69 10 1775 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/90031e42d659c7ca5763871875ca4ba3.jpg 1ff1ff891becf40006356538fb2095e6 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/26f2707fd361354719492264d3886f2c.mp3 6269af5d5e862c9fac359acd0a5b5963 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Oral Histories Title A name given to the resource Oral Histories from 1960s Binghamton Alumni Description An account of the resource In 2019, Binghamton University Libraries completed a mission to collect oral interviews from 1960s alumni as a means to preserve memories of campus life. The resulting 47 tales are a retrospective of social, professional and personal experiences with the commonality of Harpur College. Some stories tell of humble beginnings, others discuss the formation of friendships; each provides insight into a moment in our community's rich history. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Irene Gashurov Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017-2018 Relation A related resource <a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/browse?collection=18">McKiernan Interviews : 60's collection of Oral Histories</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2019-07-08 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Irene Gashurov Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Dr. Steven Diner Year of Graduation 1966 Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Biographical Text University Professor Steven Diner is a Harpur College alumn who went on to work as a Professor of History at George Mason University and served as Chancellor from 2002 - 2011 at Rutgers University- Newark. As a History Professor at Rutgers, Dr. Diner specializes in immigration reform. In 2011 Diner was the inaugural recipient of an award named in his honor by the Rutgers Institute for Ethical Leadership for demonstrating a long-term commitment to 'strengthening civil society through ethical leadership.' Dr. Diner has published two books and numerous articles on higher education and public policy. Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Steven Diner Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Diner, Steven ; Gashurov, Irene Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 Description An account of the resource University Professor Steven Diner is a Harpur College alumn who went on to work as a Professor of History at George Mason University and served as Chancellor from 2002 - 2011 at Rutgers University- Newark. As a History Professor at Rutgers, Dr. Diner specializes in immigration reform. In 2011 Diner was the inaugural recipient of an award named in his honor by the Rutgers Institute for Ethical Leadership for demonstrating a long-term commitment to 'strengthening civil society through ethical leadership.' Dr. Diner has published two books and numerous articles on higher education and public policy. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2019-07-08 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Dr. Steven Diner.mp3 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2019-07-08 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Oral Histories from 60's Binghamton Alumni Extent The size or duration of the resource. 70:02 minutes IIIF Item Metadata UUID fca0a349-cc9a-4a72-968d-aa8e5302782f https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/d2d7823ba9d3ed3db4397280e2554f0e.jpg 08d0d31cd4d72469b526394c7dac6b83 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/a68293686f8f3ea57e9b335a388a5504.mp3 27d4227795dc73d91550704205c2ec15 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2009-07-28 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Steven F. Hayward Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Steve Hayward is an author, political commentator, and policy scholar. He currently serves as a Fellow at Ashland University's Ashbrook Center where he directs a program in political economy. Hayward earned a Bachelor's degree in Business and Administrative Studies from Lewis and Clark College. He also earned a Master's degree in Government and a Ph.D. in American Studies from Claremont Graduate School.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13057,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">Dr. Steve Hayward is an author, political commentator, and policy scholar. He currently serves as a Fellow at Ashland University's Ashbrook Center where he directs a program in political economy. Hayward earned a Bachelor's degree in Business and Administrative Studies from Lewis and Clark College. He also earned a Master's degree in Government and a Ph.D. in American Studies from Claremont Graduate School.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 1 Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Woodstock; Baby boom generation; Counterculture; Self-assertion; Abortion; John F. Kennedy; Nineteen sixties; Anti-war movement; Civil Rights Movement; Vietnam veterans; NAACP; Feminism; Family Ties (TV Show); Civil War generation.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:3,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:13228792}}">Woodstock; Baby boom generation; Counterculture; Self-assertion; Abortion; John F. Kennedy; Nineteen sixties; Anti-war movement; Civil Rights Movement; Vietnam veterans; NAACP; Feminism; Family Ties (TV Show); Civil War generation.</span> Subject LCSH Authors; Journalists; Hayward, Steven F.