): You mean Theodore Hesburgh? SM (01:51:58): Theodore, yeah, Theodore Hesburgh. PVB (01:52:00): He was the president of Notre Dame. SM (01:52:02): No-no-no. I mean the Rabbi. I thought it was Hertz. I thought it was Rabbi Hertzel or the Rabbi that- PVB (01:52:14): Hertzel. No, Hertzel is the Zionist leader. SM (01:52:16): I got the wrong name, then. PVB (01:52:18): Rabbi [inaudible]. SM (01:52:21): I thought it was Rabbi Heschel. I thought it was Rabbi. PVB (01:52:24): Oh, Rabbi. Oh yeah. SM (01:52:25): He was with Dr. King on many- PVB (01:52:27): Absolutely very important voice for Jewish voice of social activism and justice. Very, very important. Abraham Heschel. SM (01:52:37): Yes. That is my mistake. I apologize. Fannie Lou Hamer? PVB (01:52:42): One of the great figures, her leadership in the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, and an orator and a singer, an iconic, iconic woman. I have been teaching her and about her forever. SM (01:53:01): How about Ella Baker? PVB (01:53:03): Another one. She was one of the, it was she who broke, she did not break from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, but she was one of the kind of originators of SNCC, very important figure. And again, representing the historical contributions of women in the Civil rights Movement. She needs to be much more well-known than she presently is. SM (01:53:28): The people that really were to the side of Dr. King at all times. You had Jesse Jackson. You had Ralph Abernathy. PVB (01:53:38): Absolutely. SM (01:53:39): And you had Andrew Young. Those three seemed to always be with him. PVB (01:53:44): They were always there. I mean, I met Ralph Abernathy. Dr. King sent Ralph Abernathy to our home during the Lebanon crisis. SM (01:53:55): Of course, I got Paul Robeson here, and I think you have already mentioned about- PVB (01:53:59): And I thought mean he really is the iconic figure long before the modern Civil Rights Movement. I only regret that contemporary African-American leaders do not pay homage to Robeson, John Lewis being a conspicuous exception. SM (01:54:17): When you think of the athletes of the period that boomers have been alive, like you think of Muhammad Ali. PVB (01:54:26): Ali is a wonderful guy and very political. SM (01:54:30): You think of Jackie Robinson, who certainly opened up the color line. PVB (01:54:35): No doubt. I mean, Jackie Robinson was a hero to everybody. He was certainly, in terms of his athletic prowess and his real commitment to civil rights, he was no Paul Robeson, of course. SM (01:54:49): Kurt Flood is someone who never is talked about, but I think he is very important. PVB (01:54:54): Absolutely. Broke the reserve clause. SM (01:54:56): Yeah, and you are the first person I even mentioned him. We seem to forget him, and I think people need to know more about him, about his life. PVB (01:55:06): I think. SM (01:55:08): Yeah, and certainly the Tommy Smith and John Carlos. PVB (01:55:14): That was the moral highlight of the modern Olympic movement, that moment in Mexico City. A wonderful moment. It drove a lot of Americans crazy. I thought it was terrific. SM (01:55:27): How about Dr. Harry Edwards, who was part of that? PVB (01:55:34): Well, I, Harry, I knew very well when we taught at Berkeley together. I think Harry played it incredibly. SM (01:55:40): He has also disappeared. You call the college and they do not have any forwarding address to him. PVB (01:55:46): I know, he is around though. SM (01:55:49): Do you know his website or? PVB (01:55:51): No, I do not, but I can get that for you. He was our speaker at the Bunch Center in May. Now, I always go to, we have an annual Thurgood Marshall lecture. The only reason I did not go was that I was teaching in Washington DC in the University of California, Washington Center. SM (01:56:09): Okay. PVB (01:56:10): Or otherwise I would have gotten together with Harry. [inaudible] SM (01:56:12): Good. If you have his email address, I would appreciate it. I brought him to Westchester quite a few years back, and then I have lost touch with him. PVB (01:56:23): When I go in tomorrow, I will try to get it. Email me tomorrow and I will try to forward that to you. SM (01:56:28): Super. How about the Black Panthers? And I say this specifically because you cannot just talk about them because of the unique personalities. I am going to mention the personalities and then your comments. Stokely Carmichael, Eldridge [inaudible] We will go with Stokely. PVB (01:56:45): He was terrific. I never knew him. I saw him occasionally, once or twice in the SNCC office. Very important, taken with himself to be sure, but did a marvelous job. And he was the bridge between the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Power Movement. And it was he who came up with, I think, was not it, he who came up with black power as a slogan? SM (01:57:11): I think so, yes. Yeah, Eldridge Cleaver. PVB (01:57:16): A tragic figure. I remember when he wrote Soul on Ice, and I actually did have a couple of conversations with Cleaver. I knew a number of the Panthers in Oakland when I taught at Berkeley. Cleaver became, I mean, a caricature of himself at the end. SM (01:57:36): I know he became a strong conservative at the end. PVB (01:57:41): He became a conservative. He became a Mormon. He became whatever he became. SM (01:57:45): He was living on the street too, I think. PVB (01:57:47): And he was viewed as an embarrassment in the black community. SM (01:57:53): Kathleen Cleaver. PVB (01:57:55): I talked with Kathleen a couple of years ago. She is teaching law at Emory and occasionally at Yale. She continues to do good work. SM (01:58:04): And of course, H. Rap Brown is in jail the rest of his life. PVB (01:58:07): He is in prison in Georgia. Another kind of tragic figure. I never knew him. SM (01:58:14): Fred Hampton. PVB (01:58:15): Well, I mean, that is one of the great martyrs of the infamous J. Edgar Hoover. SM (01:58:23): And then Huey Newton and Bobby Seal. PVB (01:58:26): Well, they were very important. My parents knew Huey. I never did, they are very important. Also, Bobby is still around. But he, last I heard, he was in Philly. SM (01:58:40): Oh, no. He is not in Philly anymore. He lives in California. PVB (01:58:42): Oh, he is back in California. Huey was a tragic figure, but very important at a particular moment in time. SM (01:58:51): And Angela Davis, who was not a Black Panther. PVB (01:58:54): No, but she, I think she is retired from Santa Cruz, but her writings are terrific. I gave a speech from the spiral steps at Berkeley when Ronald Reagan fired her from UCLA. and I was involved, and I signed a million petitions to free Angela, and I have spoken to her. I do not know her well, she is really [inaudible] born (19)43 or (19)44. SM (01:59:20): George Jackson was symbolic of all the prisoners. PVB (01:59:23): Oh, he was killed in San Quentin. And I mean, I followed that case. SM (01:59:30): How about Robert Moses, who was so important in SNCC? PVB (01:59:34): Tremendously important. Because you are almost saint like in what he did. He is still around teaching mathematics. SM (01:59:39): Yep. Thurgood Marshall? PVB (01:59:43): A judicial giant. Another Thurgood Marshall on the court. SM (01:59:52): One thing I always thought, when I thought of Malcolm, and I think of the Black Panthers, people are very critical of the direction because they challenged Dr. King and Bayard Rustin on nonviolent protest. But Dr. King challenged Thurgood Marshall because even though he liked Thurgood and was very proud of what he did in getting the Brown V Board of Education decision through the Supreme Court, that was a challenge because Dr. King used to say, I want it now. I do not, we are not going to wait any longer, and we are not going to have the gradualist approach of a Thurgood Marshall. So maybe this- PVB (02:00:30): No, but Thurgood Marshall also was not a gradualist. There was a wonderful love that... Marshall was a very, very fine lawyer, and that was the legal wing of the movement. And he was tremendously courageous in developing all the legals that culminated in the Brown decision. SM (02:00:52): James Meredith? PVB (02:00:54): Another interesting figure. I mean, it was very important for him to do all of that at the University of Mississippi. I do not know what finally happened to him. He must be in his (19)70s now. SM (02:01:05): He became a conservative too. PVB (02:01:07): Yeah. Well. SM (02:01:08): Nothing wrong with that, but just surprising. PVB (02:01:11): But he did mean it was important for him to challenge. I mean they precipitated those riots in Oxford. SM (02:01:18): Then of course, Medgar Evers? PVB (02:01:23): Oh, I think I had the same feeling when Evers was shot in the back that I had to the Kennedy assassination. That gives you a sense of my reaction to Medgar Evers. SM (02:01:38): Have you been to Arlington? PVB (02:01:38): Not, I was there for three months. I did not get to Arlington. SM (02:01:45): Medgar Edwards is buried there. PVB (02:01:47): Yeah, I know. Because he was a veteran. SM (02:01:49): Yeah, he is over in an area by himself near a tree as you would walk over to the Iwo Jima statue. PVB (02:01:55): Yeah. An extraordinary human being. SM (02:01:57): Emmett Till, that was a tragedy. PVB (02:01:59): Well, I mean, I remember that as a child. I mean, I talk about that and about the state against [inaudible], and that was an iconic moment. That was one of the catalysts in the Civil Rights Movement. That was one of the points of origin for the (19)60s. SM (02:02:17): And then of course, Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman, which. PVB (02:02:19): Yeah, of course. And I was driving that way a couple of, the three, four weeks around, not on the same road, but the same general area for [inaudible]. And it dawned on me that what happened to them could have happened to me. SM (02:02:35): And just quick responses to these terms. You do not even, Freedom Summer, which was (19)64. There is a book on that. PVB (02:02:42): Yeah, no, I remember it. I was in the Civil Rights Movement, but not specifically a part of Mississippi Freedom Summer. Very-very important in the movement. SM (02:02:50): Of course, the March on Washington (19)63. But a lot of people forget that there was another one in 1957 that Dr. King was at, which was smaller. PVB (02:02:58): No, I know. I mean, tremendously important in the modern civil rights movement. I mean, anybody who was at Washington in August of(19) 63, that will be one of the highlights of their lives. It certainly is for me. SM (02:03:13): Orangeburg? PVB (02:03:15): Orangeburg, South Carolina? SM (02:03:18): That was where the killings were. PVB (02:03:20): Oh, yeah. No, I know about it, but vaguely, I do not know enough that at this juncture to comment on it. SM (02:03:27): Jack Bass wrote an article on it, a book on it. Selma and Montgomery. PVB (02:03:32): Those were tremendously important. I mean, Selma, it was Jim Clark, the [inaudible] racist Sheriff. And these were all very vital parts of the movement. And there were examples of racist violence against the nonviolent protestors of the movement. SM (02:03:55): And of course, Little Rock Nine. PVB (02:03:57): Oh, I mean that, it was the little rock crisis that got [inaudible]. PVB (02:04:02): It was the Little Rock crisis that got Levittown out of the news because it was just a couple, it was just a month after the Levittown crisis. But that was another one of the precipitating events. And there you had the legal defiance of Wabufarbus. SM (02:04:20): Then you had the church bombing that killed the little girls, and I know that that in that inspired Angela Davis. PVB (02:04:26): Horrifying. SM (02:04:29): And then of course, I have here the trip to Mecca, which was Malcolm's important trip. What do you think would have happened if he had lived? Because of course you cannot, just so you can say the same thing about John Kennedy. Maybe we would not have gone into Vietnam, but guess- PVB (02:04:44): We can. No, I think Malcolm would have grown into a leader with the eloquent stature of Kin. SM (02:04:55): Your thoughts on the Black Panthers again, do you think they were a violent group? PVB (02:05:01): Oh, they were undercurrents of violence. I think they were in the aggregate, sincerely committed to Black liberation. You read their ten point platform, their statement of principles perfectly acceptable. I still would like to see them implemented. I have essentially positive thoughts about the Panthers. I do not want emphasize them, but I think in basically positively about the past. SM (02:05:33): There were other groups that went violent. We all know about SDS and the Weathermen. We all know that a lot of people thought the demise of SDS was because of the Weathermen, the violence. PVB (02:05:49): SDS finally spun out like a tornado. The Weathermen were lunatic. They were romantic revolutionaries in a society that was never a revolutionary society. SM (02:05:58): Well, even in the American Indian movement in 1969 when they took over Alcatraz. PVB (02:06:03): Alcatraz, I remember that as well. SM (02:06:05): Then that went to violence at Wounded Knee by 1973. That kind movement kind of was set back for a while. PVB (02:06:14): No, I mean, I am in favor of carefully constructed defense of violence. The violence for the sake of violence strikes me as falsely stupidness strategically put into effect. SM (02:06:25): Yeah. I think the Young Bloods, the Chicano Movement kind of foul the Black Panthers too in some of their events. Describe in your own words the connection of the arts to politics and society. PVB (02:06:37): Well, that is what I write about. I have become one of the, it is fair to say that I have become one of the major scholars on political art. I really believe that art plays an integral role in the overall struggle for social justice. And that is what I have been, and I have a lot of parts of my personality and my life, but I have been documenting political arts for 40 years. SM (02:07:14): Could you give some examples of that? In the (19)60s, the art and the connection to social issues. PVB (02:07:23): There were literally hundreds. I mean, there were Vietnam, there were artists against the war in Vietnam. People, even iconic figures like Ben Shahn and Jack Levin and George Segal, they all did artworks against the war. They used their considerable skill to say no, and this is ongoing, and this is what I do every day. And in recent years, I have been documenting African American artists who have been upfront in the struggle against racism. SM (02:07:57): Can you describe about photography and the importance of that? PVB (02:08:01): The importance of photographers in the United States, for example, have played a key role in highlighting social injustice from the time of Jacob Rees and Lewis Hein all the way through the thirties. But the Farm Security Administration like, Dorothea Lange, Walker Evans, Ben Shaw himself was a photographer. And especially Gordon Barks, the first African American to do that. So they all use their camera to say, look, America, this is what is really going on. And they continue to be the eye of hunt. SM (02:08:41): Would you say the Marian Anderson experience in Washington with Eleanor Roosevelt was a major happening in the area of civil rights in America? PVB (02:08:52): Without doubt, without doubt. I have talked about the 1939 concert for as long as I can remember. And when I was in Washington with a great deal of internal soul-searching, I finally walked into the DAR Museum. It took a lot of internal fortitude for me to finally go into that building. SM (02:09:17): Yeah, that took a lot of courage on the part of Mrs. Roosevelt, too. PVB (02:09:21): Tremendous. SM (02:09:21): She quit the organization. PVB (02:09:23): No, I know all about those events. SM (02:09:27): Well, since you are talking about The Yards, and we mentioned 1950s TV. I was born after World War II, but the thing that amazes me as a young boy, I saw Amos and Andy and was on TV and was on all the time, and it was funny. But now when you reflect upon it, that was about the only African Americans that were on TV in the (19)50s, except for Nat. King Cole who had a show in the mid-(19)50s for a short time. PVB (02:09:57): The Amos and Andy was the classic example of African American characters. I mentioned it to my students regularly. I mean, I have childhood memories of it. SM (02:10:09): And do you remember that period when Nat King Cole was on for a short time and then it was canceled and it was a great show? And then in the early (19)60s, what is amazing is, and I remember this clearly. There were four shows with African Americans, and I remember reading an article in a magazine saying, they are going to take over the television. And this is early (19)60s. Diane Carroll was in a TV show was a nurse, Flip Wilson had his show, and then Bill Cosby was in I Spy, and there was one other African American that was in another TV show, and the commentary was, they were going to take over television. PVB (02:10:50): Sure. Just like they are going to marry your sister. SM (02:10:52): Yeah. Are there any movies that you feel were the best movies for the Boomer generation today? On CNBC, they got what they consider the 50 top movies for the Boomer generation. I thought that was interesting. I was looking at, you can even go to it. PVB (02:11:11): I would have to look at it. There is so many. SM (02:11:13): When you think of the (19)50s, (19)60s, (19)70s and (19)80s, are there any that stand out to you that really, if you saw it, you knew this was the era? PVB (02:11:30): Oh God, I would have to go back. Dealt with so many films. I do film courses. I woud really have to look at it. There is some really powerful works. I mean, I am about to show, I do not remember when it came out but I am about to show the Boomberg kind of anything by Costa Gavras was tremendous. I am about to show Missing. About students about Chile. And then certainly right in that period, because you have the American inspired overthrow of the Allende government in (19)73. There is so many. There is just a remarkable number of powerful films. But of course, most films are just entertainment. SM (02:12:14): Yeah. Well, I tell you, when I saw these films today, I can still see them knowing that that is when I was young. Like the Graduate and- PVB (02:12:22): Oh, I know. Everybody has saw that. SM (02:12:23): Easy Writer and Zabriskie Point. PVB (02:12:27): I remember that too. SM (02:12:28): Bob Carroll, Ted and Alice, which I think was a corny film. PVB (02:12:32): Yeah. Zabriskie Point was with Antonioni, I think. SM (02:12:36): Yeah, I know. Shaft was really a movie that. PVB (02:12:40): That was Gordon Parks. SM (02:12:41): Yeah, that was a very, the Cat, the movie Fritz the Cat, which was a controversial movie in the early (19)70s. PVB (02:12:47): I remember, but it was rated X. SM (02:12:50): And the Marlon Brando, The Last Tango in Paris. That was during the sexual freedom of sexuality kind of thing. And so there are many more. All right, let us see. I am getting down here. I am down to the last little section here, if you do not mind. These are just, you are still there. PVB (02:13:13): Yeah. SM (02:13:14): These are just quick responses. You do not have to go into any length on some of the personalities beyond the African-American personalities. Just quick responses to these names or terms. Tom Hayden. PVB (02:13:25): Oh, I have known Tom, not well. Another very important figure. He has been at it his whole life, both as an agitator and then later as a legislator. SM (02:13:36): Jane Fonda. PVB (02:13:38): Yeah. She did good work. Mean she broke up with Tom, but she was out there. A good example of a celebrity who is also political. SM (02:13:51): Attica. PVB (02:13:53): Well, that was extraordinarily important because it got America to understand what was going on in America's prisons. SM (02:14:01): And then what is really sad here today is a brand-new book out. You have probably seen it about Jim Crow in America Today. All you have to do is look at our prison system. PVB (02:14:10): That is exactly, because that is what it is. SM (02:14:12): Yep. San Quentin. I say that because that is where Angela Davis and George Jackson were. PVB (02:14:19): Yeah, no, I know it. I mean, I have been on demonstration assembly at that- SM (02:14:25): Alcatraz, which is the Indian takeover. PVB (02:14:27): Exactly. Another remnant of America's ridiculous prison history. SM (02:14:33): Robert Kennedy and John Kennedy. PVB (02:14:36): Well, they were martyrs of the (19)60s. I mean, I am not a particular fan of either, but they were martyred. SM (02:14:47): LBJ and Hubert Humphrey. PVB (02:14:49): Tragic figures. I mean, Johnson was very good domestically, but a failed president because of his growth test score in Vietnam. And Humphrey was just a wacky tragic figure. I did not vote in 1978 and I refused to vote for him, and I have no regret, no apology. SM (02:15:08): Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. PVB (02:15:11): Well, they were both wonderful anti-war figures. I voted for McCarthy in the primary and McGovern in the General Election. SM (02:15:21): Richard Nixon and Spiro Wagner. PVB (02:15:24): Monstrous figures in American political life. Nixon horrible and Agnew, a caricature of himself. And I used the word advisedly. A fascist. SM (02:15:41): Yeah. Well, he made some pretty hob nobs and whatever called else. PVB (02:15:43): Negative makeup, whatever the hell it was. SM (02:15:44): Robert McNamara and Henry Kissinger. PVB (02:15:48): Well, McNamara is a tragic figure. I mean, he later recanted. You see that the documentary about his work has been sad, but he still was one of the architects. Kissinger strikes me as a war criminal. SM (02:16:04): Ronald Reagan and George Bush the first. PVB (02:16:10): Both pernicious influences. Reagan even more so, especially because people liked him because of his genial personality. But I have to add that he is not universally loved. People say, oh, Ronald Reagan. That is not the case when you talk to people in the African-American community. SM (02:16:31): Or people in the gay and lesbian community. PVB (02:16:33): Absolutely. Absolutely. SM (02:16:35): In fact, I have interviewed some people that actually, one cried on the phone. PVB (02:16:40): Absolutely. Especially with his contemptuous indifference to the AIDS crisis. SM (02:16:46): One thing about George Bush the first, is the fact that he is the one that said the Vietnam syndrome is over. I think he will be remembered more for that than no more taxes. What did you think? PVB (02:16:58): He probably will. I mean, he will come out better because of the malevolence and stupidity of his son. SM (02:17:05): Yeah. How about Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter? PVB (02:17:08): Both mediocre presidents. I mean, Ford was well-meaning, so was Carter. Carter's actually wound up being a much better ex-president. SM (02:17:20): How about Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower? Harry Truman was the first president for Boomers. So- PVB (02:17:26): Yeah, it is true. I mean, in retrospect, they are both good. I mean, Eisenhower, in retrospect is a flaming liberal. And his last comment about the Military Industrial Right Flex is still very significant. By today's standards, bright Eisenhower would be a moderate Democrat. SM (02:17:47): What is interesting, if I was a fly on the wall, I would have liked to have been there before John Kennedy and Eisenhower got into that car on an Inauguration Day because it is my understanding that a lot of things that President Kennedy was asking was about Vietnam. And if Eisenhower had just made a mention, I think you need to get out, boy, would life have been different? PVB (02:18:08): Could have changed the course of our history. SM (02:18:10): Yeah. Again, Bill Clinton and George Bush II. PVB (02:18:14): Well, I have already told about. SM (02:18:15): And President Obama too. PVB (02:18:18): And I am not a fan of Clinton for reasons, but I have already- SM (02:18:21): How about the women leaders, which is the ones that stand out? Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug. So they are different personalities, but- PVB (02:18:31): No, they are very different personalities. I am a great fan of Bella. I think her history goes deeper because beyond being a feminist leader, she was one of the courageous lawyers who defended people who were called before the House on American Activities Committee. So Bella goes back a long time. But Betty Friedan and the other one is Steinem. Which one? SM (02:18:56): Gloria Steinem. PVB (02:18:57): Oh, Gloria Steinem. They are very-very important. I mean, they help the catalyze, the women's movement, and we are all better off because of feminism. SM (02:19:05): How about Anita Bryant? PVB (02:19:08): Better to be forgotten. As I have forgotten footnote at a moment in time. SM (02:19:14): George Wallace. PVB (02:19:17): George Wallace was just another demagogue and horrifying race. I saw him standing in the doorway to find a federal order. SM (02:19:28): Dr. Benjamin Spock. PVB (02:19:30): Good man. I do not know about his pediatric work, but as a peace leader, wonderful man. SM (02:19:38): Daniel and Philip Berrigan? PVB (02:19:41): Very good. They represented, in my view, the best of the Catholic tradition. SM (02:19:46): Since we are talking about the Catholic Church, I had not mentioned this before, but Father Hesburgh was a real leader in that area. PVB (02:19:52): Absolutely. SM (02:19:53): Yeah. And he is the real deal. What? They cannot get another president like him at Notre Dame. He is like, oh, Mount Rushmore type person. Dr. Timothy Leary. PVB (02:20:05): Oh, strange guy. I used to have conversations with him in Berkeley. I am not big on drugs. That is where my friend Paul Krasner and I part company a little bit. I am very skeptical of the drug culture. SM (02:20:20): Well, so am I. And people cannot believe I went through SUNY Binghamton, which where everybody smoked pot and everything. PVB (02:20:25): Yeah. SM (02:20:27): I refused. I am never going to say I did not inhale because people were smoking in everywhere, But I never even took drugs. Ever. PVB (02:20:37): I have smoked pot a couple of occasion. I did not like it, particularly. SM (02:20:42): Your thoughts on the beats. Some people think the beats were very important in this anti-establishment mentality. PVB (02:20:48): They were the precursors to a lot of the activism of the (19)60s. As a literary movement, they are very important. People like Ginsberg and Ferlinghetti and others. I had a couple of conversations in Berkeley, with Allen Ginsberg same with Ferlinghetti and San Francisco. Very important. Ferlinghetti is still around. SM (02:21:11): Yeah, I know. He has that bookstore in San Francisco. And he like Ginsburg and Cassidy and Kirouac, Ferlinghetti, Waldman, Snyder, and Leroy Jones. PVB (02:21:21): And he is still around? He is- SM (02:21:23): Yeah, he is Amiri Baraka. Yeah. But- PVB (02:21:26): I like him. I have talked to him. I have been on the same program with him. He [inaudible]. He can be a pain in the ass, but he is made very important contribution. SM (02:21:37): Well, he is not available for interviews. I know that. Just your thoughts on the whole concept of the Cold War. PVB (02:21:43): That was so [inaudible] That molded our whole childhood. I mean, I was a child of duck and cover, except I refused to duck and cover, and I was sent to the principal. SM (02:21:56): How about the Korean War? What role did that play in, if any? PVB (02:22:00): It was there. I was too young to remember it actively. I remember when it ended. I only have fleeting memories of it. I remember it, but not as vividly as perhaps I should have. SM (02:22:16): How about the young Americans for Freedom, which was the conservative group that- PVB (02:22:20): No-no-no. I always knew the offers. I thought they were ridiculous. SM (02:22:24): They started at William Buckley's home, and he is my next person. William Buckley and Barry Goldwater. PVB (02:22:30): Goldwater. Buckley is obviously intelligent and a decent representative of the conservative tradition. So I mean, worthy of intellectual debate, unlike an Ann Coulter. Goldwater, in retrospect also would find himself in the left wing of the Republican Party. SM (02:22:54): I find it ironic that he is the man along with Hugh Scott that went to tell Nixon to resign. PVB (02:23:02): I know it. SM (02:23:04): What an irony that is. And then the whole concept of communes. PVB (02:23:12): Well, I remember that. I mean, that was part of the counterculture. I mean, I certainly have no objection to people doing that. It is not compatible with my personality. I must go individualistic. I could never live in a commune. SM (02:23:26): How about the Woodward and Bernstein changing? PVB (02:23:29): They did good journalistic work, no doubt. I mean, they helped expose Watergate. SM (02:23:35): And Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. PVB (02:23:38): Very important at a moment that galvanized American knowledge of the underlying realities of Vietnam. So Goldberg, I am glad he did what he did, and I am glad that the Supreme Court allowed that to be published. SM (02:23:54): Tet- PVB (02:23:56): Who? SM (02:23:57): Tet And Vietnam. PVB (02:24:01): That was the comic guide that occurred in 1968. Turning point. SM (02:24:06): Yeah. That was the Gulf of Tonkin guide that ended the war and totally. PVB (02:24:10): And that was the turning point. And we ought to have realized that. And we ought to have gotten out, but we did not. SM (02:24:16): How about Hugh Hefner? PVB (02:24:18): Oh, Hefner. I mean, he hangs around LA in his pajamas and takes Viagra. He probably was important in breaking down some of the sexual repression. But what can I say? And he, he has done good work in the advance of the First Amendment. So that is a good thing. Playboy's a ridiculous magazine. And the Playboy clubs are horribly sexist. SM (02:24:49): Watergate. PVB (02:24:51): Oh, very important. Because it showed the pervasive criminality of Richard Nixon and his cronies. SM (02:25:00): And John Dean. PVB (02:25:02): John Dean has turned out to be quite a good guy. I mean, incredibly perceptive commentator. And he had the courage to come forward before the Irving Committee. SM (02:25:14): LSD. PVB (02:25:17): Overrated. I think it destroyed a lot of lives. If LSD can be used in a very controlled therapeutic way, fine. But I think that Leary and his colleagues unleashed hidden ways that had detrimental effects for thousands of people. SM (02:25:40): All right. The last question I have is, he, is the question of legacy. When the best history books are written, normally that is 50 years after an event, and I am going to paraphrase it. Say a hundred years from now and when the last Boomer has passed on. For people that have any memory of living at this time or have shared from people that are older about this time, what do you think the books are going to say about this generation that was born after World War II and some of the events that took place? PVB (02:26:16): I think that they are going to say that those members of that generation who reflected the activism of the late (19)60s and early (19)70s, made significant contributions to America. If indeed we still have a world that has not been blown up or has not been so environmentally degraded that we still have a planet. SM (02:26:42): The Boomers right now, the oldest is heading towards 64 years of age, and oh, the youngest is heading towards 48. PVB (02:26:50): I know it. SM (02:26:50): And obviously, most people have said those people that were in the first 10 years are a lot different than those in the last. PVB (02:26:57): They are. SM (02:26:57): Second 10 years, but they are really approaching senior citizen status and I know that a lot of Boomers do not like that term, senior citizen. And so in a lot of buildings, they are getting rid of it. And I know AARP is considering not saying senior, because a lot of the Boomers do not like it. Your thoughts, we are talking about Boomers now that have about 20 to 25 more years of life if they have been taking care of themselves. What do you think they will do in old age? PVB (02:27:27): I do not know. I mean it is unique to the individual thing. I mean, I have no idea. There is so much over this genetic roulette. I think about that a lot at sixty-seven. I have no idea how long I am going to live. I run every day and I eat well, but I have no idea because my grandparents were all murdered in Auschwitz. So I do not know. Well, I know what I want to do. I want to keep working. SM (02:27:53): I know when we had Tim Penny on our campus, the former congressman from Minnesota, we had him at Westchester University when he rewrote a book called Common Sense in the (19)90s. I asked him to be interviewed, and he has gotten too big now. He did not want to be interviewed. But when he came to our campus, he said that the Boomers, which was his generation, have made a major mistake they had not saved. He said the average, when he was on the campus tonight, the average Boomer had about between five and $10,000 in savings in the bank. PVB (02:28:33): Yeah, that is going to be a problem. I read or I saw today on the Today Show that a very large number of them are going to outlive the resources. That is a major problem. SM (02:28:41): Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. PVB (02:28:44): My generation, I do not know that I can generalize. And I probably can. I know that a lot of people whom I know are slightly older than the Boomers have been much more fiscally moved. SM (02:29:00): He said the reason why he left Congress was to try to make more money, because he had a lot of kids. He could not make it on 125 or whatever they made their foot, which is a pretty good salary back then. PVB (02:29:12): If I had ever made 125, I would have done just fine. SM (02:29:15): But he said, your comment on this, I will never forget it, and I wanted him to respond to this, but he said, the Boomers are going to be broken down into three areas. There is going to be one third that are going to be very well off, very rich, and they will be able to do anything they want to travel, no matter what happens. Then there is going to be one third that are going to live in poverty, total poverty. They will have nothing. And then there will be one third in the middle, that will be having a very hard time because they will just be getting by. They will be able to survive, but they will be just beginning by, so he said basically two thirds of this, 74 million. PVB (02:30:00): Really marginal. SM (02:30:01): Oh, yeah. And of course, what has happened to a lot of Boomers is the economy has destroyed many of their, no, I mean, it is beyond their control. PVB (02:30:13): No, I know it. And there is nothing they can do about it. It is not their fault. SM (02:30:17): It is almost as if now that Boomers have to continue to work, just like students in college have to continue to work. It is the same kind of thing. And some Boomers may be working until the day they die. PVB (02:30:28): I know it. I am the last generation to get through the fine pension. SM (02:30:35): Is there any question that I did not ask that you thought I was going to ask? PVB (02:30:40): No-no. I think we have covered a lot, but if you have any more, just give me a call. I am around. SM (02:30:45): Very good. Well, that is it. (End of Interview) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Paul Von Blum Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Von Blum, Paul ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource College teachers; African Americans—Study and teaching; University of California, Los Angeles; Von Blum, Paul--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Paul Von Blum is Senior Lecturer in African American Studies and Communication Studies at UCLA. He is the author of six books and numerous articles on art, culture, education, and politics. He received his Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, and Ph.D. in History from New York University. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-02-12 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.164a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.164b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 150:50 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/dc0dd18c9a89052a98355aa9ad68881c.jpg 6779d801a6e8ebbf2bee2ca0d8bc10ce https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/2998043cb4fe900989948fb001628c4e.mp3 97b1e05976469d337209b18d61605fa0 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Peter Richardson Date of Interview 2010-06-10 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 1 Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 118:41 Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Dr. Peter Richardson is a scholar, author, editor and lecturer. He currently teaches and coordinates the American Studies and California Studies programs at San Francisco State Univerity. Dr. Richardson has authored several books and was a recipient of the National Entertainment Journalism Award for Online Criticism in 2013. Dr. Richardson received his Ph.D. in English from the University of California, Berkeley."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":4483,"3":{"1":0},"4":[null,2,5099745],"10":2,"11":4,"15":"Arial"}">Dr. Peter Richardson is a scholar, author, editor and lecturer. He currently teaches and coordinates the American Studies and California Studies programs at San Francisco State Univerity. Dr. Richardson has authored several books and was a recipient of the National Entertainment Journalism Award for Online Criticism in 2013. Dr. Richardson received his Ph.D. in English from the University of California, Berkeley.</span> Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Summer of love; Black Panthers; The Beach Boys; California in the 1960s; Baby boom generation;\\nVietnam Memorial; Berkeley University; Bay Area; Los Angeles."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":513,"3":{"1":0},"12":0}">Summer of love; Black Panthers; The Beach Boys; California in the 1960s; Baby boom generation; Vietnam Memorial; Berkeley University; Bay Area; Los Angeles.</span> Subject LCSH College teachers; Authors, American--20th century San Francisco State University; Richardson, Peter--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Peter Richardson Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Richardson, Peter ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource College teachers; Authors, American--20th century San Francisco State University; Richardson, Peter--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Peter Richardson is a scholar, author, editor and lecturer. He currently teaches and coordinates the American Studies and California Studies programs at San Francisco State Univerity. Dr. Richardson has authored several books and was a recipient of the National Entertainment Journalism Award for Online Criticism in 2013. Dr. Richardson received his Ph.D. in English from the University of California, Berkeley Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-06-10 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.143 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 118:41 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/e098b1651e8a2d73a2031a352f7806c2.jpg 3b827fb28af26a03e3a3005d4894f762 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/0ee9c7989b9f953f6a3497517ae8cf52.mp3 2f4821487265ee1d5255f8a7f677b938 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview ND Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Dr. Ralph Young Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 1:26:32 Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data MicroCassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords 1960s; Assassination of John F. Kennedy; Baby boomers; Activism; Vietnam; Society; Civil Rights Movement; New York City; Attitudes; Marriage; Sex; Changes in Society. Biographical Text Dr. Ralph Young is a history professor at Temple University where his expertise centers on dissent and protest movements in America, social history, and recent U.S. history. On-campus he runs a weekly teach-in series on historical content of contemporary controversial issues. He is the recipient of a Fulbright fellowship to teach Dissent in America at the University of Rome. He led seminars on Dissent and Protest Movements at Charles University, Prague, and Tubingen University, Germany. Most recently he was a "Scholar In Residence" at the Chautauqua Institution and the winner of six major teaching awards at Temple. He is the author of Dissent in America: The Voices That Shaped The Nation, and Make Art Not War: Political Protest Posters of the 20th Century. Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Ralph Young https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/1f04ded7dd5330a1bc263a204320e220.jpg bca0f11ffca39d132e5411e14d810949 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/c9afb1ec0b0eafa9985b6aa4ae998780.mp3 65268b98da9b0d3527a5b2690a01f0cb Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2010-12-13 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Richard Flacks Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Dr. Richard Flacks is an academic, social activist and Emeritus Professor of Sociology at University of California-Santa Barbara. He is the author of Making History: The American Left and the American Mind and Beyond the Barricades. Dr. Flacks has a Ph.D. from University of Michigan."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":13057,"3":{"1":0},"11":4,"12":0,"15":"Arial","16":10}">Dr. Richard Flacks is an academic, social activist and Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of California-Santa Barbara. He is the author of <em>Making History: The American Left and the American Mind</em> and <em>Beyond the Barricades</em>. Dr. Flacks has a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Teacher unionism; McCarthy period; Red Diaper Baby; Brooklyn College in the nineteen fifties; Cuban missile crisis; Port Huron; Nineteen sixties; Baby boom generation; Student activists; Women's movement"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":3,"3":{"1":0},"4":{"1":2,"2":13228792}}">Teacher unionism; McCarthy period; Red Diaper Baby; Brooklyn College in the nineteen fifties; Cuban missile crisis; Port Huron; Nineteen sixties; Baby boom generation; Student activists; Women's movement</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 161:24 Subject LCSH Political activists--United States; College teachers; Sociologists; University of California, Santa Barbara; Flacks, Richard--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Richard Flacks Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 13 December 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:04): Testing one, two. My first question is how did you become who you are as a person? Could you give me a little bit of background on your growing up years before you went off to graduate school at Michigan? What I have- RF (00:00:25): I was born in Brooklyn, New York of parents who themselves were left wing folks. They were both New York City school teachers, very active in pioneering teacher unionism and community work in... My mother worked in black community [inaudible] she taught school there, first grade. And they were both... And Brooklyn, in the years I was growing up, World War II and after, was a pretty progressive left wing environment, generally in terms of where people's political identifications were. And there was a widespread left wing culture in New York. I went to children's camps that were interracial and progressive, and most of my parents friends were of similar mind. But then came the McCarthy period, and my parents were among a couple hundred teachers who were purged [inaudible] their alleged political affiliations from the schools. And that was part of this much broader climate in the country, of course, the political repression that I experienced from the time I was about 12 years old on, this was very significant part of my sense. SM (00:02:16): How did your parents... Because I have talked to quite a few other people too, that had similar experiences being labeled red diaper babies, but the question is, as a young person growing up as a child or young teenager, how did your parents... Did they sit down with you and tried to explain why this was happening? RF (00:02:36): McCarthy, period? SM (00:02:37): Yeah, yes. RF (00:02:39): Well, they did not need to... I was attentive enough and aware enough, and I did not need a lot of sitting down and explaining. I got it from an early time, and, of course... And I attended public meetings where people who were dissenters from the McCarthy atmosphere would speak. I mean, it was just very much a part of my life and it did not just, me and my parents sitting down. I mean, I must have asked them a lot of questions all through my childhood. But by the time of the... And in fact, the place that probably I got the most sense of awareness about all this was in the camp that I went to where a lot of the kids have families going through similar kinds of things. So there was a great deal of discussion and exchange about that. SM (00:03:52): What were your undergraduate college years like before you went off to Michigan? RF (00:03:57): I went to Brooklyn College, which is now part of the city university, precollege. And that was at the height of the (19)50s, sort of red scare. I was politically active, I joined the Young Democrats and became president of the Young Democrats. And I was part of a little group of more lefty kids who met and discussed things. But generally, when the Young Democrats and other groups try to get students to just signed petitions, for example, about civil rights issues, very mainstream seeming issues, well supporting a law to federal law against the poll tax, would they [inaudible]. Kids would say, "My mother told me when I get to college, do not sign anything. I will get into trouble in the future." There was a lot of that feeling among students. SM (00:05:10): One of the things about the (19)50s, before we get into the (19)60s is the (19)50s is always kind of labeled as a quiet time on university campuses. Although there was a lot of activism, obviously in the Civil Rights Movement. RF (00:05:26): Well, the civil right... In (19)55 and (195)6 was the Montgomery Bus Boycott, there were other things. A woman named Autherine Lucy tried to get into the University of Alabama. That was a major event that I remember. And yes, in fact, all through the (19)50s in college, you were aware that there was a kind of subterranean, bohemian, counter-cultural process going on for a lot of young people. Identification with beat poets and the jazz and folk music cultures, and New York was filled with those kinds of opportunities for college kids to go to and be part of. And so even though there was this miasma of political withdrawal, on one hand, there certainly was this cultural rebellion that you could immediately sense if you were a college student. And there were incidents, Brooklyn College was a particularly repressive college. The president of Brooklyn, Harry Gideon, was famous for having been brought to Brooklyn College in the early... Or I think it was in the, yeah early (19)50s, to clean it up from the communist influence on the student body. He literally abolished student government and set up a censorship regime over the student paper. Every year that I was there, by the end of the year, the student editors had resigned because of the restrictions being placed on them. And so there was a contingent of students even then at Brooklyn who were... And in the years, I was there, (19)54 to (19)58 were increasingly antagonistic to the administration and staging events. The most interesting sort of collective action that I remember, talking to you right now was when at the time that McCarthy was going to be censored, [inaudible] by the [inaudible], and there was a national movement called the Green Feather Movement. I do not know if you have ever heard of this. SM (00:08:11): No. RF (00:08:11): And all it was wearing a button with a green feather on it. Now, the root of that was that in Indiana, there was a move in the state legislature to ban Robin Hood because Robin Hood stole from the rich gave to the poor, he was clearly a communist. SM (00:08:28): Oh yeah. RF (00:08:31): So people started to wear these buttons, and it was almost like this feeling, well, yeah, we have been underground in our feelings, now this is a way to express it. And though by the time I was ready to graduate, I felt there was a loosening of, in many ways, of the atmosphere on... Even at Brooklyn College in terms of questioning. And in fact, there was a march on Washington, a couple of them called Youth March on Washington for integration that acquired Rustin. SM (00:09:10): Oh, yes. RF (00:09:12): That, and these were just small compared to later things, 20,000 people maybe went. But I remember going on one of those. So yeah, the more you can dig into it, the more you realize that there was a lot of permit, I would put that. SM (00:09:36): Right. In fact, there is a picture of Dr. King, I think in 1957 at the Lincoln Memorial. RF (00:09:41): Yeah. SM (00:09:42): Everybody thinks of (19)63, the March on Washington, but there was one previous, and of course by- RF (00:09:47): Yeah well, and Rustin got practice in staging those events because for 63, which he led to [inaudible], so yeah. SM (00:09:59): You know he is from Westchester? RF (00:10:02): Okay. SM (00:10:03): Yeah, and we did a national tribute to him in 1999 on our campus. So we had a lot... He is a historic figure from our area. One of the things, the Beats, it is interesting when I ask some of the people that I have interviewed, when did the (19)60s begin? Several individuals said that it really began with the Beats because they were anti-authoritarian, kind of did their own thing, they were very independent minded. They were a lot different, and of course, a lot of people think they were all secluded in New York City and San Francisco. So how could they really have that much of an influence? Kerouac and Ginsburg and [inaudible] Getty, and their- RF (00:10:49): Yeah, but they were featured. The big mass media in that era were magazines like Life Magazine and I remember that Life Magazine covered the Beats. And once that happens... And by the way, the same thing happened in (19)65 with SDS when Life did a big spread on it and we had never been heard of before. So once Life... In those in those years, Life and Look Magazines gave that kind of big pictorial display, these things were on the cultural map for a lot of people in middle of there, between the coast, so to speak. And I think I remember feeling to some extent, indeed that the Beats were something of a media hype. Because if you grew up in New York, you were aware that there was a much longer tradition of Bohemian cultural expression in Greenwich Village and so on and so on. We were attracted to going to the village on weekends and stuff, not just because of the Beats, but they were just the visible... In a way you could say the Beats nationalized Greenwich Village, made it national whereas [inaudible] they really were. But there were elements of what they were into Eastern religion so forth that were not fully in the awareness of a lot of... I knew. SM (00:12:39): The mains in the television tried to portray the Beats in a very humorous way with Maynard G. Krebs, remember that? RF (00:12:47): Well, there was a lot of that, yeah. And by the way, it is not just... I think music was a more important subcultural, and always has been, subcultural center than simply so called Beat... I mean, the jazz on the one hand and folk music on the other, there were two big overlapping circles of people who were orienting to this music because... And away from commercialized mass culture music during the (19)50s. And music because it was played in