Interview with Dr. Richard Flacks

Flacks, Richard ; McKiernan, Stephen

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.

2010-12-13

In copyright

2017-03-14

McKiernan Interviews

161:24

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)

2010-12-13

Stephen McKiernan

Richard Flacks

161:24

English

Binghamton University Libraries

audio/mp4

Sound

Audio

Political activists--United States; College teachers; Sociologists; University of California, Santa Barbara; Flacks, Richard--Interviews

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.