--Interviews Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 64:55 Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Steven Hayward Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 28 July 2009 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:06): Today's interview will be with Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute, which is a conservative institution in Washington, DC. This is July 28th, 2009. And this interview is part of my oral history project on the boomer generation. Looking at the (19)60s, the (19)70s, the (19)80s, some of the characteristics of the boomers and certainly, excuse me, issues related to boomer lives and the events that shaped their lives. This is... All right, the first question I would like to ask, when you think of the (19)60s and the (19)70s, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? SH (00:00:50): It is just like word association, feel like a war shark test, hippies, rock music, Vietnam War protests. Gosh, I do not know. I struggle a bit. I write about these things. It takes me a long time to come up with my generalization, so it is hard on the spur the moment. But yeah. Well, I mean, I guess a lot of ferment and turmoil and uncertainty and changing rules of the game. And gosh, you could go on forever about all this. Maybe some of your follow-up questions will tease out more. SM (00:01:23): Is there one specific event in your life or in your mind that shaped you when you were young? SH (00:01:30): No, not really. I mean, I was fascinated by a lot of things. The space program, of course, that was one of the things that went right in the (19)60s was getting to the moon when everything else seemed to be going wrong. I was born in 1958, so by 1970, I am only 11 years old, so I am not quite... I mean, I was aware of what was going on around me. Looking back, I think the whole Woodstock thing was kind of an interesting moment. Because as I write in my book, the media and all the deep thinkers, and of course the people on the new left and the so-called youth or countercultural movement thought of that as the beginning of a new civilization. I mean, you had Time Magazine and the New York Times both talking about how Woodstock youth really were different, and that there really was something new to the counterculture. And in fact, what was it, four or five months later, you had the attempt to do a follow-up on the West Coast at Altamont, which ended up as a disaster. And that was kind of the end of the whole thing. The whole end... all the attempts trying to do Woodstock reunions have really worked. So Woodstock was kind of a one-off, and were it not for the neighbors and people in the surrounding area... I mean, back up a step, the Woodstock was supposed to be 50,000 deep or something, it ended up being 500,000 or something like that. And so they did not have toilets, they did not have food, they did not have water. And if not for the neighbors in those surrounding towns, you could have had a real catastrophe there. So that was always... I guess I am rambling a bit here, but what comes to sight out of Woodstock and a lot of other parts of those years was the pretentiousness of the baby boomers and the so-called counterculture or youth movement, that they really did represent some new phase of human nature, when in fact there really is no escaping some of the basic facts of human nature. SM (00:03:22): Following up to that question, what do you think, if you were to look at the boomer generation again, that is defined by the scholars as those born between (19)46 and (19)64 that fall within that generation, what do you think are the strongest characteristics of that group and the weakest characteristics of that generation? SH (00:03:43): Oh, let us see. Oh, boy. Yeah, that is another hard question to generalize about. I mean... Yeah, gosh, I do not have a good answer for that question. I mean, I sort of repair to some of my general... I mean, I think the scholars and intellectuals of that period share the same defects with the broader generation, which is a lot of self-indulgence. A lot of self-assertion. I think there is the idea that is quite typical of baby boomers is I mean, a popular form of it is we can have it all, right? But then the sort of more serious intellectual version is that through triumph of the will ideas, I mean, it is very nichey. I think it is people thinking that the only real obstacles to changing the world are failures of our willpower. And so there is a disregard of what conservatives would recognize as some of the lessons and requirements of tradition and authority. And, Tom, you know, those are some general traits, I think you see, I am trying to think of some good examples, but hard-pressed off the top of my head, but they will probably come to me later anyway. SM (00:04:59): Do you think that the term activism, because it was a highly activist period, not only in terms of the anti-war movement and the civil rights and the women's movement and the environmental, gay, lesbian, Chicano, Native American, all these movements came about at that time. Do you look at that as a positive quality in America? SH (00:05:19): Well, no. And it can be qualified this way, you had the activism for activism's sake. You had the notion that commitment was the way you exhibited your moral purity or moral seriousness. I mean, if you go back a century, let us take the abolitionists, who crusading to abolish slavery, or the early women's movement of people who wanted votes for women and suffragette movement. I mean, they were activists too, but their activism was subordinate to a concrete moral purpose that you could argue about. Whereas I think what you tended to see coming out of the (19)60s and (19)70s was activism for activism's sake. Activism became its own moral category. And you say... In other words, people would say, "I am an