clubs and other social venues, people congregated around it. And that, I have always felt was crucial for what happened in creating a student movement was that there was this subculture around folk music, particularly. SM (00:13:58): Yeah. When you think of the Greenwich Village, you still think of Bob Dylan. RF (00:14:02): Yeah. SM (00:14:03): And you think of- RF (00:14:06): [inaudible] and many others of his type. It was interesting that a whole bunch of young troubadours emerged all at the same time, and they all went to Greenwich Village, that is where they... When they wanted to begin a career, because there were a bunch of small clubs there that they could be booked into and do record labels right there. It was like a little nexus for creating this. SM (00:14:38): Then you had some of the great comedians come out of there too, with Mort Sahl and Lenny Bruce. They were certainly different, and they were from that kind of period too. RF (00:14:49): And all of that was the mix that I remember in my college year. And that is the (19)50s, yeah. SM (00:14:57): Now, talk about your college years at Michigan. I did some reading on... I have quite a few of your books, by the way. RF (00:15:05): Well, that is nice. SM (00:15:06): And I even have your book that you... One of the very early books, I was able to get ahold of that and read it. But talk about your college years at Michigan and your links to Tom Hayden. I know Tom, I have interviewed him twice. We brought him to our campus and he is unbelievable person as a human being and an intellect. And I can see how he influenced people like you. But you were a graduate student, but talk about Michigan a little bit. RF (00:15:34): Well, I went to Ann Arbor to study social psychology in 1958, graduated Brooklyn. At that time, there were three others of us who went at the same time, the Michigan Psych Department and Social Psychology program, were the... If you were interested in that topic and that subject, that was the place to go. So we were very lucky, the feeling that we had gotten into Michigan Social Psychology. And social psychology, I just add is an interesting discipline, whose roots to a great extent were in intellectuals who were German refugee intellectuals who were escaping from Hitler and wanted to understand how the German population, which was supposed to be so culturally advanced, could have fallen under Hitler's sway and so forth. That is the social psychology, that is part of what got me interested in that kind of topic. So anyway, but I had graduated from college in 58 with the feeling that I wanted to be in academia because there was no political future. I was a political guy, but I did not see any way to express that vocationally or in life terms, and that I was very good academically, and that is where I could maybe have more a chance to understand the world and express myself. I did not think politics was possible in the United States anymore. And if change in the world were to happen, it would be happening from third world revolutionary movements and things like that. But I did not really expect anything to the left in this country to happen. And in Ann Arbor, interesting by the way, this bohemian thread that I was talking about in New York was very evident in Ann Arbor, but somehow felt pressure, it felt... And it was actually more political for the kinds of expressions people were making. And there was the underground film community. There was the same kind of coffee house book music world, of course, there were artists and poets, and this is when we first got there. And the thing that crystallized so much in the (19)60s, I believe this is crucial, that when the students sat in, in Greensboro in North Carolina, February 1st, 1960, it was immediately efforts in Ann Arbor and a lot of other college towns to do sympathy demonstrations, picketing the Woolworths stores in those towns, and telling people to boycott Woolworths as long as segregation persisted in the South, in those same stores in the South. And so people came to these pickets, let us say 100 people picketing the Woolworths store on Stage Street in Ann Arbor. And most of them did not know each other. I mean, we did not know each other before we got there. Somehow by word of mouth, I do not even remember how the word went out that this was something to do. And so what you are seeing there is this interesting moment where people are making public statement, which most of them had not done about their political belief and in the presence of other people with like-mind who they had not met before. This was a formula that sociologists can write almost about how a social movement can begin is where you have this collective self-mutual discovery of common ground, common grievance, common... And what is beautiful about this issue of segregation as a force for change is that it presents a target that is so clear and so morally right, that people could... And that you can see how it can be overcome. That is very important in the social movement that you take action that might really make it different, not just express yourself symbolically. And that was all present when you got together on a picket line at Woolworths in Ann Arbor in February 1960, that was a moment. And so from then on, there was even before SDS, various kinds of... Mostly turned out to be... Well, not mostly, it was a combination of civil rights activism and peace activism was going on there, and that was true really all over the country, but it was certainly evident in Ann Arbor. Small groups of people, it was not ever felt, I do not think you ever felt in that period that you could really reach and change the behavior of most students. Matter of fact, in (19)62, with the Cuban Missile Crisis, a bunch of us staged a march and we were met of protest. No, it was not the Cuban missile... It was the Cuban... It was the Bay of Pigs invasion. That is what it was. SM (00:21:51): (19)61, yeah. RF (00:21:55): And all these fraternity kids came out with fines, Bob Havana and screaming at us. I may be mixing up something that might have even been about Vietnam. But anyway, it does not... The point is there that there was the sense... Most of the students, undergraduates were Republican, Midwestern Republican. We were different. And there were a lot of graduate student types, probably in the pro civil rights peace world. As well as, I am going to say another thing about Ann Arbor, and this may have been typical of other places, is a sizable Quaker community that was always very peace oriented and wanting to promote pacifist activism. And several faculty, including the great economist, Kenneth Boulding was a leader of that. And then at the same time, and my wife was part of this because we had gotten married, shortly after graduate school. And she came out in 1960 and she was going to City College, got finished in 60, or came out. Anyway, she was part of this group Women's Strike for Peace, which is somewhat forgotten, but important early development in the (19)60s movement history. And they were mothers and wives, not undergraduate women at all, who were trying to do creative activity to promote opposition to the arms race and pro-peace activity. And that became a loose national organization that a number of Ann Arbor women, including my wife, were active in. So these are the elements even before SDS came on the scene. As you know, Hayden was the editor of the Michigan Daily. SM (00:24:23): Yes. RF (00:24:23): Well, let me... I am not going to give you a good chronology. I do not have any in front of me to remember all this. So I will be more general about it. The story is well known, Al Haber, whose father was a big professor at Michigan who was politically. Just a little bit older than... He was a little even older than I was and in (19)60, I was 22. So in (19)62 I was [inaudible]. 62 in [inaudible] I was 24, so that is a few years older. Hayden was only... Well, he was 22 [inaudible 00:25:07], yeah, I guess. Anyway, Al started... He was based, he lived in Ann Arbor, so that is made Ann Arbor in the future, an important part of the SDS history. Al went to New York to recreate this organization, which became the student lead for industrial democracy, which became SDS and he began to recruit other people around the country, students, into this formation. Very innovative, brilliant idea, really had turned out to be, but at the time, no one was sure of anything. I had never heard of it. In Ann Arbor, I had never heard of it until I got... Some people started... Hayden was editing the Michigan Daily, very impressive articles that he wrote about an emerging student movement. And I think he himself said later he was trying to create the movement through his worth, I mean knowing... In other words, if you write these long descriptive, emotionally powerful pieces describing students on the march, you are creating an awareness that this might be possible. No one had been thinking really of a student movement, or not very many people until... And I do not think he alone was thinking about it, but it was an emerging idea more than a reality in (19)61, (19)62. Anyway, there was a student party, political party on campus called Voice. And that too was parallel that some of the other big universities, a lefty political party at Berkeley, it was called Slate. SM (00:27:12): Yes. RF (00:27:13): And then University of Chicago, there was another one, [inaudible] Madison, a few examples of this. And those were local, they were not tied to any actual group, but Al Haber saw that he could recruit the leaders of Voice into this SDS. And so when the planning for Port Huron starting to get going, and Tom wrote this draft of what became Port Huron [inaudible], that is when I was first exposed to the fact that this was happening. I had other friends who knew Tom before I did, introduced us a little. So I began... Yep, he was a... You may find him impressive now, but he was even more impressive as a 21 [inaudible]. Brilliant speaker, brilliant writer. And for those New York, Jewish, rusty kids, red diaper babies, here is a guy who did not have that background. He grew up in a very conservative Catholic community in Detroit and came out of there. And that is significant. If you have the view, which I did that well, the left wing in America's going to be really isolated in these pockets of distinctive cultural pocket like the New York Jewish world or Union World of San Francisco, Bohemian Union World. And it will not reach out beyond that. There is little traditions of leftism around America, but it will not become a force. And suddenly you are seeing people like Hayden who coming out of nowhere, so to speak, with a very sharp, critical awareness, a new, fresh way of thinking about what it meant to be on the left. You left. And so that captured me immediately, as soon as I read this draft of [inaudible], this is what I have been wanting and would never believe could happen. So I decided to go to Port Huron. This is part of my story, I do not know how much you want. Is this a personal story or? SM (00:29:38): Yeah, it is a personal story because it is part of the (19)60s. And this is important, and I even had a question here. Why was Port Huron picked to be this- RF (00:29:47): I mean that is sort of well known, I mean they were looking... Among the connections that Al had made was with a young woman named Sharon Jeffrey, who was one of the leaders of the Voice party is Michigan. Her mother was Mildred Jeffrey, who was Walter Reuther UAW- SM (00:30:05): Oh, yes. RF (00:30:08): Was a right-hand woman. She was a very powerful, well-known figure in Michigan politics and in the Union. And so I guess that Millie Jeffery just suggested you could use the Port Huron camp or whatever it was called that the BUAW owned up there for the meeting and it [inaudible]. So that was a great resource, you felt like perfect for... I do not know if they even charged... Let us just do it. Yeah, so it was that UAW connection was very important and I think has lessons for today. The UAW... We need a new student movement. I may be getting ahead of my story, and UAW is willing to sponsor SDS without knowing what that would mean. In other words, they took a risk politically in backing these upstart students with not only Port Huron, they gave some money to things like that. So anyway, where were we? So yeah, here I was a red diaper baby and SBS required for membership that you sign a statement saying that you were not part of the communists, basically. Which I was not, but I hated, and I was... Many of us red diaper babies hated that kind of loyalty statement. And I was not sure how we would be received, my wife went with me, given our background. So I went there. There was a left wing paper at the time called the National Guardian, which I had a lot of friendship connections with some people there. And I said, "Well, let me cover the Port Huron meeting for the Guardian." And I will go Port Huron under that rubric, not knowing whether I was able to or willing to join the organization, so to speak. So when we got there, we realized that there was... One of the key things about the meeting was going to be to overturn that loyalty oath and really transform the organization's identity. Not to be pro-communist, but to denounce this kind of Cold War categorizations that was- RF (00:33:03): ... kind of Cold War categorizations that was killing the left, really, that kind of Cold War thinking. So almost immediately we got to Port Huron I knew I was part of this, and incidentally did write pieces for The Guardian, which they did not want to publish. They did not publish, because they did not trust SDS. "Well, it is still social democratic part of the league for industrial democracy. They were red baiters and so on." Even though I tried to explain that this was something new, the Guardian editors did not buy that story right away and they did not care what I thought so that was an interesting... The part of the left that I had identified with up to them was The Guardian and the magazine Monthly Review. These were independent Marxist oriented publications. They were not Communist Party publications, but they were not anti-communist in the Cold War then. So I liked those. But neither magazine understood SDS at the beginning. They just did not get the idea of a New Left until later. Is that important? I do not know. Anyway, so that is how we got there. We very involved in the discussions there. I helped the right, or I wrote the redraft, matter of fact, of the communist statement in the Port Huron statements, the passages about communism and anti-communism. Not to make them less anti-communist, but I actually thought Tom was too soft on the communist [inaudible] when he had written the original draft. So we were very involved at that point. I always take credit of being one of the founders of SDS, that is part of my identity that I was at that founding meeting and I actually helped conceive what the organization was to be along with, of course, a dozen other people. SM (00:35:42): How important was President Kennedy's inaugural speech on some of the students at Michigan? "Ask not what your country can do for you as what you can do for your country." Because when he campaigned in (19)60 and of course then he won, and then in (19)61 he gave in his inaugural those words that did inspire a lot of people. Of course the Peace Corps meeting that took place outside of the University of Michigan library- RF (00:36:08): Well, let me tell you the exact- SM (00:36:09): Yeah. RF (00:36:11): And the anniversary of that is just been, so- SM (00:36:14): Right. RF (00:36:15): Yeah, that was during the presidential campaign. He was scheduled to come, not the library, the Michigan Union, the student union, he was to appear on the steps there. People waited for hours. He was late, like 2:00 AM as I recall, thousands of kids waiting there. In that speech he says, "Would not you like to serve your country giving aid to people in Ghana?" I forget the exact words, but he was posing almost the idea that instead of military service, there would be this other option. Immediately a guy named Al Guskin, who had been my roommate before we both got married when we first got to Ann Arbor, he was another Brooklyn College guy, Al and a few others, formed a group right away that next day, I think, to support the Kennedy idea. They went to see Kennedy at another campaign stop, I think, a few, couple weeks later to say, "We are behind this, we want to work for it." Some people say that Peace Corps would not have gelled as an idea where it not for the fact that there was this spontaneous student response to it in Ann Arbor that pretty much spread pretty quickly, I think, around the country. A matter of fact, that is how I met Hayden is because Guskin reached out to the editor of the student paper Tom Hayden, and then Al starts telling me, "There is this guy, Hayden, you have got to meet him." Anyway, the SDS people were not in love with Kennedy at all. I would say the psychology of that moment was, on the one hand, yes, we have the first president born in the 20th century. There is a fresh feeling of a turning point in history, but it was as much the sit-ins in the South and the civil rights uprising than as Kennedy. Kennedy was the more conservative, a lot of the liberal young wanted Adlai Stevenson to be the Democratic nominee in (19)60. That was a completely impossible idea. But Kennedy was not considered the darling of liberal Democrat at all. By the time of SDS, there had been the Cuban invasion. There had been a big acceleration of the arms race under Kennedy, big reinvestment in military. By the way, can I take a little bit of a diversion here? SM (00:39:25): Yes. RF (00:39:25): I remembered another important thing that was going on in Michigan. There was an academic center called the Center for Study of Conflict Resolution, which was essentially a peace research center that a number of my mentors, faculty types, were involved with. I got a research job there. Actually, my wife also worked there in a clerical capacity. The reason I am bringing it up is because that center sponsored a number of really significant to me, formative academic type conferences on the arms race and disarmament issues. I learned a tremendous amount at that time about what policy debates were inside the administration, some of the key players. So McNamara came from Ann Arbor, Secretary of Defense. So there was a connection intellectually and even personally between the Ann Arbor faculty that were concerned with arms issues and Kennedy administration, but they were not favoring Kennedy. There was a feeling, McNamara was a target of their anger, and then later McNamara wrote and talked a lot about how he had so much contributed to the acceleration of the arms race, missile race, and that rather than praising himself, he thought they had made a terrible move at that point. So those of us involved with the SDS development, we were very conscious of this about Kennedy. Plus on the civil rights side, there was a tendency in the Kennedy administration, a strong tendency, to try to dampen down the civil rights movement. Bobby met with a bunch of African American intellectuals, James Baldwin and Lorraine Hansberry, and I do not know who else was in the room. There was a shouting match. They were saying, "You are not doing anything much to support." That was a real issue for us, failure of the Justice Department to really defend the civil rights workers who were being jailed in the South. Instead, what the Kennedys were promoting was the idea to stop the civil disobedience campaign and start voter registration in the South. There was a lot of money generated through foundations to get the civil rights movement to promote voter registration rather than direct action. This turned out to be actually a good thing historically, but it was the appearance to those of us who identified with SNCC, we were very connected with SNCC, that the Kennedy administration was certainly not providing the kind of support that the Constitution seemed to mandate that they do. Now, the dynamic, if you look back on this period, the very recalcitrance of the Kennedy administration helped the movement grow. Again, one of these things that you can really figure out after the fact how a movement can merge. If you have an administration in Washington that says, "Civil rights is a profoundly moral correct path," and then they failed to fulfill their rhetoric with adequate action, that is a framework for grassroots action. At least at that time it was. So I am saying there was ambiguity, and the Kennedy you are talking about, and the sacrifice, "Ask not what you can do for your country," seemed to some of us, maybe, we did not use this term then, but an imperial message, not a message promoting service in the sense that we meant it. Now I have to add that when Kennedy made a famous speech June (19)63 promoting detente with the Soviet Union, there were things he was moving toward before he was murdered that were very much more on line with what we had been hoping for. So it was complicated. It is funny how people now are attacking Obama from the left, and they sort of [inaudible] Kennedy as Obama has, I have read people saying, "he has betrayed the Democratic Party's principals." And they hold up Kennedy as well as FDR, as exemplars of this. By no means, from the point of view of the equivalent lefties back in the early (19)60s, Kennedy did not look good from that point of view. But he did create space and the worst moment was the Cuban missile crisis. I can describe how significant in SDS history and in Ann Arbor. You do not mind me rambling like this? SM (00:45:43): I have a couple specific questions about the 60 people who met, but if you have some comments on the Cuban missile crisis- RF (00:45:52): Let me just finish the Cuban thing. SM (00:45:54): Yep. RF (00:45:55): Tom Hayden had traveled in the South after he graduated for a year and then became SDS president, married Casey Hayden. They moved back to Ann Arbor and lived in a house which had a basement, which unfortunately for their marriage but fortunately for SDS, we converted the basement into a headquarters for SDS in Ann Arbor. It was not just for locality. It had a lot of outreach beyond that and had a mimeo machine there, and we had a lot of meetings and so on and so forth. Well, when the Cuban missile crisis began, a bunch of us gathered there for a lot of time there making calls around the country. It was an important moment for reaching student activists at a number of other schools who we had not met yet. SDS had not met, let us say the Harvard Peace activists, like Todd Gitlin, calling them up. "What are you doing? How are you responding?" Creating by phone, a national network of people who were trying to figure out what to do in response to this missile crisis. In fact, there was a march on Washington pretty spontaneously organized that week, and we all went to Washington on that Saturday. When the crisis reached a head, we thought when we were marching that there was going to be a nuclear war. We actually- SM (00:47:44): Wow. RF (00:47:45): Because I. F. Stone had given a speech to the assembled people there, and he said, "I hate to say this, but I cannot see any way out. This might be the end of human history." People were screaming. Yet two hours later, the Russian ships had turned around and the crisis eased, which was [inaudible] liberating moment of my life. So my point being that Cuban Missile Crisis for the SDS group fitting in Ann Arbor was formative in terms of our opposition to the Kennedy administration and to the war machine as we find it then and so forth. So anyway, go ahead. SM (00:48:44): Yeah, there were 60 people that met at Port Huron- RF (00:48:49): Approximately. SM (00:48:50): ... to hash out the statement you and Tom were involved in writing. Who were the 60? I know about you and Tom and I know about Al Haber, but who were the 60? Just briefly, what was their composition, male, female? RF (00:49:07): It is hard to generalize. Hayden and Haber had gone to the National Student Association meetings. I do not know where the one was prior to Port Huron, but those were national conventions of student government leaders that were very important in that period for the student world in the US. The NSA meetings provided opportunities for debates among political groups, for tables with literature and for recruitment. So a number of the people at Port Huron were either editors of major... Like Robb Burlage was there, Robb was- SM (00:49:56): How do you spell that name? RF (00:49:58): University of Texas student paper. There were guys from Madison who were head of student government. So one type of person at Port Huron were very successful student government or student organizational leaders from different campuses. Paul Booth, he had come from Swarthmore. I do not know what he was, president of the student body or something significant as a worker there. So that was one group. The second contingent, and that was not really a contingent, but it was a type of person who was there. Then there was a group from New York, there is a guy named Steve Max who became a full-time SDS organizer and who to this day is one of the leading mentors and theorists of community organizing in America. But Steve was a young red diaper baby in New York, and he had created a little organization in New York, local group, not connected to SDS, but they decided to affiliate with SDS so several of their members came to Port Huron. I forget the name of his group, but it became a New York chapter of SDS, probably right before the Port Huron. Somehow there were other people, I do not know exactly where some of the other people that I can think of. Oh, there was several SNCC leaders. There was Chuck McDew, who was the national head of SNCC, I believe at that time. And a guy named Tim Jenkins, who was an African American guy who was a very active in NSA. I think he might have been an empowered person. I do not know what has become of him. There was Casey Hayden and Bob. There was a very well-known white southern SNCC activist who was there, and I am blanking on his name right now. There was a woman, Maria Varela, she came from a Catholic college and has later became Maria Varela. She is one of the most revered leaders of Latino or Mexican American community organizing now in New Mexico. That is been where she has been for years, ever since Port Huron. But she was there as a young college person. So there was interesting to us from New York background, was a kind of liberal Christian, both Protestant and Catholic, element at Port Huron who had been mobilized by the Civil Rights movement, but were part of things like YWCA or the other liberal Christian formations in the South and Midwest. So if you remember what I said before that it was important to meet people who were not from our background, who were identifying with the left, Port Huron was paradise. All of these young people who came, they were not red [inaudible]. SM (00:54:14): Were most of the men or how many women were- RF (00:54:16): No, I would say- SM (00:54:18): About 50/50. RF (00:54:18): Yeah. SM (00:54:18): Good. Now what has become of most of them? You have made reference to some have gone on to some excellent careers, Steve Max and the Latino leader who's in New Mexico. But there is a lot of perceptions that people have written about activists of the (19)60s, that there are a few that stayed the course like Tom Hayden and obviously you and your teaching and so forth, but the majority did not. They went on any other generation? RF (00:54:50): Well, I have written a whole book on this before. SM (00:54:51): Yeah, I know. RF (00:54:54): Okay. But the people of Port Huron, I do not think... Well, there may be a few that we have lost complete track of that I do not know where they are. But I would say none of them became mainstream American. They remained true to some important part of the identity they were forming at that time. So Paul Booth, he is one of the most respected labor leaders in America. He is vice president of the AFSCME. SM (00:55:27): I interviewed his wife a week ago, Heather. RF (00:55:32): She was one of my students, by the way, university of Chicago. And Burlage is a healthcare policy and political activist in New York. Some people have had very visible careers. Well, Bob Ross is vice president of SDS then, he was from Ann Arbor. He is a well-known sociology professor in Massachusetts. I guess a number of people ended up in sort of academic framework. I do not have the whole list of folks, but I do not- SM (00:56:25): Well ever since we all know that when Ronald Reagan came to power in 1980, a lot of history books have been written that say that the last 30-plus years in America has really been defined by the right. That right has really dominated our politics. RF (00:56:47): Okay, well I have a lot to say on that. SM (00:56:51): And the New Left, they are there, but they are not as powerful as the right. RF (00:56:59): Well, they do not say that. Well, I do not know that there has been much good history writing from my point of view about, not just from the time of Reagan, but the (19)70s are a very important decade, and that decade in which feminism, environmentalism, gay liberation really became important forces in American life. Those are not (19)60s movements, those are (19)70s by and large. Many of the people who were active in the New Left were the foundational, catalytic figures in those movements in the (19)70s, the new social movement, came out of that activism that people went on after the (19)60s and after the resolution of the war issue and the Vietnam issue and the civil rights issues, people move into other domains with their activism. The thing that got most publicity was sort of identity politics. I have always felt that that was a mistake to just simply say the (19)70s was about identity politics. Feminism is not simply identity politics. Gay liberation is not simply that. Then you did have not only environmental movement nationally, but a tremendous array of local activism. This has been my experience and my wife's experience, we moved to this town in 1969 and we have been here for all those years since. We are leaders of this community in promoting environmental and social justice politics. The whole town is transformed. It is not the town we moved into, which was conservative, potentially right wing dominated community. I mean, if you look at California alone, you could not make a story out of the right wing dominance. The Republican Party right now in California is virtually the power of the Latino and other immigrant communities politically as voting block in terms of new leadership, tremendous labor movement here with many former New Leftists in the labor movement as leaders, big political force. It is the only state where the labor movement has been growing actually in terms of percentage of population. I do not want to overstate, but the point I would make is, and is California isolated? No, I think there are many, many towns and regions where after the (19)60s a political movement toward the left is the real story. You look at a state like Oregon, a city like Portland, the state of Washington, similar dynamic go on there. What happened is that a lot of the (19)60s counter culturally influenced young people, moved to certain neighborhoods, certain towns, college towns in particular, but other towns, and became politically potent, and the odd thing that I cannot explain sitting here very well is that the national politics moved rightward and a lot of that was fed as a kind of backlash against the [inaudible]. If you look at national voting patterns of white people- SM (01:01:06): Can you hold on one second? RF (01:01:07): ... they are far right wing. SM (01:01:08): I have to change my tape here. Hold on a second. RF (01:01:08): Okay. SM (01:01:08): Other than that, it is cold. RF (01:01:08): Terrible weather in the Midwest. SM (01:01:22): Yeah. All right, I am back. RF (01:01:24): Anyway, what I start to say is, yeah, the national politics has shifted. The Republicans have tended to dominate since Reagan, as you have said, although there have been important episodes of [inaudible]. But to me it is a far more range and complicated, even nationally. I mean, Obama was elected president, nobody thought that could happen. But not by white people. The white vote, especially white male vote, is far to the right. That is, to me, the biggest shift in consciousness towards right occurred among white male, middle class, working class voters, the so-called Reagan Democrat vote, which was part of the New Deal Coalition, and then has broken away. It is understandable if you add together the civil rights and Black movement reaction against that or feeling threatened by it, feeling threatened by feminism and by economic decline in the loss of manufacturing economy, those things help explain why large numbers of white men in particular decide they were conservative and wanting to protect what they were losing. I think that that is, but that means that they are reacting against something that they see as real, which is that there is a rising tide on the other side. SM (01:03:18): One of the- RF (01:03:18): The very thing the Republicans in California are dead because they tried to play an anti-immigrant politics. That has united Asian-American, Latino voters, and that accounts for a lot of what has happened in California. I am sure the anti-immigrant vote policy proposal, those ideas appeal to a certain significant number of white folks in the state, but they do not have the capacity to mobilize even a sizable minority of the vote at this point. SM (01:03:54): One of the questions I have asked everyone is a takeoff of what we were saying, talking about Ronald Reagan and the backlash. The right or the conservatives have said that most of the problems we have in America today begin in the (19)60s and (19)70s when Boomers were identified as the reason for the breakup of the American family unit, the reason why we have a divorce rate, the drug culture, the illicit sexual mores, the welfare state where everybody wants a handout, a lack of respect for authority in law and order, a "I want it" mentality with no discipline financially. Some of them even criticize for the financial crisis we are in. And a culture where victimization takes center stage in many of the (19)60s and (19)70s involvement groups. Your thoughts. Again, Newt Gingrich has made comments in (19)94 about this when Republicans came to power, and George Will writes about it a lot in his books. RF (01:05:02): Oh, yeah. Yeah. SM (01:05:03): And certainly Huckabee and Glenn Beck and all this. RF (01:05:07): Well, I have thought a lot about that. The point I would make in response is A) the consumer economy that grew up after World War II, many people were saying promoted values that ran counter to traditional. This has nothing to do with social movement to the (19)60s. This has a lot to do with the promotion of values of consumption and what you were saying, sort of immediate gratification and the idea of simply focusing on hedonism and pleasure counter to what used to be called the Protestant ethics. That story was written about in the (19)50s that was happening to this country. And in many ways... RF (01:06:03): ...that was happening to this country. In many ways, the (19)60s counterculture was a rebellion against that, against consumer values, against materialism for a more spiritual way of life. Now, the thing that people in the counterculture did not quite get when they were in the early stages is that the counterculture could become part of the consumer culture. It could transform and translate many of the practices of the counterculture into commodities for promotion, whether it is water beds or drugs themselves. As a sociologist, I would say some of what we call the counterculture and the youth rebellion, and I have written about this, is not about an organized effort by people to challenge the status quo. It is about more like symptoms of the loss of meaning that people felt because the Protestant ethic was so out of phase with the kind of economy, kind of social order that was growing up after World War II, looking for new values, looking for ways of life, feeling [inaudible] in a disrupted moral order. Now, the second answer I would give is the highest rates of everything you said, divorce, alcoholism, whatever else you mentioned, drug use method, methadone use, is in the reddest areas of the country, the most conservative areas of the country. I wish people would face this. There is a sense to that, but it is not about the damage in the (19)60s, it is about the damaged lives that a failing economy creates. It is about the difficulty of traditional religious institutions and generally institutions to manage the kind of social change that is created by mass media, by the consumer economy, and by the degree of mobility, physical mobility that people have to have undergone. I mean, just the fact that people have moved so much in order to find work or to find a reasonable life. Highest rates of divorce, that is what I was [inaudible] in those areas. So to me, the anti-authority aspect of the (19)60s has a lot to do with the Vietnam War, I felt. If you wage a war like that with a conscript army and people come to realize that the whole war is a lie and they are being asked to die, forced to die, fight and die on that, you have done a great deal of damage to people's trust and certainly a lot of events of the (19)60s challenged priority. But to me, the sad part of the post (19)60s era in terms of the new left is that many of the ideas that people in the new left have had about how to restructure America have gotten lost in... I mean, take the idea of participatory democracy, which is a central theme of the [inaudible] statement. I still think people struggle on their community level for voice. What that phrase refers to really is the impulse people have to want to have a say in decisions that affect them, that are being made in the political world, but also in the economic world. This is still going ... you see this all the time, almost every day, in our town, that people are challenging... it is not challenging authority for the sake of challenging authority. They are saying, "You are acting without hearing us." Yet there are not people very visibly now on the national political scene proposing ways that our institutions can be restructured so that voice could be more easily gotten by average people. I still think that if a political movement or leadership came along or trying to articulate that, they would make an impact. But because of the Reagan revolution and post Reagan era, a lot of the new leftists ended up defending things we were criticizing, the welfare state. We acted on the assumption that the welfare state was permanent and that what needed to happen is to make it democratic and responsive and not bureaucratic. That was an example of the central part of our story, what we were trying to say. We believe in decentralized governance, but if you are going to where communities have more voice, but if you are going to basically prevent the adequate funding of institutions that people depend on, that takes priority over how people are going to be able to organize their local life to have more voice. In other words, in the post Reagan period, people have been more defensive on the left of the existing definition. People now, and I am very critical of contemporary left because they think their main job is to defend government. I would say their main job is to defend democracy. But it is very hard not to be in the position of defending government when you have a political force on the right that wants to stop government from functioning. You see what I am saying? SM (01:13:31): Yes-yes. RF (01:13:35): In the absence of government, we are going to get a corporate dictatorship. We are pretty far along in that. SM (01:13:40): Many Boomers felt that they were the most unique generation in American history. A lot of young people on college campuses, I know on my campus they felt that way, and they were going to better everything. They were going to show other generations caring about others is what it is all about. They were believing in ending war and bringing peace, ending racism, sexism, homophobia, protecting in the environment. How would you rate this efforts 40 years hence? Discuss what you see as the gap between expectations and the hopes of the Boomer activist. RF (01:14:23): Well, I am kind of have to say that I always criticize the generational model. I think that is almost a trap because it is saying the change comes from a particular age group or a particular generational cohort, which makes only limited ... there is truth in it, but it is limited truth. In order for the changes to happen, you have to have cross-generational alliances coalition that young people have to reach out to older people. I think that the generational mission idea really did not last all that long. What is a Boomer? I do not even know anymore how you define it. SM (01:15:25): It is those born between (19)46 and (19)64. RF (01:15:29): I know, but that is one definition. I have seen others that are less broad or more broad or whatever. You can easily debunk that by pointing out that all those people that you just defined were very different from each other. There is quite a lot of political diversity and so forth. That is one side of it. On the other hand, I always have, and I have written about this, that people who were in college or influenced by the movements and who were adolescent in the time, let us say, between (19)67 and (19)70, that little period, that had a tremendous impact. When you have millions of people, kids stopping school and going on strike after [inaudible] and all that, it has an effect on many of those people's sense of who they are. I do not think we have had a good effort to document the full fate of that generation. The book I wrote with Jack Whelan is about people up to 20 years after they graduated, 1970, we have had 20 years [inaudible]. What has happened to those people. I could suggest that some numbers of people who have been more corporate than they thought they would be nevertheless have a side of them that think, "Well, I ought to be giving back" or "I want to retire from this rap race and start doing something more creative." In other words, what is not documented is the degree to which people from that era have continued to try with their lives to make some kind of difference along the lines that you were talking about you. Another way of looking at it is now look at the college campuses, the faculty and administration, people who are on the senior level who are controlling things are the (19)60s generation. Well, that has not produced a whole new type of education. There is many-many-many things about the higher education now that are better or more wonderful than anything back then. But on the other hand, in terms of what you were talking about, in terms of issues about race and gender and sexuality, the campuses are quite a different place. The University of California, which is the one place I know best, many of the dreams of the (19)60s students are now taken for granted as the way the university operates in terms of the diversity of the student body and the diversity of faculty. It is still a long way to go to have fully mesh with American demography, but it is very-very different, and even the curriculum... What I am trying to say is, on the one hand, there has been more ... I think a lot of the change that actually happened we take for granted now and do not recognize which it is. But on the other hand, the limit to that change have not been studied either. What made it not possible to move as far as this or that? You would have thought by now that marijuana would be legal if you were back in 1970. Well, certainly in 40 years you would have thought that the US would be in a different modality internationally, that there would be a real ... we have a tremendously greater questioning of war policy and military policy now than we ever had prior to Vietnam [inaudible] very clear. We do not have a draft, but we still are thinking we are the global superpower that should be the global superpower and so on and so forth. I would have said in the early (19)70s, "Oh, by 40 years from now we might well have corporations run with a lot of internal democracy where workers would have voice in their workplace, where the corporation would be a different kind of governance institution." But I do not think that that has come to pass, although there are examples of that all over the place. But the dominant form remains. What I am trying to say is we do not have a good ... Maybe I will end up doing some of this writing, but one could write a very interesting history of the last 40 years by asking what happened to these dreams and what were the ... the story is not that the dreams failed. In what ways did they not fail, in what ways did they fail and why? Not just describing it, but trying to understand the reason. That would tell you a lot about this country. SM (01:21:44): In your opinion, when did the (19)60s begin, when did it end, and what was the watershed moment? RF (01:21:53): I would say it makes sense to begin then with Rosa Park was not going to the back of the bus, which is exactly 55 years ago next week. You could say the end of the Vietnam War probably is a good marking point because ... yeah, if you want to think about it that way. It is really a 20-year period. But in some way, and I would put a little hedge on that because when Carter was president, a number of the (19)60s people were in that administration and there were things begun like vista programs and other community organizing effort where people have not documented this well. There was a lot going on in the Carter period that was promising along ... if you were a (19)60s person like me, well, what is going on in the Carter time? SM (01:23:06): Sam Brown. That is right. RF (01:23:08): Sam Brown is a great case. So it may be that you should really end the (19)60s with Reagan's election, but you could end it with McGovern's defeat. These are arbitrary constructions and you learn something from each of these [inaudible]. SM (01:23:36): How about the watershed moment? RF (01:23:38): Watershed, well, I am not sure what you mean by watershed. One watershed I have mentioned is the sit-in in Greensboro, North Carolina in February 1960. Because if you really think about those actions, very simple, four guys sit in at a lunch counter where they are not supposed to be, boom. But what flowed from that and the form of that action really has repeated in certain ways throughout the decade, direct action, not waiting. These four guys did not try to persuade a lot of people to end segregation. They broke through. They also had a network of transmission of their actions through their own communication, but also through the mass media. Well, that is the same pattern of spreading innovation in the (19)60s, the Double Parallel Act. The innovators communicate outward, but so do the mass media spread in various ways, positive and distorted, know what they are doing. That to me would be a crucial watershed. There is another watershed, it is sort of obvious, the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. SM (01:24:56): Right, and I got a question on that later on. RF (01:24:59): That is the first mass uprising of college students, and so obviously a lot was [inaudible]. SM (01:25:10): There were a lot of books that influenced members of the Boomer generation, the (19)60s generation that came out in the late (19)60s and (19)70s, and I want your thoughts just briefly. I am going to list them here; do you think these were important books and whether you rate them as really kind of describing the period in the generation. The books I always think of are Charles Reich, the Greening of America, Theodore Roszak, the Making of a Counterculture. Then you had later on Michael Medved's book, Whatever Happened to the Class of (19)65? You had Eric Erickson's book on the academy in descent, Michael Harrington on the Other America. You had Kenneth Kennison's Youth in Descent, Harry Edwards book, Black Students, which really define activists and revolutionaries and militants. Then you had Clark Kerr's Uses of the university. How important were they to you in explaining the America of the (19)60s and (19)70s? RF (01:26:13): Okay, well, I think Reich and Roszak are books that explained ... they make an effort to explain to a wider public what they think is happening, what the authors think is happening in the youth world and the counterculture. Greening of America was the best example of that popularization effort. I mean, he really... and when you read it now, it is almost possible to read because it is so silly, in my opinion. But that review... cut that out, that is not that important. But it was a sign. Here is what Reich's book meant to me, that there was an important tendency in the older, elite generation to try to understand the student movement and the protests and the counterculture rather than suppress it. Remember, his book came out about the time of Nixon and Agnew and so forth. I mean, in my judgment, it was important that there was this other elite tendency that says, "Wait a minute, these are our kids. These are our children. You are going to create a tremendous upheaval in America if you keep trying to repress them." It is not that the book prevented the repression, but it did provide another way of looking at things that I think was very helpful to a lot of old parents and older, elite, people in authority how to think about this thing. Roszak probably helped some of the counterculture people with their own sense of who they were, in a way probably more influential within the counterculture than ... Reich's book was not really read [inaudible]. Now, let us see what other. Clark Kerr's book was very important because it was used as a symbol by Mario Savio and other people in the free speech movement to define what it was they were up against, multiversity. Kerr gave them a framework. Oddly enough, he even predicted that there would be student unrest in the multiversity. So it is a bit unfair, I think, to some extent to Kerr's ... although the way he acted as president of the university sort of reinforced what they thought the book was about. Let us see, you mentioned- SM (01:29:20): I had the Harry Edwards Black- RF (01:29:21): Harry Edwards, I do not think that was an important ... I mean it is Eldridge Cleaver's Soul on Ice was a very important book in defining Black consciousness on a sort of mass scale. SM (01:29:34): Michael Harrington's The Other- RF (01:29:35): Wait a minute, and the Frantz Fanon Wretched of the Earth. SM (01:29:42): Oh, yes. RF (01:29:43): But Michael Harrington, The Other America, that was a genuinely significant piece of social reporting because it did force onto the national stage the question of poverty, and it allowed Kennedy and then [inaudible] Johnson to ... well, it encouraged this poverty policy framework that was really significant in defining what the welfare state would ... how it would evolve. It was not just Harrington's book. It was, again ... Reich's book appeared in the New Yorker, so the Other America was written up by Dwight McDonald in the New Yorker and that writeup [inaudible] pretty far. All of these books are significant as classroom texts as well, but probably not in the (19)60s so much as [inaudible], although probably Other America- SM (01:30:45): Eric Erickson had written several on the [inaudible]. RF (01:30:49): Erickson is a totally different character. I mean, he influenced me tremendously, as a social psychologist, and Gandhi's Truth, Young Man Luther, but also, he wrote a book on identity, per se. It is very clarifying work on youth consciousness. But a more influential book in the early (19)60s was Growing Up Absurd by Paul Goodman. SM (01:31:27): Oh yes-yes. RF (01:31:33): Do not forget that. He has been forgotten, but he was a very