activist," and by the way, what you were activist about just flowed from one thing to another because Martin Luther King was a civil rights activist, but the civil rights took the priority over activism, right, whereas I think later in the (19)60s and the (19)70s, as I say, activism became its own moral category, and commitment became the most important moral tribute or moral... what do I say, a moral attribute, but in fact that it represents a certain value-free abstraction from more hard headed thinking about what the moral purpose is behind it. I mean, let us look at, for example, one of the great cultural divides would be abortion. Both pro-choice and pro-life people think of themselves as activists, but obviously on a very different side of a moral divide. But the media tends to treat them equally as well. They are all activists. And so that is why I think the term activism has acquired its own status, separate and apart from thinking about what it is you are activist about. SM (00:07:05): Good point. One of the things we would see on television, say in the (19)90s, we would see when Newt Gingrich came to power in (19)94, really, the Republican leadership and the conservative leadership, you would see George Will make comments about it. You would see Newt Gingrich and other people say that... They would really criticize that whole era, that boomer generation because of the breakdown of values, the breakdown of American society, the drug culture, the divorce rate, no respect for authority. Do you think they were blowing a lot of wind there, or do you think there was some truth into what they were saying? SH (00:07:47): Well, no, I think there is a lot of truth to it. Here is the... Couple of problems need to be sorted out about this whole phenomenon we are talking about. We tend to think of the (19)60s as when... essentially as America's cultural revolution, like you said, with cultural revolution in China or something. And that is narrowly speaking true. But I think that something that I did not think of, I first heard James Q. Wilson suggest this idea, that in fact, the seeds of what we now criticize of the (19)60s and the (19)70s were present way back in the (19)20s and (19)30s, especially the (19)20s. I mean, you saw in modern philosophy of existentialism, of modernism in the arts, the modernist poetry of certain aspects of T. S. Eliot or Ezra Pound, people like that, bohemian culture, some of it linked of course to radical politics, modernist literature, all the rest. The beginnings of the sexual revolution and so forth, were all very much present back in the 1920s. And what Wilson points out, and a few others, and I think Francis Fukuyama has also talked about a bit of this, is you then had the Depression and World War II in short order when you could not afford to indulge in these kind of escapes from restraint or traditional restraints or traditional morality. I mean, both the Depression and the war, which of course were global phenomenon. In other words, call the halt to the progress of the diffusion of the ideas of modernity. And then, you know, you had the 1950s, you have us and the rest of the world getting back to order. But then with the baby boom and the prosperity that comes in the post-war years, you have a return to realizing the consequences of modernist spot in the 1960s. So in other words, the 1960s are partly the culmination of a long-term philosophical change in social and philosophical thought that really could arguably go back 200 years to the enlightenment when we start explicitly throwing over authority and tradition. And you also have a demographic problem. I think it was Pat Moynihan who said the principal job of civilization is to get young people from 16 to 24. We had a lot of them there in the (19)60s and (19)70s when the kids were surging into colleges and so forth. And Moynihan's argument was you were always going to have some trouble in the (19)60s of some kind just on demographic grounds alone. Too many young kids just surging through our educational system and into the workforce and all the rest of that. You overlay all that with, as I say, the long term social currents going back a century or so along with the particular events, especially the Vietnam War in this country, civil rights and unrest in the streets. And you have quite a phenomenon. One of the curiosities of the (19)60s is that what we think of as the student movement was not just an American phenomenon. Remember, I mean, you know, you had student unrest at universities in Europe and even in Asia and even in a couple of universities behind the Iron Curtain, you had had some student riots and whatnot suggesting that there was something beyond just the war and just the domestic scene in America that was going on in the 1960s. SM (00:11:00): Beautiful thoughts there. What is the one event in your eyes that changed the generation forever? What do you think, if you were to ask a room full of, say, a... If you were speaking at West Chester University and a bunch of boomers, particularly those boomers that were in the first 10 years of that age group, what would you think would be the number one event to shape their lives? SH (00:11:25): Well, I think it would... takes a little explanation. Probably the assassination of John F. Kennedy, although it did not happen immediately. I think the most interesting work on this subject lately is Jim Pearson's book... What is the title of it? I forget the exact title. It is Camelot and the Unmaking of Modern Liberalism or something like that. James Pearson. It is worth looking up. SM (00:11:49): I will get it. SH (00:11:50): Yeah. And he makes a very interesting