significant... SM (01:31:35): You mentioned that people like Saul Alinsky, Paul Goodman, C. Wright Mills were very influential in many student leaders in the (19)60s. RF (01:31:43): Absolutely. SM (01:31:44): In fact, Tom Hayden wrote a book on C. Wright Mills. Who were they and why were they a big influence, those three? RF (01:31:51): Well, for different reasons, but Goodman and Mills were both intellectuals who did not buy into the standard interpretations of the world and especially the Cold War, and both were strong critics of militarism, they were strong critics of corporate power, and they both were pointing in a new direction for the left. They were not using Marxist language, they were using really pragmatist, philosophical pragmatist framework a lot, and they both provided ingredients for what we [inaudible] by our participatory democracy. Their work is really worth the reading now, but at the time it was... when I read Mills in college, it was a completely different way of looking at things from any other sociology or political science books that we were asked to read. The teachers that I had were dismissive of it, of The Power Elite anyway. To some extent, my intellectual life from that point on was trying to show that their dismissal of this was ... I was breaking out of that. The ways I thought were conventional at the time in my learning. Alinsky was not so much as a writer, as a... but he provided a model of community organizing, which later was taken up by SPS in economic .... in so-called [inaudible] projects in northern urban community organizing projects that SPS was involved in, and the war on poverty, neighborhood organizing effort came out of the war on poverty where ... So Alinsky showed that community organization was not just for social work purposes, but for political power, and that has remained. We have a president now who learned at that school. SM (01:34:32): As a sociologist, a lot of people do not like the term Boomer generation, I will tell you that right up front and they do not like the greatest generation, the Millennials and all the other titles that are given to groups. But when you look at the period, though, that is defined as Boomers, those from 1946 to today, the oldest Boomers are 64 this year and the youngest are 49. In just a few words, you have already mentioned throughout the interview, but I have broken it down to six different periods when Boomers have been alive. Just a couple words to describe the period, the period 1946 to 1960. RF (01:35:10): Well, that was the period in terms of life cycle. Obviously, this was the adolescent period or the growing up and adolescence of the earliest Boomers. But that was the period of the seeming... the post-war so-called conformity era. In many ways, everyone understood of that age, when the (19)50s was going on, that we were rebelling against that time of our lives when the country was seemingly so [inaudible]. It was the time when suburbia developed, when the automobile became primary, when television emerged, and as well as the Cold War and anti [inaudible], the Red Scare. SM (01:36:13): The period (19)61 to (19)70. RF (01:36:13): Well, that is the period of creativity politically, culturally, that generation helped to... was in the forefront of. Margaret Mead wrote a book, I forget the title, but where she argued, rather fascinating argument, that most traditional societies, old people teach the young, and in a modern society age is not necessarily defined how knowledge is transmitted. But in the kind of society that was emerging, the young teach the old and that is because of something about the rapidity of social change is such that the old people do not understand what is going on, but young people more intuitively grasp it. SM (01:37:08): I think that book is Culture and Commitment. RF (01:37:08): Okay, that is. SM (01:37:08): I read it quite a few years ago. RF (01:37:20): So the (19)60s was that time. I do not think she was right about the trend because I do not think that continued to be quite so much to the case. That is a good question too. Why was she right and wrong about that? I do not know. But the point is, in the (19)60s was a time when the young were leading the rest of society in terms of cultural outlook. SM (01:37:49): The period 1971 to 1980. RF (01:37:55): Well, as I have said that time when there was a large amount of political innovation and experimentation as well as religious and spiritual experimentation. People were trying to redefine their lives and a lot of these things that we think of as (19)60s effects were really happening in the (19)70s. SM (01:38:19): The period 1981 to 1990. RF (01:38:24): Well, you could call that the Reagan era, when a lot of the established ideas about welfare state and about America's role of the world were coming into question and pre-market ideology seemed to be ascended. But I also make it the time when, on a more local level, a lot of... on a more local level. A lot of local power structures that had been dominant for generations were disappearing in the communities around the country and new political forces. SM (01:39:18): How about that period 1991 to 2000? RF (01:39:24): Well, I do not know that you can make simple... This is the post-communist era, and that is important. Maybe that is the most important thing about it. SM (01:39:36): And then the 2001 to 2000 now (20)11. RF (01:39:42): Well, it may be too early to figure it out, but one thing that it will be remembered for is the time of America's evident decline as a superpower. SM (01:39:58): Why did we lose the Vietnam War, in your opinion? RF (01:40:02): I do not think it was winnable. In fact, about a year ago we visited Vietnam. SM (01:40:09): Oh, you did? Oh, wow. I am going there next summer. RF (01:40:13): I highly recommend it, very fascinating experience. We just went on a little Smithsonian-led tour with a couple dozen people. But I remember feeling almost from the beginning of the tour that it is obvious now to me why we could not win the Vietnam War. I mean, the Vietnamese people have a lot to do with it. They have a history of hundreds and hundreds of years of being occupied by other powers, of having a tremendous capacity for adaptation to hardship and resiliency. We went down the Mekong River and spent a few days there and realized how could they have possibly thought the US could take over in this jungle area where people were well-organized and historically prepared to hold onto their lives there. I do not mean to romanticize the Vietnamese, but it just seemed like the height... And people, even during the war, in the earliest part of the war, understood some people just... What was going on in Vietnam was, if anything, a kind of civil war. But really, the great majority of people were opposed to the US-imposed regime, not just the US presence. And whether or not they identified as communist, they all identified as nationalist. The communist leadership, Ho Chi Minh, was the nationalist leadership. You see that now, and I am willing to bet when you go there, you will see this thing I am talking about. It is a little hard to... SM (01:42:11): I am actually going with vets. RF (01:42:11): Are you a vet? SM (01:42:18): No, I am not a vet, but I have worked very closely with Vietnam vets. I got to know Louis Poer quite well. RF (01:42:24): And they have made a lot. I have other friends who went under those kinds of [inaudible 01:42:32] and they had a very rich [inaudible]. SM (01:42:35): You were a... RF (01:42:37): I think we lost the war because it was even understood by military people before we entered Vietnam Amendment that winning a land war in Asia was not something you could do. And B, especially these people who were already well schooled in resisting foreign intervention. SM (01:43:02): You were a key member of the early SDS as you discussed. And what are your thoughts on the SDS members who took the group in a more violent direction, the Weathermen. And then as a kind of a sidelight here, how about groups like the Black Panthers, the Young Lords, and the members of AIM who took their cause in a more violent and radical direction too in the early (19)70s? RF (01:43:32): Well, I was very-very dismayed by the Weathermen development, but basically the core group of Weathermen were people who, here is how I would put the... They came from typically privileged backgrounds. They were not just upper middle class. They came from elite background by and large. And their first impulses politically were pacifist service in many cases. They wanted to work in situations where they would be helping poor people and so forth. They experienced this guilt over their privilege. Why did they turn violent? Because they became very disillusioned in their experience with service and poverty and pacifism. And in terms of whether they could have effects that way. Their elite background made them feel this arrogant belief that they had... They did not question their right to make history as individuals. They had a lot of sense of potency because where they came from class terms, and this combined with guilt can be creative, but it can also be very self-destructive. And I think in many ways, I am speaking as a social psychologist, there was a kind of suicidal element that this guilt element of their consciousness. The other thing that was fatal to their thinking was that they formed these tight, cohesive, closed social groups that meant they could not allow each other to question where they were going. They punished each other for deviations from the line. They could not hear reality very well. And that is true of any tight, cohesive group that has that high risk. The cohesion enables them to make these sacrificial actions and to look very brave to themselves and to other people, but it blinds them to reality. And I think most of them in the aftermath, years later, retrospectively believe they were crazy, but crazy not in the mental illness sense, but these factors that I am talking about combining meant you lose touch with reality. I am often dismayed if there are people trying to tell the SDS story as it somehow the Weathermen were on the right path. Really, their way of acting is very damaging to SBS. I do not think it was an absolutely important force in destroying the larger sort of movement. But beyond that is what you are raising with these other groups as well, is in the end of the (19)60s, there was this widespread belief, A, there was no way to change America's short of "revolution." And B, the model of revolution is the Vietnamese or the Cubans who overthrew their dictatorship through violent revolution. And that pacifism non-violent revolution of Martin Luther King, early [inaudible] did not work. Now none of those things were true, but they were powerful plots. And if you wanted to show your commitment to your people, whether you were African American, native American or Puerto Rican or whatever, adopting this revolutionary stance seemed to be important for a few years in that time period. I think the Panthers suffered greatly from getting publicity hype that was, they did not know who they were after a while I do not know too much about them internally, but their leadership became more oriented toward celebrity of a certain kind rather than serious work, even though they had made some strides in a community level. I do not think AIM took up a violent path so much as, I may be wrong on this, as being... Each of these struggles is a little different from each other. The Native American struggle is one defined by AIM and literal sovereignty in terms of the Indian reservation world and so forth. And it is not illogical to say, well, if we have some sovereignty, we need to have some way of defending it militarily as well as politically. Young Lords I do not know much about, but I do not think they were, I do not know. SM (01:50:11): Yeah, I think they kind of... RF (01:50:15): [inaudible] there were a lot of, the Panthers inspired these other organizations, and I think the best thing to be said about all of them is that after this phase, you are referring to, many of the people who have led those things went on too much more creative political and cultural roles in their communities to this day. That a lot of the California, some of the political leadership that now emerged from Mexican American world probably started with Brown Braid, I know that to be the case just as an example or you have former Black Panthers like Congressman Bobby Rush in Chicago. In fact, if you look at the broad, long history of revolutionary moments in American history, like in the early thirties, late twenties, early thirties, there was this group of young communists who thought they were revolutionary as well. Most of them abandoned that, but they then went on to be union leaders and other leaders of importance. There is a way in which the small seemingly marginal political sect groups that formed very often and they are like little positive side of it as they are like schools where people do see reality after a while and they have developed some skills and leadership and some capacity leadership that then turns out to be good. SM (01:52:11): Well, that is a sociologist, the generation gap. You probably studied generation gaps, not only the boomer generation, but other generations, but seemed to be very strong. And of course, I remember the Life magazine with a young man in the front cover with his glasses on with the father on one shade and the son on the other pointing fingers at each other. And it was about the generation gap. But in a book called The Wounded Generation that came out in 1980, there was a panel that included James Fallows, Carol Caputo, Bobby Mueller, Jim Webb, and they talked about not only about the generation gap itself, but they said that the real generation gap, this came up in discussion, was between those who went to war and served in Vietnam and those who did not. The real generation gap is really within the generation as opposed to between generations. Your thoughts on that? RF (01:53:09): Well, I do not think so. Yes. People who went to any war there is a strong feeling they have, that they have an experience that they cannot be understood by people who did not. And I never have bought the idea that the anti-war people were anti those who were in the war. That was a myth created mostly post-war myth because many people, anti-war movement fought or active in it, leadership in it thought a lot about how can there be connections. And in fact, there was a whole movement called the GI Coffee House movement, in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s where anti-war activists did go to military base areas and create coffee houses and newspapers and things that they connected with. And the Vietnam Vet organization I do not think they see themselves as cutoff from the anti-war people. There is a movie recently brought out called [inaudible] that describes these Vietnam anti-war that shows them now, it also reviews their history. A Much more complicated story than simply those who went to war and those who did not. There is a new collection, actually, I think 20 plus CDs of songs from the Vietnam era. It is something you ought to get for your library, Bear Family Records. This is very illuminating because it has songs sung by people in uniform in the war, a lot of the anti-war songs, a lot of the pro-war country songs. It is just when you listen to this and look at, it has got a book with it, you realize how much of a mosaic really of feeling there was around the war by people just expressed through these songs. And I feel that those who went to [inaudible] by, or those who were in some ways victimized for their anti- war activity are also veterans of the war and some of the songs that are sung actually by GIs or guys who had been there. This collection where the guy acknowledges the people who died in Kansas City as part of the war dead. That is how I prefer to think about it, there may be that is who would yell at me for this, but I think there are others who would agree. SM (01:56:42): I am down to my final three questions here. And I may have to read this one here, I am going to just read this all, then you can kind of take it in and respond. This is about the Free Speech Movement. What are your thoughts on the Free Speech Movement in (19)64-(19)65 at Berkeley? And I break it down into parts here. What were its influences on higher education both then and now? Secondly, do you feel that these students of that era would be disappointed in the university of today? That seems to forget that the university life is about ideas and not corporate control of the university. And finally, this is just an opinion. Are universities today afraid of student activism on their campuses? And maybe it is because they do not want to return to the (19)60s where universities, because today's universities are hurting financially and they do not want anything to threaten their ability to fundraise even at the expense of ideas because money is so important today in higher education. Basically, if Mario was a lie today, and I talked to Bettina and I talked to several students that were in the movement, but to me as a student, I would be very disappointed in higher ed today. But just your thoughts. RF (01:58:12): Well, I tend to make things a little more complex, but what was the first question though was about it? SM (01:58:19): What are your thoughts on the Free Speech Movement? Its influences on higher education both then and now. RF (01:58:29): I think, the Free Speech Movement, itself, but also the vast amount of commentary that happened around it and after it raised all kinds of fundamental questions about higher education and particularly undergraduate education and where the student experience and so on and so forth. And point one, probably a great many curricular reforms and models of obstruction, experiential, all kinds of things came out of that period that now are part of the normal operation of college campuses. And we do not think of it as very innovative anymore, but it would, that is one point. The second point is that the Free Speech Movement became a model of action by student activists on campus, which involved direct action, occupied making demands, trying to negotiate demands, but that failing, you take direct action, civil disobedient, and then there is a confrontation. And of course that became, there is just hundreds and hundreds of cases of episodes like that in the (19)60s. Just amazing numbers, tremendous wave. Again, this is a good example of what I referred to earlier about, here is why were the visions and hopes raised by that period and that wave of protest. What happened to that positive and why, as you say, there is so much movement in higher education towards corporatized models. It is hard for me to speak about this firsthand because I do not see quite that process in the campus that I am at, UC Santa Barbara which I think is more aggressive than it was 10 years ago. And I also think that when you say afraid of activism, my experience has been with an administration that wants to channel activism rather than repress it. And I do not mean in a simply manipulative way. They make efforts because many of the people who were in the administration were student activists back when kids. And especially since the activism that is happened has to do so much with the issues of race and issues of college access and so forth, administrators are sympathetic with demands. And there is much more tendency to negotiate and try to deal with activism and ritualize it. Okay, you can do your civil disobedience, but let us have it between five and seven tomorrow evening and it will all be done in an orderly way. People are afraid of activism, not so much because of money, I think because in general, they do not want it. I am saying I do not know about being afraid of activist because of the financial issue. I think it is more just a fear of disorder that is always there. And I think that here is a proposition people may have learned from the (19)60s how to respond to student protests in ways that are less disorderly. But that has not been tested by the kind of confrontation that students were doing then, in other words, we do not know yet. There is cases of surprising amount of police, even in the University of California, not here at Santa Barbara so much, but in other places on other campuses recently where protests have happened, and police really did come in with a (19)60s like roughing up students. And then there is a case just now in Irvine where a group of Arab students had disrupted a pro-Israel thing from months ago, and now they are being disciplined. I was surprised at that because the story I have heard is they were not that disruptive, they were trying to express themselves. It was a much more able to be interpreted free speech conflict rather than something that should be criminalized. You may be right. And I would guess that administrators are pretty varied in their patience or willingness to gauge rather than suppress. SM (02:04:22): My thesis has been that they were much more comfortable with the term volunteerism, and they say that is real activism. And. of course, that is but it is only for limited periods of time. Sometimes it is required in fraternities and sororities and other groups and others do it on their own. Today's college students really have that spirit of volunteerism. I would say 95 percent of college campus students have that from their experiences in high school. But activism is a 24/7 mentality. It is a way one lives their life. And that is where I see the difference and that oftentimes the people that do run the universities are members of the boomer generation, but they were oftentimes not the activists. And that they learned, they experienced it and they know what it was like, so they fear it. I have been in universities for 30 years and I have just kind of sensed that. RF (02:05:20): Yeah, no, and I think it varies institutionally and depends on who in the faculty may be influential when these conflict arise and so on and so forth. I think it is an open question. I would make this comment about what you are calling boomer generation faculty. Many of them, even when they have very left-wing political attitudes, do not seem to be taking the degree of responsibility you would have thought they would take if they had been student activists in campus policy and governance. In other words, one of the big trends of the boomer faculty is much more focused in personal career issues, their own work and not getting too involved in the governance domain. And that is part of why corporate influence might grow. If I were giving speeches on this, I would be directing a lot toward my colleagues of my era or slightly younger and saying, what are you doing with respect to the future of the university? SM (02:06:53): Two things here, and this is my next to last question, and that is two qualities that I have been asking every one of my interviewees. Number one, do you feel that one of the main qualities inherent in the boomer generation or the (19)60s generation is their lack of trust in leaders in any profession due to all the lies and illegal actions that they witnessed in their youth? Whether it be as a very young child watching Eisenhower lie about the U2 incident, which he did on national television in 1959. About Gary Powers, to the Gulf of Tonkin with LBJ, to Watergate with Richard Nixon, to all the other lies about the number of people dying in Vietnam, that McNamara would often give the numbers and so forth. And so there seemed to be and you probably know this more than anybody, that the college students of the (19)60s and (19)70s oftentimes just did not trust anybody in a position of responsibility, whether it be a minister, a rabbi, a corporate leader, a congressman, a senator, a university president, a vice president of student of affairs. It did not matter. I just do not trust them. And do you think this is a bad quality to link to the generation, or is it a good quality? RF (02:08:18): Well, I agree that that was the mood very strongly, and it was also, you think about what term participatory democracy means. It means instead of relying on leadership from above, we want to have voice, we want to participate directly. And SDS had a practice of rotating leaders. You could not be president for more than one year, which I think actually did not turn out to be a great method because for various reasons about stability of knowledge, leadership, knowledge and so forth. But anyway, the paradox is that a lot of that generation did become the people in the positions that you are talking about. And I think some of them are very thoughtful people about remaking those kinds of roles. Being a different kind of college president than the ones that were there when we came in. Being a different kind of rabbi. And I have a number of people I know who became corporate consultants on management for the purpose of helping people manage in a more humane or more less racist sexist fashion or things like that. And then I would say if you talked to a cross section of boomers and said, did you have mistrust and how do you feel about it now? I think many of them might say, I think we went overboard because now they are leadership position. Do not trust anyone over 30, as soon as you get to be 30, you start thinking, wait a minute, I do not trust anyone under 30 now. You know what I mean? SM (02:10:26): Right. RF (02:10:28): One way you become " mature" is to question some of the enthusiasms or beliefs that you had when you were young. And this is a good area where such questioning probably would be likely, because as you move up the ladder of responsibility, you begin to see things that way. Same thing if you are a parent, you start saying, oh, now I understand my father much better than I did as a kid. SM (02:10:57): One thing you learn as a political science major is that you learn it in political science 101, that the stronger a democracy, the greater the need for a lack of trust, because by lacking trust in your government, you are able to speak up and criticize it, which shows that democracy is alive and well. RF (02:11:20): Let us add to that the current example of WikiLeaks. My sense is, and Tom Hayden has wrote a piece about this, people of my generation not only do not see anything wrong with WikiLeaks, but think this is the breakthrough in government transparency and making government accountable. And the idea that you are going to criminalize the people who are doing this is something that people, certainly my generation types, who are politically active are going to be very distressed about. RF (02:12:02): ...the actors are going to be very distressed about. Yet just to be complex, there are people who say, well, exposure for the sake of exposure is not really the best way to proceed. And so there will be some questions about just blanketly throwing out everything out on the table, stuff like that. But I think the main point I am making is the one I wanted to make about WikiLeaks being seen as positive by the same people who lack that, who have that sort of inherent mistrust of what governments say. I mean, governments have to lie. So it is part of democracy. That is why we supposedly have a press. SM (02:12:53): The second part of my question was the issue of healing. I have let everyone know in my interviews that I took a group of students to Washington DC in 1995 to meet Senator Muskie. He had had not been well, it was part of our leadership on the road programs, and actually he had been on in the hospital and he just got out, and he talked a lot about the Ken Burns Civil War series. But the question that the students came up with, who were not even alive in the (19)60s, is due to the divisions, the intense divisions, that took place in the (19)60s and early (19)70s between black and white, male and female, gay and straight, those who supported the war and those who were against the war, and they even brought in the environmental debate in there, do you feel that the boomer generation, like the Civil War generation is going to go to its grave, truly not healing from the intense divisions that were part of their growing up years, because they never did in the Civil War? RF (02:13:58): Well, I do not think the divisions are quite like that, but they are being... I mean, to me, the big division is between people who welcome change and see the need for the new definition of America's role in the world, and a new definition of authority within America, versus people who are trying to hold on to what they think of as the past. Which involves, in most cases, not only past value, traditional values, but their own relatively advantaged positions. That to me is the division, that is not healed. And that if you elect an African American president, there are people who are so angry at that, that they do not want to believe that he is an actual American. And I do not see on the left the same, maybe I am blind to it, the same furious hatred. Even when in the Bush years, which were the worst years in terms of government practice that I have ever heard of in this country, and people really disliked George W. Bush and Cheney and all that. I do not think the same of pretty wild perspective on these guys was present. There might have been satire. And that is when you look back at some of the art and portrayals, let us say of LJ, they were far more vicious, you might say, than anything that was directed at [inaudible] W. So I do not mean to try to be self-serving and say, well, the left is nice and the right is not. But in fact, my own view is more to what I think Obama's view is, which is that the average American, left or right, does not have these passions to the degree that is being publicized in the media. In fact, when John Stewart made, he is the one who exemplifies the view I am just now saying. When Stewart, you know that march on Washington for that rally, his speech, he said this, he said, look, most people, left or right, do not have the sense of division that is being portrayed as the reality. Fox News is not America, or is not right-wing America, conservative America. And that is my experience and that is my understanding reading polling tea leaves. As a sociologist, I do not think the evidence is there for, on ground, that level of polarization. When it comes to race in particular, my experiences extremely other than that. There has been tremendous amount of coming together of healing, of mutual understanding on the ground and especially among young people. And the other way to answer your question is, if you look at the young generation under thirties, something has happened there in terms of race, sexuality, gender issues with large numbers of young people do not buy into the divisions and categories that you are referring to. And maybe that will change for them as they get older. But... SM (02:18:05): What the way Senator Muskie responded to that question on healing, he said, because I think they were thinking he was going to talk about the (19)68 convention and the young people there, he did not even mention. And he said, again, he talked about the Ken Burns series, how so many people had died and everything and how sad it was. He said, we have not healed since the Civil War in the area of race. And then he went on to talk about that in detail, and this is (19)95 and he died in (19)96. RF (02:18:35): Well, there is that the south remains different, having this regional difference is very, that is a very strong continuing difference. And many of the people who are speaking for the right wing are actually Southerners. And whether that matters or what that means, I am not sure. But John Stewart the other day who was satirizing some kind of organization that is promoting celebration of the Confederacy and how they were trying to deny that the Confederacy had anything to do with slavery and that it was because people felt overtaxed that they wanted to be [inaudible] and so forth. So there is still, there may well be those divisions. If you look at any of these countries, like in the Balkans that became tremendously bitterly divided and killing each other, I do not know that you could have seen that coming 10 years before. So, what are the conditions under which Americans would actually engage each other physically in combat? Maybe we have not been tested. SM (02:20:06): I know Gaylord Nelson, when I first, the late Gaylord Nelson, I remember he was, I was in his office at the Wilderness Society and I asked that question and he said, Steve, if you are asking on me that people are walking around Washington DC with lack of healing on their sleeves or whatever, it is not, it does not happen, it is not happening. But he did say it forever affected the body politic, and that is what he referred to, because we constantly talk about Vietnam over and over again, of course Vietnam syndrome and the links between Afghanistan, Vietnam. So it comes back many times. As my last question- RF (02:20:47): You are interested in that topic. Do you know Jerry Lemke? SM (02:20:51): Yes, I do. I interviewed him. RF (02:20:52): Oh, okay, good. Because he is really thought a lot of Vietnam. SM (02:20:55): Spitting image. Yeah, and the new book on Jane Fonda. As a lifelong professor, my last question is a two-parter too, but as a lifelong professor, how would you compare the students of 2010, (20)11 were the students who were your peers, the boomers. Today they are called the millennials. I know we do not like these terms. And then we had that group in between that never seemed to get along very well with boomers. And that is the Generation X-ers. RF (02:21:27): Lot of generalization. So I just do not follow. SM (02:21:31): How are they alike and how are they dissimilar? So I am talking about the students of the day and the students of the (19)60s and (19)70s. RF (02:21:41): I am retired and I have not really taught in the last year or two, so I am a little behind the curve. But point one, the thing I am most worried about is, I think back in the (19)60s, students in large numbers actually read newspapers. And I do not mean that the majority did. I do not know, we do not have, I do not know good data on that. But there certainly was a kind of shared awareness of current events, to put it very simply, which has seriously, seriously, seriously declined in the last period. Now, the majority of students say that they follow the news online, but I do not know that we know much about the content of that. Some students, online news junkies, are tremendously well-informed, equal to people I knew back in the SDS days. But large numbers, I think, are aware of themselves as clueless about a lot of things that are happening. And that is one thing that is worth really discussing, learning more about, trying to understand, what do young people today use as source of information? What is the knowledge base they are working from what and what consequences all that has? I do not see, I have never believed, that there was some fundamental change in the personality or character of people from generation to generation. Because I will show students films of let us say Berkeley in the (19)60s and 30 years later or more, and they will say, whoa, why are not we like that as if they were different. Well, you are not any different. The difference, they are facing a much more constrained framework of economic opportunity, than kids in the (19)60s thought they did, thought they had, in other words, in the (19)60s. And one way to measure it is what does rent cost a kid now, if he graduates from college, what are you going to have to pay for housing compared to then? It is not just inflation, it is much more than inflationary increase in housing prices, for example. It makes it harder to be experimental in your post-college life. People think they are required to find an income, they are in debt, they are paying for their college, they have to work during college. All of those things have effects on the capacity of students even to think they are part of a generation. I mean, they are not living such youthful lives, many, many kids, because they are required to play these economic roles that in the earlier generation of people their age in college, were not that required to do. And I think that has consequences, but it is hard to know exactly what they are. And I will say one other thing on this, which to me is interesting, but I do not have an explanation. The rich kids of today tend to be in a bubble and they are the ones who are not so burdened economically or not at all burdened. But in other words, if you are not working, I have done research on it, so I can talk with authority. If you are not working in college and you are not in debt, you are also not likely to be politically active, not likely to be community active, you are not likely to volunteer. Compared with first generation students who are working, who have debt, who may be the first to go to college in their families, are also likely to be more politically engaged, more service engaged than the rich kids. And the rich kids are partying a lot, binge drinking a lot and that kind of thing. So why is that? Because that class was part of the backbone of the (19)60s counterculture. They were the ones, the rich kids at the (19)60s were questioning authority, they were refusing to draft, they were experimenting with their lives. They thought they wanted to be different from their parents. So I do not have an explanation for this, but I do think it is a difference. The fact that there are plenty of young people now, plenty of college kids who are concerned, we have a global studies major at UCSB with something like 800 student and those are people who want to do something in a world. And that is just one. And that is maybe another difference is that a lot of the serving, socially serving impulses that students had in the (19)60s, they had to figure out on their own how to fulfill them. Now, there is a lot of curriculum, organized curriculum that gives them opportunities in that respect. And that is a good thing, but it may also mean they are less prone to the questioning of authority, the questioning of the status quo. They are trying to make use of their opportunities rather than question why do not they have those opportunities. SM (02:28:16): I want to recommend a book that just came out. You have heard of Dr. Alexander Aston? RF (02:28:23): Yeah. SM (02:28:23): He is a UCLA. Well, he has written an unbelievable book with his wife and one other scholar on the inner spirituality of today's college students. And it is kind of expensive, I am reading it right now. And it is basically that college students today, spirituality is very important to them. And it is always that question they are asking, who am I? Why am I here? What is my role in this world? That kind of thing. But he is finding that there is a direct link between spirituality and how well they do in school, how they get in involved in activities. The more spirituality they have, the inner spirituality, the more they are getting involved on college campuses, doing well in classes. And there is kind of four basic areas. I am just trying to get this off the top of my head here. I know there is a desire for inner understanding, a desire to care, a desire for greater compassion, and to understand their role, their social responsibility role. So those are very positive things when I am thinking about that. Because when you think of the (19)60s and early (19)70s, it seemed that religion was not a major factor. And of course, we all saw the example, the Beatles, and even Peter Coyote, he went into Zen Buddhism. And so they went from established religion into kind of an inner spirituality, even back then. And now it is important. So I recommend that book because I interviewed him for my book and he even said at the end, as did Arthur Chickering, another scholar, that the main issue in higher education today, the thing that disappoints him the most, is the corporate takeover. RF (02:30:20): Yes. Okay. SM (02:30:21): Yeah. And Chickering said that. I could not believe it when he said it at the very end. My last question is, the legacy. I know, let us forget about the boomer generation, the term, but when you think of this era of young people, and I include people that were, I would say born from (19)35 to about (19)56, because many of the leaders of the (19)60s were the graduate students. Tom Hayden was in the early (19)40s. Richie Havens over and over to me said, I am a boomer, Steve. I may not be a boomer in age, but I am a boomer in spirit. And so when you think of the legacy of this period, what do you think the history books and scholars will be saying? You are a sociologist, but what do you think that they will say about this generation, the legacy, that it is leaving future generations? RF (02:31:19): Well, I think the big thing is that it was the pioneer force, the era is the era of overcoming the racial divide. And not that we have fulfilled the dream, but we certainly made big change in race. And secondly, it might be understood, and that then, I should add, that then ramified into many areas of social inequality beyond race. And that the second thing has to do with what we were talking about earlier, the question of authority and hierarchy and a generation that started a process of challenging hierarchical social arrangements and authoritarian social arrangements. Not again that it achieved any dream fulfilled, but that the questions were raised more forcefully on them, for more people about that. SM (02:32:52): And one of the things I did not say in that many of the movements of the (19)60s and (19)70s particularly, we did not even talk about the women's movement, but many who went in the women's movement, left the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement, because of the fact that they were sexist. And that- RF (02:33:13): I do not know if they left it, they felt that the position of women needed to be raised to the forefront in those movements. SM (02:33:26): And your personal activism, yourself in the community of Santa Barbara, what have you done during the times that you have been a professor? Are there certain activist causes that you are really linked to yourself? RF (02:33:40): Well, when we settled here, it was just a few months after a big oil spill that devastated the coast. And Santa Barbara, at the time we arrived, was beginning to, the community was beginning to see itself as a center for environmentalism on many levels, not just the oil issue, but all kinds of related questions. Any politics around that began to take shape here, which we played an important part in helping and to this day. And so we are, Mickey and Dick Flacks, are seen as community leaders, veteran community leaders on the progressive side. That is one. As a teacher, I have been lucky to be able to teach sociology courses on social movements and politics and even on the university. So right out of my activist history, I can weave a pedagogical work. And so when I retired in 2006, we did a daylong conference about activism where many, many, many people who were students of mine came with different panels and so forth. And I could see this is what a teacher loves, that people you had helped enable a numbers of people that do things that you could feel great about in terms of the work that they have been doing. And that, so as a teacher, I have always felt it is very important to teach, not to get students to agree with me politically, but to think about who they were in, as you were saying, with quoting as them, what the purpose of their lives was in social term. SM (02:35:56): Well- RF (02:35:56): And how they could helping facilitate goals that they wanted achieve. In the campus scene, I am also, over 40 years, became quite a leader on campus. I did not want to take big administrative roles or even in the academic senate, take top leadership roles. But I am kind of proud of work that I have done. And in the last few years, I took a lot of leadership on admissions policy after the state abolished affirmative action. SM (02:36:36): I read that. I read that in the Whip. RF (02:36:39): Yeah. So we think we had a good deal of discuss in changing rules that allowed without dealing with the race directly, allowed for more diversity. And I can bore you with all the explanation of how you do that, but essentially just involves questioning the SAT as fundamental tool, but encouraging students' academic achievement in high school to be their measure of their merit or eligibility. SM (02:37:16): Well, I want to end this, but not with a question, but two anecdotes of, and I have been thinking about them as I was interviewing you, and they are both dealing with two of my sociology professors at Binghamton University. I graduated from the University of Binghamton, and one of them was in 1967, (19)68 when I was in my early first year or early year there, Dr. Leman, I do not know if you ever heard of him. He was a sociologist at Binghamton University, he was fired for leading a protest in downtown Binghamton in front of City Hall. RF (02:37:53): Is that Arthur Lehman? Arthur Lehman? SM (02:37:53): I am not sure if his first name, but he was my social 101 teacher. And I thought he was very good yet he was let go because he let a protest and I could not believe it. He was gone the end of the year. The second one was Professor Mahovsky who had just graduated with a PhD at Berkeley, and he was a brand-new social professor, and he was in this class, I think, it is the very second time the students met with him, in the very first semester. And we had a student who was one of our leading radicals on campus, who led a lot of the protests and he was in the back of the room with his dog. And Dr. Mahovsky said, first off, get the dog out of my classroom. So he took the dog outside and tied him up, but he came back in. And then before he had a chance to even say another word, he said, are you going to join us? And Dr. Makovsky said, join you? Yeah, we are going to shut down the administration building this afternoon, because they are bringing in the recruiters for ROTC, and we are going to shut the administration building down. Are you going to join us? You are a Berkeley grad. And I will never forget it, Dr. Mahovsky, who I remember seeing him drive into campus one day with an old Volkswagen, perfect (19)60s guy, he said, no, I have a job now. I am raising my, I have to pay, I have a baby on the way, and so I know I am not going to join you. And those are two memories of my college years from two Soc professors, and I never understood why Dr. Lehman was fired. I just could not understand it. RF (02:39:42): Well, maybe there is a way to find out more about that. I do not know if it is Art Lehman, I think he is still on the planet somewhere. SM (02:39:51): Yeah. Well, he was a very young professor back then. And maybe, do you remember a professor being fired? RF (02:40:00): I remember some kind of, but it is varied in controversies around Binghamton and sociology, but I cannot remember the- SM (02:40:07): Well, yeah, I thought that was wrong. He had guts to go downtown. And that is what we want in our faculty members, is to be associates with their students. So I want to thank you very much for a great interview. RF (02:40:21): Well, I always enjoy talking about this stuff that helps me formulate my thought. So that was very good. And if you have got stuff to share that you write, I would, certainly- SM (02:40:34): Oh yeah, you are going to see the transcript. I have been doing this now. I am going to be spending six to eight months on transcribing all these interviews myself. RF (02:40:43): Oh, wow. SM (02:40:43): And because I have come some people that told me that they had other people do them and the mistakes were outrageous and they decided to do them themselves. So you will eventually see it. But I am also going to need two pictures of you eventually. RF (02:40:58): Well, if you email me, I can send you back. SM (02:41:00): Okay. RF (02:41:01): Just that is electronically. SM (02:41:03): Great. Well, thank you very much for spending all this time with me and have happy holiday season and I will be in touch with you down the road. RF (02:41:11): Thank you, man. SM (02:41:12): And thanks for writing great books. RF (02:41:14): Thank you. SM (02:41:15): I love your books. RF (02:41:16): Okay, great. SM (02:41:17): Thanks. Bye. (End of Interview) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Richard Flacks Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Flacks, Richard ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Political activists--United States; College teachers; Sociologists; University of California, Santa Barbara; Flacks, Richard--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Richard Flacks is an academic, social activist and Emeritus Professor of Sociology at University of California-Santa Barbara. He is the author of <em>Making History: The American Left and the American Mind</em> and <em>Beyond the Barricades</em>. Dr. Flacks has a Ph.D. from University of Michigan. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-12-13 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.52a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.52b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 161:24 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/fa20f006fa4673765c4166a2bf351b57.jpg 0e715652ebb2b09023cfa6f79264d906 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/e84b6bbc90db2ffe1214b521277f7a90.mp3 f1096149996749649cffc57bd1d784be Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2011-06-03 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Richard Lorber, 1946- Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Dr. Lorber is an art critic, writer, editor, teacher, chairman and CEO of a film and distribution company. In 1968, he and his uncle, Ernest Fladell, co-authored The Gap, a bestselling book, which took a conversational approach to the growing cultural divide between baby boomers and their parents. Lorber has earned Bachelor's degree, Master's degree and Ph.D. from Columbia University."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":7043,"3":{"1":0},"4":[null,2,5099745],"10":2,"11":4,"12":0,"14":[null,2,1644825],"15":"Arial"}">Dr. Lorber is an art critic, writer, editor, teacher, chairman and CEO of a film and distribution company. In 1968, he and his uncle, Ernest Fladell, co-authored <em>The Gap</em>, a bestselling book, which took a conversational approach to the growing cultural divide between baby boomers and their parents. Lorber has earned a Bachelor's degree, Master's degree and Ph.D. from Columbia University.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 1 Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Activism; Baby boom generation; Vietnam draft; the National Guard; Draft deferment; Vietnam War; Jean-Luc Godard; Hollywood film industry; Radicalism; Progressive; Student protestors; Trust; John Lindsay."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":3,"3":{"1":0},"4":{"1":2,"2":14275305}}">Activism; Baby boom generation; Vietnam draft; the National Guard; Draft deferment; Vietnam War; Jean-Luc Godard; Hollywood film industry; Radicalism; Progressive; Student protestors; Trust; John Lindsay.</span> Subject LCSH Art critics; Authors; Editors; Lorber, Richard, 1946--Interviews Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 98:24 Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Richard Lorber Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Lorber, Richard, 1946- ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Art critics; Authors; Editors; Lorber, Richard, 1946--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Lorber is an art critic, writer, editor, teacher, chairman and CEO of a film and distribution company. In 1968, he and his uncle, Ernest Fladell, co-authored <em>The Gap</em>, a bestselling book, which took a conversational approach to the growing cultural divide between baby boomers and their parents. Lorber has earned a Bachelor's degree, Master's degree and Ph.D. from Columbia University. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2011-06-03 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.83 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 98:24 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/a478dacb6ed154c74e7fdacb9498d1ba.jpg 3598cf14be1cf3dd6e23d13511db4e8c https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/b36e16b686b058c45d55ddb2a9a4be05.mp3 a6b42b40249b0e86671ab6ac8dc18551 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2010-11-19 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Robert Cohen, 1955 May 21- Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Dr. Robert Cohen is a professor at New York University where he teaches History, Social Studies, Education, and Human Development. He received his Bachelor's degree at SUNY Buffalo and his Ph.D. at the University of California at Berkeley. Cohen also writes books and most of them focus on either history or people as a whole."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":15105,"3":{"1":0},"11":4,"12":0,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Arial","16":10}">Dr. Robert Cohen is a professor at New York University where he teaches History, Social Studies, Education, and Human Development. He received his Bachelor's degree at SUNY Buffalo and his Ph.D. at the University of California at Berkeley. Cohen also writes books, most of which focus on either history or people as a whole.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span>University experience; University of South Carolina: Columbia: Berkeley: Free speech movement; Student protest; Walkout; Anti-war movement; Youth activism; SUNY Buffalo; 1960's; Social change; Welfare Rights Group; Black Panthers; Stereotypes; NAACP</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 199:21 Subject LCSH College teachers; New York University; Cohen, Robert, 1955 May 21--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Robert Cohen Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 19 November 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:04): Testing one, two, testing. Record this. RC (00:00:08): Sure. SM (00:00:09): Yeah. RC (00:00:11): The president, this is the University of South Carolina. I can get the name of the person who spoke, I do not recall it offhand, but it was an administrator, who was explaining this freshman, or I think he called it First-Year Experience. And what happened was, after Kent State, I think it was, the student union building at University of South Carolina was taken over by the student protestors. And the president of the University of South Carolina was pretty upset about this. Like you said, why? How could students be so elevated from the university that they would take over a building? So how can we make them feel better about the university and better orient them? And those conversations led to this creating of this project, Freshman Experience. And it led to what emerged as a whole center at the University of South Carolina that launched this whole First-year Experience thing out of, became a big national, international thing. And now it has gone beyond that. I think there is a Sophomore Experience and there is a Senior Experience. There is a whole... And there's a ton of publications and all that. Anyway, this administrator, whose name I can, if you remind me, I can dig up, spoke at the conference. So he might be somebody, you want to interview. Shows that this had a sort of impact on educational reform. And it came at a place that you would not normally associate with a lot of student protests, which was the University of South Carolina, Columbia. SM (00:01:41): Well, and actually one of my questions later in the interview, deals with the impact that the student protest movement really had on college campus overall, because there is a lot of questions based on, now we are into our third generation since. And first question I want to ask you, I asked this to all of the people I have interviewed is, how did you become who you are? I know that you went to Berkeley, you graduated from Berkeley, you read it up also that you were involved in the 20th anniversary of The Free Speech Movement. But who are you? How did you become a history professor? What was your interest? How did you link up with The Free Speech Movement? Those kinds of things, and who were your role models? RC (00:02:27): Well, I became interested in student protests because I was involved in student protests. I was a high school student at the end of the Vietnam era. So I participated in the moratorium against the Vietnam War. And even as a high school freshman, I was involved in that. And this is in New York City? SM (00:02:54): That was (19)69. RC (00:02:54): Yeah. That is right. And the students, it was in public high school, James Madison in Brooklyn. But there was so much overcrowding back then, that we were not in the main building. We were in an annex building about half mile away. And so myself and some other students helped organize a walkout, a moratorium day, where we were going to walk out of the building and go over to the main building and join the demonstration there against the war, which is what we did. So I got involved and I got involved in the anti-war movement, in part because my brother and my older sister were involved in it. But also because my next door neighbor had been in the Marines. And I used to correspond with him. And he came back disillusioned with the war. And that got me very curious about what was going on with the war. So I think initially, I was interested in it because of the war in Vietnam. I also was very much interested in the civil rights movement. There was a African American student at Madison, who was the first black student to run for president, was Cornell with Knight. And my brother was involved in sort of this campaign, one of the people helping to manage this campaign. And administration was very hostile to it. And I think there was an interest in the civil rights movement itself. And I think, I guess I have always admired people like Bob Moses and they're always [inaudible]. So I think it was through those things that I first got interested. And just as an undergraduate, I was an undergraduate at SUNY Buffalo, and there was a lot of activism there too, centered around the anecdote of- SM (00:04:37): Oh, yeah. Governor Rockefeller, yeah. RC (00:04:43): Yeah. And so I think the student movement of the (19)60s always interesting movement because in part, I came out of that. So I am always interested in the student protest, youth activism in the (19)60s that came in through that experience about trying to stop the war in Vietnam and trying to fight against racial discrimination. SM (00:05:00): So you were at SUNY Buffalo, and then you went on to grad school? RC (00:05:03): Yes at Berkeley. SM (00:05:03): PhD At Berkeley. RC (00:05:05): Yeah. SM (00:05:05): Did you go to Berkeley based on the fact that The Free Speech movement was there? Or you thought it was a great history department? RC (00:05:11): No. I think it entered in my mind, that I might do something about The Free Speech Movement as a study, but it was really mostly because the history department was really such a great department back then, was not so much because of Berkeley's... And the stuff that happened with my connection with The Free Speech movement, was not part of my graduate program, was more like what I was doing because I was a graduate student activist. I was one of the people helped to found the TA union. SM (00:05:41): Teaching Assistant union? RC (00:05:42): Yeah, at Berkeley. That was in the (19)80s, it was called AGSE, Association of Grad Student Employees. And then, let us see, that is me back then. And we were trying to organize on that. And then I was also involved in the anti-apartheid. SM (00:06:02): Oh, yes. RC (00:06:04): I was the editorial page editor of the Daily Californian in the (19)60s. So when I left editor, they blew up some of the- SM (00:06:14): Wow. RC (00:06:16): ...some of the editorials SM (00:06:17): Oh my gosh. Very good. RC (00:06:18): So yeah, this is back in the (19)80s. So anyway, that is the stuff that I was doing. SM (00:06:22): Yeah, the anti-apartheid, that was (19)87, I believe, was not it, the heyday of that? RC (00:06:25): Well, actually, a little earlier. It was actually (19)84, (19)85. Actually, the spring of (19)85 is when I first took off because it was a connection between 2010 anniversary of The Free Speech Movement, which- SM (00:06:39): (19)84. RC (00:06:39): ... (19)84. And this was the poster from that. This is all the- SM (00:06:44): Oh my gosh. Wow, what a great poster. RC (00:06:49): It was organized by a guy named Michael Rossman, who was one of the leaders of The Free Speech Movement. SM (00:06:53): Unbelievable. That is- RC (00:06:55): Yeah. Yeah, yeah. So that is how I got involved with all this. I think, again, it is a kind of extension of my own background, but also just an interest in social change. SM (00:07:05): And now you are teaching and making sure that future generations understand their history and- RC (00:07:10): Oh, yeah, sure. Yeah. SM (00:07:11): ...which is real important. RC (00:07:12): Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah. And I teach teachers too, so that is the other thing. This is part of the education school, and I teach in the history department. In fact, I am doing a course on the (19)60s now with Marilyn Young, who does- SM (00:07:28): Yeah, I interviewed her. Yes. Yes. RC (00:07:30): She does the history of the Vietnam War. Yeah. And I think also, I would say that, the attempt to try to get the people to remember what happened in the (19)60s and just to understand history of social protest more generally. So yeah, I have been involved in this, there was a project, actually, we were working on trying to organize the fifth anniversary, some events around the Port Huron statements, fifth anniversary-anniversary in (19)62. So Tom Hayden was here, and we're going to organize some events around that too. But yeah, that is really what I am just interested in. Teaching students history of, well, I guess not just the, I would say, I have also written a book on the thirties, on student protesting in the thirties, so it is not just the (19)60s, because this is, there is a-a continuum here, protests that is always going on in the United States. SM (00:08:25): One thing is a takeoff because it was my second question is, when you were there in (19)84 and you were a graduate student and you was involved in the planning of the 20th anniversary, what was the difference between (19)64 and (19)84, in terms of the optimism or the feelings of the leaders in (19)64? Because I know Mario Savio was still alive, and Jackie Goldberg and obviously Bettina and others. Where were they in (19)84, in terms of their feelings toward the university that they feel like they had accomplished a lot on at that particular time? What made that such a special event? RC (00:09:10): Yeah. Well actually, I will answer in a second, but just reminded me, have you seen the film, Letter to the Next Generation about Ohio State students? SM (00:09:16): No, I have not seen that. I went to grad school at Ohio State, that is where it was. RC (00:09:20): Oh, then you would have to see this film that is by Jim Klein, called Letter to the Next Generation. It is a film where, he has 1980s students looking back on students from the 1960s. And actually not 1960, but really cannot say, 1970. So you should probably interview him if he's still around because he did a whole movie about this. SM (00:09:40): Well, that was anti-war at Ohio State in (19)72, (19)73. And then... RC (00:09:43): Yeah. Well, because what he is doing, is he is looking at what happened to that generation in the (19)80s? SM (00:09:48): What is his full name? RC (00:09:50): I think it is James Klein. Just Google the book. SM (00:09:54): Klein? RC (00:09:54): Yeah. SM (00:09:54): Okay. RC (00:09:55): If you just Google the movie, it is called Letter to the Next Generation. Okay. SM (00:09:57): And I thought I was up on things. RC (00:10:01): No, it is a really interesting film. I always use it when I teach about the (19)60s because they ask, like what you are saying, about how the generations are different. Now, you were asking about what their attitude was? What the- SM (00:10:12): Yeah, and what did you learn? Obviously, you knew about it, but what did you learn in (19)84 that you did not know about what happened in (19)64, particularly by having that opportunity to meet Mario firsthand and the others firsthand? RC (00:10:27): Well, I think the main thing was just seeing the, first of all, I think one thing was impressive about them was, that they had maintained their interest in democratic change. They were still very idealistic. They did not advertise it like, we made history and you cannot. They wanted to empower people. They thought it was important to let the next generation know what had gone on and their generation. I think that Mario was very involved in the movement against US intervention in Central America. He was very concerned about that. Bettina had been very much concerned about that as well, but also very involved in founding women's studies and gay lesbian rights, woman's issues. Jackie Goldberg had been on the city council and the state legislature in California. These people all had ongoing concerns with social protests. And also the idea was, this is a lot more sort of deeper than taking over a building or something. It was not just bang, bang, bang, boom, boom, boom. It was really a lifelong commitment to trying to make America a more just society. And sort of understanding that I think was important for people. But also, I think it was that, in terms of the students in my generation, it was also seeing that, you had the possibility of making change. That this was not something that was unique to the (19)60s or it was not some brilliant genius that created this, but rather conditions were conducive to it and people felt like that they could make a difference. So I think, what happened at Berkeley, was we had this enormous rally and a series of events about the Free Speech commemoration in October of (19)84. And then I think it sort of startled people that, they could get so many students out because, at that time, the press had been acting as if those students are really all a bunch of yuppies and no one's going to be active anymore. And none of that was really true. But there was a lot of hype about it. And I think this showed that, hey, there is a big progressive community here. There is a big left liberal subculture, we can do things. And I think that fed into this activism against Reagan's imperialist policy of Central America and also this dealing that we could do more on the issue of anti-apartheid. And that was really something that the movement was really getting launched in DC and then Columbia University. Berkeley was not first, but then when to hit Berkeley, it was really big. And in part, I think because in the fall there had been this discussion about activism through these collaboration events. SM (00:13:12): What I like about your book and you talk about Mario, but you make, and your introduction and throughout the book, it is very important for people to read it, I think. I think Your introduction is great because there is two things. The media has a way of building up myths. And one of the myths is that when SDS split, with the weatherman and then the concept of the Black Panthers, some people said they were violent and some people said they were not. The media had a way of taking on the weathermen, as if this was the way the anti-war movement students were. They were all this way, this is the way. And so you make sure that, in your talks with Mario, that that is not true, that the majority of the students were not violent at the very end. And why has the media, in your opinion, tried to portray this generation the way it has? Just sensationalize things. RC (00:14:06): Well, I think a few things. One with the Panthers, I, there definitely was violent, there were wrenches that were very violent. And in New Haven, they tortured and killed somebody. The Bay Area, there was somebody killed. So I think there is, and the weather just a few blocks from here, blew up a building. So it is not that they are not sensationalizing that did happen. But it is a question of, how representative of the thousands and millions of people who are involved in this movement. It is like, yeah, if you have a demonstration and a hundred thousand people march not violently, and then a hundred people throw rocks, who is going to make the headline? So I think that there is an issue about... News is almost by definition what is new and different. And if you have had five years of people doing these large marches against the war, that is not considered news anymore. What is news is, when people carry a flag or blow up a building, that is what is considered news. And that is the story. I was involved in high school anti-war movement in New York City, and it never would have occurred to us to do anything violent. We did not think about that. It was not even a temptation because we just thought anything like that would did not make any sense. And most people would not think that made sense. So I think there is that. I think there is a way in which some of the stuff that happened, this agenda dynamic to it, seems like very masculine and Hollywood to do things that are violent. Or even the style of the panthers, black leather and black berets and there is something slick about it. In fact, there is this book by Thomas... You know this book, Sweet Land of Liberty by Thomas Sugrue about the- SM (00:15:55): I have that, yes. I have not read it, I have it though. RC (00:15:58): Well, what is interesting, by the way of example, he does not dwell much on the Black Panthers because he does not think they had much real impact in changing society. Whereas, if you look at the welfare rights movement, which did benefit lots of people, in other words, they got a lot of people out of poverty and they got government assistance of people who really needed it, but it was not big and flashy. Nobody was wearing berets or anything, leather and berets and taking guns out. And it would be just like that. If you try to depict that in a visual, you would have a bunch of people sitting in a bunch of rooms organizing meetings, which looks like, well, that looks boring, but actually it is helping poor people more than the Panthers did. So he highlights, I think there is statistics like that. And by the way, that movement was headed mostly by women. I think it was tied in with the Great Society's community action. Committees that, like you said, at a place like Philadelphia, 70 percent of the people who were involved in the leadership of that were black women. Now, most people who say in the (19)60s, if you asked them about this welfare rights movement, would you draw a blank? If you ask them about the Black Panthers, they would know that right away. But the question is no, which is more representative? Which is having more of an impact? And I think it is the welfare rights group. But I also think that, what is sensational, what is going to make headlines is what is unusual. It is not to say the violence had no role. You think about the big ghetto rebellions, there was not in fact, there was a kind of outburst of anger and violence that awakened America to some pretty terrible social conditions people were facing. But I do not think that is really... If you looked at Berkeley, for example, Berkeley in (19)64, The Free Speech movement was almost entirely non-violent and it was not even about Vietnam. An issue, if you ask students, they would not even know what it is about because, despite the name, they would think I must have something to do with Vietnam or something because it's the (19)60s, or the draft or whatever. But nothing to do with any of that, just about free speech that grew out of activism that is connected to the civil rights movement. Which was, at that point, pretty relentlessly non-violent. So I think, yeah, there is a way which the (19)60s gets dealt with, through one of the most sort of technicolor, exciting image. Not just violence, but also sex, drugs and rock and roll and thinking about the summer of love and all that counterculture. But if you look at the picture of the students marching to the Regents meeting of The Free Speech Movement, Mario is wearing a tie and coat and the woman are wearing skirts looking... The fact at that point, they were being baited as beat... Like the attack on the students' movement at Berkeley at that time was hip... The word hippie was not even used yet. It was still, people do not think about beatniks. So, it was like beatnik baiting. In other words, oh, there must all be in sandals and have long hair and beards and all that. And this is 1964, the beetles had just come to America, there was not really a counterculture as there would be later in the (19)60s. So, what I am saying is there are distinctive eras within the (19)60s, not just one era. And there's a way in which the easiest way to deal with something is like these stereotypes. And so I think that, there is a lot of obfuscation and a lot of misunderstanding in the (19)60s, because the way that is remembered is through these very dramatic late (19)60s images, both the violent ones that you were alluding to and countercultural ones that, again, it is not that it is based on nothing because there were groups like the Black Panthers and Weather Underground, but tiny. And the NAACP, had a thousand times more members than the Black Panthers. So why are we paying so much more attention to the Black Panthers than the NAACP? Or the same thing you could say about, with The Free Speech Movement is non-violent, so why is it very few people know it is history? It is in part because that is not the images that people have. SM (00:20:09): You bring up two other important points too. And I think when, in the book on Mario Savio and the others about longevity, when you talk about Mario, you are talking about a lifelong activist. He might have had the problems of the depression, some of the other things, but deep down inside his central core was rights. Even as you bring up all the time, the rights was a very important part of what the (19)60s was all about. And there were many people. And the media, again, oftentimes tried to portray that the (19)60s generation or the boomer generation, not just the activist, but overall, they went on to become yuppies. I heard that in Philadelphia, when I was living there, there is a whole section and a lot of them were making money on Wall Street. They were in their early thirties and so forth. So there was that business about longevity. And the other important point you bring up, which is really important. We know Reagan came to power because of the backlash, when he became governor and the whole thing. But this perception, the media again, that Reagan, the Reich came to dominance, so to speak. And what happened in The Free Speech Movement in the protests in the (19)60s, basically, I would not say it was defeated, but the backlash put America back on the right track, so to speak. And you bring up a very important point in the book that, yeah, there may have been a backlash, but it did not have an effect on the rights movement and all the movements. Could you kind of talk about those other two things that the media oftentimes tried to portray? RC (00:21:49): Well, I think that the shift to the right has been very powerful and it is very difficult to deal with, in other words, to overcome it is just that it does not mean the other people disappear. We tend to deal in very simple decade thing. The (19)60s was this, the (19)80s was this. People that have not died, they are still there, or there is a core of people who are still active. So it is very simplistic to think that they do not... The other thing is that there has always been a trend in American history, with officers such as [inaudible] talks about the cycles of American history going between liberalism and reform and privatism and conservatism. So that is nothing new. And the thing is that, the attempt of the right to bring back the (19)50s, or you want put it that way, which has always been the project. Look, you can say, the problem with the analysis, is that the assumption is that the way things are, is the way that they always will be. In other words, thinking when people were making those arguments about Reaganism or Bushsism, whatever you want to say, it was when they were in the White House dominating things. And they have had a lot of political success, so it's easy to think that that is really what matters. But remember that Obama, the election to be president would never ever happen if it was not for the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of the (19)60s. In other words, so you could just easily argue that, well, the right was just a blip on the screen and it is really the left that is making a difference because we have a president who is African American, which never would have been impossible before the (19)60s or without the (19)60s. But I think, the way I see it, it is an ongoing struggle. In other words, that the right tries to impose its own agenda politically and culturally in America. And there is a lot of resistance to it because a lot of things have changed because of what happened during the (19)60s. Women are not willing to be subordinated the way that they were in the (19)50s. There is a resistance when they try to get rid of, say, Roe versus Wade. Or if you think about the attempts to, every time the US intervenes abroad, there is much more resistance now than there would have been before Vietnam. So whether it is Iraq or Afghanistan or Grenada or Nicaragua, there is pushback in a way that there was not before. So the dynamic, in other words, there is always a right left conflict in the United States. The question is, who is winning and how that is going? And I think that what the (19)60s did was, it gave it a lot more, the left, a lot more resources and ideas about how to push back. So I think, that from my perspective, I think that the backlash events against the (19)60s is very powerful and very worrisome. But on other hand, look, why is it the rights always worried about Murphy Brown or whatever is going on in Hollywood? And this feeling like that there was a cultural revolution in the (19)60s that they lost, even if they take local power, that is why they are so furious, is that they feel like, well we took Congress back, or we took the White House during the Reagan and Bush years. Why is this culture still so progressive? Still so- SM (00:25:09): Good point. RC (00:25:12): ... defying conservatism because there were political transformations that came out in the (19)60s, but then there is backlash and there is also postal transformation in the (19)60s, and they had not been able to reverse all of that. So you turn on TV set now you are going to see, well, black folks on TV, you are going to see women on TV and roles that they would not have played in the (19)50s or early (19)60s. So there is a lot of things I think that the (19)60s changed in an enduring way that I do not think are ever going to go back. But I also think, yeah, there has been.... You know there is another book, Framing the (19)60s, where we talked about the way that the right has used the (19)60s over the years, have you seen that? SM (00:25:51): I probably have that. I try to keep up. I have not read them all. RC (00:25:54): Yeah, that is this one. He talks about the way that Reagan and Bush, all these guys- SM (00:26:00): Framing the... RC (00:26:02): Framing the (19)60s. ... using the (19)60s as a kind of whooping boy to try and basically say that we need to be rescued from the way that America was corrupted and ruined by this decade of disorder and chaos and violence. So in a way, it has given them something to run against. But on the other hand, I think, it strengthened the left in lots of ways that. In other words, what is the simplification is to think that, well, because we won the last election, there has been some great mandate and this huge change that, like Ingrid calling Clinton the Countercultural McGovern. And we were going to get rid of all the things the (19)60s wrecked about America. And basically overreaching and ended up getting kicked out of power because there was a lot of support, not from a government, but just for a different type of society where women have rights, where black have rights, where we're concerned about the general welfare and not just about private profits. So I think that this whole push to the right, has been in part, fueled by this reaction against the changes in the (19)60s. But a lot of people disagree with them and they do not win every election. How do you explain Clinton two terms, then Obama's? And I do not mean to make it just about Democrats and Republicans because it goes deeper than that. Clinton said that if you look back on the (19)60s as a disaster, you are probably a Republican. You look back- SM (00:27:34): [inaudible] RC (00:27:36): ...probably. I think there is something to that, but I think it goes beyond party politics. I think it is more about how are we organizing our values and our lives? And that I think on issues of foreign policy, that runs especially deep. The idea that the United States should not just go around pushing other countries around. And if they do that, then, especially in an aggressive way, there's going to be resistance here. And there has been. SM (00:27:58): It is like Bobby Muller when he came back from... I know Bobby quite well, he came to my retirement party and he said that one of the things he learned about being in Vietnam was, that when he came back, he knew America was not always right. And that was hard for him because when he went into the Marines, he thought America was always right. RC (00:28:17): Well, yeah. Yeah, I think that is true. I think that a lot of people were awakened to the idea that United States, on some level, is not that different from other great powers. And that acts in a self-interested way and sometimes this regards to the rights of other nations. And so the whole question of, when I talk to my teachers, I ask them, how are you going to teach about America's role in the world? Are you going to act as if the United States is just a benign force at all times? Or is the United States an imperialist power? That is a question that I think needs to be asked. Or if you think about Osama bin Laden, the United States during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, act like they were freedom fighters. A decade later, then they were terrorists. Is sort of like, well, there is lots of examples. Think about Iran helping to overthrow Mossadeq. And then you end up with the Shah imposing the Shah, and then you get the rise of the Islamic Republic and Khomeinism. In a way, a lot of these things are connected to stuff we did, or thinking about overthrowing Allende. And the idea that, after that you have Pinochet. A lot of times, by messing with other countries internal history, the way that we do, we get outcomes that are worse than what they started out with. So I think that, that is one of the things that came out of (19)60s is saying, well, look, we are not going to always assume that just because it is US foreign policy, it does not make sense. We are going to ask you, what are you doing? Are you respecting what this other country is about? And is the outcome worse than it was when you inherited it? SM (00:30:04): President Obama is damned if he does or damned if he does not. It is interesting, depending on who you read, supposedly he does not like to identify with the (19)60s. But people, his opponents, criticize him as being the epitome of the (19)60s, in fact, way to the left. RC (00:30:26): So there is always this ridiculous political dynamic in the United States, that anything that is even moderately left to center is seen as being... You see these books that are published that depict him as a socialist. Really on the cover. SM (00:30:35): I hear that, there are people who might, Facebook, some of my conservative students- RC (00:30:39): Or Gingrich, it is completely nutty. I think that, he is so moderate that, I think in a way he sees himself as a post-partisan president and wants to go beyond the (19)60s. So I think that, in a way, maybe one of his mistakes is not understanding, that this whole politics of backlash, that the right in this country's organized and a way they cannot even be civil about it. They have somebody saying, well, my goal... Even in a place and time, like the (19)60s, there is some degree of bipartisanship. You respect the office of the presidency. Here, just this week, they wanted to meet with them to talk about the budget, they are too busy. What I am saying to you is that, in a way, I see the way that he is treated, by the right, as kind of an extension of this unfriendliness towards black rights, towards civil rights. There is an element of that there. I do not mean it is just about race, but I think there is a part of that there. But I also think he is very moderate. I think of him as being... My perspective on him is that, he's been too much thinking that he can move beyond those... He wants to, it is admirable to get United States out of this mode of this left, right dynamic, but there is really no way to, because that is the way, the Republican Party is organized. They're organized basically, to wage class warfare on the poor and that is basically it. And also, I think to have this sort of imperial presence, and it is hard to disengage from that. But you cannot disengage from that if you do not understand or you are not going to articulate. Well, look, we need to have something that is like that, a new, new deal. We are entering into a period of liberal reform or progressive reform and be able to change the discourse. Right now, it is amazing to me, going around the (19)60s, I think there is a whole way in which... It is like Hoover's, it is basically that you are saying that you want to go back to small government, essentially the magic of the free market and deregulation. And that is what caused the crash in the first place. I have a tea party seat at my class, I talked to him about this small department. How do you explain, you think about the last depression we are in, what pulled us out was World War II, the greatest deficit spending in American history. So that was suggest that, the small government solutions that you are talking about is not the way to get out of it. In fact, when Roosevelt used a small government approach in (19)37, it caused a recession. He had a kind of [inaudible], he scaled back on these programs and he got this huge upsurge in unemployment. So I do not know, I guess what I think about this whole thing is that, it is kind of over the top, these attacks on him. On the other hand, I think that he is part of the (19)60s legacy and is resented for that reason. And even though he does not want to identify that way, and I think that is admirable in a certain sense, that you want to not have this partisan, you want to get out of this partisan, but you cannot because the people on the right, see him as an extension of... I think what you see with the right is, any kind of government dimension that is seen as... They do not make the sense between liberalism and socialism. RC (00:34:03): Any kind of government dimension is seen as... They do not make-make sense between liberalism and socialism. And so, they are nutty in that way. There is a big difference between someone who is liberal and someone who is a socialist and that is lost on them. So, I think that in my film, there is a lot of this discussion about Obama... Reflects some of these same issues except that he wants to hold himself above or away from this and it's not really working. SM (00:34:29): When you look at the boomer generation, do you look at the entire... Actually, there is 74 million people in that generation. People have written about the (19)60s, a very small percentage were activists. Depending on who you talk to, I said 15 percent and I have been corrected many times by historians. Thomas Power says, "Steve, 5 percent." But what I am asking here in this question is, if you look at the entire 74 million and, in your book, you concentrate on Mario and some of the new left, what are your thoughts on the whole generation as a whole? RC (00:35:10): Well, first of all, I do not think generations make history. I think people who are active make history. The American Revolution was John Adams. That estimate was a third of people who are opposed, a third were supportive, and a third were neutral. So, to speak about 1770s generation is not particularly meaningful because the Loyalists lost. The apathetic did not make much difference. The people who made the difference were those who were- SM (00:35:35): The few. RC (00:35:38): ...involved in the Patriot cause, so I think that is always true. History has always made by minorities. In other words, what kind of history would you write if you highlighted the fact that the majority of people were not involved. It would be history of inactivity, indifference. So I do not really think that is... To me, I know that argument. The same thing is true, Melvin Dubofsky made that argument about the (19)30s. He wrote an essay called The Not So Turbulent years. And there is a trilogy, or no, a two-volume work by Irving Bernstein called The Turbulent Years about the (19)30s. It's about the labor upheaval and all that. And he wrote an article saying, well, that is really got it backwards. Actually, I do not know if he still, but he used to teach at Binghamton, Melvin Dubofsky, great labor historian. SM (00:36:30): That is right. RC (00:36:32): Anyway, so he made the argument that what we really need to figure out is not why a minority in the labor movement was active and striking, we have to figure out why majority did not strike. And I do not think that is wrong. I think, yeah, we need to know both. So my feeling is, the boomer generation is probably more affected by the cultural changes of the (19)60s. More feminists, more egalitarian, less racist than... In other words, they were there. But like this book I am doing on the South, probably the majority of Southern students, no, definitely majority, were not involved in the student protests. And actually were kind of either indifferent or hostile to it, but still their campuses were changed by it. At the end of the... There is a book about, I mean we are doing a book, there is also a book that came out very recently, I think it is called Sitting in and Standing Up. It is by Jeff Turner at University of Georgia Press, about southern student protests in the (19)60s. And what he found, and what we found in his essays that we are looking at is that the college campuses of the (19)60s started out in the South pretty conservative places. If you were at a place like the University of Alabama, Georgia, there would be no Black students at all, very traditional gender roles, not much academic freedom. By the end of the (19)60s, of course with desegregation that had changed, but also because of the student movement, the anti-war movement had an impact even in the Deep South. So what I am saying to you is those campuses... Today, if you go to a place like the University of Georgia or the University of Alabama, I am sure there would be a woman's studies program, a Black studies program. There would be people who write about American foreign policy in a critical vein. As I am saying is that these institutions were transformed and became more progressive, even if majority people, majority students politically are just sort of mainstream. So I think people were changed by the culture and political atmosphere, even if they were not activists. I do not really... I just do not think that a good way to make history is just by counting numbers, just by counting how people are participating and how many are not- SM (00:38:51): I think some people that have actually kind of emphasized this for people that are trying to lessen the impact these people had by just concentrating on the numbers. RC (00:39:02): Yeah, and I would say that that is a way... You can never really do political history that way because politics is not made by... For example, when we think about 1961, are we concerned with the majority of people in Massachusetts who are not involved in democratic politics or are we trying to figure out what John Kennedy was about? He is one person, right? Well, he is one person who made a big difference because he became President of the United States. So there is a way in which if you really take the logic of that argument, then you are only going to do a certain type of social history and you are not going to look at political history. So it is not just about the (19)60s. As I said, you can the same argument about the Revolution. You can make the same argument about Secession. ow many people were actively involved in the secessionist movement? It was a minority, but it had this enormous impact on the South and on the country. So I do not think that the boomer... When people talk about the boomer generation as a whole, I would not expect any generation the majority would do anything. You are talking about just millions and millions of people. But the fact is that that generation gave birth to the largest mass movement of college student protestors in the history of this country and that is very significant. The first generation that really, a large percentage said no to racism and said no to imperialism, that is significant. That does not mean that a majority of people of that generation, if you look at the polls, majority of people were in the 18 to 21 age group supported the Vietnam War till very-very late. SM (00:40:38): That is right, (19)66. RC (00:40:38): So even beyond, there is that book by Wattenberg and all those, The New Majority that shows that. So it is definitely the case that we are not talking about a majority of that generation doing anything. SM (00:40:52): Do you like the term boomer? RC (00:40:55): Well, I think that is just reflects the baby boom. I do not have a particular problem about it. To me it is not the generation itself, that idea, it is just the basic demographics. It does not tell you all that much. I do not know. SM (00:41:10): Yeah, well one of the things [inaudible] we learned when I was in grad school at Ohio State when reading Harry Edward's book Black Students and some of Kenneth Keniston's books and so forth, is that the (19)60s generation was divided into so many different areas. And Harry talked about the differences between militants, anomic activists, activists, radicals and so forth. That was the first time I really learned the difference between them. And what he was basically saying is that the leaders of the (19)60s movements were oftentimes those born between 1938, (19)39 and (19)45. Because you look at Tom Hayden, you look at Mario Savio, they were in that (19)40 to (19)45 period and they were part of a spirit. But it is a spirit that- RC (00:42:04): Yeah, I think that is true probably for the earlier (19)60s. I think that with the... Remember that both Mario and Hayden were part of the founding fathers and mothers of the New Left. But if you look at the late (19)60s generation, they would fall into that later range. But I do not think, for me it is like saying when I was growing up in that period, I did not feel myself particularly identified as being a boomer. That term does not really have much all that much meaning for me, I think it is a question of the way I see in college campuses. Essentially, you have different subcultures that are either consciously or unconsciously competing to set the tone of their generation. So you have a more academic, more traditional, maybe more political, they're all different types of subcultures that are competing. And in the (19)60s what happened was a sort of more activist subculture really began to dominate. And that is to me what is significant. Not the demographics that it was the largest generation of young people. I think what happened probably could have happened no matter how many young people there were, I guess you could say because there were many more kids in college that had made it possible for this group to have a larger impact. But it is not necessarily so, if you look at the (19)30s, my first book was about student protests during the Great Depression. There was no boomer generation there, but they were the first generation to have mass student protests, the sort of depression generation. I guess what I am saying is to me that is not really the central fact of the era. I guess I would say that probably the fact that it was mostly more affluent era helped to make it so, but when people, you talk about the boomer, they are talking about boomers are talking about the size of the generation. There were so many young people because of the baby boom. And I think that is kind of, to me it is not really the central issue or the central factor that made this all possible. It is sort of the background demographic. And I think the way that it's talked about is, it is often a put down, the boomer generation are these... Because there is so many, they think the whole world is their generation and their self-indulgent and self-centered and all this stuff and I think a lot of that is kind of overstated. I do not think I hardly ever use that, even though I have written a lot about the (19)60s, it is not a term that I have used. I wrote also about student... The southern stuff I have written about is about the opposite end of it. It's about southern students resisting integration at one point. I did not get to finish it, but I was doing a book and I published some articles about the University of Georgia desegregation crisis in (19)61. And I was going to do a comparison of the desegregation crisis in the University of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi. And those students, they said that they were activists initially, they were active on the other side. They were active in resisting change. My article on the Georgia group was called Two Four Six Eight We Do Not Want to Integrate. It is about these white students who essentially rioted outside the dormitory of Charlayne Hunter, later on Charlayne Hunter-Gault, first Black student at the University of Georgia. And they were part of the same boomer generation that Charlene was, or earlier incarnation of what I was. But how is that meaningful? In other words, what does that explain to you? Also, the Young Americans for Freedom- SM (00:45:43): Yes, the brand-new book out on that too, by the way. RC (00:45:45): Yeah. Which book were you- SM (00:45:51): It is a brand-new book by a guy named Pre, Primo? It is really in depth, real thick book. RC (00:45:57): I have this book about, there is several different things, but there's also this Rebecca Klatch's book, A Generation Divided about- SM (00:46:04): Oh, I have that. RC (00:46:05): ...about the New Left and the New Right, looking at the... You see some parallels, but I am just saying if it is a generational thing that makes people progressive, then how do you explain this stuff on the right that is going on? SM (00:46:15): I will email you the- RC (00:46:16): Sure. SM (00:46:16): It is a brand-new book, just came out. RC (00:46:18): No, I had not seen that yet. So what I am saying to you, is to me, it is such a massive group and such a huge category. It does not explain too much. That is why I thought- SM (00:46:28): In your opinion, when did the (19)60s begin and when did it end? And what do you think was the watershed ruling? RC (00:46:34): When did the (19)60s begin? Well, there is a lot of people have different perspectives on that. People talk about the long (19)60s. I think that from my perspective, in terms of setting the tone of the decade, really the February of 1960 with the sit-ins in North Carolina, that is at Greensboro, that is really helped to set the tone for what happened politically in the (19)60s. And as far as when it ended, I think that that is more difficult. You could say that it ended with the Vietnam War. There's a lot of dispute about to what extent the social protests of the (19)60s actually ended because a time when after SDS had imploded and the anti-war movement kind of came to a screeching halt because the war ended, you had the beginnings of the feminist movement, you have the upsurge of gay and lesbian liberation, the birth of the environmental movement. So I think it is kind of a complicated question. I think that I tend to think of the United States as a culture that does not have these neat little beginnings and endings. The (19)60s ends as a political... The anti-war movement ended. But in a sense it was reincarnated again every time a new US intervention happened, it's like what's her name talks about this, she rejects the whole idea of the frontier. I am forgetting her name. Patricia Limerick. This is a book about the legacy of conquest. She is the founding mother of the New Western history. And she talked about how people... When does the frontier, when does it close? And she said, "Well, it opens every time there is a dispute about Indian land." Or in other words, her view is that the period ends when you have people looking back on it with... When they make up these sort of Disneyland type of tourist attractions about it. And you could say, well there is a Woodstock museum or something. But it comes back as soon as there is a dispute about land rights and there are. In other words it is like it all starts to come back again. But I think in terms of the larger dynamic, could say that there's a lot of different points we could say. Well, the right, really absurd. Was it the reelection of Nixon in (19)68? Could you say that Chicago and the reelection of Nixon in (19)68 ended the (19)60s? Well, I guess the reason why it is a difficult question is because the (19)60s changed so much and there were so many different areas. You think about legal history, political history, social history, cultural history. There is a lot of different manifestations of the change that the (19)60s made. And you take this Tinker decision about students having the rights in school. There have been a lot of decisions because the Supreme Court moved to the right, whether it is Bethel versus Frazier or any of the other decisions, the bang hits for Jesus one more recently. There is a lot of shifting away from those rights because the (19)60s ended with those decisions or the fact that they still have not thrown Tinker out. Is that so that there's still continuity? So I think you could say the same thing in terms of politics. Does the (19)60s end when Reagan got elected president, then is that really because he was a nemesis of them? Well then how do you explain Obama? But I guess the way I think of in terms of there being mass movements in the streets, that did end with the end of the Vietnam War. And so I think that Doug [inaudible] has an article about this whole question about did the (19)60s ever end? And if you have this concept of the long (19)60s, it could seem like, no, it never ends. But definitely there is a change in the way the politics are organized. There is not like massive... There are not mass movements and mass protests in the streets and on college campuses. And that really ended in the early (19)70s. So I would say probably that is how I would say- SM (00:51:15): The person that you co-teach the course with, Marilyn Young. Has she stated to you when the (19)60s began? Because I asked that question to her. RC (00:51:22): No, we have not gotten to that yet. I do not think I have [inaudible] what would she have said? SM (00:51:25): She said it started with the Beats. RC (00:51:27): Oh, the Beats. Yeah, we actually, we started talking about the Beats. But I mean, that is culturally right? SM (00:51:31): Yes. RC (00:51:31): So I think that I would agree that the roots of... There is a lot of different roots in the (19)50s that make the (19)60s possible. But I think politically I