argument in there. Remember that before Kennedy's assassination, the big concern of the establishment liberals was... Well, the radical right, the conspiracy theorists of the John Birch Society and the McCarthyites, and people like that. And liberals were all for rationality and progress and incremental reform. And of course, in the immediate hours after Kennedy's killing, and then later it became through legend as well, it had to have been some kind of right wing plot. Well, it turns out it was Oswald who was a dedicated communist. And what Pearson points out is that Kennedy was a victim of the Cold War. This was a leftist who was out to kill Kennedy because Kennedy was against Castro and so forth. And what happened is in the years since then is the left essentially lost its mind over this. Now it is the left that is in conspiracy theory. Had to be the CIA and the mob involved in killing Kennedy. It could not have been Oswald. 9/11 was an inside job. We hear all these crazy things that have continued to this day. And suddenly it has the left that is interested in conspiracy theories and has gotten somewhat irrational. And it is really kind of amazing that within three or four years after Kennedy's killing, all his leftist ideas had caught on college campuses and had overwhelmed liberals. Portland and Johnson, I think he was kind of a fuddy-duddy to the youngsters searching through the universities of six... Of course, Kennedy had been kind of a hip, stylish young guy. So anyway, I think that was sort of the watershed event in the (19)60s that... and we will never know how it would have gone if Kennedy had lived, but I think it might have gone by differently. We will never know. I mean, Johnson thought after he won the election Ford-Goldwater, he still thought his problems were going to come from the right and from populous conservatism and from the John Birch Society type. And one of the things that, for Johnson and other liberals like him, mainstream liberals, is they were completely disoriented when their "most ferocious" problems came from their left. And they never did understand that and get over it. And I think that is how we get disrupted liberalism, at least in the (19)90s. I think in a lot of ways Clinton kind of righted the ship for liberals. We will see if Obama figures this out. SM (00:14:13): Kind of a follow-up, that term watershed, what do you think was the water... What was the watershed moment that began the (19)60s? Because a lot of the books that have- SH (00:14:23): Kennedy's assassination. SM (00:14:24): Oh, okay. SH (00:14:25): Yeah. I mean, until Kennedy was killed, you are still kind of... In my book, I described that year (19)64, right around then, as the tail end of the tailfin era, I call it. And that is because, I mean, Kennedy wanted to, as he created a slogan, was, "Let us get the country moving again." But it really was a continuation of a lot of Eisenhower policies. The economy was growing okay, but not... It was roaring after the middle of the years of the (19)60s. So I think that is the event that really snapped the country out of its sort of post-war stability that you had under Eisenhower and Truman. SM (00:15:02): One of the other criticisms of the boomer generation is that this was a generation of 70 million or 75 million and oh, really, only 15 percent were involved in activism of any kind during this timeframe. So it was really a small number. So thus their impact was not as great as people might think. People look at that sometimes as well, that is another attack on that generation and those that were involved. SH (00:15:30): Well, I have a couple of thoughts on that. I mean, the number may even be smaller. I mean, in some surveys thought that the number of people involved in campus activism was 5 percent or less. However, it is 5 percent of a large number. You point out if you are talking about 70 million people, you are talking about a couple million at least. And of course, the other thing is that even if it is a tiny minority, that is irrelevant in this sense. I mean, the history of politics is small, concentrated, determined groups that determine political outcomes. I mean, that is the Bolsheviks and the Soviet Union, right? It is the Nazis in Germany in the (19)30s. It is the Federalists in the United States in 1787 saying, "We need to get a new constitution because the Articles of Confederation are not working." So, the history of politics and social change is small determined groups that become the use of shade the tail that wags the dog, and they sort of drag along the rest of the generation with them. And even though you may have only two to 5 percent or even 10 percent, if you want to of people involved in activist activities or sympathizing with the ideas of the new left in the student movement, you probably have at least an equal or double that number who sympathize with it or who find themselves influenced by it, because that is the sort of social dynamic of modern mass movement. So I think that although it is an important point to keep in mind that you did not have a lot of people burning their draft cards and marching in the street, it had a strong magnetic effect on the rest of the generation, I think. SM (00:16:56): My next question is actually a two-part question. How important were the college students of that era? And we are talking late (19)60s, and oftentimes when we talk about the (19)60s, we are talking about college students up to about 1973, because it is hard... The (19)70s is often thought about after, sometimes even after the helicopters took off from Vietnam in (19)75. So it is hard to separate those first three to four years in the (19)70s. How important were college students in ending the Vietnam War, number one? And number two, how important was this generation with respect to having a very important influence on the civil rights movement, the women's movement, and all the other movements? SH (00:17:38): Yeah. Got to take those in several different parts. I think it is overstated or exaggerated that the anti-war movement actually stopped the war. That that is been their big claim ever since then, "And gee, we stopped the war." In fact, as Todd Gitlin among others recognized, although the war was unpopular, the anti-war movement was even more unpopular with American people. Americans are funny that way. I mean, majority of Americans, they are capable of having conflicting ideas in their heads at the same time. We call that cognitive dissonance. So while the war was increasingly unpopular in the later (19)60s and especially into the (19)70s, a lot of people also do not like anti-war protestors. Whoop, hello? Hello? SM (00:18:23): I am here. SH (00:18:24): Hm. Uh-oh. Somebody- SM (00:18:29): That is me. I am okay. That is not my phone. We are okay. SH (00:18:34): Oh, okay. I am not sure what happened there. I have another extension here someone may be using. Anyway... SM (00:18:37): Okay. SH (00:18:39): Where was I in all that? Oh, the war story is a complicated one. I mean, I argue that the war was lost very early on, as early as 1964 when the Johnson administration decided they were not going to fight it like a real war, but fight it like an exercise in game theory. Once you committed that as your basic strategy, you were not going to win that war in any sense. And then the American people, you continued to support the war majority according to polls as late as mid-1968. And it was after Ted that they started losing heart for it. But yeah, it was... Hold on a second. Oh, mom, who did that? Huh? Nothing. Never mind. I got someone... Anyway. SM (00:19:26): Okay. It is okay. SH (00:19:29): So where was I? Yeah, I mean, yeah, that is a complicated story. I mean, Nixon, I think knew the war was lost, but wanted to get us out in some reasonable fashion, and that is why it took another few years. But the student movement... By the way, the anti-war movement really loses steam starting about 1971, I think, when draft is abolished, right? SM (00:19:48): Right. SH (00:19:48): That took a lot of the steam out of the anti-war movement. SM (00:19:51): And one of the other points is that the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, if it was not for that particular group, the other groups were waning at that time. SH (00:19:59): Yeah, I think that is right. And one of the other things you noticed is when Nixon decided in 1972 to escalate bombing and whatnot in the spring, and then again at Christmas, the public opinion poll showed pretty strong public support for him. So at that point, we were already getting out our ground troops. SM (00:20:17): Right. SH (00:20:18): But the other question, civil rights, look, the civil rights movement, which mostly means the NAACP and people like Kang and Bill Randolph and all the others who have been toiling at that for decades, deserve the credit for making civil rights happen. An awful lot of... For the rest of the new left and the student activists and the baby boomers came to that quite late. And they showed up for the victory parade, you might say, right? Everyone is proud of marching in the South in (19)63 or (19)64, but at that point, the movement had been toiling for decades to get to that point. So that is always been a little bit of opportunism. If I were a Black civil rights leader from that era, I would have had mixed feelings about all of that. Nice to have the help, but where were you when we needed you in 1948 is what I would have been wanting to ask. And similar, the other thing, the environmental movement... The environmental movement spout itself after the civil rights movement. So the Environmental Defense Fund was sort of thought... was founded to be something like the Civil Rights Litigation Organization. But in fact, a lot of those organizations were not even founded until after the initial Clean Air Act was adopted. And quite the opposite of the civil rights, many whose organizations are now a century old. SM (00:21:33): You are right. When you talk about the women's and the gay and lesbian movement, I think even they will say in the beginning, they look to the civil rights movement as their... SH (00:21:40): As their model. SM (00:21:40): As their model. SH (00:21:43): What makes both those movements possible is prosperity. I mean, feminism does not work if you do not have prosperity. I can be flip about it a little bit, but not entirely and say, what makes the feminist movement possible is dishwashers and washing machines. Now, you can... the labor saving devices mean... and also expand educational opportunity. But all that is based on prosperity and technological improvements. So now, the ancient distinctions between male and female labor are eroded, and now women can join the workforce in any capacity at all in large numbers, which is what they did. And I always think there has been, and this is not an original thought, I always think there has been quite a distinction between what you might say, equity feminists, there would be no ordinary educated women who would like to be lawyers or doctors or managers or whatever. And then your ideological feminists who are all about gender differences and all that sort of nonsense that you get in higher education and gender studies and whatnot. That is a really tiny minority, I