would say, again, that question when you talk about the (19)60s, you could also say, well, in terms of the court cases, you say the (19)60s began with Brown, right? In (19)54. SM (00:51:53): (19)54. RC (00:51:54): So I think it depends on what is it you are focusing on? Is it culture? Is it electoral politics? Is it politics in the street? Is it judicial politics? You would have different answers depending on which of those you are focusing. It is sort of like saying, "When did the Great Depression end?" People say, "Well it did not end until World War II." And I said, "Well macro economically that is true. But if you look at the immediate crisis like the farm crisis or the banking crisis, no, those ended much earlier." So I think that depends on which you were talking about. But I think that if you asked me as a political story, then I would say that it began with the idea of mass protesting, possible as a civil disobedience as a source of social change. It began with the sit-ins in began in Greensboro and it ended a little bit after the war ended. It actually began to cool right after Kent State, in terms of mass protest in the streets. That is what I would say. But in terms of the cultural dynamic and the spinoff of other movements it's a very gendered answer. If we think, well the anti-war movement is what made the (19)60s, then what about the feminist movement which really hit a stride in the (19)70s? The same thing, gay liberation and lesbian liberation, those are things that really took off in the (19)70s. The same thing as the environmental movement and then the upsurge of the anti-nuclear movement. So I think it is maybe a little too sweeping to say it ends here and begins there. But I think something did change in the (19)70s in the sense that they're being mass in the street’s kind of protests. SM (00:53:38): Since people are going to be reading these oral history interviews, I know what the Free Speech Movement is and so do you, but my question here is if you could just briefly describe what the Free Speech Movement was, what it was not, why did it happen? Who were the student leaders and why was this event so important for colleges in (19)64 and beyond? RC (00:54:03): Well, the Free Speech Movement was basically what its name said. It was a contest over freedom of speech initially, where the administration... It started as a kind of board dispute where the university ends and the street, the city begin. And that is a kind of interesting dispute to begin with because in a way, what that was about on the corner of the south corner of the campus is saying that you can have the right to do political advocacy if you are off campus. And they thought that the strip of land on Bancroft and Telegraph avenues was off campus. But then it turned out, they found out that some of the little political tables they used to do organizing were actually on university property, that that strip the land that they thought was owned by the city was actually partially owned by the university and part of it was owned by the university. So then it was violating this university regulation about political neutrality. But if you just think about that, what that means is there's more freedom off campus then there is on campus. The First Amendment will protect your free speech rights off campus but on campus, you cannot do political advocacy. And just think about what that says. I mean, the university is supposed to be a place where you have academic freedom and the free expression of ideas is treasured. And instead, we're saying that, "Well, if this becomes part of the campus, it is got the kiss of death on it." It is sort of like, "No, you cannot do protest here. You cannot do advocacy here." So that is a reflection of the lack of political freedom on campuses, especially Berkeley on campus, that is ever since the Red Scare of our (19)30s. There is a mini Red Scare in the Bay Area after the general strike, where in (19)34 the university put these regulations out about political neutrality that you cannot do advocacy on campus. And that is very oppressive. Basically, it was done to protect the university from being red baited by the university, by the right wing and the state legislature. But how can you have freedom in a university if you cannot have free speech? And how can you have free speech if you cannot advocate? They thought, "Well, you could talk about anything but you cannot advocate something." Well, that is a ridiculous distinction. It is a distinction without difference, there is no way that... Mario said, "You would have to be like a Solomon to be able to make that kind of a distinction." And it was not tenable. And when they got pushed back with, then it would collapse. But the point is that these rules were restrictive and it was reinforced by the loyalty oath and McCarthyism. And even though this is 1964 and the president of the campus, Clark Kerr is a liberal, he is still towing the line with these very restrictive regulations. And so, what really brought this to a head was students were very much affected by the Civil Rights Movement and by the civil rights protests against Barry Goldwater because they had the Democratic... The Republican Convention at the Cow Palace in San Francisco. So students wanted to participate in these things. And then the university tried to clamp down when they found out, the Oakland Tribune reporter came and found out that this is not city property, it is campus property. So therefore the university, "Oh, we have to then stop this organizing." And the students said, "No, we know. Why should we be restricted in our ability to speak and our ability to protest." And the university was not flexible. And the university students began first very politely trying. That is another thing that is important. They did not immediately say, "Okay, let us take over a building." That is not the way people operated back then. They said, "Let us try to petition, this is unreasonable. Let us get the university to reconsider these policies." But the university would not reconsider. It was basically saying that we do not think that the university should be playing this role. And so they would not compromise. I mean, not compromise, there was really no way to compromise in the sense that you either are going to have free speech on campus or you're not. The university wanted to make these compromises, as well. "We will let you have these tables but you cannot advocate political action." And then they changed the position and said, "Well, you can advocate political action, but it cannot be illegal." Well if you are advocating action against racism and that leads to a sit-in, that is illegal. So you are restricting their speech, their ability to make the university a place where students are involved in trying to serve society can organize against racism. And the students felt that was wrong. And that in turn, led to social, to protests, to sit-ins. And that in turn, I think had several effects. One was that it showed students that even though you by yourself are not powerful as a student using civil disobedience as a great equalizer, you can as a student have power if you are organized together. So that is one piece of this. The other thing that I think that the protests led to was students, after they said, "Well, the university is restricting us and this is not right." Then they began to say, "Well, wait a second, why is the university doing this?" In other words, what happened was it began as a movement was about free speech, but it evolved into something else beyond that. Because what I am saying is what happened is once the free speech issue is surfaced, then it led students to wonder, "Well, why is the university doing this? What's wrong with the university itself that it restricts freedom of speech?" And they came to this conclusion that the university was too close to what they call the military industrial complex. And so, was willing to sacrifice freedom of its own students and faculty in order to ingratiate itself with the powers that be. And so in other words, it led to this whole critique of the corporate university, which today is very much in vogue amongst some scholars who would look at the way that the university's become so much... If you look at David Kirp's book Shakespeare, Einstein and the Bottom Line, there's tons of books this criticize the university for being essentially, almost like a business. Or Sheila Slaughter's book Academic Capitalism. There is all this critique of the university as losing its sense of mission. So I think that the point is that it started off as movement just to... Mario came back from Mississippi and no intention at all of launching a mass movement at Berkeley. They were not interested in protesting about the university. They were just intending to keep on doing their activism in the Bay Area. There was all this activism in the Bay Area against discrimination in the local stores, in hotels on Auto Row. They thought they would continue to do that. It was just because the university basically was trying to stop them from doing that by denying them their free speech rights, that they began to focus their attention from off campus to on campus. And then once they started to focus it on campus, they began to be critical of the university because why is the university repressing free speech? And what came out of this movement were several things. One is that it showed that the students could be effective. SM (01:01:15): Hold on a second. Mine is to prepare people to be administrators in higher ed. RC (01:01:25): Oh, that is interesting. SM (01:01:26): Well, go ahead. RC (01:01:30): What I was going to say is that then what happened was... What was significant of the Free Speech Movement was that it won. Most student protests lose, historically. They won. And they won in part because the students had a core issue that a lot of people agreed on, that people should have the right to speak freely. They won because they were mostly non-violent. And so even though it seemed the majority of people in California were opposed to the movement because all they focused on was how disruptive it was. They thought there were riots, there were not riots, there were protests. The students at Sproul Hall did not rush the building. They marched in slowly. It is almost like a formal ceremony. When Joan Baez singing We Shall Overcome and you are walking into a building, that is not like some hijacking going on. That is like a very public act of deliberate and moderate civil disobedience. Non-violent. So what the Free Speech Movement showed was that when students have a large grievance and organized in a non-violent way against it, and also when they start to try to appeal to the faculty, because the Free Speech Movement was not just a student movement. That is another mistake people make. Campuses are not just students and administrators. Very important are the faculty. And what was really going on during the Free Speech Movement and my colleague Reggie Zelnik's article was about this, it was the administration and the students were competing with each other to win over the faculty. And in the end, the students won over the faculty because the administration was so blundering and repressive and worst of all was at the Greek theater when they took Mario off the stage by his tie. And they tried to gag him, basically gagging him. The administration kind of discredited itself. And the students, the faculty eventually on December 8th with their resolutions sided with the Free Speech Movement. And Kerr looked back on this when I interviewed him, the president of the university, looked back on the revolt as a faculty revolt as much as a student revolt. And he was right about that. The faculty, it took a long time because the faculty had loyalty to the university and to the administration. Faculty did not take over any buildings. They are not going to sit in, they generally have more loyalty to the institution and to the administration. But in the end they sided with the students. So I think what it showed is that if you really organize people and educate them on a big issue, and you use civil disobedience non-violently and as a last recourse... In other words, there is another sort of stereotype of the (19)60s that student protest is all about you go take over a building. That is not the way things worked in the Free Speech Movement. That was the last thing they were trying to do. They thought they could win without that. Civil disobedience caused people to get arrested, suspended, it is very painful. It is not the first thing that you do. It is really the last thing that you do. And they only used it when they absolutely felt like they needed to. And so, December 2nd to 3rd, Mario gave his famous speech and all that. They did take over the administration building, but that was because they felt like nothing else had worked. And the faculty eventually sided with them I think because despite the fact that for its time it was very militant, they were non-violent. They had a really important grievance and they spent the whole semester explaining it to people. It is not like these big dramatic moments that you should really focus on when you think about these moments, it is the long, difficult and even tiresome and boring, not boring, I would not say boring, the long and tiresome process of educating people about the issue that you are working on. SM (01:05:27): Like Tom Hayden does constantly. RC (01:05:29): Yeah. SM (01:05:30): With his Facebook page. RC (01:05:31): Yeah, so what I am saying is that what the Free Speech Movement showed is that students can have an influence in shaping history and as long as they organize intelligently, non-violently and in a sustained way and remember that they have to appeal to people outside of their own group, which is what the students did because they brought the faculty along with them. SM (01:05:55): It is interesting that Clark Kerr wrote that book, The Uses of the University, which was required reading in our graduate program at Ohio State. And that is the outline of the corporate world that we are talking about here. When I interviewed Bettina she said she really did not like Clark Kerr, but then in later years there was some situation where they were brought together for some reason. RC (01:06:17): Yeah, he wanted to get some feedback on his memoir, I think. SM (01:06:21): Yeah. And she said, "I really like the man." He was not as bad as he portrayed and of course he was fired by Reagan. RC (01:06:28): Well, I think the thing is that Kerr was basically in a lot of ways an admirable person. He had worked with Paul Taylor and Dorothy Lang, a very progressive background. And if you look at his master plan for California higher education, it was about providing accessible, cheap, higher education to the entire, no, universal higher education. SM (01:06:54): Wish it was still that way. RC (01:06:55): Yeah, I know. So in a way, he was caught between the right and the left. I do not think he was a bad person. He just made some pretty big mistakes in handling the protests. But look at his overall career, he was about... And even the stuff he was talking about, I think he was slightly misinterpreted by the Free Speech Movement. He was not uncritical of corporatization at the university. If you read that book carefully. He does have a kind of celebrating tone, but he does have some sort of... In fact, he is sarcastic at point. He suggests that there is some language in there that Hal Draper took him to task for. But he is sort of saying that, you could prostitute yourself and go too far in the quest for profits, a university could. So he was not uncritical. Oh, and by the way, I forgot to say that once the Free Speech Movement had shown that civil disobedience and students could be this effective force for change, I think that paved the way for what happened with the anti-war movement. That in fact, the Scranton Commission on Campus Unrest talked. RC (01:08:03): ... that in fact, the Scranton Commission on Campus Unrest talked about the free speech movement as the Berkeley invention, which is mass protest, civil disobedience. In other words, it showed that, and just in the semester before you have got all this mass protest on the antiwar issue, that students could be a force for social change. And if they used these tactics. SM (01:08:24): And of course those tactics were the tactics that Dr. King used, and he would- RC (01:08:27): Right, the civil rights movement. SM (01:08:28): Yeah. RC (01:08:28): They were bringing, I mean, really the free speech movement brought the tactics of the civil rights movement, the early civil rights movement and the black student movement onto college campuses. SM (01:08:36): And the teachings and- RC (01:08:37): Yeah. Yeah. If you think about, for example, the sit-in movement, that was a predominantly Black movement in (19)60, (19)61. So, really the people who first, the students who first used civil disobedience on college, no, the first college students to use mass civil disobedience were black students mostly, but they were not using them on campus. They were using them at lunch counters. Was using them as a tool to get rid of Jim Crow off campus. What the free speech movement did was take those tactics that had been so successful off campus, and used them on campus. SM (01:09:05): It is interesting, when I interviewed the late Gaylord Nelson, the senator from Wisconsin, talking about Earth Day, he had a meeting with I think David, well, some of the organizers of the moratorium, and did not want to step on their toes, so there was a partnership there from the get-go. And the importance of the teaching was very important at the very beginning of Earth Day. And Gaylord Nelson wanted to make sure, and he worked with them. Yeah, I know Michael Rossmann, boy, I wish I had met him. In his blog, and I had been reading a lot of stuff before I came here today, he made a comment that really upset him towards the end of his life saying that, "The media has always portrayed Berkeley as this liberal school from the West," And he disagreed with that. He said, "It was not a liberal school. The students were what made this happen. It was not a liberal school. Why do you think we were fighting for these issues?" Your thoughts on Michael? He was really critical of the perception that the media portrays about Berkeley then and now. RC (01:10:08): Well, I think it is complicated. I think there was a... It depends on what you are talking about with Berkeley. There was a core of civil liberties-oriented faculty at Berkeley, who had resisted the loyalty oath from the McCarthy era, and they were the same core people. Some of those were in the same core of people who were resisting the administration, repression during the free speech movement. Now, it is complicated because Strong, the Chancellor, and Kerr, as the president, were also in the loyalty oath. So, those were on the protest of liberty side. So, it is complicated. I do not really think I totally agree with him on the idea that the faculty, the administration, that I think there were... I would say that Berkeley was a progressive place. I mean, look, it was the first, and Rossmann was a part of it even before the free speech movement, back in the late (19)50s, SLATE had been formed. So, there was a kind of progressive tradition at Berkeley. SM (01:11:08): It was (19)58, I believe. RC (01:11:09): Yeah, that went on. And before that it was called TASC, Towards a New Student Community or something. And I think that was made possible in part by the fact that, first of all, Berkeley was aspiring to be a national institution, which meant that it got really top talent in terms of academics. We had some very progressive faculty who were emerging there, some people like Michael Rogan in Political Science, Ken Stamp and Leon Litwack in History, Charles Muscatine in the English department [inaudible] the loyalty oath, and then became a great educational reformer. So, I think that there was a liberal and left subculture there, both on the student body and the faculty. And because of the quality of the place, there was a cosmopolitanism about it, and it was a tradition of the Bay Area that went back all the way back to General Strike, about there being, and there were progressive institutions like KPFA. And so, there is a sort of a left subculture out there. But there is also, I think what he meant was that if you look at the elections, like the student government elections, it was very rare that the left got anywhere. There was a big frat and sorority culture. It was in some ways like a typical Midwestern or Southern campus with a large traditional collegiate culture. And right on the eve of the free speech movement, in fact, I think it was Art Goldberg had told Bettina, "Oh, they just got defeated again in the student government elections." This is sort of like the left did. [inaudible] like, "Oh, well, now this campus is so conservative. We will never get anywhere." And that was going into this myth of this Berkeley being this ultra-radical place, where it was easy to organize. I think that is what Michael meant. In the early (19)60s that was not the case. There was a large, very conventional culture to the place that this insurgency was sort of beginning to challenge. But it was the idea that the average Berkeley student was radical. This is just not true. In fact, I did this article on the chapter in my book on the free speech movement about the rank and file. It's called This is Their Fight, and had the [inaudible]. SM (01:13:16): It is the paperback [inaudible]. Yeah. RC (01:13:18): Yeah, that is right. That looked at the statements that the students made to the judge just before they were sentenced for their arrests for the sitting-in the Sproul Hall. And most of the students were not radicals. They were very reluctant to sit in. They did not want to break the law. They did not want to violate university regulations. They were just pretty moderate. But they felt they had no choice because they wanted to preserve free speech. So, if you look at the number of people who had a radical analysis, saying, "Well, universities are schools of corporations, and we need to resist imperialism and racism," who had this radical critique. It a very small minority. And in fact, if you think about there never would have been a mass movement at Berkeley if it could not reach beyond the small radical core. It had to be able to speak to mainstream students and to moderates and to liberals. And that is really what the free speech movement was able to do. So, I think that is what he meant. In other words, the idea that the Berkeley is this other, and it is like something out of Mars or something and all these aliens, that is how he got this movement. No. You got this movement because he was able to mobilize what was in many ways not a very unconventional campus to really, in fact, if you look at Larry Levine, his essay and the free speech book. He was a faculty member. He had just come from City College in New York when he came to Berkeley in the early (19)60s. And the first thing, the first demonstration he came into contact was not a politics, it was a panty raid. And he was saying, "Oh my God, what am I getting into?" What is this culture like? So, I think what Rossmann was right about was there was a dominant student culture that was setting the tone that was not politically radical or even particularly liberal, but that the movement kind of challenged that and sort of toppled that. SM (01:15:06): What is amazing is that some of the things that were happening in Berkeley were also happening in Harpur and SUNY Binghamton, because Dr. Dearing, within a year after I graduated in (19)70, retired and went up to Upstate Medical Center because his health had gone down. He died actually three years later, but they fired Professor Liebman in the Sociology Department for leading a protest in downtown Binghamton. And when they had the anniversary of the class of 1970, which was my class, this past year, a lot of them were not going back because what's happened is they're building it all up is this, the (19)60s and tie-dyes. And to me, not taking the seriousness of a lot of the issues that were facing the campus at that time. And my high school, when I was in high school, a graduate of SUNY Binghamton was fired from my high school. And that is the reason why I think I really wanted to go to Harpur College, because if somebody is fired for... Because they thought he was a communist. And this is the mid-(19)60s. So, it is a lot of connections between Binghamton and Berkeley in terms of the kinds of students and- RC (01:16:21): Oh, sure. SM (01:16:22): ... And the kinds of issues. And the president who was respected, Bruce Dearing, I do not know if you have ever heard of him. He was respected, but they kicked their OTC off. And when all the residence halls became, when the fraternities became so big, it really disturbed me because the college in the woods right now in SUNI Binghamton is basically all frat guys. And I lived there, and we would not have a frat guy around. They had to go to Cornell to be in fraternities. We banned them. They were banned at Binghamton. They had had to go to Cornell. And so, it is a lot of stuff kind of linked. We were a much smaller school, but we were kind of in, our heart was here. RC (01:17:03): Oh, sure. SM (01:17:03): No question about it. Mario Savio, to me, I mean, you have done an unbelievable book, and I really believe more Americans and young people need to know about this man. I state here, and I just want to put it in here for the record, and that is that who was he? Where did he come from? And just briefly, how did he rise to the top? And what I really like about him was that his motives were totally pure in so many ways, because he was... We were raised in at Ohio State University in the theme of student development, overcoming obstacles in one's life. And to know that he was a stutterer, and to be able to stand up in front of all those people and say what he did. And then also what I like about many of the leaders of the free speech movement you're bringing out so well, it's not about me. It is about us. RC (01:18:09): Yeah. SM (01:18:11): And he did not care about a political career. He cared about an issue that was so, see, that is what I want. That is what to me was the (19)60s was about. Just your thoughts on Mario and- RC (01:18:21): Oh, yeah. Well, I think that Mario basically came at it from a moral position. He came up, he was the oldest boy in a Catholic home, and he was going to be, he had a religious sensibility. He was going to be a priest. And eventually, he did not go that direction. But I think in a certain sense you could see that same moral sensibility as expressed here. He had a very strong sense of right and wrong. And he felt that, particularly with the civil rights movement, he saw what happened at Birmingham where people were being attacked, kids were being, black kids were being attacked by police dogs and fire hoses, that this was really wrong. He felt both shamed and inspired by those protests, ashamed that America would do this and inspired to try to do something to help. And so, I think he had a very strong impetus towards to help those who were being oppressed. Even before the civil rights movement, he had been not before the civil harassment, before he became involved in the summer, he went to Mexico and did poverty work to help poor peasants in Mexico. I think that he felt that one had to take a stand to stop something that would have, to stop evil. And that is what he was really doing. He felt in a way the civil rights movement was, even though he was not religious anymore, he felt that it was, that racism was sinful. And that the attempt to rid of it, to get rid of it was almost like God showing His hand in the world. Even though he was not religious, he still talked about it way, kind of a post-Catholic way of speaking. He had not lost that kind of way of thinking about things. He was pretty broken with his church. And I think that when you think about Savio, that is really what he was about. It was saying that we had to take a moral stance to stop evil and to make democracy possible. And then he went down. So, he became active in the Bay Area civil rights movement, got arrested. When he was in jail, that was about the Sheraton-Palace to try to stop the discrimination in the hotel. And while he was in jail for that, he found out about this Mississippi Freedom Summer and decided, "Well, I am knew tried to go down there." And he did. And he went down there and saw, there, look, in the Bay Area, if you got arrested, it could be inconvenient. Hold on a second. SM (01:20:41): Yep. RC (01:20:43): Sitting in against racism, you can get arrested or possibly hit over the head or something. You could get hurt. But mostly it is about you could get arrested. In Mississippi, you're risking your life. When he was on his way down to Mississippi, in Oxford, Mississippi getting trained by SNCC and the cultural organizers, they found out that the three civil rights workers were missing, Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman. And so, it was really clear from, Bob Moses said, "Do not kid yourself. They are not coming back. And nobody will think any less of you if you just decide, 'Look, I do not want to put my life on the line.'" And the amazing thing is, nobody left. They all went, because they felt like this is really the most important thing happening in America, if not in the world. We are going to stop this pattern of racist violence and decent and disenfranchisement. This is going to stop now, and we are going to help make it happen in collaboration with the black community. It is not that we, mostly white college students are going to save the day. We are going to show solidarity. And down there, this was a movement that was led by black people, by heroic student organizers of African American descent and former students like Bob Moses, and being supported by people within the African American community of Mississippi. And when he was there, he saw, I mean, this is a whole other level of activism because you are risking your life, but you are only there for the summer. Those African Americans who are down there, they are risking their life and their property and their whole futures in a way that is not just the summer. In other words, you go to sign up to vote, and you could lose your land or you could lose your life, and you could have this pattern of harassment that goes on for years, right? And so, what Mario began to see was this is a really a deep and heavy-duty thing. And they were talking about which side are you on? Are you trying to really make America a more democratic place, and what are you willing to do about it? And so, when it came back to Berkeley, and he had the memories of that, he felt when these administrations are trying to cut down the free speech area that made it possible for Berkeley to be a recruiting ground for this kind of activism, the idea is, "Well, look, we were not just kidding down there. That was not some summer lark. This is serious. People down there are risking their lives for their freedom, and you are going to tell me that you are going to stop me from doing this?" And so, essentially what it was about was the solidarity that you're going to take a stance. And also, there is no pretense. There's no jargon. It is very plainspoken. He called it a Jimmy Stewart kind of approach to oratory. We are not talking about the bourgeoisie or the proletariat or high theory. We are talking about just right or wrong, and this is wrong, and we have got to do something about it. And that was not just something that applied to Berkeley and to the free speech issue, but became a lifelong thing for him. That is, when you see people, he came, why did he, he really did not want to be a politician. He was not a politician. He was a brilliant philosophy and science student. He was meant to be a professor or an award-winning scientist. And he wanted to be able to focus on that. But it kept happening that things kept happening in society that he could not put his head in the sand. So, when Reagan is funding this terrorist war in Nicaragua, or the United States is supporting a government in El Salvador that has death squads, or the Apartheid, the United States is subsidizing Apartheid or the anti-immigrants, anti-affirmative action stuff was happening in California in the 1990s. He felt, "I have got to take a stand against this." Or even in his home university at Sonoma State, when he was, really the struggle that he died in the midst of, it was, if we raise these fees, like what is going on now, then the working-class kids are not going to be able to come here, and education should be accessible. So, I think with Mario, what it was really about was a feeling that, "I need to stand up for what's right." And I think that did have an effect on him as a person that I think that it helped him in some way. That was not why he did it, but it did help him work his way through. He had a very hard childhood. He'd been abused as a child. And I think that affected his speech. He had a very bad stammer. And in a way, the liberation of the students, people talk about the (19)60s, being able to find your voice. In a way that was what it was for him. He found his voice by trying to give voice to others by trying to help others be free of their oppression. He became, here you had somebody who could not speak as a child. And now he was a great orator. And to me, that is really symbolic of what the (19)60s at its best was about, was about standing up to help others, and in the process of trying to change and help free others, you are self-freeing yourself, because racism was not just about black people being hurt by it. It also hurt us as a society. It hurt whites as well. It hurt all the generations that were coming up, being raised on intolerance and hatred. So, I think that for Mario, and it also had to do with, it was just this idea that when things were, when something was oppressive and unjust, you have a responsibility to try to do something about it. Even if you are busy doing something else, even if you would rather be doing something else, even if it does not, if it is not good for your career and certainly not good for your health. And in a sense, he died. He lived because of it. In a way, he died because of it too. He died. He had been involved in all these anti-affirmative, in his defense of affirmative action, in challenging those valid initiatives against affirmative action and against immigrant rights. And so, he kind of exhausted himself in that and the [inaudible] battle, and he had a weak heart and he died in the midst of the struggle. His wife thinks that he was so compassionate and so concerned and so activist that you could say that he worked himself to death. Now, that may or may not be the case, but the point is think about how that compares to the stereotype about people from the (19)60s who sell out, who [inaudible] out their politics. It is the exact opposite of that. SM (01:27:11): Yep, [inaudible] RC (01:27:12): Yeah, he never cashed in on any of this. It was really about, "Look, we do not need some great leader to do this. We can do this ourselves." And that was another thing. That is one of the reason why he stepped out of leadership. He did not feel like, you should not need a celebrity leader. You should be able to organize movements where, if you are a good organizer, you will organize your way out of a job because people should be able to organize themselves. SM (01:27:35): That is the Benjamin Barber mentality. Benjamin Barber has written the books on citizenship and the nation that requires a strong president. Well, we want a strong president. But when you have stronger citizens, that is the greater democracy. RC (01:27:50): Right. Yeah. Yeah, I think that is the idea of participatory democracy, which Mario kind of embodied. SM (01:27:55): Here, I know we are getting out close to the end of our time here, and I have got, we are not going to finish the questions, but is there a connection between the free speech movement and the following events? And I will just list these events. Kent State, 1970, Columbia in (19)68, Harvard Square, the March on Washington in (19)63, the moratorium of (19)69, Earth Day in 1970, Chicago Convention in (19)68. RC (01:28:22): Well, I think that- SM (01:28:23): Any connections there between the free speech movement? RC (01:28:26): Well, I think that just the later events in terms of protest, the idea that you can make a difference by going out in the streets and protesting, I think those are all, but they're all very different events. So, I would say that I would not attribute everything to the free speech movement. I think that there is a kind of way in which there is this ethos of being able to make change through social protests that is connected in all these things. And the later student events you are talking about the idea that the generation, that young people can make a difference, that if you think about those later events you are pointing to. I think there definitely is a connection there. But I would not want to attribute every, in other words, I think if you think about it, the civil rights movement helped to make the free speech movement possible. The free speech movement helped to make the anti-war movement possible. The anti-war movement helped to make the women's movement, the gay liberation movement, environmental movements possible. So, I think there is a connection there between this sort of ethos of social criticism, social protest that the free speech movement helped to promote. But I would not say it was by itself. I think there was these cycles or this pattern of activism that when you get people in motion and they have an impact, then that in turn, on one issue, that in turn can affect them on other issues. SM (01:29:44): I will try to make these brief here, but one of the things about- RC (01:29:48): We can also finish on the phone too. I mean, in other words, we do not have to. In other words, we can always pick it up again. There is not really, you do not have to feel like you have to get it in. I mean, I am available. We can always- SM (01:29:58): Well, this is fascinating. Your students are very lucky to have you because I am a firm believer that students need to know their history, and they do not know enough of it. I have had too many students tell me that the Vietnam War was before World War II, and I have heard stories still that in high school, teachers, at least particularly those that were going to high school in the 1990s, that they do not... Their classes stop in the (19)60s. They do not go beyond. They stopped the history. It is like me when I was in school, it was John Kennedy stops at the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty or something like that. But the thing, this is a question that, because you talk about Allan Blum and the closing of the American mind. You have got the David Horwitz’s writing all these books because he went from a liberal to a conservative. And political correctness is something that was so prevalent on college campus in the (19)80s and (19)90s, and some say it is still there today. What are your thoughts on those issues? Particularly, I interviewed Phyllis Schlafly and Phyllis Schlafly and David Horowitz both believe that the student protestors of the (19)60s are now running today's universities, and they are also teaching the students of today. They run all the studies courses, women's studies, the black studies, the gay and lesbian studies, environmental studies, Asian American studies, Native American studies, Latino studies. They are all the liberals, the left from the (19)60s, and they are only giving one side. So, that is the Schlafly’s and the Horowitz’s. And then you have got Barney Frank, who is a Democrat. He wrote a book called Speaking Frankly, which I think is a very good book, way before all this issue of the environment. And he talks in there about the fact that after the (19)72 election where people supported McGovern, that the Democratic Party will never survive if it cannot stay away from the anti-war people. It has got to make the separation. The Democratic Party has to go a different direction. It cannot be the Teddy Kennedy types. It has got to be a totally different direction. So, here is a Democrat, powerful, even then, a gay Democrat saying that, "We must separate ourselves from the anti-war and the activists of the (19)60s within the Democratic Party." You have got Schlafly and Horowitz saying that today's universe, you have got political correctness saying that as a result of what happened, maybe starting with the free speech movement and the protests and so forth. RC (01:32:34): Well, let me tell you- SM (01:32:34): Gone the other direction. RC (01:32:35): Yeah, I mean, first of all, I mean, I would say this, that I think it is very simplistic to say the university is all one thing or another, just like I was saying before with the boomer generation. It is a very large, complex thing. I mean, on the one hand, what about, I mean, if you look at the University of California, it is a great example. I mean, BP had this huge center for corporate, as what's his name was saying, David Kirk was saying in this book on Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line that Mario, by talking about the corporatization of the university was being prophetic. A campus where with the dean of the business school is called the Bank of America Dean. So, the idea, what I am saying to you is that you could make, they focus on a few liberal studies. What about, who has the computer science departments? Who has the business schools? Who is heading the law schools? I mean, the idea that the university was headed by a bunch of radicals, then how could you explain the incredible corporatization of the university? That is such a simplification. The university does all these things that are pillars of the computer revolution, of corporate capitalism. To make it like the university's all one thing, that it's been taken over by radicals, is you are lopping off two-thirds of the university, and the ones, parts of the university that have most of the money. You know what I mean? Why would the universities that, if they are on the left, why would they even have business schools? Where does that come from? So, I think that it is such an oversimplification to judge. You are judging the entire universities by a few disciplines or departments that would lean to the left because of the nature of those departments or disciplines. I think that is really simplistic. I mean, I do not really think of the universities as, I mean, look, if you look, there is a whole literature about the universities, including this one. We had a TA strike that crushed the union. The universities are not being run by radicals. I mean, that is absurd. There is an influence in terms of ideas of people on the left and liberals, sure. That is the case. The majority of academics are liberals, but in terms of, it is such an overstatement to act as if the university is somehow part of the revolutionary left when the university, how do you explain all the stuff about corporatization? And look at the critique by Sheila Slaughter who look at the university as corporate capitalism embodied. I mean, there is a struggle. The university is a contradictory place. Some of the people who were student radicals have gone into academia, but there's lots more people who were never, like you are saying, the majority of people in the boomer generation were not radicals. So, the idea that they have taken over the university is really absurd. SM (01:35:22): Yeah. And my proposition and just your thoughts on this maybe, I have got two more questions, and we will end here, is that today's universities are afraid of the term activism, activists. Volunteerism is, 95 percent of the students are involved in volunteering. A lot of it's required, but a lot of them are doing it. And that is very good. Some people say that is activism. Well, I do believe that is short-term activism. I am talking about the mentality of the Mario Savio’s, the Tom Hayden’s, the Bettina Aptheker’s, which is, "It is my life. It is part of who I am. It is part of my very being. It is 24-7. It is not two days a week at two hours." And I think you are right on that. I think a lot of the people that run today universities are boomers who were not activists, who had the experience of being on campuses and seeing what activism does to a campus, knowing that we are in tough times. And if there's any protests, maybe students will not come to the college. RC (01:36:17): Well, if you look at the disengagement with the students, like Dick Flacks has got the study about California freshman. SM (01:36:21): I am interviewing him. Yeah. RC (01:36:23): Yeah. I mean, if the universities are about making students radical activists, they are doing a pretty poor job. Right? I mean, because you can run academic programs that just are about academics and do not have an activist ethos. So, I think that, if what David Horowitz and Phyllis Schlafly were saying, "Look, for God's sake, we have two wars going on," right? Two, not one, two. Where is the mass protest? Obviously, if the left had taken over college campuses and was there to build mass movements, they are not doing a very good job. Right? So, I think it is a very simplistic view. I mean- SM (01:36:56): Do you think they are afraid of that? Do you think that the universities, people may be the board of trustees or the type of administrators are afraid of activism because it brings back memories of the (19)60s? It could happen again. RC (01:37:09): No. I think it has been so long since they had a mass protest. I do not think that is something that is on their minds. I think that if it came, if it emerged, they probably would feel that way. But right now, I mean, there is also, remember there is a new generation here. There is a 21st century generation of students that is very influenced by computers that may not be, you may be thinking about this too much in a 20th century vein. In other words, that there is a whole new way of looking at things, and activism has been reduced to pushing a button on a computer, which does not necessarily really change things, but people might think that it does. SM (01:37:44): Brought a picture up. RC (01:37:46): That is right. So what I am saying, saying is- it is not necessarily the case that if there is activism, that it would take the form of the (19)60s, or anybody's worried about that, in a way. So, I am just saying I think that the idea that the university are breeding grounds of activism is, it may be in some ways a more interesting place if that was the case. But it is not true. On the other hand, there are books that show that, let me qualify that, there is this new book that came out by Mark Warren, Fire in the Heart. He looks at lots of people who are involved in [inaudible] activists today, and says that people who are activists, some of them did come through those programs that Phyllis Schlafly and those guys are complaining about. And I think, in other words, but that is only a minority. In other words, you can learn to oppose racism and become activists on the college campuses. You can. But that is only a small group that is. SM (01:38:40): Wow, this is interesting. I thought I was up on books. RC (01:38:45): Yeah. Well, yeah. SM (01:38:46): You are really up on them. My last question here, and I asked a little of this- RC (01:38:48): Let me just tell my student I will be right with her. SM (01:38:49): Yep. RC (01:39:00): So I do not lose her. SM (01:39:01): Okay. RC (01:39:01): Hey, how you doing? I will be out in about a minute, okay? [inaudible] Okay, sure. SM (01:39:04): Okay. What did the university learn from the student protest, particularly the free speech movement? What did the university learn from the free speech movement itself? And how has the university changed for the better? And what areas does the university structure still exemplify what the free speech movement was fighting all about in (19)64, (19)65? In other words, is Mario was here today in this room, and I was asking him this question, your response may be different from his, but would he be positive or negative? Or where would he be? RC (01:39:33): Well, actually, he did think that there had been some progress made because he was talking, in the last chapter of the book, he talks about Sonoma State, that the university was not all white anymore. And so in fact, he felt the university was retreating from being free in terms of money at just the wrong time. Just as the university was getting to be desegregated, and there were people of color coming, that all of a sudden it was thousands of dollars. And some people would say, "Well, is that an accident?" Back in the (19)60s when most students are white, it was pretty much free in most places, many places in the public universities. Now that it is probably gotten desegregated to some degree, now it is expensive. It is an interesting argument. So, I think in that sense, he would feel like he felt like there had been progress made in terms of accessibility to higher education. And also, I mean, definitely in terms of free speech, the university, now most universities allow students student rights, and even spread to the high schools through the Tinker decision. So, I think that had changed. I think in terms of the, but the basic issues about what the critique of higher education in terms of how much do we care about teaching? How much do we care about that function of the university serving the poor, that still has not, that is still there. In other words, that university is still about getting big money and trying to service corporate America and the defense establishment. Its top priority is not how can we wage a war on poverty? That is not what is at the top of the agenda for universities. It is like my university, where are they rushing to build a campus? Not in some starving Third World country, but in oil-rich Abu Dhabi. So, I think the idea is that the basic issue about what is the service mission of the university? Who is the university serving? That that has not really changed as much as people like Mario would like it. He thought the university should be a center of the attempt to make America more democratic and more egalitarian. And that would mean giving students of color and working class students more access to higher education. That would mean building an ethos among students that would think, "Okay, how can we change society?" And also if you are going into academics, how can you think- RC (01:42:03): And also if you are going into academics, how can you think critically about society? In other words like generating new ideas to make the society a more just, not just about demonstrating, but okay, what are we learning about our social problems through our studies that we can then act on later on? SM (01:42:16): I think course of this, that the whole issue of fundraising in higher education today is a major issue. We talk about links to corporations, but at the school that I just left, and I know this is the case at several other schools, they had cut back on student life activities and in some places, they are very observant of the fact that if a particular speaker or form or program could affect in any way, the dollar flows from donors, they are a little hesitant to support it. And so by they have ways of controlling it in subtle ways by cutting off the amount of funds. So they cannot bring in controversial speakers. And I think that is a big concern about free speech issues. It's done very subtly as we see racism still exists in our society in a very subtle way. RC (01:43:07): Oh, I agree that the universities do not want to... That dynamic is still there. What I meant about free speech was if students want to organize on an issue, people would know you cannot come down the same way that they did in (19)64. You cannot say that. So... SM (01:43:19): I have a few more questions, but maybe- RC (01:43:21): You can do it on the phone. SM (01:43:22): ... 30 minutes. 30 minutes [inaudible]. RC (01:43:22): Sure. Sure. SM (01:43:22): But I really appreciate it. (End of Interview) Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Robert Cohen Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Cohen, Robert, 1955 May 21- ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource College teachers; New York University; Cohen, Robert, 1955 May 21--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Robert Cohen is a professor at New York University, where he teaches History, Social Studies, Education, and Human Development. He received his B.A. at SUNY Buffalo and his PhD. at the University of California at Berkeley. Cohen also writes books, most of which focus on either history or people as a whole. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-11-19 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.40a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.40b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 199:21 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/ee3b44e7d0e80e933c52cbf26cca2490.jpg b4feaffecf8b7b138fce7a3d1181bd96 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/7f601bbdb30687ff8efc7d750f8cecb3.mp3 536dac3bfbec1c0fa095cff2e5d26b10 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2010-08-10 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Robert Jay Lifton, 1926- Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Dr. Robert Jay Lifton is a psychiatrist, author, researcher, and educator. He studied medicine at Cornell University and New York Medical College. He works mostly on the psychological causes and effects of war and political violence. He has written and published many books on his work."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":6531,"3":{"1":0},"4":[null,2,5099745],"10":2,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Arial"}">Dr. Robert Jay Lifton is a psychiatrist, author, researcher, and educator. He studied medicine at Cornell University and New York Medical College. He works mostly on the psychological causes and effects of war and political violence. He has written and published many books on his work.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 1 Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"American Woman; Baby boom generation; Civil Rights Movement; SDS; John F. Kennedy; Vietnam War; Platoon; Catholic Church; Dr. Spock; Ronald Reagan; Healing; Vietnam Veterans; Cambodian Campaign; Activism; Civil Rights protest; Ken Burns; Civil War; Empowerment; Parents; College; Birmingham campaign; Ted Turner; Tom Hayden; Jerry Rubin; Timothy Leary."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":3,"3":{"1":0},"4":{"1":2,"2":14275305}}">American Woman; Baby boom generation; Civil Rights Movement; SDS; John F. Kennedy; Vietnam War; Platoon; Catholic Church; Dr. Spock; Ronald Reagan; Healing; Vietnam Veterans; Cambodian Campaign; Activism; Civil Rights protest; Ken Burns; Civil War; Empowerment; Parents; College; Birmingham campaign; Ted Turner; Tom Hayden; Jerry Rubin; Timothy Leary.</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 104:57 Subject LCSH Psychiatrists; Authors; War—Psychological aspects; Lifton, Robert Jay, 1926--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Robert Jay Lifton Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Lifton, Robert Jay, 1926- ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Psychiatrists; Authors; War—Psychological aspects; Lifton, Robert Jay, 1926--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Robert Jay Lifton is a psychiatrist, author, researcher, and educator. He studied medicine at Cornell University and New York Medical College. He works mostly on the psychological causes and effects of war and political violence. He has written and published many books on his work. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-08-10 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.81 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 104:57 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/4e846b949da066a464a137e53b3099a8.jpg ce657287210898e75093237c11e264ec https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/ce1fbd555aeb1e7ccd3d69ddbd1fc655.mp3 b3335531ebd7c225a3fccc6ac5005c7c Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview ND Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Roosevelt Johnson Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 160:18 Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data MicroCassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Dr. Roosevelt Johnson was a psychologist, counselor, educator and administrator. Dr. Johnson worked as a professor at Ohio State University, University of the District of Columbia in Washington, DC and John Hopkins University. He also worked at private counseling centers in the Washington, DC area and Silver Springs, Maryland. He received his Bachelor's degree at St. Louis University and Ph.D at the University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana. Dr. Johson died in 2015."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":15359,"3":{"1":1},"4":[null,2,16777215],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"10":2,"11":4,"12":0,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Arial","16":10}">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson (d. 2015) was a psychologist, counselor, educator, and administrator. Dr. Johnson worked as a professor at Ohio State University, University of the District of Columbia in Washington, DC, and John Hopkins University. He also worked at private counseling centers in the Washington, DC area and Silver Springs, Maryland. He received his Bachelor's degree at St. Louis University and Ph.D. at the University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana. </span> Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Baby boom generation; Post civil rights; Nineteen sixties; Nineteen seventies; Activism; Generation X; Kent State; Vietnam War; Black Panthers; Vietnam Memorial."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":513,"3":{"1":0},"12":0}">Baby boom generation; Post civil rights; Nineteen sixties; Nineteen seventies; Activism; Generation X; Kent State; Vietnam War; Black Panthers; Vietnam Memorial.</span> Subject LCSH Psychologists; College teachers; Johnson, Roosevelt--Interviews Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Dr. Roosevelt Johnson Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Eden Lowinger Date of interview: Not dated -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) 00:06 SM: Got to keep double checking this too to make sure this is working. Dr. Johnson, thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet with me today. What I am going to try to do here is asked a specific group of questions and these questions have also been asked to other interviewees. Some of these questions also might look like they are repetitive. But the questions are asked, [audio cuts] certainly, and hopefully, if you have already mentioned something earlier, then we move on to the next question. But the boomer generation and the people the (19)60s and the early (19)70s have often are [audio cuts] that during this juncture in time, often being criticized by conservatives, by people along Christian coalition and other groups as being the reason why we are having problems in today's society. You hear it all the time on the news, even some of the so-called moderate Democrats, when they are looking at the issues of the breakup of the American family, the increase the divorce rate, the drug, the drug problems in American society, the uncivil dialogue sometimes that happens between groups, a lack of listening between groups. Sometimes people are trying to put this all into a capsule and going right back to that (19)60s and early (19)70s. And it was because of that generation, and how they were reared and how they acted, is now they have transferred into, this into their kids, and could you comment on whether that is a fair accusation toward the generation of boomers made up of 60 million people? 01:35 RJ: I am always I am always cautious about stereotypical and gross generalizations in terms of a generation. However, I do think that there are certain prevailing motifs, cultural motifs that go on, there is no question about it. If we look at the major forces in during that era of say, post-Civil Rights, and then after the post-Civil Rights and the switch, in terms of say, our moving to political impetus, and they end the orientation, and the theories that have gone on- political orientation and theories that have gone along with the subsequent election of Richard Nixon, which tended to [inaudible] in my judgment signaled the prelude to the switch to conservative. So then, I think that we got some gradations there in terms of say, there are some in terms of say some of the people who have emerged from the (19)60s, the post-Civil Rights Era, and also the political shift to conservativism, I am not so sure it is almost 33 and a third, okay, so if you really think about it that way, it is almost 33 and a third. And then I guess, the fourth estate, and that is the medium, with respect to the impact that is has had, and increasing the impact that it has had specifically during that period of time, so then it, the history is fascinating. And I am not so sure, I am willing to say that there is a large core, is according to which societal institution that you are looking at, at any given time, but I think there is a, if you may, an overarching type of influence, and an overarching type of motif, and, and collective thought. So, we got to, we got a, we got a kind of a universal cognition that is going on, i.e. let us go back to the impact of the Fourth Estate in terms of the media, and the fact that the satellite was put us up there. And then CNN became such a potent force, what I see as a core lessons of perspective, even if you go beyond the borders of the United States, about certain issues that are happening all over the world, by virtue of the cyberspace and so forth, which is again, the link, I guess you could say is that is that the Civil Rights, post-Civil Rights and then the era of conservativism, and then what you have that in fact, keeps all of this in a network, is the cyberspace. And with respect to the fact that everybody is seeing the same type of the daily account of present history being recorded, it is definitely influencing how people are thinking. So the media and the people who are writing for the media, in my judgment, are the, are people who have found, who themselves are part of- who are boomers, and therefore they come from that perspective, in terms of their cognitions. There have beliefs about certain things, their worldview, their worldviews, are have, they have to- if we accept that socialization is a real process, and I believe it is- they have an insight, say, like, be influenced by what has happened to them in their nurturance years, that is a part of their identity. So consequently, they are constantly referring back to what they have learned to be reality, their constructive reality is in fact are very similar, but I think that you will still find that is not a discrete dichotomous either-or in terms of is the boomers against the, not being the boomers. There are people within the boomer generation who are very conservative, people within the boomer generation who are in fact modern in terms of their political views, ethical and moral perspectives and so forth. And there are people who are extremely liberal. Okay, so then we got, I think this gradation. 05:58 SM: Make sure that my tape here it is. In fact, because it broke, he has invited me over to his house before the Congress starts again. 06:07 RJ: Okay. 06:07 SM: Because I have gotten to know him. I- most of my friends are liberals, but [laughter] Congressman Weldon, and Senator Fred Thompson, the two that I really, I really like those two. So anyways, as a take-off of that question, what do you feel has been the impact of boomers on America? Has the impact in your eyes been positive or negative? Or is it too early to say what that impact is? 06:33 RJ: First, you have, I have to accept the position that is only positive and negative. And that, again, takes us to the dichotomous thinking, which is fueling, I think, psychologically, societal psychology, if you may, I think that is probably keeping the momentum more exaggerated than it really is. Again, I see gradations, I look for gradations. I do not look for discrete categories of the dichotomy of either all or nothing. And that is, that is a part of democracy. So democracy, the life blood, as Seymour Martin Lipset said, of democracy is conflict. So, then it definitely keeps the conflict going, but I do not know if it, in fact, gets into a continual healing process at the psychological level. Now, I also think that we cannot, in fact address this question you know, in terms of gain, I am saying before I could really respond to whether it is positive or negative, I had to work it through, because I also am very much aware that the conflict, and the either-or- liberal or conservative, negative or anti-positive- is being, is economically driven, is driven by the profit motive. We cannot incite leave that out of our society, that negative news is, in fact, it is a very, it sells very well, positive news obviously does not sell very well, because there is not any one of the leading newspapers in in the world that reports positive news, people immediately go to what is the most heinous that they can find. So then what I think is happening is that the econ- that the political economy has co-opted people into making us believe that we have an issue, I will say negative and positive, I think without a doubt, if you look at a certain category, and that is the demise of the infrastructure within the United States, I do believe- and by that I mean, the highways, the cities, the universities that are in fact, say getting ready for the babies of the boomers, they are now beginning to say that we cannot build new facilities, but we will be able to bring the people on campus and then offer them course by computer, and so forth out of their dorm rooms and so forth or allow them to take it at home, through for example, the internet and so forth and putting up let us say, modems on the campus, around the campus, even exterior modems and things of this nature where people can work on a site. Now, if you take a look at that, and if you hold on nostalgically to what once was, in terms of the negative impact, the negative impact is the meaning that we are giving to it. If, for example, we are saying that we think that the classroom should be a-whereby there is a bonding between the professor and the youngsters or the professors and the graduate students- I do believe that should occur. But now if you think about the boomers being driven by the profit motive, which is you know, with a common vernacular and the patois, the bottom line, cut to the chase all of this language that in fact being developed by various and sundry economic systems, you say, macro and economically, the macroeconomic, the NSA and micro economic terminology that are used for social situation. So, people are being reduced in terms of downsides and outsides and read, outsourcing and things of this nature, the boomers by virtue of their being in leadership role, they have now begun to-to use these paradigms to deal with people. Okay? Now, if these paradigms continue to erode the infrastructure, and especially the moralistic infrastructure of the universal values, then we got to say it is negative. But when we in fact, say, like, take a look at that they can began to cause people, the pendulum to swing back toward the center, and people, to the extent can recognize that the boomers were the impetus for seeing swinging back toward the center, then probably serendipitously, the boomers are serving us a purpose to gain our right frame of mind on this, starting a new collective dialogue within our collective heads. Is this good? We are now beginning to ask these questions. 11:07 SM: This leads into my next question, because now we are talking about the children of boomers, which are, which are already on college campuses. And we will be [inaudible], you talk about the differences within the boomers, you know, we talked about the classification for (19)46 to (19)64, boomers. Well, I see even within the university when I am working with administrators who were still classified as boomers, they have not the [inaudible] knowledge of the impact of the Civil Rights movement, or what the war was all about back then, because they were a little bit too young. So, I sense that there is even strong divisions, like you said, there is conservatives and liberals. There is- 11:42 RJ: Within the boomers. 11:43 SM: Yeah. And the fact is that, you know, it is hard to classify over an 18-year period that these are the boomers, which is what society says we are doing something right. But can today- can today's generation learn from the boomers? What can the boomers teach today's college students? So this question is based on the fact that many of today's students often look at the (19)60s and early (19)70s, as a period of activism, a period that were students, where people got [inaudible] and single minded issues, because there were big issues then. A lot of big issues where young people can get involved in. So many of these same issues remain, there are new ones. And the lessons of the past are either not taught in the schools or never discussed between the parents, which is the boomer parent and the kid. Please give your thoughts on the issues and boomers lives and how they can have an impact on students today. And I say this only because I, in my working relationship with students, I see two distinct directions that they go in terms of people of my age. boomers. Number one, they look upon that period as an era of nostalgia, saying, "I wish I could have lived them. It was such an exciting time. I mean, people were involved in Civil Rights movement, they were involved in the protests against the war, the environmental movement, women's liberation came about all but all of it seems like the movements and Native American movement, all of them seem to be around [inaudible] around the time when you were young, when you were in college, I wish I could live there." And others the other extreme, where students will say, “I am sick of hearing it, you are living in us nostalgic period. This is (19)96. It is not (19)68 or (19)69 anymore. And so, I am tired of hearing about it, we have our own lives, we have our own issues, but then we do not have any big issues, but I want to get a job I want to get through school." And so, they do not have the big issues. But they do have their own individual issues, which is getting, getting a degree and getting a job. And in some respects, we cannot always talk about all the today's young people that are going to college there is a lot of them going to trade school. So, what I am trying to say is, are the boomers. And are the boomers really talking about their experiences with their kids? Are they sharing what they went through, are they sharing the- those important issues of that time? And some still remained today, but it is as if they do not among the other young people. So I just want to know what your thoughts are. If the boomers are really being good parents, are they sharing what transpired and they were young? And in some respects are the generation X really listening? 14:09 RJ: Well, I am not so sure that the boomers are being good parents if you use the criterion of the pre-boomer period, okay, anti-boomer period there, meaning that if I look at- and I am a boomer, all right- and if I look at the relationship that my mother and father had with me, it was very impersonal. Or if I look at what I know, my peers say, who themselves were not supposed to make it at Southern Illinois University, for example, first generation college students out of predominantly Black schools, high schools and so forth. Well we got there and found out that we had better for example, communication skills as far as the written word was concerned that many of our I would say white counterparts who came out of great high schools of Northern Illinois and Evanston, Illinois and places of this nature, right. So then it got around big university town. So our parents had prepared to pass the baton onto us. So then we got to look at the multicultural and the multiracial groups of boomers as well. But I fortunately have an opportunity through the last over almost 30 years of teaching both Black and whites and in terms of, say, graduate school, so I have had an opportunity to make some assessments on it. And from what I see is that at some point in time, and I like to think of this boomer generation as the transitory generation too, they have seen they saw the transition, African Americans, for example, from Jim Crowism to public accommodation, whereby they did not have it. So that they know what, for example, a Jim Crow is, and they know what it means to be excluded. So, they can recognize inclusion very, I mean, very well, and they can recognize exclusion very well. But the babies of the boomers are not capable of doing this, Black or white. It has been superficially presented to them through the media, it is always on the cusp, it is never as intense as it is because the boomers experienced this. Okay, the boomers experienced the transition of going from lack of civil rights to the civil rights struggle to the fact that Johnson signed the 1965 Civil Rights bill. Okay, so consequently, they saw the transition. And therefore, they are dealing with reality is based upon a cognitive set that they have seen before, during the process, and subsequent to the change. So then they deal with impasse, and for those who have not. And on the other side of the reality construction, the parents, some of them actually got further away from their anti-boomer parent- I will say morality, and they therefore began to have technocracy, technocracy and post modernity in terms of their perspective on how they deal with their children, okay, so then therefore, they-they stay a distance from them, they do not have interpersonal relationships with them, they allow the professional to do the rearing, they will allow the-the they allow the media to do the rearing, and the peer group to do the rea- the rearing. What I have found, therefore, is that on the other end of that, and in between, there is a group that is trying to hold on, which the children do resist, I see a lot of those in therapy, whether that child is in fact white or Black, whether that child is rich or poor, liberal or conservative, they try to resist that interpersonal, because, say involvement, where that person who was involved in the (19)60s tries to in fact interface and deal with and rear that child with that experiential input in there, some of the children do resist to that. Some of the children do not. Now, it is therefore, a matter I guess you can say, of the idiosyncratic way in which the children themselves- and that is what we got to be very careful about- and that is each-each individual has an idiosyncratic child does of the boomer, has an idiosyncratic meaning that he or she will get to the world. Now what we got to do is base that upon it is not right or wrong is rational, or is it is reality. So, we in fact, deal with, whether it is rational, what the child is doing and believing, or whether or not it is a reality, what the child is doing, then we do not worry so much about behavior as we do about cognition. And that is where we got to begin to get the focus. And that is, is the self-hurting a self-defeating in terms of some greater moralistic, cosmos type of perspective, or is it in fact a self-helping, we got to, in fact, make that decision discernment. I go back to the university and college, universities and colleges are in fact beginning to acknowledge that that was something good about the whole notion of the hands-on in theory into practice, because of the of the of the, I guess you can say, the mushrooming of outreach concepts in every major college and university. So then, in that regard, if you take a look, now, everybody has a community clinic, or everybody has some type of outreach program, or some thrust to outreach and reaching out into the community in their curricula. And in fact, the business world is now saying that they want to buy into that. So, then that is that activism of the six. 19:44 SM: Yeah, we have a social work chair, who has raised kids and one is going to Spelman College right now in Atlanta and one is going to Howard- they are twins, and she has one coming up. Her husband is a judge in Philadelphia, and he is also on the board of trustees and interviewees. This [inaudible] West Chester University. And I asked her point-blank last year is that a general discussion if she has ever sat down and talked to her kids about what it was like to be at Howard in the (19)60s where she graduated? She said, "No." She said, "My kids have got enough problems today, with the problems of drugs, dealing with all the other issues of the day, why burden them with what-what it was like when I was young," I am sure they discuss some things. But- 20:26 RJ: But the issue is, would it have been a burden that that actually is cultivating another type of skill. In my judgment, now see I do not see that as a burden, she is assuming that the child is a victim. 20:38 SM: I am going to go in depth with her on that, cause she does not realize I am going to bring this up when we-we are doing the interview. But she, she is the chair of our social work department, Mit Joyner. She is a dynamic professor whose students love her. And I she is one of my close friends at the school. But the fact that that statement really shocked me and so during the interview is not going to be the beginning, when I am going to just interject my question and do a little more definition there. Because she might explain why. Again, this might be repetitive here, if you were describe the youth in (19)60s and early (19)70s, please describe the qualities you most admire and the qualities you least admire. If you were to just give a couple of adjectives of the things that you have most admired about them. What would they be and some of the things you least admire? 21:19 RJ: Their sense of dedication, they were dedicated. They were in fact, say like, inquisitive. They were courageous. Okay. They were well, they were willing to take risk. They were flexible. Most of them on college campus. And now you say the youth, if I was talking about high school, it would be an, and I was associated with an upward bound program, then but as well, and they were forward looking, they were without anxiety, they had a sense of hope. Okay, because subsequent to the Civil Right when the government provided to them a [inaudible] debt for hope, of hope, okay. And therefore, by virtue of the, even though the [inaudible] never really had the money, the concept was empower- psychologically empowering. The concept of, of the war on poverty was-was the was psychologically empowering. Now, I guess, therefore, the opposite would be some of the things I would have to say that in retrospect, retrospect, I would say that maybe that the youth were gullible, and maybe they went, because I believe that now, the amount of depression that I see, the amount of anxiety and type attacks and, and the amount of panic attacks that I see in people and so forth, and the fear that they have in trying to communicate with their children, all of these things probably instilled in them a lack of sense of hope, which is the origin of depression is when that when that hope turns into that is a loss, when one begins to lose that hope, then one begins to have a collective depression that is going on. Okay. So then, and when I- oh, and then I guess, in the [inaudible], this is in retrospect, I thought it was exciting then. But the freedom that they had in terms of not only in terms of relationships, and even very intimate relationship, the sense of a lack of commitment, though. However, the-the lack of commitment with respect to marriage, the lack of commitment with respect to promiscuous behavior, okay. And promiscuous thought patterns. Obviously, they were not that- I did not like the fact that they did get away from moralistic principles, I guess, it used to be that I did not like that about that group of children, which in fact then probably is causing, and in the, right now, some of the sense of the lack of identity that they obviously had when they thought about what they were doing. And now I believe that their parenting skills are actually fostering a sense of lack of identity in the babies of the boomers. 24:21 SM: Interesting observation, getting off the general questions here, because several people that I have spoken to have said when you talked about the boomer generation, especially in the area of the Civil Rights movement, you cannot even talk about boomers, they were too young. To talk, the fact that boomers were born (19)46 And a lot of the things that were in the Civil Rights movement in the mid (19)50s, late (19)50s, early (19)60s, they did not even- they were not old enough to really be involved, but certainly they were influenced as they got older in to the late (19)60s and early (19)70s. So, I have had several comments, say in stating that, if you talk about the boomers, you cannot talk about them really having hardly any; the effect on the Civil Rights movement, even the antiwar movement on college campuses, the majority of them were a lot of the older graduate students, I remember- 25:10 RJ: If we take now, we are saying (19)46 to (19)60, right? Now- 25:14 SM: [inaudible] those are people who were born between (19)46 and (19)64. 25:17 RJ: Okay, well, between (19)46 and (19)64. All right now- 25:20 SM: Bill Clinton's like, he is just nearing- 25:22 RJ: He is a boomer. 25:23 SM: 50. 25:23 RJ: Okay, right. 25:23 SM: That group is just turning 50 this year. 25:25 RJ: Right, I see what you are saying. Right. Now, on the other hand, if you think okay, (19)40, if you take (19)46 now, and they, I believe those people have a lot of- see the Civil Rights movement, actually, moved, moved from public accommodation against [inaudible]. I believe that the Vietnam War resistance movement, if you may, was an aspect of Civil Rights. And I think it prompted many of the demonstrations, the rallies the whole bit. Okay. The fact that Muhammad I believe spoke out in about (19)64, (19)65. Again, (19)65 at (19)64, no (19)63. He spoke out about (19)63 and (19)64, (19)64, when he spoke out and said about his being refusing to go to Vietnam, if I am not mistaken. (19)64, (19)65. Okay, now it will you think about that, that had an aspect of the Civil Rights movement. Okay, so I guess Muhammad Ali would have been considered a boomer, right? Yeah, he was. He is about 52 now, something like that. 50, or 50-50 or 51, something like that. Okay, well, anyway, he would have been considered that- he had a tremendous impact, the Black Panther Party, Huey Newton, okay. Let us say, Eldridge Cleaver. They had a heck of an impact upon the Civil Rights movement in the late (19)70s. I mean, the late (19)60s and early (19)70s. Okay, because they have moved from the feeling that for example, as a matter of fact, if the Panthers were around right now, they will be considered terrorists. Okay. It is no question about it, okay. If you look at the Democrats who have, you know, Students for a Democratic Society, and people like that at Berkeley, for all intents and purposes, that was (19)70, they had an impact on legislation in Congress, the (19)68 Civil- I mean, (19)68 convention in Chicago, okay. With respect to what Mayor Daley did, and how he controlled that particular, that was all about Civil Rights. It actually put law enforcement under the microscope, it began to make people start thinking about how you are going to contain crowds and not contain crowd. Okay, you have people in terms of the Hun- the Hungarian, say invasion and so forth. That was (19)63, no it was (19)66 (19)67. Okay, if I am not mistaken, not Hungarian. 27:59 SM: Poland. 27:59 RJ: Poland, okay. 28:00 SM: That was (19)68. 28:01 RJ: Yeah, (19)68. 28:02 SM: Alexander Dubček. 28:03 RJ: There you go. And yeah, okay. If you take a look at that, for example, then you had students on college campuses reacting against that, okay, and so forth, that what happened at Kent State in 1970, had a tremendous impact upon influencing policy. Okay, those, and when those white children got killed in their [inaudible]. Now, if you take a look at it, all of those youngsters were actually born since 19- that participated in that were in fact born since that period, (19)46. 28:35 SM: You are right [inaudible] the observations that I am getting so far. I am the boomers. For example, when you talk about what is the question I have coming up here, [inaudible] that question I asked with respect to the Vietnam War. What is the impact of boomers on that war with respect to ending it? Now, this is a commentary and your thoughts are very important here. I have had one person who said, "That is ridiculous. They did not end the war. The people that end- Richard Nixon ended the war" and [crosstalk] conservative, okay- 29:05 RJ: Yeah-yeah. 29:06 SM: Then I got the other extreme saying, and this is where I interviewed Jack Smith of ABC news a couple of days ago when I was down here. And then of course, he was in Vietnam. And he said that, "No, the college students did not end the war." One end of the war was the middle class Americans who saw the kid who's caught saw their sons coming home from Vietnam. And when-when Middle America saw that the war was bringing, was killing people and everything, they made the decision that they were against the war and they influenced their politicians. And that is why you saw the Frank Churches of the world who would not get on the bandwagon with the extremists on college campuses. Fear of not only losing his senate position in Idaho, but so what-what are your thoughts in terms of the boomers and their impact on the on those two movements, particularly on the ending of the Vietnam War, number one, and then their-their important role or not so important role in the Civil Rights movement. Now, you mentioned the Black Panthers, but in terminology, boomers. That is what I am trying to get at here and keep in mind you we are talking 60 million people here, of which some of the books they only about 15 percent were ever active anyways, in any kind of activism during this 30:21 RJ: Oh, look let me tell you what, I have, they had a tremendous impact upon influencing the Civil Rights movement. Because if you think about it, the Birmingham church bombings, which were in the (19)60s, those children that were killed for our exam- for example, they were boomers as well as the children who demonstrated. You see what I mean, about the policies, in terms of and who followed Mrs. Parks. They were not they were not your typical college student, but they affected public opinion. For example, many Gene Smith, and let us say, Donald Green, and those people who went to Central High School, for all intents and purposes, okay, so [audio cuts] [inaudible] The Supreme Court decision has been rendered, and everything, which is another major impact- is it on? 31:12 SM: Yep. 31:12 RJ: Okay. Here is another major impact. See, some of this was actually, it was actually subsequent to, that was an era there were a lot of young Black people who were in fact, boomers. And who were born right, even right, the right in that same era there. Okay, in terms of [inaudible] to (19)60, that the child in terms of whom Brown versus the Board was in fact, she was 26 or 27 years of age, you see, so then, and that was not- that was of international prominence, that decision will go down. But as in the famous canons of jurisprudence, forever Brown versus the Board of Education, that was a boomer child. Okay, that was at the center of that whole controversy. I mean, all that was a major Civil Rights decision was changed. It was it was the moral equivalent to the ending of Apartheid in South Africa. And a boomer child actually created that. Okay, now, and then if you take a look at, they had the [inaudible] boomers. Another thing in terms of Civil Rights movement. [Michael] Schwerner and [Andrew] Goodman, and, and [James] Chaney, the three civil rights mov- workers that were killed in Mississippi, and I think it was (19)63 or (19)64. Okay. 32:39 SM: (19)64. 32:40 RJ: Okay, fine. Now, they were boomers. They were in fact, they were not. They were like, I think what 18, 19 and 20 or something like that? They just barely, just barely missed it maybe, but for all intents and purposes, but here they were was showing coalitions at that time. And they were fighting, and that was a national prominent international peace that had international media down that end, and now just goes right on up to this the Vietnam War. While I believe that the mothers and the middle class really did, maybe they were the ones who wrote the letter, the boomers were the conscience, i.e. Bill Clinton, okay, that type of thing. And the boomers did not want to serve in that war. Okay, the boomers were trying to do everything they could to get-get school status of get out of the country, because they did not want to go to Vietnam. Okay, so consequently- and that was generally a draft dodger, new lexicons, you see what I mean, we are actually developed a new lingo, and that type of thing, right. And so, then that particular say, impact, the media did not focus on the middle class, because that was very unamerican. But the media did not focus on Kent State, they did focus on Berkeley, it did focus on, say, University of say New York, did focus on that, did focus on Michigan State, you see, and this type of thing, and all of the Black schools in the south, it focused on that. So then and about their opposition to the war, and actually the boomers highlighted another thing that, that when certain moral issues, are brought up, that Black students and white students coalesce even in historically Black schools and-and predominantly white school, around the immorality of something because in Jackson State in the same year, the same month that in fact, in Jackson, Mississippi, that there were, say nine or so students killed at Kent State, there were also the troops fired and killed on five or six Black students at Jackson. 34:43 SM: Right, in fact there were four killed at Kent State and I thought a few wounded and then there were two killed Jackson State. 34:49 RJ: Yeah. 34:49 SM: And I still remember the fact that it is a very sensitive issue that when you started talking about what happened in (19)70, you better talk about both schools. 34:56 RJ: That is right. 34:57 SM: And then the media has a tendency, and I know they did an article on this in the Chronicle of Higher Education. It was in the last couple of years, when they were celebrating past anniversaries that this this year, they made absolutely sure that the anniversaries of both of these tragic events were recovered because the- 35:14 RJ: So, the media are being influenced by the boomers too making and raising these moral issues. Okay, so no question about. 35:23 SM: Yeah, how do you respond to a person who might say a Vietnam veteran will say, "Well, you are only talking about the elites here. You are talking about those people, “Whether they are African American or white students, or Latino students who went to college, you are talking about the elites here, you are not talking about the rest of America of the boomers who never went to college, which is still the majority, the boomers who went off to war in Vietnam and never got a college degree, which was probably the majority. So how can you define that group of boomers? 35:54 RJ: That group of boomers as the one that were you, the most healing has to take place. Because they were in the fighting units in Vietnam, okay. And that type of line, the [inaudible] Eagles and the Marine Corps and that type of thing. Now, let me tell you, and they were also the labor force that geared up after Chevrolet started making shells in St. Louis, in the (19), let us say (19)65 to (19)70, they open up shell plants, and many of your major car producers went into developing, you know, shells for artillery, and so forth. Now, they-they did that, they were the ones that were doing the heavy-duty operation, or they were on the front line. Now, they, therefore when they came back, and also I think they are the most troubled Black and white, because they still are I still have men in my classes now who fight the battle of Vietnam almost on every issue that comes up in that particular classroom. And these are not the elite. These are students who are not supposed to even made it to college. But then let us go back to in terms of the drug problem. The drug problem is, I think, significantly impacted on the-the guy on the street, and right immediately subsequent to many of the GIs coming back from Vietnam, they were hooked. They stayed they state, I have had them in therapy and so forth. I am not talking about college students, they had to, in fact, use that to anesthetize themselves and the availability of it, they even talk about that they knew it was pretty much a national policy that they could get as much Vietnam, I mean, say heroin and get as much marijuana as they wanted to. The family, Agent Orange affected the middle class. Okay, that and it is still affecting the middle class, okay, in terms of that, and so even now, one of the things that is causing the prevention of that healing is that these issues have not been resolved. And we got another issue of that, where some of the babies of the boomers are experiencing the same thing with respect to the Desert Storm syndrome. Okay, so then and these are not college students. This is the run of the mill GI who is at Fort [inaudible]. 38:15 SM: So, when you again, a lot of my questions that are being taken off from some of the other interviewees really been reflected from a [inaudible]. So when a person who is college educated, but certainly Vietnam says that the ending of the war in Vietnam that was not because of what was happening on college campuses, is what was happening away from the college campuses, but the media portrayed it and everything- 38:38 RJ: The media was not going to go down on those college campuses. You see what I mean? It was not going to go down there. Think about that. As another thing, if you think about it, the Kerner Report, the Kerner Report documents all of this with the US, you familiar with that, right? And the US commission on riots and civil disobedience, which came out in (19)68, okay, when it came out, it documented all of it. What happened in Detroit was a lot of frustration in terms of the Boomers who were acting up the. What happened in in Watts, that were, okay, the-the lack of civil and legal recourse that were available to people, okay, all of these types of things that that unrest and so forth, and the still oppressive nature. But see, now get ready for this, the media then was getting ready to turn a corner. So what the media did, they even staged some things that were not true. The media had begun to recognize them. Remember I said early on an interview, that the media has been the cohesive glue that networks around all of this stuff together. And the media has changed and has been extremely, let us say vocal and in pointing this out, everybody knows that nobody likes to see little Black- little white girls get killed on college campuses. Okay, so consequently, you cannot say it was made a big deal. Now I will believe that Kent State was the most significant impetus in changing policy about the Civil- about the Vietnam war than any single incident. 40:19 SM: You are [inaudible] right on that one, because I can remember that even when I was a graduate student at Ohio State back and (19)71 and (19)72. By (19)73, [inaudible] changing- 40:31 RJ: That is right. 40:32 SM: The movement just [breath to indicate vanishing] 40:34 RJ: [inaudible] got elected, a Democrat, got elected governor for four years- 40:38 SM: Oh right, and then they voted the other guy back in. 40:40 RJ: And voted Rhodes back in. 40:41 SM: I know. 40:41 RJ: You see what I mean? That saying that. 40:43 SM: Amazing. 40:44 RJ: Yes, it was amazing, was not it? But again, and that conservative impetus has been with us, we have had only two Democratic presidents since then. And one of them was suspect, Jimmy Carter's suspect of having been a Democrat, okay, because of his very conservative policies. So then since that time, we have only had one a Democratic president since that time, in terms of a liberal elite, and of course, now history showing us that-that [inaudible] is not liberal. 41:12 SM: Very middle of the road. 41:13 RJ: That is exactly right. So then we see that. So then that era hit in there, and now who is keeping him in? The boomers, therefore, you would have to say a significant number of the boomers are in fact, keeping him in there, because that means then keeping him in keeping that-that conservative bent and look at this, there- the Newt Gingrich's and so on, and so forth. But I understand and that is what we got to do. But there is hope. The hope is, that is not either or, we got people all up and down the spectrum there in terms of say, their political bent. But in the final analysis, we would have to say that people made a fundamental shift in their, in their worldview, and that worldview became that we, that you must get, in effect, the bottom line in materialism. And I think that had to do again, with the impetus of the media, the media has infused that, the media is about selling. The media is not about in fact, say doing anything, but selling and getting people to buy. So then therefore, and as people saw, people want it. And therefore now they look at the conservative bent as having more money in my pocket and the liberal bent as taking money away from me and giving to someone else. So we went back to our media induced social Darwinists. You got to be more fit than the other person. And the way that you be more fit than the other person is the one that in fact, has all the marbles, who at the end of the game wins. 42:51 SM: Yeah, it is like, one of the terms that was used, I can remember when I was in college, and I was really proud of it is that we are the most unique generation in American history, we are going to change the world. We are going to make sure that everybody is equal, that racism is going to end. Of course, the sexism issue was something that was growing too with the women's, but it was the concept of equality, we cared about others, it was hopefully others beyond ourselves, yet, you had the enigma or the what some people might call hypocrisy of a slogan that was used in that time, and I can remember having it on my door at Ohio State University in Jones Tower- 43:32 RJ: Were you part of the problem or [inaudible] 43:34 SM: No, it was the Peter Max posters that were all over Ohio State at that time. And the slogan was "You do your thing, I will do mine. If by chance, we should come together, it will be beautiful." And that, that if you say that then some people will say, well, the boomers were no different than any other generation. They are into making money that you saw what happened in the (19)70s or the late (19)70s. And the (19)80s the "me" generation they were really only into "me," they were they were very selfish, making money getting a job, they were no different than any other group. This business about idealism and being different is a bunch of malarkey. So, I know that I have not- I still have the same ideals but I am kind of wondering if I am an out- if I am an outcast. Because money- 44:19 RJ: Good. If you an outlier, good. 44:20 SM: Money is money is not the most, never has been the most important thing in my life. And in but to some people it is. 44:27 RJ: Yes, it is, a whole lot of people. 44:29 SM: And that is what they say that the boomers as a whole were no different than any other group. They just wanted to raise families, make a lot of money have a car and a couple of cars and the whole works. What are your thoughts on the boomers being at that time saying that they are the most unique generation in American history? 44:43 RJ: I think they sold; I think a significant number of them sold out. Okay. And sold out to their, their principles of the late (19)60s and early (19)70s. Okay, and but I understand it and I can accept it because I have a fairly decent understanding of the process of socialization, and that is in terms of the conformity in the normal curve, okay in a normal distribution, and that most of the people began to follow what was being infused into them. We started to invite say, like, choose our majors based upon job prospects on college campus, we were not choosing our majors based upon what we wanted to do. And when you talk to people about what they what they were going to major in when they want to go to college, they said I want to I want to major in and probably businesses or something, something that is going to make me an awful lot of money, okay. They did not think about like, if you has asked people 30 years before then. And people would have said, "Well, I want to be a teacher," or "I want to be a social worker," or "I want to be an engineer," okay, something like-they did not want to be, they had to do what was going to make them a lot of money. So they were in fights, they coopted. And consequently, and I noticed that where else who logically would have believed that a whole institution that financed the home of boomer parents, the parents of boomers would have allowed without major hysteric the savings and loan association to be robbed completely dry. And then accept that the Resolution Trust arbitrarily now takes out their checks every month, 2 to $3, from every American who has a checking account or savings account, to pay for the savings and loan institution that was robbed, literally dry, to in fact, say pay for the money that was stolen from people and many people never got. But that was not a public outcry. Because the-the moral ethical belief made a tremendous shift to that whole notion of if you can get away of the 11th commandment is, do not get caught. That is where we are now. And that is the moral principle that we are operating on that now, I do not like that about the boomers. Okay, because now is nobody- I had an Iranian who worked for me about, oh, 10 years ago. And he said, you know, America is a funny place. Nobody cares what you do. Nobody is concerned about what your profession is or what you do. Everybody is concerned about whether or not you make a lot of money in it. Okay, and that is true. Nobody cares if you own like waste management now waste management company, if you will, in fact, waste management, which is just a garbage man in my in my here generation. If you waste management, you are going to be filthy rich, because that is a big issue now but that is all people concerned about, "Can I make money at it?" So therefore, like the youngsters who are in adult right now, and what we got ourselves to really think about this, now, the papers just reported the other day that, for example, drug abuse it uses up among the children of boomers significantly, okay, the drug policy office out of the office of the White House which ascended politically to a cabinet level position was in fact wiped out with the staff. That is why Lee Brown left and went back to Rice University. As a professor, he got a chair because he saw that Clinton was not doing anything. 48:34 SM: Down to 20 people, was not it? 48:35 RJ: Down to 20. 48:36 SM: 120 to 20. 48:37 RJ: That and no budget. They just had to put, they were coordinating and everybody else, it was nothing by the show and tell position. So then that goes along with the moral and ethical hierarchy that we have which the boom- now, the boomers are very tolerant of immorality. Because you got to just come to grips with that. The babies of boomers and the boomers are very tolerant of immorality, and they lack- the babies of boomers particularly, they do not have that work ethic that we had, that many of the boomers had or if you may the post-boomers, anti-boomers had. Okay, the generation the anti-boomers had, but they do not have that same work ethic. They want to make a fast buck at any way that they possibly can. 49:23 SM: Can you talk about the drug scene that the, what was happening in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s, a Timothy Leary what his famous slogan there, "tune in to turn on turn out" or whatever it was. He said, so many of the boomers did that that they were kind of lacks. And so, the parents or the boomers today will say you cannot be judging us and our usage of drugs look at what your generation did, you think there is something? 49:49 RJ: I think there is a tolerance. You know, like, I see I see parents who know that their children are into drugs, and there is a certain resignation. That is going to happen. And it is not that they are alarmed about it like the parents of boomers would have been, they, the boomer parent is "I know what is going to happen." And "Well, my son and my daughter has a drug problem." And they kind of look upon it as a process through which they are going, they are going to go, and stages through which they are going to go. They just accept that as almost a rite of passage now. I do not see parent, I do not see most parents saying that, "Oh, Lord, I do not want my child to get into dru- Oh, my goodness, he is into drug or what have you. Well, you know, we are working with them and we are willing to spend $25,000, from the insurance company to send him or her for somewhere to dry out for 20, for 10 weeks or so or something like." They just for the middle class people, but in terms of for the less than middle class people, they see it as the one opportunity for making that buck. 51:00 SM: So that was in the intersection. That is why when you are looking at all of these issues, you just cannot just look at the issue [inaudible], you got to look at the economy again. You know, we have kind of the big sphere, that vision really causes these problems. Have you changed your opinion at all, say when I was a student at Ohio State University in (19)72, and in (19)96, and you change your opinions and all over the last 25 years toward boomers, you have taught a lot of students when you were fairly young professor when I had you I know back in the 28 or 29 it was [inaudible] Yeah. And you saw those students who were boomers and you saw many other boomers in the next 5 to 10 years that followed, and then you have also had the people of today. What are your thoughts on, I guess from-from a professor's point of view, you have seen them. You have seen them in class, but now students of all colors- what is your analysis of this these people? Have most of your students for example, have you been proud of most of your students? Have they gone on and lived up to the concept of you know, going on to education and making a career and what are your just your overall thoughts? 52:13 RJ: Ones that- I keep in contact with a with a number of them. And I have seen, it is a trend that most of them who thought they were going to work on college campuses and schools and things of this nature, social service types of job, use those positions to go into working with Xerox starting up their own consultancy firms moving into politics and things of this nature. And I do believe it has been power and money driven. Okay, I do not think that it has been altruistically driven, okay. As, now that is, that is one thing. I think it is still money and power driven. 53:03 SM: That is got to disappoint you, does not it? When you- 53:06 RJ: Well- 53:07 SM: Because when you teach in class, you are trying to extreme opposite. 53:10 RJ: Yes. But here is what I say. I think I understand reasonably well the whole socialization process. So it pleases me when I see someone like well, you remember Mac Stewart? 53:10 SM: Yes. 53:11 RJ: Okay. Now Mac, from what I heard is still at Ohio State is he is still working in student- well in University College as Assistant Dean, but I know other people who came through like him, who moved out and went in this- take Alex Moore. Alex got his degree and say, Student Personnel Administration, his PhD but went and started to work for boarding company in Switzerland. Last I heard he is in Ohio back in the international headquarters, in Columbus working for them. Now, if you take Carl Harshman, remember Carl Harshman? 54:00 SM: He was stocky. 54:01 RJ: Yes. 54:02 SM: Big stocky guy. 54:03 RJ: Yeah, well Carl Harshman has now an international consultancy firm and is a millionaire, and lives in a big exclusive area, and I am in touch with him frequently, you know. Carl it works in transitioning Japanese well I will say American owned say factories and what have you, for Japanese owned businesses. And he is coordinating that whole process of training workforces to move into say, for example, new products and everything with a big staff. He loves higher education and all that all together after working [inaudible] professor, and in fact, say like a vice president, but for Academic Affairs, at St. Louis University, and that is what he is doing. But I understand that okay, I understand it. It does not really disappoint me, I think because again, I am not so sure that some of these people, or Felicia Gaston got- do you remember Felicia? She got her, she went to [inaudible] got her degree, went to Ohio State got in student personnel and she has been with Xerox now almost 20 years. This stuff you see, I mean, and went way up the ladder to a regional vice president or something like that. Okay, so then it but that was the trend of boomers and a- the babies. Well, let us put it like this now. The babies are boomers’ children I am seeing in therapy now. Okay, they are angry as hell. The number one target of my therapy that I work with now is anger management and disruptive behavior. Okay, if they in fact are presenting as depressed or presenting as, say, with panic disorders or attention deficit hyperactive disorder, the one thing you can count on is that they are violent and angry. Okay, it does not matter what the babies are boomers now we are talking about the ones that are getting ready to go to college now. Okay, that those will be the babies of boomers. Right? 56:02 SM: Right. 56:02 RJ: Okay, so now they are in fact, they are typically identify as- white or Black- by their being extremely insensitive, object relationship oriented, not in terms of say human, but things. That is what I see now. 56:21 SM: Are they mad at their parents? 56:22 RJ: They are mad they would- some of them do not even know what that, but a lot of them are very mad. I have one anger management group on Saturday morning. And it runs the gamut from professional parent boomers or babies of professional parents to just the working mother. Okay, and the literature reports the same thing. And they are mad in terms of the idiographic, the specific- person specific ang- manage, say, anger, focus. The parents are very frequently a target of it. When you talk about nomographic, general nomothetic type of measures for them, they are it may run the gamut all the way from being angry about their future, to being angry about, say, for example, let us say about anger producing situations that are about getting along with peers. You see what I mean, provocation about getting along with peers, provocations about position- people in positions of authority, you know, they have just, have this profound sense. It is almost like it is a latent sense of jealousy that comes out in abject violence. 57:32 SM: Wow. 57:33 RJ: Okay, now, those are the those are the babies of boomers. And what is his name? Devin Bakker out at Cal- out of Colorado State University, he has found he has- he said, for example, that a co-presenting problem was generally now that is found with most people in therapy, [phone rings] whether it is depression or anxiety, or whatever, it is the issue of anger. Now, you have to have all the irrespective of where you go, there are anger issues in these schools that is tremendous. Getting back to the media, and getting back to the lack of nurturing types of parents that I am finding, okay. 58:17 SM: Which could be directly related to some of the qualities of the boomers so lack of commitment. 58:21 RJ: And, and the fact that the parenting role is unfair, see, they cognitively understand that "My dad is not here, he is not making money," or "My mom is not here, she is making money" and this type of thing. Or "My dad's not here, because, for example, my mom was doing her own thing, and she just got pregnant with me and there is no dad here." Or "My mom told my dad, I am you are going to keep me and I am going on about my way," or "I do not know who my dad is, I do not know who my mom is," or the grandmothers are raising the pre the parents of boomers are playing a significant role in raising the babies of boomers. 59:00 SM: I am seeing that too. 59:02 RJ: Yeah. 59:04 SM: It is uh- 59:05 RJ: Well, that is what I am saying that, for example, I think it is identity. It is an identity issue. And then we say we take it in targeted like that, then that means that we got to give them a sense of purpose. 59:19 SM: If you were to just say in they were the most unique generation, would you say they were most unique or they are no different than any other? 59:25 RJ: I do not think they really have that much different than any other in terms of the prolonged history in now and historical analysis. During this, this constricted contemporary, and I would almost have to say from the Industrial Revolution up to this cyberspace revolution or generation, I would say that they were adapting and are adapting to the way in which this unplanned let us say, ambience, in a global perspective, if you may wish the cyberspace is brought about, they are just inside being a part of that. So if you were to take the agrarian to the adult industrial and the industrial to the atomic and the atomic to the cybernetic, and if you were to take that, that group there from-from the what you will we just so happen to call it the boomers because, hey, what about if you made the Western expansionist if we want to do that, that was the whole movement that moved from go west young man, the [inaudible] concept from the agrarian to the industrial. So then you see, when we think about that, we could have called them something but we did not have the hook to put that on that the media gave us for the boomers that it has, and we did not have [inaudible] and we did not have other sociolog- sociologists, like that you see, and Max Weber, to have come by and given us these types of concepts to deal with. You see, so then that is what the conceptual incarceration we are in we are in fact, incarcerated in that concept. 1:01:03 SM: Good point. We are coming toward the end of this tape here. And then I am going to- we have another 30 minutes. 1:01:07 RJ: Yeah. Okay. 1:01:08 SM: Because of the um, we are going to get into some questions on Vietnam right now. You, I have been to the Vietnam Memorial three years ago now, I come down every Memorial Day now. I feel it is important for me to be there. I am trying to get a sense especially involved in this project, whether healing has really taken place, not only within the Vietnam [inaudible] population, but in the nation itself. Jan Scruggs wrote a book in 1982, the person who put together the Vietnam memorial, called To Heal a Nation. And so, I have looked at that I read that and a tremendous effort in terms of creating a non-political entity, where people can come and reflect it is the whole, you have been there, you have seen, the impact has on everybody, everybody, it affects them differently. They reflect them in some respects, as Jackson has said, they all reflect in somewhat of a different way, when they look at that wall. Their own- do you feel that the boomers are a generation that is still having problems with healing. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial did a great job of the veterans in some respects and families of veterans but do you [audio cuts]. Okay, here we go. 1:02:19 RJ: As I was saying that it may be in terms of why they were so inactive, is because if their parents were wealthy enough to give it give them, they were given everything they took so much for grant- they have been taken so much for granted. And if they were on if they were not, the social welfare system, gave them everything that they wanted, or they have insight, learned to deal with deviant ways of coping in society, that they are experts in dealing in deviancy. Think about it, you know, like, from the drug thing, to the prostitution, to the violence, to the gang banging and all of this stuff. These are deviant ways of coping with their pressures. To just simply actually-actually acquiesce to-to, to being a failure, to acquiesce being a failure is actually a deep deviant coping mechanism. [audio cuts] 1:03:32 SM: We just have to check on that, because your experience with [inaudible]. This might be seen- I only three more questions, and then we are done. 1:03:40 RJ: Okay, no problem. 1:03:40 SM: This may seem a repetitive question, but I think it is very important with the project I am working on again, that is why I am repeating it. Do you think it is possible to heal within a generation where differences in positions taken are so extreme? Is it important to try to assist in this healing process? Should we care and is it feasible? For example, during my many trips to the wall, I have been to several ceremonies of the veterans in the audience. Many of them have stated that they still hate Bill Clinton, they hate Jane Fonda based on the fact that they are wearing these badges that say "Jane Fonda bitch," they are all over the place. They hate those and protested the war and never gave veterans a royal welcome on the return to the mainland. The Wall was helping a magnificent way but the hate remained for those on the other side. Should an effort be made to assist in this healing beyond the wall, your thoughts? Are you optimistic or pessimistic? And basically, I guess what I am trying to get at. I know it is impossible to 100 percent deal as one person told me, is Dr. Silver, who is a psychologist up in Coatesville. He said “There is a difference between forgiving and healing. Healing, we can know a lot of veterans are healing from the war, but they cannot forgive.” So, do not misinterpret that the fact that they cannot forgive Jane Fonda or Bill Clinton means that they are not healing. You agree with that premise? That or do you agree that the efforts that the healing process should be trying to get beyond the need to forgive Bill Clinton because he was a young man at that time. And he obviously made have done something wrong in their eyes, but to constantly use hate someone; hate is a strong word. 1:05:12 RJ: Well, I-I do not believe that healing can take place without forgiving. Forgiving is atonement and spiritually, the only way that you can find say like, and this is psychological and spiritual, the only way that you can heal, which means to become whole is to, in fact, say like forgive, where you are giving the past a different meaning. As long as you are holding on to a past that has been self-hurting to you, and a past that has been troubling to you, then you cannot heal. And if you decide and the only person actually who can bring about that healing is oneself, one has to learn the process of change and the process of healing. And one of those things is that one has to in fact, let the past go. Do not allow the past to control your present, then you are in fact being healed. Okay, like for example, a good [inaudible] metaphor is if you allow us, you have an abrasion and it scabs, that happened in the past, it is in the process of healing. But if you in fact, allow yourself to pull that scab off, it takes it back to where it was, it was you re-hurt it again. So then the skin cannot, the scab cannot fall away, cannot harden to allow the skin to re- to become whole and is one. Okay, so this is what has been happening. I think with a lot about Vietnam, we think it is a it is a destination, it is a journey, the healing is okay, and I am in that process. The petroleum that drives that you to that journey is forgiveness. 1:07:06 SM: It is interesting, that brings up the whole idea that this is such a complex subject, that even when we talk about healing, the definitions are different. You as a professional, this other person is professional. 1:07:17 RJ: It does not surprise me because in my judgment, European men have a difficult time dealing with spiritual concepts, unless they are theologians. 1:07:29 SM: People will ever trust elected leaders again after the debacle of Vietnam and Watergate [inaudible] stress what effect is this having on the current [audio blip] it gets back to my question with Senator Muskie, and the fact that I can remember reading something that if you cannot trust in life, you have got to trust someone, you cannot, if you do not- 1:07:48 RJ: That is right- 1:07:48 SM: You are not going to be successful in life- 1:07:50 RJ: Which is true. If you cannot trust. 1:07:50 SM: In the long run. But there is a lot of you know, I still have that problem. I am very, not what I lot of people I trust, I mean- But positions of authority, it is always seems to be about power, its control, its takeover. It is never it is jealousy. It is you know, and I know, it is- that is part of what being a person is-is the politics of life. I know that for a fact that whenever you get into a certainly an institution of higher education, and certainly in the political reason it is and then after, and then as most boomers have done, they have grown up at a time when they saw their-their leaders assassinated, they saw political the nation come apart. They saw divisions that were so wide. And then then of course, Watergate just added on top of that you cannot trust the enemies list, you know, people looking into private lives. And you will see that extended into today with almost a George Orwell, George Orwellian philosophy of (19)84, that nothing is private, nothing is sacred anymore. Your whole private life is now on computers that can be bought. It is just an extension of the Nixon enemies list almost. You see a little bit of in the White House with the appointment, some of his people taking the Republican names, even though it may have been a mistake, someone was doing it. So, I am asking that basically, this whole concept of trust. We see amongst our college students today that only about 15-17 percent, according to last studies of entering freshmen are have any interest in politics or actually to trust any leaders yet there is interest in volunteerism is over 85 percent. So, on the one hand, we see students will obviously care about others because they are doing volunteer work. They care about others yet, maybe they do not see the sense that they themselves can be empowered. 1:09:35 RJ: Well, [crosstalk] they do see that they can be empowered, but the type of empowerment is obviously altruistic and not financial, and not and not receiving their empowerment is not giving which is, in my judgment, more probably more peaceful, more subtly and more if you want to talk about identity is more is more is coming and goes with whom you are more. And that you are defining yourself by what you are doing by using your talents to in fact help somebody else. 1:10:20 SM: That is happening on amongst today's college students. 1:10:23 RJ: Well, that is great, that is really great at that level, are definitely say that that is admirable, and probably in terms of the healing process of a generation, and the babies of boomers healing, maybe they are, in fact, say healing themselves. And in the process, maybe the boomers in their senior years will emulate what their children are doing in terms of reconciling. And actually, if you may, atoning by letting it go, what they have been driven by-by all these years for all these years. 1:10:57 SM: How do you respond on the fact that today's college students still do not vote? They do not vote. Boomers do not vote in large numbers. And boomers are the ones that are thought to have the 18 year old vote, the old slogan was a for going off to war, then we have to be able to vote, we are going to die in war at 18, then we can vote at 18. 1:11:16 RJ: Okay. 1:11:16 SM: Of course (19)68 was the first year that 18-year-olds could vote. So yet but, statistics show that boomers and their kids are both not voting. And the to use Dr. Benjamin Barber, who is- 1:11:27 RJ: Okay but look at it like this. But then what are politicians doing about voter registration, motor-motor voter registration, have you noticed they do not want it? Why? Because they- 1:11:37 SM: Jackson does, because- 1:11:37 RJ: Wait a minute but that is not, but he is a different type of politician, he is an altruistic one. That professional politician does not want that to happen. Okay, because they know if the people if those boomers who are not about the voting vote and have AIDS to the [inaudible], they tend to also be against the established politicians. Okay, and established politician know that that is a no-no, you do not want that type of person, even to vote in the poll, you want that opinionated, if you may, either-or type person in there, you do not want the thinking person in there, the boomers, the children or boomers, therefore probably going to register more as independents, rather less and less as Democratic or Republican, which is, in fact, again, the lifeblood of democracy. So, then what they are in fact, say perhaps going toward, and incidentally, not trusting the political process, maybe will be the existing the status quo political process may be is the impetus that is going to change it. 1:11:43 SM: [Inaudible] since the (19)60s and still continues here in the (19)90s. 1:12:27 RJ: [agreement] 1:12:32 SM: How did the youth in the (19)60s and early (19)70s change your life and attitudes toward that in your 20s when you were teaching? You saw some of them, you saw some in your classes, and then of course, you have seen them now, throughout the years. Have they changed your life in any way, the boomers you have come in contact with? 1:13:06 RJ: Yeah, they gave me more hope. They did. Okay, when I think about it, but the majority of them gave me hope. It was especially when I was teaching in predominantly white schools. They gave me more hope about-about the races actually doing things together in a common end. Okay, they gave me more hope in the sense of saying that race or that quality probably transcended race when it came down to mentoring. Okay, I definitely saw that. And also, incidentally, that is why because you remember that course I had up at the prison, remember? 1:13:53 SM: Oh, great course. 1:13:53 RJ: Yeah. Okay. So then, and I am still doing some of that right now. But I remember when we had all of the young white blonde girls going up there to [Inaudible] Reformatory, which was one of the big prisons there. 1:14:06 SM: Tiffany Brian? I forget her name. We went with me. I forget her name Bitty O'Brian? 1:14:09 RJ: Bitty O'Brien. I remember her. 1:14:11 SM: She was a shrimp. 1:14:12 RJ: Yeah, and- 1:14:12 SM: Four foot six! 1:14:13 RJ: -Susan Shillman. And all of them. You know, they all went up there. So and then we were seeing that, that they had a sense of wanting to do something. But now that was, and now we also had to take into consideration that I was blinded. I did not know what was going on over the School of Business. I did not know what was going on in school of education. I mean, not education, but engineering and that type of thing I was dealing with because here is the other thing, Ohio State implemented while I was there, they implemented the early experiencing program that before you could declare your majors for the undergraduate, you had to have two years of volunteerism before you could declare your major they were just implementing that, okay. So consequently, that whole thing when you think about that, that sense of hope that I think that they the sense of commitment that they had, that they wanted to do something. But now guess what. The people, many of those people decided to get out of education, many of them decided to get out of social work. Why? Because it was not paying enough money. 1:15:18 SM: Right. 1:15:18 RJ: But now on the other hand, the enroll and we even start disseminating, we started on, say, actually dismantling colleges of education. And now we see we do not have any teachers. So now we are having to re- get a resurgence in education, again, resurgence in social work, and so forth, okay. And people now a want those jobs and want those majors. I had a child in here the other day to tell me that he was really considering which is very African American young a very smart, what have you, and his dad killed his mom. And that is one of the issues he is dealing with about six years ago, and he is still dealing with it, but he wants to be a teacher. You know, I mean, and that is unusual to find a child now that says, "I want to be a teacher" or "I want to be a minister," or that "I want to be, I want to major in criminal justice" or something. Everybody is, "I want a lot of money. I want to be a doctor, I want to be a lawyer." You see what I mean? 1:16:15 SM: Right. 1:16:16 RJ: Even my two children, remember that? Lisa is I told you is an MD at Merck now, she just moved up there last month and from-from Glaxo Wellcome. And Marcus is completing his MBA, with a baby then, is completing his MBA JD at Georgetown, one more year. Okay, look at what they chose. 1:16:35 SM: That was the son that I met two years ago, he was going to go to Berkeley or Stanford. What happened to? 1:16:39 RJ: He is at Georgetown. 1:16:40 SM: Oh, he is at Georgetown. 1:16:40 RJ: Yeah. 1:16:41 SM: Oh, okay. 1:16:41 RJ: Yeah, he is going, his MBA. He has finished in more year, he will have an MBA and JD. 1:16:48 SM: Wow. Two more questions, and I swear we are done. 1:16:53 RJ: Okay. 1:16:55 SM: Again, this might be repetitive when the best history books are written on the growing up years for the boomers saying 25 to 50 years from now, what will be the overall valuation? I think you have covered that in what you have said before, but as a history major, political science, which was my double major as an undergrad, one thing I was always taught is that the best history books on any era or take about 50 years. History books right now on World War Two, [inaudible] the best ones on World War Two are now. And so, we are only like, 25 years out from that era, that juncture there is a lot of books that are written, you feel that-that is, it is, it is too early? 1:17:28 RJ: 50 years? 1:17:29 SM: Yeah. But do you think? 1:17:30 RJ: Is it too early now to say it is some good lookout? 1:17:33 SM: Yeah. 1:17:33 RJ: Well, I do not think that is really, we have not run a full course, I agree. That I really think that is, you know, because we almost got what would be considered modernity and postmodernity within that group. I mean, that group right there. So now with the books that is going to come out and look at the transition from that, in terms of modernity, and postmodernity, which will probably be another 20 odd years, those are going to be the ones that will give us the best account of this generation, okay. The boomer generation, I think it has not- certain conclusive, let us say positions cannot be taken now. Because this in gestation, I mean that the children will say a lot about how successful the parents will be. The children's success on the children's behaviors is going to make it is going to give people the empirical data about what was apparently collectively happening with the parents. 1:18:27 SM: And [inaudible], could you comment on the generation gap in the (19)60s and early (19)70s and the generation gap if you sense one between the boomers and generation X. Obviously, I could talk all day, [phone rings] this generation gap when I was there. When I was a young person, I can remember this taking that sociology class at SUNY Binghamton before I arrived on the Ohio State campus, to see Wright Mills' book, White Collar, talking about fact that the IBM mentality of everybody with a top hat, with a suit, with a car out in front, the [inaudible] in the house, that was what we did not want to be. Because remember, that was when the Multiversity. I think it was- 1:19:14 SM & RJ: Barker's book. 1:19:15 SM: -Coming out there. And the revolt was that we were not going to be carbon copies of what the university or what society wanted us and we are all going to go our different ways. We are going to challenge the status quo. And that was obviously the tension between the generation, my generation and my parents’ generation. And now you see you I have raised a few things about tensions between the boomers and big things on Social Security. Every but thing's being written now that stayed in the (19)30s. Because there was an ongoing war. We have had people on our campus from [inaudible] to third millennia wars, alarming today's college students about the upcoming war on Social Security between boomers and today's children. I mean, they are saying a war is coming even before the war has happened. I do not like that terminology, "war." But I do not know. But would you- would you agree that the generation gap is any different now than it was back in the (19)60s? 1:20:14 RJ: Yeah, I think that is a very good point. I think it was on less serious issues back in the (19)60s, probably we thought that they were serious then. But in the (19)60s is a generation gap was pertaining to things like about whether you are going to go to college, who has the authority, and to make these decisions, and that older people out of touch in a more defiant- it was almost is we have an and say, diagnosis, we have an oppositional defiant disorder, then it was a more of an oppositional defiant disorder. But now, I think is structurally, I think that was what was happening now is that the very structure on which society is built, it is causing a rift in the generation in terms of, if you may, the issue of entitlement, okay. If you think about the issue of entitlement, what am I entitled to at 65, and-and going in my senior years, that my, my daughter will be entitled to or not entitled to and her- and my-my oldest daughter- and her children, she is a boom, a well, just yeah, she was born in (19)64. So then, in terms of her child, what will her child be entitled to? And then in terms of the workforce, you see, the older group, the older the-the boomers are going to be phasing out of the workforce. And the struc- and then with the global economy, and that issue coming in there, and what do we do with our older people and people in need? I think we are talking structural issues here. We are not we are not talk- it is analogous to, "Oh mom and dad, how late should I stay out" or "Should I in fact, engage in sex?" Now, there is analogous to that, to now it is much more serious. And that is, "what do you think about an abortion? As opposed to, "Should you not," as opposed to "Should I pit?" or "Should I be going steady?" Now the issue is, you see what I mean? 1:22:24 SM: Yep. 1:22:25 RJ: What should I be doing? What do you think about abortion as a political issue? People are now being, you see what I mean, and that this is a generational thing, or better yet not so much about what am I going to do in terms of my career, but whether or not we should in fact, be in allowing immigrants to come into the country. It used to be just, hey, you know, America, come on over. Right. But now we got much more structural issues here. I thought that-that is hitting that the infrastructure, that is actually having an impact about what our boomers going to do, as opposed to that children are going to do. And then how will we sus- how will we sustain this, the Social Security system, if, for example, we are outsourcing the making of Nike shoes to Malaysia, and we do not have those people in the in the Social Security system paying in anymore to take care of the boomers who are in fact getting older. 1:23:20 SM: I had not even thought of that. And I know about the social security issue. But you know, paying all the wages of people outside of this country. And this money could be coming into the United States, and that could be produced here. And that would help the divisions that could not [crosstalk] 1:23:35 RJ: That is exactly right but I think I am seeing something structurally happening in five years, the states will, in fact, have to, in fact, come up with- I noticed this in Wisconsin last, week before last. We saw an awful lot of young Black males working in hotels, you do not see that around here. I mean, cleaning up and everything, because Thompson out there is getting, in order to get certain types of benefits work- you got Workfare out there. Everybody is working, doing something in Wisconsin. 1:24:05 SM: Tommy Thompson. 1:24:05 RJ: Yeah. 1:24:06 SM: [Inaudible] writing a book out too right now. Is that Megatrends? 1:24:07 RJ: Okay, yeah, you know, he was being considered, he was not ready to be considered for vice presidents, but he is apparently doing something out there. His administration is, and that is what Clinton has supposedly, you know, tailored this thing. But now when you start thinking about the global economy, and then you start talking about the workforce growing, okay. I mean, workforce dwindling, and then outsourcing your-your jobs to, to whomever to the global economy. And that you know, like, I forget the name in his book, but you know, like we got we are going to have producers of information, and then we going to with the internet and everything- Maybe it is Megatrends. A female wrote it? 1:24:13 SM: Nope. Well, yeah. Male and female. The husband wife combination. 1:24:25 RJ: Okay, right. Okay. I forget who they are, they have written. Yeah, but you get where I am coming from. That is that right now you see, we are going to have different categories of who is going to be producing information, who is going to be the transportation to get the product to where it wants to go, and who is going to be the person to manufacture, and who is going to be the person to sell. That was what we got to do. And so when you think about this, think about this, at the bottom line is profit, you going to the cheapest person every time. So then, but what that does is unless you would have these centers, these-these type of centers or focus centers, you were going to get left out of the loop. And I think that is, what is getting ready to happen to the children of boomers, unless we in fact, began to reconceptualize it. But in the final analysis, we run a possible core shutdown of the whole thing. Because if the children of boomers are not paying into Social Security, then we got a problem. They do not have anything to support the people who are in fact seniors and dying out, and then they will not in fact, say like when they get a chance to move on until that, there is nobody to support them. 1:25:59 SM: It is pretty scary. 1:26:00 RJ: Yeah, it is. 1:26:01 SM: It was got to be addressed. It was got to be more vision, talk about the quality of vision. In a political, I am like, okay, we are talking, spending at least up to five, seven years down the road. Nine years? 1:26:14 RJ: It is going to be a major problem. 1:26:15 SM: (20)07 depending on the politician. 1:26:17 RJ: [inaudible] 1:26:20 SM: This is my last question. And again, the youth of the of that era believe they could have impact on society and government policy in the (19)50s (19)60s and (19)70s, Vietnam [inaudible] legislation. Certainly, they were involved in nonviolent protests. And the many movements, whether it be the women's movement, the environmental movement, and the-the gay and lesbian movement, the Native American movement, even the Hispanic movement at that time, and all were thrusting around that era. Although some of the critics of say the civil rights movement is not of that era, it was way before into the (19)50s. But why is society resisting this today? And why in your own words, were the sons and daughters of boomers feel less confident about their ability to have an impact on society, less desire and seemingly less opportunity? Am I wrong in assuming this question? [Inaudible] of opportunity, and by saying, less desire? I think we have probably gone over all of this already. But it is, it is something that is plaguing me. And because I- am I wrong and assuming that this is even a problem? 1:27:23 RJ: You are, I think you are onto something, I do not see the same commitment that they can bring about if I am understanding, that they can bring about change and wanting to get involved as readily as their parents were because now, we do have, we have a resurgence, if you may, of the media projection is one of individualism. The need is one of collective action. That is what we have, that again, creates another ambivalence. There is a need for people to collectively and altruistically be involved in things. And the, and the notion is that if I can acquire it is kind of a cybernetic social Darwinism, again, that, for example, the fastest growing businesses in the world right now in the United States anyway, are home-owned businesses, okay. And so therefore, we believe that by empowering people now, is to have a laptop and a modem. And a lot of people operating under the notion that if you have a laptop and a modem, you can in fact, work at home and do whatever it is that you want to do. So, if you got your inner sanctum there within your home, etc., you do not have to be concerned about anything else. You outsource that to somebody else to be concerned about. That is what the notion is all about. Outsourcing is the concept right now. I do not want this problem, get a private, privatize. Get somebody else to take care of it for you. Okay, and that is what our children- our children are more attuned to using me now. I mean, the boomer's children are more attun- they are not afraid to come to council. Some of them are resistant, boys tend to resist more than girls and etc. But they understand using that outsource of information they are not- they understand using agents. I mean, a good example of that, look at all these mega dollar contracts, basketball contracts that these guys got in this last year. They do not know beans about but how to go down and sort of jump the ball up, slam dunk, but they got these. They got these shrewd lawyers who are in fact working to get their money through these guys talent, outsourcing, you got some you got some talent, outsource it, get the person get your talent person and go ahead and get it. 1:29:56 SM: The term I [inaudible] "outsource-outsource." Is that a terminology of the (19)90s? 1:30:01 RJ: Yes. Outsourcing is what is turning DC around, man. Here is what it is okay. Like it used to it used to be the whole notion of make or buy, make or buy decision when you in business, do you make the product or do you buy? All right, a bakery. Do you, if you and say you own giant, giant food stores right over here, do you make this cheesecake, or do you buy it from somebody else to make it a [inaudible] or let a contract? See, here is the whole notion now. Everybody got a contract. Okay, now, just like another biggest purveyor of this concept is the Pentagon got the biggest budget in the federal government. But guess what, the Pentagon does not make one thing or manufacture one thing. Everything is outsourced to, to contracts. 1:30:51 SM: Senator Proxmire, remember? 1:30:54 RJ: Yeah. 1:30:54 SM: The whole fleece award or whatever [crosstalk] 1:30:55 RJ: Yeah, that is right. Everything is so now this down to this level right now, okay. And so forth. My son, musician, right. I mean, he also is into, he has his own band, and he is going into production, he was not going to entertainment law. Now, he has a couple of contracts on Department of Interior to put on concerts and parks in the DC area. Here, well he is doing one tonight and one tomorrow, everything is outsourced. When you in fact, say like need now, do you know one of the biggest businesses that are going on? Not owning a temporary agency to provide temporary accountants, you can provide temporary home care for your-your aging parents, you can provide temporary, a secretarial service, now you can do provide temporary anything. So, then the people do not have to run human resource departments anymore. You have not seen it probably at Westchester? Nobody, in fact, has a janitorial college. I mean, a university around here, or this building. This building does not have a maintenance person, it has, it outsources, it to a company that provides it. 1:31:13 SM: Yeah, that was what happened at Westchester. 1:31:54 RJ: Yeah, that was what happened at the university of DC. They do not have the same char-person anymore, taking care of who was on the staff. You do not have that overhead for the fringe benefits and all the rest of the stuff and you do not have to deal with unions. 1:32:22 SM: That is another thing that the children have to deal with. Because though even Sears Roebuck is hiring only part time people as opposed to full time. 1:32:28 RJ: Yeah. 1:32:29 SM: And all the money you are going to make is going to be based on what you sell. 1:32:33 RJ: Right, commission. 1:32:34 SM: And the dead days for all business. And then, but not giving coverage, medical coverage to employees, is one of the basic incentives for doing this, it is about cost saving. 1:32:44 RJ: That is right [inaudible]. 1:32:47 SM: I have done here with the exception of the fact is, do you feel you have made an impact on American society? This question will be asked to all participants in the interview process. And as a follow up, do you feel you have made a positive impact in the lives of boomers and the members of the current generation called generation X? Some people said, you know, I cannot [inaudible]. Well, I will let you answer that. Just-just your own thoughts. 1:33:12 RJ: Well, by virtue of my former students, standing contact with me, the feedback that I get [audio cuts]. I fortunately am in a good position to get feedback from my people that I have been in contact with, I still stay in contact, believe it or not, I have a couple of youngsters that I was dealing with-with an Upward Bound project back at University of Illinois before I even got my PhD, that still stay in contact with me and attest to they are having gotten some from the way I operated and the way I operated, inspired them. I have undergraduates from when I was an academic advisor at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville of a few people whose still contact me, one young lady call me recently she got a doctorate and when she came into town. She was here for I think, a funeral. And she called me and I had her as an undergraduate student, and she was still talking about the way I operated as an academic advisor in these- one of the ideas developed a concept called intensive academic advisement for high risk students. When I was at Southern Illinois, at Edwardsville and she was talking about how that feel, how that helped her. And I was home for a class reunion, for my high school classroom. And a lady approached me at church and said that two of her sisters yet talk about me as being their academic advisors and both of them are very successful. And now and when they were there working on their, on their degrees at Southern Illinois Edwardsville about and when we were introduced in church that Sunday, she said that she heard my name and she wanted to come up and say to her sisters have told her about me. Now that is almost 30 years ago, right? And then of course you is an attest- you are in attestment to that. I think I have made a difference. Carl Harshman is an attestment to that, that I think I ma- made a difference. Mac Stewart is in attestment. Everly Bank, do you remember her? 1:35:33 SM: Was she there when-? 1:35:34 RJ: She was a heavyset young lady. She were- 1:35:37 SM: Was she there in (19)72? 1:35:38 RJ: Yeah, she was kind of quiet. And but she was kind of obese. She went on and went to University of Minnesota and gotten a PhD. And Everly has been at about 10 different university in the last nine years. She has gone away to California someplace now, but just loved the universi- Jackson State University where she was vice president of this type of thing. And she has I have kept in contact with her over the years, you know, and Bill Pickard, I do not know if you remember him. Bill Pickard was working on his doctorate there at Ohio State at that time. And he went into business and owns a couple of McDonald's in Cleveland, Ohio, and another one in Detroit. And get ready for this. Bill is the state chairman of the Republican Party for the state of Michigan, very wealthy guy now, right. He is in contact with me, right. [laughter] This I mean, he is extremely wealthy. I mean, I am not saying he just got a little money. 1:36:40 SM: Right. 1:36:41 RJ: He is making buku dollars, okay. So, then that is, that is how I get some of the feedback then around here. Since I have been in this area. A lot. I mean, hund-, literally hundreds of people who have gotten their degrees out of our department at-at-at UDC, and a Master's in Counseling Psychology, they are now in working in DC government, heads of departments, the chief of police in, for example, chief of police in New Orleans, is William Pennington, he got his degree out of my department, I worked personally with him setting up some programs and things when he was here over the juvenile division, right. And now he is chief of police in New Orleans. So then in that regard, and he got a lot of outreach, and he got the community policing thing going on here, you know, that type of thing. So yeah, I think I have made a difference. 1:37:36 SM: That is very important. And I can admit, the fact that I am sitting here that you have made a difference in my life, because I say, well, you know, when we were-were, I think the best thing that ever happened to me was when I broke my arm before I came to Ohio State and had to start late, remember I was supposed to start in the fall. And I was supposed to have, I think [inaudible] Silverman, I think supposed to be my advisor, but because I came in January, you became my advisor. And I will never forget some of the meetings we had during this. But I can never forget some of the meet- [audio cuts]. I am not sure where we were here, but you look at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, about the healing process. Do you feel that? From your own perspective, not only someone who's a scholar and intellect, a professor, but someone who has seen a lot of people and lived through that era of the (19)60s and (19)70s, the Vietnam War. Do you sense that the healing has taken place within the Vietnam veterans, and then within the nation itself between those who are for or against the war, the tremendous divisions that happened in the country at that time? 1:38:46 RJ: Now, we were saying and as I was saying, you know, like, I think the last term I use when the conceptual incarceration in the boomers, okay, and the same thing is true with respect to the Vietnam issue and healing. It will heal. Right now, the motives for it is not healing by people who control the media is that it is still, it raises a lot of controversy. So, then people in the media go after things that are and book publishers go after things where people are still struggling to get the healing done, cause that pain will cause them to pursue some remedy. Like you were mentioning a man who did not make the eye contact, that was a negative coping antidote that they have had, well, let us say interpersonal social skills, it is an antidote that they have had to develop probably to keep their pain down, okay. And it they have very idiosyncratic reasons for not looking at people and so forth. Now there are people who are hustling the Vietnam War thing. I still I mean, the memory of the other Vietnam War thing is still being hustled by a lot of people. And you got to understand this is a capitalistic society, we always talk about this being a democratic society. I believe that when Abraham Lincoln said in the Emancipation Proclamation, and that he was going to give everybody 40 acres and a mule that was not just for [inaudible] folk. What that was, is that everybody has really believed in a way, and I certainly believe that, when you do not get your 40 acres and mule that is promised to you in the form of a degree and a job and a, two hot, two cars with a chicken in the pot and this type of thing, people going to figure out a way to get that 40 acres and the mule, you understand what I am saying? So therefore, we have to look at some of the motives behind keeping the Vietnam War, as in fact, say aroused, arousing and as provocative as it is, were there not the media, the healing would take place. Like for example, in suppose we have Armistice Day parade of 1946. In New York, everybody still remembers that, that brought closure to when the boys came home, you remember that concept? There is a concept, when the boys came home, that brought closure to World War Two. But the fact, but if we did not have the television, the immediacy of the television, how many stories have been made even the whole doggone thing about that the guise of Forrest Gump of Forrest Gump was a takeoff on the Vietnam War, and the whole process of healing, and so forth. You just name it, you got so many different movies, and so many type books and everything. People are hustling that concept, okay. So then everything in America is about capitalism, find a way to capitalize upon. If you cannot, and a lot of people are driven by this, and this is a little dirty secret that we do not, in fact, say like, bring up. But any doggone thing that we do in this country, there is only one motive that a whole lot of people have in doing it. And that is their hustling. 1:42:09 SM: Making a buck. 1:42:10 RJ: Making a buck. Now, let us go back to whether or not- I have been down to the wall, and I went down to the wall with a group of people from home. That is the only other, that is the only time everyone that comes very [inaudible]. And the reason we went down there is because I had several friends who came to visit, they wanted to see the wall. And we knew some people who were killed. And so we wanted to see if we could find their names, which we did. And yes, so therefore it is very moving. It provokes in you, it arouses any emotion within you. But in arousing of the emotion, just like all memorials, that is what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to make you remember. And so then some people have discovered, just as people had discovered with respect to, some people have even discovered with respect to the China thing is it called the Turner Diaries, is the guy who wrote the book with respect to the whole thing about terrorism, and they believe that Timmons- Timothy McVeigh read this book, and this guy is a professor- 1:42:17 SM: I think it is Turner Diaries, that is right. 1:43:06 RJ: The Turner Diar-, okay, everybody got a motive. Why would you want to write a book like that? You see, you want to write a book like that because it sells. Okay, there could be no other real motives. I mean, so then you got to, and why does the publishing company publish a book like that, because it sells. It has no redeeming value. So, we got a lot of stuff out here, that is that is and the boomers are halfway responsible for this. Because the boomers do believe in this, obviously, they have been coopted into believing it. And that is, if it is in fact, about so called free speech. And if it is, in fact, a marketable commodity, you do it. But there are a lot of marketable commodities out here, that we are, in fact, say like, probably going down a blind alley on, that we need to begin to take a look at a little bit more. So, but now, as long as we have the time, the immediacy of the internet and the immediacy of let us say the cyberspace it is going to be very difficult healing the- this thing for the next 20 odd years or 20 or 30 year, but I think Senator Muskies point was very well taken. We are still fighting the Civil War. We are still fighting the revolutionary war in this country, okay, this type of thing. So that healing has never occurred, I mean, has never completely taken shape. Okay, and you know, there is one book out that has said, and turns that the Hare Krishnas of all people wrote "Dope Incorporated." Have you ever seen that book? 1:44:55 SM: No. 1:44:56 RJ: Okay, well, anyway, it came out about 25 years ago, and they said in no uncertain terms that Great Britain was one of the major problems, in terms- and documented it pretty well- of the major reasons why we had such a drug problem in this country, I mean a drug problem this country and Great Britain, while it does have a drug problem, not as bad as here. And they actually did some-some research to show this, okay, but now the point is, so now that means about what I mean there I am simply saying that America, Great Britain has suffered in the US of A and got it was fight and all over the country now, that it does not commit any major troops or anything like that. You see what I mean? So, they are still fighting the Revolutionary War by in fact, one analysis, allowing the US of A to in fact, go around the world and police the world, fuck them. 1:45:46 SM: Yeah, good point. Going to make sure this is working here. [audio cuts] What are your thoughts on these former leaders of the left who have now totally condemned their past, are writing books like Cora Witts and [Peter] Collier, who decided that what they did in the past was totally wrong. And so, they have written books like "Destructive Generation," basic, condemning anybody that was ever involved in the left in the movement. And we have seen, I have seen quite a few of these books coming out recently. It is part of the, I guess, a good way of attacking the boomers in that era, and those who are involved in those types of issues. 1:46:25 RJ: Well, but I think it is also a part of becoming, if you may, going from one stage of the realization stage into the examination stage it is a process of growing old. It happens that people think back and reflect on things that they have done. So psychologically, what is happening there is there is a kind of a catharsis that is going on, cleaning out one's mind, giving it a different giving some things that one has done, it is a kind of a repentance, okay. I do not think that it can ever be helped. I mean, as Muhammad Ali said, great philosopher, a man who thinks the same way at 50, as he did at 20, has lost 30 years of his life. Okay, so then in that regard, I think it is it is impossible for one not to completely alter one's thoughts, by virtue of the process of living is a process of change, and one who invite things identically and does ident- well, if you think identically the way that you did at 20, if you do at 50, as you will at 50, then obviously, you going to act the same way. But if you alter that, and then so then therefore, some people are feeling that same pain that we are talking about that some of the people from Vietnam have experienced, they [inaudible] for documenting it, now I am not against people writing books, but I do know that there are some people who do not let things die, because, for example, they are hustling, okay. And there are some people who do it for a legitimate healing purpose. And that book that that person is writing probably is-is beneficial to other people who are still feeling the pain, because they do not have the medium to say it. So when they read it, they can, therefore cathart themselves, they can vicariously cathart. 1:48:22 SM: Good point there, how am I trying to hustle with this book. 1:48:24 RJ: That is okay. [Inaudible] 1:48:26 SM: The basic premise I have in this book is, I had not even thought about that I just want to do something to create better understanding, where you get a wide variety of perspectives, and to not be judgmental toward any individual that I am speaking to, is to let the others read these interviews, and let them judge to know that people are still thinking about it trying to create a better understanding between those who are for and against the war. Also, to try to understand where conservative liberals think today and how they are somewhat judgmental toward an entire generation. Where in reality, there is much more, you can never generalize anything, because it is a very complex issue- 1:49:05 RJ: That is right. 1:49:06 SM: -As everything is. What I am trying to do here in this next segment is to just give you some names of some individuals who were obviously well known to all boomers, they may not be known to some of our gen X people. But just some basic comments on your thoughts, whether you feel these people were positive or negative influences in America. And also secondly, what your thoughts might be in terms of how boomers may look at these individuals, not only then and now, the first two are Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda. 1:49:37 RJ: Again, from one perspective, they, they were very important during the early (19)70s, and so forth. But now, they tend to add credence to my hypothesis that we are, in fact driven by the buck. Because especially Miss Fonda, who has married one of the richest men in the country and one of the most powerful men in the world, and so forth. And she has all of her little mechanisms- she is selling her name. She is, that is her hustle, okay. So then so then therefore, I do not hear her talking, she may be using her money I therefore I cannot say she may be using her money to support social causes, rather than her making trips to Vietnam and places like this. She could very well be doing that. I do not know. But demonstrably now what I see her doing all the time is in the ballpark eating ice cream with Ted Turner. So then, and I have incidentally, I have one of her treadmills in my house. Okay, which is a non-motorized one. So I think it was a good treadmill. I like it is somebody telling me my doctor was saying one thing about Jane Fonda's treadmill is that they do not have any motor to break down them. And that was absolutely right, it was a darn good investment. So then I do have that. But now and Hayden is now doing his political thing. Is that right? In California, 1:51:01 SM: He is going to be at the convention this next week as a delegate for California. 1:51:04 RJ: Okay, fine. So then he decided that he was going when we, as a child, you act as a child, and when you become an adult, you throw those childish things away. So, then I got to say that I that does not surprise me. For a person who is rational, I do not expect that they would not fight, c'est la vie. Hayden would be more of an example of a person who, in fact, in my judgment, decided to keep his-his cars out for public scrutiny. It is a little bit difficult when Jane Fonda marries for example, as I say, somebody like Ted Turner, but I do not know what they do behind the scenes. See, I just do not know that. And when she is out front with marring him, and then all of a sudden, she retreats, apparently, I do not keep up with her daily itinerary, okay, so I cannot say. 1:51:54 SM: How about Lyndon Johnson? 1:51:56 RJ: Lyndon Johnson will always be remembered with a positive legacy, in my judgment, in terms of giving the little guy a shot, okay. And I think that he will singly in history go down as a president, to have done more to try to give the African America before we had all the other minority- a shot at a piece of the pie. I think he will go down in history as being a great politician as well, there is no question about it. He was a great politician. I think Lyndon Johnson, however, though, will be used by conservatives. And as he has been used now, there will be programs of the Great Society, the two that I know is still going on are Head Start and Upward Bound, okay, the rest of them have just devolved, been all wiped out. And they were designed to give the-the less fortunate people in our society, the more oppressed people in our society, an opportunity to get ahead. There is nothing like that anymore. So he, Lyndon Johnson's the thought of him still for the boomers who were committed to civil rights, and to human rights, still has a very special place in their hearts. 1:53:26 SM: But he was also caught up in that Vietnam trap, you know, the Vietnam War. 1:53:30 RJ: Yes. Yeah. In terms of the Vietnam War, it was obvious that it-it caught it was a precipitating event that caused him to actually resign from the pres- I mean to not seek the presidency again, okay. It is no question, and I think his failing health as well. But I think in terms of the historical period, that he could only do what his advisers were telling him to do. So then, therefore, it is just a matter of taking it and placing Lyndon Johnson with anybody else, and they would have done the same thing. 1:54:05 SM: How would you put John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy? 1:54:10 RJ: Kennedy always, but well both of them gave the aura of, gave the impression that they, too were for change. That is what I think they will both be remembered by. And they were also they gave the aura of the emergence of the of the, the emergence of the importance of youth in making decisions and playing a role in our society. And I think that that aura has, in fact continued on because before JFK, age did not appear to be that much of an issue about Presidents. But now that is definitely an issue and it has stayed with us for a long period of time, okay. So then and again, it was hoped, because here was a Catholic and a young person, and someone from New England who in fact could get to be president. So they get and his, and also it kept, it certainly kept with the both of them the whole notion that nepotism is a reality. 1:55:20 SM: How do you, this is a brief takeoff. That, that John Kennedy in particular is more of a pragmatic politician, and unless he was [inaudible] political pluses getting involved, for example, in the [inaudible] that was initiated by Harris Walker, who basically made that recommendation, and then, and certainly African Americans linked up with him, but he did not make a whole lot of decisions unless they were pragmatic. And so that was- he has been criticized as someone who was more pragmatic, sometimes Bobby Kennedy is looked upon as someone who was really evolving at the time in (19)68. A true compassion was really in Bobby as opposed to John, who was more pragmatic. You see that in between the two? 1:56:01 RJ: Well, we, Bobby for was not, Bobby was not inside the beltway type of politician. And maybe in Boston, he was okay. He was getting a B, I think, operating at that level, but he was kind of a hatchet man, kind of cruel. You know, in other words, and crude, I should say, kind of crude, and supposedly very cool, too. I mean, for people who knew him that he did not pull any punches, and so forth. So consequently, I think you are right there, he was an idealist at that point in time. But now another thing, while JFK was said to have been very practical, if you take a look at history, JFK is actually-actually was the driving force behind affirmative action, you will actually find that in terms of, he was getting ready to sign the executive order. He had, in fact, I am trying to think- was it Shultz? Whom was in fact say like, working under him at that time. But in June of (19)93, he was getting ready to issue the executive order, in June 22 (19)63. And he was actually kicked off our formative action, they actually use that word. And, and three months, four months later, he was assassinated. Now, a lot of folks do not know that, that in fact, it came into reality in terms of affirming, believe it or not, under Richard Nixon, when-when it was actually signed, it has never been a law. That was when most, you know, everybody always says affirmative action law. It was never a law. It was an affirmative action, an executive order 110243 or something like that. Look it up. But now, but JFK was the impetus behind that, all right. And if you take a look at that, then, so he had a lot of ideals, that while he was he was practical, and so forth. And he was sage, and he knew national politics, itself. And he will always be questioned about some of the decisions that he made, especially the Bay of Pigs thing, right. And that type of thing. He is always going to be suspect in history. And I do not, I do not know if, for example, 50 years from now, I really do not know if history is going to be good to JFK, okay. Because of all of the things that we do not know about the assassination that is eventually going to be known. 1:58:31 SM: That is right. I think it is supposed to come out in the year [inaudible], a long way off. 1:58:35 RJ: That is a long way off. 1:58:37 SM: It will be revealed then though, if the family is okay-ed it to be revealed. In fact, I think Teddy Kennedy is now the subject, I think Teddy Kennedy knows more than anyone, but he is you know, not going to reveal it to the world. 1:58:49 RJ: That is right. So, then I really do not think right now, what our perception of JFK is going, is now is certainly going to change once all of that all we know and all is known about that. That assassination is revealed. 1:59:04 SM: A couple other people here and I got quite a few of them, Huey Newton and Angela Davis. Now let me reflect that at the end I have had different commentaries from different individuals. Some people's whole slogan, you have heard this term, "Everybody has their 15 seconds or 15 minutes" [inaudible] what you comment, I have had one person who said that [inaudible] society at that time [inaudible] radical and Angela Davis, even though she was smart, and an intellect, is a communist. And I think what the term is, they had their 15 minutes of glory and that was it. How would you rate both Huey Newton and Angela Davis? 1:59:42 RJ: I think to, they meant different things to the Black intelligentsia, the Black intelligentsia boomers now, okay, see them as heroes. I am not so sure that they made that much a differen- and-and that a white intelligencia saw them as hero. That is right, I think it is a class thing here. I do not think that the- and the media, of course, they were exciting to follow and this type of thing. And but obviously, Huey Newton had a lot, and we are going to find out something else about that, it is questionable as to whether Huey Newton was killed the way he was killed. Huey Newton had very significant political implications in the state of California, among the Black intelligentsia. Huey Newton was in fact, when he was killed, had just I am told now, had just received a PhD. 2:00:44 SM: Yes. within about three to four months, and I have the book- 2:00:48 RJ: Was he going to get it or had just received it? 2:00:50 SM: I think he had his PhD. 2:00:51 RJ: Yeah, he had jus- yeah. 2:00:52 SM: And he was caught selling drugs? I could not I could not see the contrast. 2:00:55 RJ: No. 2:00:56 SM: Does not make any sense. 2:00:57 RJ: No, that was probably that- that was probably, that was very suspect. Just like we were saying about, I cannot think of, AD was that Martin Luther's brother, AD King? 2:01:09 SM: Oh, yes, the yes. 2:01:10 RJ: Yeah. Yeah, there is something suspect about that. And there is something suspect about what happened to Huey Newton. But Huey Newton was a very recognizable name and face in the state of California. And with his getting that PhD, it would ascend him to possible to the statute of Willie Brown, it would have. Huey Newton had more name recognition in the most popular state in the country than Willie Brown, among the black intelligentsia, and people of East LA, and, and people of San Diego, that whole Boomer generation there. So therefore, it was a reason why Huey Newton was killed. 2:01:11 SM: Yeah, who drowned. Of course, he was living in Oakland at the time. 2:01:55 RJ: Yes. 2:01:56 SM: Yeah, I can remember that, I can remember reading that he was shot to death walking down the street, and that did not make a lot of sense. I just, I could not, I just made no sense. And that was where right and that was the end of it. 2:02:08 RJ: I mean, that is the way to go, okay. Did it pop? 2:02:11 SM: Oh, no, that was [inaudible] 2:02:12 RJ: Okay. Okay, so now- 2:02:14 SM: And Angela, she is teaching the University of California Santa Cruz. She is there now as a full professor. 2:02:19 RJ: Okay. Now, again, Angela Davis. First of all, if people never did completely understand communism, and they do not know just how much communism we have going on in this country right now, when you really think about I think they were making a move yesterday was a major move and moving further away from communistic, if you may, economic principles in terms of welfare, but it is still limited. Communism is-is what Angela was, in fact, advocating for that time. And what is actually going on in this country is not that far away. We have more communism right now in the USA than they do in Russia. Right now. Okay, with the state provides more to people right now. See, we take away one thing, and that is when the state is providing that is the communism right. So, when you take away for example, one day, you take a wel- when you change your welfare laws, and you take them and you turn them around, but the next day you provide for universal medical care, Medicare, a medical-medical insurance, so then for all intents and purposes, you are just trading off one for the other. But and then you say you actually going to give a block grant to the states to run their welfare system for the bill that Clinton signed yesterday, that is nothing but typical communism. Okay, so then in that regard, it is another one those conceptual terms that incarcerate people to bring about, they keep this this conflict going. That we must have to have democracy. Because if everybody start saying, fire up the furnaces, we got a problem. Okay. I mean, I am talking about people got [inaudible] five departments for all the liberals, [inaudible] no, we should not have a one. So that is what the Founding Fathers, I think, did do in that great constitution, which is not a voluminous thing. And that is it provides to ensure that there is conflict. There is conflict. 2:04:25 SM: That is, seems to be getting stronger and stronger. 2:04:27 RJ: But guess what, you can never have a totalitarian state like that. 2:04:32 SM: That is right. 2:04:33 RJ: As long as you can keep conflict going, you will never have a totalitarian state. So many of the Supreme Court decisions that have in fact, say precipitated the area of one constituency, made another one feel good, and vice versa. So then in that regard, that is really what democracy, the lifeblood of democracy is conflict. 2:04:54 SM: And I will never forget when I was in California, the Bakke decision when that came out, I think in (19)79. Wow. The conflict was out there in the press and everything that happened at that time. Or the affirmative action decision in California right now. Yes. 2:05:10 RJ: Okay. And that is, that is bringing about a lot of conflict. But you have to live a while to get to where you can understand these things, okay. 2:05:19 SM: Well, and there is this I think there is some truth to this fact, too, that the more you know, the less you know. 2:05:23 RJ: And the more questions you write. 2:05:25 SM: Yes, definitely. Timothy Leary. Anything, your thoughts on him? 2:05:31 RJ: Hustler. [laughter] 2:05:35 SM: He has got a brand-new book out by the way. 2:05:37 RJ: Bless his, may his soul rest in peace, you know- 2:05:40 SM: His ashes are going to space, I think. 2:05:41 RJ: Is that right? 2:05:42 SM: Yeah, part of his ashes. 2:05:44 RJ: That was his desire? 2:05:46 SM: Yes. 2:05:46 RJ: Okay. 2:05:47 SM: I saw, I think the next space capsule, well his ashes are going to be going up there, in a satellite [inaudible] will be permanently up there. 2:05:54 RJ: Well, I, now that, Timothy Leary never really appealed to me back there in the early (19)70s I guess it was. It never, he really never appealed to me because I thought that it was almost like carnal knowledge. Okay, that he was taking advantage of young minds. Okay, for a self-hurting reason. I cannot see how spacing out on acid was going to have any redeemable effects on anybody. Okay. I mean, even on a chimpanzee or on a cobra or what have you is just not going to in fact have any-any human- a Cobra differently. But if you just put him out in the wild and give him an acid it would not have he could not de- or she could not defend him or herself. So consequently, I just never really got into that. And I think people use that to actually as a subterfuge to-to be in denial. Okay. 2:06:57 SM: How about people like Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin? 2:07:01 RJ: I think they served a purpose. I really do. I think that they are being at that convention, and what have you in (19)68. That convention was very important. That convention made people look at law enforcement and the power of people like Richard Dale. Okay, and in terms of say, the they were part of democratic society, Students for Democratic Society, were not they? What were the- 2:07:27 SM: They were the hippies. 2:07:28 RJ: They were the yippies, okay. 2:07:29 SM: Youth International Party. 2:07:31 RJ: Okay, fine. I think that they made people again, in terms of the role that they played, not just for in fact, say, getting away and moving to the hills and things of this nature. And so far, I do not think that that was necessary. I think it made people think about the alternatives. But I really do think that the that Abbie Hoffman and Rubin and the kind, and the publicity, they got in New York-New York, Chicago, and in that (19)68 convention, I believe that it actually had some impact, because it got international attention. 2:08:04 SM: How do you respond to the criticism of them that they never grew up? For example, Jerry Rubin although did change and was actually doing quite well. And say Ronnie, that he died doing something illegal, jaywalking in Los Angeles, he got hit by a car. But Abbie Hoffman killed himself just outside of Philadelphia couple of years back and he only had 2000 in the bank. He should have been very rich with all the lectures he had done, books he has written, gave, had given all his money away, wrote a note that when they found them that "No one was listening to me anymore." And that was why he killed himself. Now, I when I saw that, I says, "Is that symbolic of the boomers?" or at least those who were involved, no one has listened to them anymore. Or, or maybe a lot of them have gone on with their lives, but a lot of just a lot of those issues. Nobody has listened to those issues anymore. Some of them that still exist. So when you look at the death of an Abbie Hoffman, he was more true to his cause than Jerry Rubin who went into making a lot of money, whereas Abbie Hoffman went underground. 2:09:07 RJ: [Inaudible] 2:09:09 SM: Yeah, and then and then he was a Hudson, he was doing [audio cuts] 2:09:16 RJ: He was a, his testament was, in his last will and testament, "I want you to remember me as a spoiled brat," you know, he, and "I get people to listen to me, so I have a temper tantrum," and the temper tantrum was, I kill myself. 2:09:33 SM: That is a good observation, because somebody said that. Another person said that too, that. But do you think that getting apart from him, that some of those issues that were happening in the late (19)60s early (19)70s, that he, that maybe that message signifies our truth, that no one is listening anymore. In other words, there is no more racism anymore, or it is not as bad as it was back then. So, let us you know, it is, it is still got a long way to go for improvement. But it is not as it is not a major issue today. So thus, let us not, so that I think that is what he was trying to say there. 2:10:11 RJ: Well, it is still a major issue. And unfortunately, probably what he had done was that he was playing to the same crowd. And the same, reading the same data and recognizing that there were other forms of, of these issues. And if you look, if he had looked carefully enough, these are universally issues, even the issue of racism biblical antiquity, literature will in fact say, show you that racism was a reality, you know, years before Christ. So consequently, it will be a reality years and eons after we are in Saigon. So then, provided there is a world. Okay, now, that is a question. I mean, in terms of the environment, that is a very significant issue. So then, but he was not getting the responses probably that he got at one time because people are so bread and butter right now. And that is by being bread and butter. I mean, people just are not articulating, it is just like being a subscriber to a cable channel. It is so much dog- I mean, to a cable network of televisions and satellite- you got so much to choose from now. So, it is no sense in talking about did you see I Love Lucy last night, because hey, that is a stupid question as anybody now, okay, why. Because it got so many darn choices. 2:11:34 SM: That is right. 2:11:35 RJ: But see, it used to be you had to, at one time you see mom and dad all looked at the NBC channel. But even I just think I am not even getting into ABC. I remember what it was only NBC. Right, then that was CBS and ABC. So you had three, then it was a UHF channel. But now, now, it is stupid, everybody got so many other things that they are consuming, that he missed the boat, that he had begun, he was still believing egotistically that he was the center of the universe. 2:12:05 SM: That is a good point. I got quite a few of these here, Richard Nixon. 2:12:13 RJ: Well, Nixon, interestingly, apparently is perceived as somebody very significant in history. And the reason I said that is when I looked along his gray side when they televised his film, first of all, he as the president was ostensibly disgraced. And when they had his funeral in San Clemente, they had all of those debates or dignitaries that he ever knew and who had ever been anything in Washington, and all the networks carried. Okay, now that says something about it, about Richard Nixon, the man. It is no question about it, that he was on an ego trip as well. But interestingly, from a perspective of an African American man, Nixon is going to, history will show in terms of the chronicle, that African Americans made more progress under Nixon than any other president. That data are available with respect to housing, with respect to jobs, with respect to money, with respect to the SBA with respect to the 8(a) project that was developed to give Black people, at that time that was before it was women and minority was for Black people. Okay, this section 8(a) of the Small Business Act of (19)69 or, I think it was or (19)71, it is going to show that, okay. Black colleges did better under Richard Nixon than any other president. A lot of folks do not know that. So he was so slick, that he could have he could have things going. And that was why he had the name Tricky Dick. Okay, he has things going that history is going to be good to Nixon on. And that Nixon also, in fact, is going to show that he did in fact, have, he started this whole thing of over coordinating dealing with China and the, the Soviet Union. Okay, he is going to get credit for that, all right. So then we look at it realistically and empirically, I think history is going to be good to Nixon. If you look at what it meant to Black people at the time, I am not sure that how much of this did not ride in on the crest of the waves from the residual of Lyndon Baines Johnson, okay, because, and I could have insights on that. But now in the way he was operating, apparently, in the White House, it was obviously criminal what he was doing and he knew it and that was why he had been invited to go ahead and resign rather than be impeached. Okay, so now there is no question about that, he overextended his power is no question. But it does appear as though he was actually making a resurgence. People were giving him a lot of credit and so forth for the things that, calling upon his ambassadorship, free will ambassadorship that he was-was capable of doing. But at the time that he was in office, most African American and significant number of American people really were suspect of him. He never was completely really trusted. 2:15:17 SM: Those enemies list, remember the enemies list? 2:15:20 RJ: Yeah, I know. [crosstalk] on there do we start talking about empirical growth and development and things that happened, history is going to be good to Nixon. Things happened when he was president. 2:15:34 SM: He had that amazing quality of [audio blip] all throughout his life and towards the end. 2:15:40 RJ: And given and giving and getting things done. Nixon, things got done under Nixon. That was just very interesting. I think history is going to be good to him. 2:15:53 SM: A lot of people here include George McGovern, your thoughts on him? 2:15:58 RJ: Too good. Okay. McGovern was seen as I mean, it was a backlash, that McGovern was always a very intellectually astute man. I think he had an excellent mind. Had was a, was a great senator, South Dakota, right? 2:16:20 SM: [agreement] 2:16:21 RJ: Great senator from South Dakota, excellent for representing his state. But not for in fact say like, I mean for, now this the way I saw him, but not in fact say, for representing where America was at that time. Americans were still ambivalent about the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War was, it will be seen that it ended under Nixon, you know that. So consequently, Nixon was on a roll at the time. And McGovern was seen as too weak to middle cla- so I was in Ohio at the time. The people in Columbus, they just saw him as a very weak person, and I am talking about white and Black, predominantly white people. I saw him in my judgment as being very weak. And they did not want that perception of a leader at that time, okay. And they did not want an intellect that that at that time. The economy, or we were coming off of, it was unsure, and they were taut and nothing we had to wage and price stuff. Remember that? Yeah, when they froze wages and froze prices at the store, the inflation was zooming. You know? 2:17:32 SM: I was at the Columbus airport when he came there because I just graduated from Ohio State and was that my first job at Ohio University at Lancaster. 2:17:38 RJ: Okay, yeah. 2:17:40 SM: And I remember driving out to the [inaudible] driving out to that airport with [inaudible] I could not see him. He did not even hardly leave the plane area, got off, spoke and then he took off [laughs] but I remember that as plain as day. Eugene McCarthy. Intellect, extremely bright, too bright for the public. Or to understand. He was even a poet, you know? Yeah, he wrote poetry, lotta folks did not know that, okay. True. Good senator. For representing what was that- Wisconsin? 2:18:16 RJ: Minnesota. 2:18:16 SM: Minnesota. I knew it was one of them, okay. Right, [inaudible] this senator for representing that body of people. But the Americans could never buy into anybody that genteel. Let us see, Martin Luther King Jr. 2:18:32 RJ: History will be very good to Dr. King. He did he represented hope for the country. He is a, he is a credit to America will always be in a credit to America. His philosophies will at one time be quoted just as Mahatma Gandhi's or Chairman Mao, I think that there will become Qingyan philosophy school, that will eventually get there. And I think that is in fact, what were young African Americans will eventually open up in terms of nonviolence in everything that they do, that that is going to catch a hold. And he gave again, he had a lot of theological impact with respect to his outreach ministry, caused all churches to in fact be different and to put, and caused the Vatican to look at things differently. And also, his ministry. And the and his leading the ministry redefined what a minister is supposed to be about. And furthermore, he will always be remembered as the champion of human rights. I think that what he did for human rights, is-is probably not, is underrated in terms of, of the movement. If you look at solidarity, and if you look at the slogan, and if you look at the [inaudible] raids, and you know what I mean, and that type of thing, and if you look at their singing We Shall Overcome and things of this nature, that has become the battle cry for everybody who is perceived to have been say, oppressed. So the human rights movement was, was spawned from that Civil Rights movement which Civil Rights, and Martin Luther King will always be remembered synonymous. 2:20:29 SM: As I said, from going in his church down in Atlanta, the embodiment of what he was all about, and certainly what his dad is all about. I am sure a lot of churches had the same feeling. But the Ebenezer has to know that. We are all appreciated. We are all equal. There were no judging of anyone. And certainly, Reverend Robert could be proud, and certainly Reverend Victor, King has got to be in his glory. Seeing the Reverend Victor there, that young minister and [audio blip] coming minister, in fact there is several of them. Barbara Jordan when she died, you may have seen the funeral on C span. The minister in Houston, Texas, what a young man he is, the early (19)30s out of New York City, who was not, was her minister, and one of the most important qualities that she possessed is that when she came to that church as she was a, well, she was a well-known figure that could have sat in the front pew. But she wanted to be treated like [audio blip] that was what they came into. She had these great qualities about her, but she was a petite. [audio blip] 2:21:31 RJ: Wow. 2:21:31 SM: Queen of the people, she was of the people. So, just a couple other names, and we got a couple of questions that end it here. Robert McNamara, just a few thoughts on it, obviously some of these people are. 2:21:43 RJ: Well, Robert McNamara. Great rhetorician, had an excellent mind, will not be remembered as a great secretary of defense because of the Vietnam War. Okay. On the other hand, was extremely persuasive, had awesome power. Okay, with respect to the Johnson administration, and so forth, and Johnson, right? Yeah, he was the Johnson admin- he will, but he will not be remembered as a great secretary of defense because the Vietnam War, but had a lot, had the ability to handle a lot of information, which was persuasive and kept the American people kind of ambivalent about whether they ought to support the war or not support the war. You know, he was a, if you remember, the one thing I remember about him that he reminds me and maybe Ross Perot picked up some things from him was that he was so good with charts and graphs and things like that, you know. 2:22:52 SM: To the General Motors, because that was where he came from. 2:22:54 RJ: Yeah. 2:22:55 SM: And the- a whiz kid at General Motors. 2:22:56 RJ: Right. 2:22:57 SM: Of which, if you read that book, four of them killed themselves, committed suicide, of the original 10. [audio blip] Wizkid General Motors, where they came from, because he [audio blip] have the money in that position, why he went to, became Secretary of Defense to earn what? 50, 60 thousand, well he already made his money. But it was interesting that the four of the 10 killed themselves. [audio blip] Hubert Humphrey. 2:23:24 RJ: Great, again, great senator from Minnesota, too genteel for the country. At the time that he was coming out, people he, he was victimized by the ambivalence again, that people had about the Vietnam War, and so forth. He was victimized because he was trying to succeed I will say JFK, and I do not think that, you know, at that time, he just was history, the epoch in history where he was, did not allow him to in fact say, like, do what I think he has the potential to do. But then again, I do not think that he was ever, he was not electable in Calif- I mean, California was not going to be for him, Ohio was not going to be for him and things of this nature. He was a good senator, but he was not the one that dealt, he was not going to be able to operate on a on a national stage. 2:24:27 SM: How about George Wallace? 2:24:28 RJ: George Wallace, he repented, but I am not so sure he would have repented, if in fact, say like he had not been made a quasi, let us say, invalid. So then he did nothing good for the country at that time. I do not see any redeemable value that George Washington played for the country during that he was divisive- 2:24:55 SM: Wallace, not Washington. 2:24:56 RJ: I meant as I said, I mean Wallace. Yeah, you know what I meant, yeah, okay. George [laughter] George Wallace did at that time, okay, so consequently, that is one of the character traits that I would have to look at in terms of saying so called national leaders. And he was very divisive. He was a racist. Wherever he is now he is a racist, it is just that he is not, he is probably trying to in fact say, like, repent by virtue, obviously- he is still living right. 2:25:28 SM: Oh he is not very well. 2:25:29 RJ: No, I know, but just barely hanging on. Yeah. So then in that regard, wherever he is, now, he is at the core, I would like to think that he has forgiven himself and therefore is not a racist right now. Okay, he did make some statements that suggest, I read somewhere a few years ago, that he was not a racist anymore and this type of thing. But he was hustling, that was what he was doing. He found him a concept on which he could hustle and hustled that racist concept. 2:25:31 SM: Yeah. How about the Berrigan brothers and Dr. Benjamin Spock? 2:26:06 RJ: I think the priests- both of them were priests, right? 2:26:09 SM: Yeah. 2:26:09 RJ: Okay. I think they were committed to what they were doing because they took some real chances, in terms of being involved in actually violent demonstrations, were not there? 2:26:20 SM: Yeah, and they were responsible for burning the draft cards. 2:26:23 RJ: Yeah, I remember that. And then dumping blood somewhere, or at least some bolly blood, I do not know, if it really blood in some, one of the draft stations or something. I think they were very committed, okay, to what they were doing, and that they and to, in fact, go against the edicts of the church to do it, the Catholic Church. I think that they, that showed their commitment. They therefore would have to say, would be considered as somebody that did have an impact on ending the war. And but of course, you could say that they also had an impact on people having a bitter taste in their mouth about the war. Okay. Now Dr. Spock provided this catechism that insight, in my judgment, a lot of parents, he has reversed his field now. This permissiveness that he talks about and advocated. He has now run a recent talk shows as well, I have not read anything that he has done. 2:27:19 SM: He has a book out in 19, uh, came out a year ago, hardback. 2:27:23 RJ: Okay. Have you read it? 2:27:24 SM: No, I have not read it. They say he has, he has changed [audio blip] 2:27:29 RJ: I think that he was misguided. In terms of say, he gave people some real deleterious advice on how, about child rearing. There is no question about it. This permissiveness that we know of now, and what some parents are still hung up on, okay. Really did foster a lot of their misguided thoughts. 2:27:50 SM: How about Muhammad Ali? 2:27:52 RJ: Will go down in history as one of the greatest fighters, obviously, but a great humanitarian, who was extremely courageous. And because he was one of the first, he was the first public figure that spoke out and said he was against the ware, okay. So again, and that was very much, that was 19, I know I will not forget it, that was (19)63. When he was saying whenever he was drafted, he preempted the war. And when he was drafted, said that he was not going to go, if I am not mistaken, it was about that time. 2:28:27 SM: I think it was, I am not sure the exact time- you are right, though, everything- I am not sure the exact time he came to Columbus. When I saw him in Columbus. And when I was working at Ohio University, he had been stripped of his title. 2:28:39 RJ: Yeah. 2:28:40 SM: And he came to- 2:28:40 RJ: He came back. 2:28:40 SM: -the daycare center and he spoke at the Ohio theatre and what [inaudible], because man, the people of Columbus, well the sort of nature that that city was, they did not come out in large numbers. 2:28:42 RJ: No. 2:28:42 SM: I was there in an upstairs area, he was paid $5,000. It is a memory I will never forget. He spoke as a really good speech about his protest against the war in Vietnam. He did not talk hardly anything about boxing or anything, it was all about the war. And after it was all over, he took the $5,000 that he was paid and said, "I do not want anything here. You can take it." And that is the person he was. 2:29:11 RJ: And people never saw, they saw the flamboyant side that he was, but if you look at some of his history, and what have you, he had a heart of gold. Okay. And everybody saw him and but not everybody else has repented on him. History, the current contemporary history is being good to him and I think it is going to even be better to him, as was attested to his being selected to light the charge at the at the Olympics. Okay, I think that was symbolic of just how much the world loves Muhammad Ali. 2:29:44 SM: He is the most recognized person in the entire world. 2:29:46 RJ: That is right. 2:29:48 SM: John Kennedy is probably the second or third because they Kennedy and Muhammad Ali's pictures, like in villages all over the world in the smallest places. And when you think of it Kennedy, has been dead since (19)63. And Muhammad Ali has been out of the limelight since the late (19)70s. That is just amazing. I, you kind of wonder too what, if Muhammad Ali did not have Parkinson's disease, and he was able to speak, he would obviously be [inaudible] more mature, what he could be doing and helping today's society. I want to make sure I got a couple of key questions at the end and I want to make sure I do not use all of [ inaudible] getting down there. And that was my last, couple other names here, you can just, just a couple of brief words on all of them, Spiro Agnew. 2:30:06 RJ: Yeah [inaudible] No redeeming values [laughs] as I can see a whatsoever to the time that he was in office except to make people see how bad it could be. 2:30:46 SM: Okay. Sam Ervin. 2:30:49 RJ: Great man, I was very always intrigued by his simplicity. And that he could speak volumes with very, very parsimoniously and his use of a southern parable. And the way that he would always have kind of a self-demeaning type of humor about him, that lets you that will allow you to know that he has already seen where you are coming from. 2:31:18 SM: One of the important things, I got a couple of books by him and one of them is signed. And that is, that he was against integration. 2:31:26 SM & RJ: At one time. 2:31:28 SM: So, when you look at this, this senator who really no one knew about until sort of the latter part of his life, and see some of the people, there people always, that is another thing about today, you always got to find the negative in something, you can never, you cannot be perfect. 2:31:43 RJ: That is exactly right. 2:31:44 SM: John Dean. 2:31:49 RJ: John Dean was, he was at that time, I guess you could say, he was what you would consider where most boomers were at that period in their lives, and that is doing whatever was necessary to acquire power. And that was why I saw him, that he was being used, that he in fact cut a deal to save his neck obviously, as most people will do. So that is not anything that bothers me. 2:32:24 SM: [Inaudible] doing it now. 2:32:25 RJ: Yeah, that is exactly right. Cutting a deal to save his neck. And, but on the other hand, obviously very bright. Okay, but it was he had him a hustle and he was trying to get the best out of it. 2:32:39 SM: How about Daniel Ellsberg. 2:32:40 RJ: He had a lot of redeeming value in my judgment. He took he put his career on the line for what he was about, okay. And he knew that they were that there was going to be a backlash. The president cannot even get to a job in Washington, if you are blackballed. You know, it is just that powerful. If you blow the whistle, believe me, right now the president cannot get you a job. So then when a guy decides to do that, the only way the President gives you a job is that he says "Yes, I am going to put you on his staff or one of his [inaudible] staff, or get somebody somewhere else to give you a job" but you, it is hard to in fact say, once you a whistleblower, is difficult to get a job in the city. 2:33:27 SM: How about Barry Goldwater? 2:33:33 RJ: Goldwater I do not think was as bad as people thought he was when he came across as if though he was a, you know, a butthole. But I do not think he was as bad as people really thought he was at the time. I am not so sure history is going to be that bad to Goldwater, okay. When-when it was finally written, and people read it and do they interpretations. And if they look at the type of man that Goldwater was, and he did give a lot of himself to Arizona and things of this nature. He was very partisan, obviously. And that respect, he may not he was not-not going to be good for the country. But I think that is some stuff prior to his becoming Senator it is more speaks more about him, than when he became Senator. And his running for president was obviously about public relations disaster. 2:34:31 SM: [Audio blip] 2:34:39 RJ: Kind of say for example, I guess you can say that she was charming. She may got the she got the title of being kind of the, I guess you can say the maid of women's liberation and so forth, but in a way she was she was charming just enough to take away some of the credence from the women's liberation thing. I always thought that she was kind of manipulative, and that she really was not as staunch a feminist as she projected. 2:35:21 SM: And Ralph Nader. 2:35:24 RJ: I think Mr. Nader has done a lot for consumer protection. I really do, and for consumer causes. He lives what he preaches, he lives in a rooming house, you know. 2:35:34 SM: He does? 2:35:35 RJ: Yeah, he has. 2:35:36 SM: Where does he live? 2:35:38 RJ: I do not know where he live, but I know this. He lives in a boarding house. He has done this for the last 30 some years. He does not. I do not think he owns a car. You know, this type of thing. So, he is practicing what he is preaching, okay. So consequently, I got to in fact say there is some substance to a man that is practicing frugality, and right, and what have you, and living as I do not know what he does with the money that he makes, whether or not it gives it back to charity or what have you but he certainly does not seem to be in fact say-say [inaudible] 2:36:12 SM: I think that is all the names I had in the last, little area here is just mentioning Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and musicians of the year and the impact they had on boomers. 2:36:26 RJ: Well, I think it was a fad akin to rock music- I mean, rap music. I think that the youngsters nowadays, who will into rap music, is will always have an affinity toward it, because it was the music of their era. Just like for example, the Temptations and say the Four Tops and the Supremes were to me. You see what I mean. Therefore, I think it would be that affinity and drugs have always been a part of the modern musician's life, so then we do not really see it, and we almost kind of accepted that they are going to get caught up in the drugs and that some of our favorite heroes are going to in fact succumb to it, just like right now. Of all of the original Temptations are dead, okay. And-and I do not think any of them, Melvin Williams died last year, year before last, the one that had to base voice. And-and I do not think he was, I do not believe he was 50. He may not have been 50, but now okay, the rest of them all gone. And because they were alcoholics and things and Jerry, not Jerry but David rough and you know, was-was that is crack addicts up there, Philadelphia. 2:37:42 SM: Yeah, I remember that. 2:37:43 RJ: Yeah. 2:37:44 SM: Yep. Here, we got a little bit left and I still got another tape if we go over here. 2:37:50 RJ: I am going to have to cut it now see because, I mean after [inaudible] I am going to have to make it I got to get back home to my- I tell my wife I would be back by that time, okay. 2:38:00 SM: What is the lasting legacy of the boomer generation? 2:38:02 RJ: I think, I really do think it is going to be kind of the, probably it is going to be the, the freedom the "I" and the "me," is and that is the infamous one that it will have. The quest for the freedom. I think I think it will get a bad rap about how their children are turning out. I think that they will, the boomer generation is going to be overall seen as-as being a poor parental generation. I think they will be seen as being money hungry. You know, like yuppy. Okay. I think the yuppies is in that generation, is not it? 2:38:58 SM: Yeah. 2:38:59 RJ: Yeah. So, I think they are going to be seeing- 2:39:00 SM: Younger. The younger boomers. 2:39:03 RJ: The younger boomers? 2:39:04 SM: Not so much the older ones. Yeah. 2:39:06 RJ: Yeah, if you take [inaudible] from (19)46 to (19)60, right? (19)64. To (19)64. Those are the boomers. Okay, now, if you take that group, and if you take a look at them from what I have in fact saying, they are going to be yeah money hungry, money oriented. That is how I think we are going to see it, power hungry, self-centered. 2:39:39 SM: Is that the-the activism that took part in the boomer generation has transferred to their kids? 2:39:48 RJ: I do not think that children are active at all. Maybe the most sedentarian social issues of any generation. Well since-since Brown versus the Board- well, that is it, that is two generations [inaudible] they-they are they are the children are definitely less active, socially active than their parents. 2:40:09 SM: What do you think it is when their parents? What-what? 2:40:13 RJ: Parents, they have not had a need. (End of Interview) Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Description 3 Microcassettes Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Roosevelt Johnson Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Johnson, Roosevelt ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Psychologists; College teachers; Johnson, Roosevelt--Interviews Description An account of the resource <span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Dr. Roosevelt Johnson was a psychologist, counselor, educator, and administrator. Dr. Johnson worked as a professor at Ohio State University, University of the District of Columbia in Washington, DC and John Hopkins University. He also worked at private counseling centers in the Washington, DC area and Silver Springs, Maryland. He received his Bachelor's degree at St. Louis University and Ph.D. at the University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana. Dr. Johson died in 2015."}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":513,"3":{"1":0},"12":0}">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson (d. 2015) was a psychologist, counselor, educator, and administrator. Dr. Johnson worked as a professor at Ohio State University, University of the District of Columbia in Washington, DC, and John Hopkins University. He also worked at private counseling centers in the Washington, DC area and Silver Springs, Maryland. He received his Bachelor's degree at St. Louis University and Ph.D. at the University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana.</span> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource ND Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.179a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.179b; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.179c Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 160:18