think. Most real women, I think, do not care anything about any of that stuff. SM (00:22:47): How important do you feel the boomer generation who are now in their early six... or in their sixties basically, and in aging, and many of them probably thought when they were young, they never would age. SH (00:23:00): Right. SM (00:23:01): Some still have their youthful ideas, but I am not sure really how many. What kind of an influence have they had on their children and their children's children because now they are becoming grandparents, and the millennial generation is now the largest generation in American history. There are more millennials than there were boomers, but generation X was basically their kids. And the generation Xers were the born from (19)65 to about 1980. And so what kind of influence have these boomers had, not only... I am not only talking about white boomers, African American boomers, Asian American boomers, even gay and lesbian boomers who have their own issues. What kind of an influence have they had on their kids and their kids' kids with respect to activism and having an influence in their lives in that direction? SH (00:23:59): Well, yeah, that is hard to say because I mean, it is hard to generalize about too much, but there is a couple of straws in the wind. I mean, the old joke is that a... One old joke is that a neo conservative is a liberal with a teenage daughter. I mean, one comparison I made in actually my next book that is coming out in a little while is the great politically charged TV show in the early (19)70s was All in the Family, right? SM (00:24:28): Yes. SH (00:24:28): Archie was the bigot and the son, Mike, Meathead, was supposed to be the enlightened liberal, right, and they were always fighting about stuff. 10 years later, the politically charged sitcom was Family Ties, right? SM (00:24:43): Mm-hmm. SH (00:24:43): And there what you had was boomer parents who had been hippies in the (19)60s who do not understand their conservative son, Alex, right? SM (00:24:50): Yes. Michael Fox. SH (00:24:52): His hero was William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman on the show. It was the exact opposite of All in the Family, just in 10 years. I mean, that really to my mind, is a difference between the Reagan years, in cultural terms, a difference between the Reagan years and the Nixon years, or the late (19)60s, early (19)70s. And I thought that was a real cultural marker of things. You know, you see other things, I mean, what I picked up from students today and people in their twenties, teenagers, is they think all this talk about the (19)60s that you folks and parents and grandparents talk about, a lot of them think it is a little puffed up and pretentious, and they have a, "What was that all about?" kind of attitude, and you guys were kind of silly. And the long hair, and God knows the bell bottom jeans and disco, the (19)70s, they look at with complete horror. So maybe that is just the wheel turning that happens in cultural terms. But you do not see, I mean, remember that in the (19)60s you had one of the big totems was the generation gap, the younger generation versus the older generation. And the younger generation... Or the older generation could understand the younger generation. I do not see that as around as much today. You do not see that represented. There has always been parents against kids a little bit, but I do not see it. It was not been blown up into what you might call a metaphysical dimension as it was in (19)60s and early (19)70s. The generation gap, you often see that in capital letters. It was a real social phenomenon. Well, I think that is gone. So to that extent, I think it is the baby boomer parents and grandparents today are maybe a little older and wiser, and their kids are not as, for whatever reasons, do not seem to be as easily swept up into some of these pretentious enthusiasms for the moral superiority of their new generation. SM (00:26:43): Right. I think I know your answer to this, but when I was... I am a boomer, and when I was in college, I was around friends who thought we were all the most unique generation in American history, and mainly because there was a feeling that we were going to cure everything. We are going to bring peace to the world, we are going to end racial injustice. Everything is going to be good, almost like a utopia. Your comment on that, just the feelings that be... a feeling of being the most unique generation in American history when they are young, I still think many boomers still feel that as they are old, in their old days. SH (00:27:27): Yeah, that is right. They probably still have that attitude somewhere consciously or subconsciously or from some level. I mean, one of the problems with the (19)60s is that the so-called establishment, the parents of the boomers went out of their way to affirm all that nonsense. In my book, my Age of Reagan book, I quote Time magazine saying... Time Magazine, remember, I think it was 1967, named the under 25 generation as Man of the Year. SM (00:27:55): Yeah, I have the magazine. SH (00:27:55): Yeah, that is the point, they called it Man of the Year, right? SM (00:27:55): Yeah. SH (00:27:56): Some of the prose in that article, if you got it is really astoundingly idiotic. This is just a new generation, but a new kind of generation, and I am paraphrasing here, but it said they really are better than their parents. They are going to really bring new hope. So if you are a kid and the establishment is telling you this, then what are you going to think? Of course you are going to run away with these intentions. I mean, that was not the only one. You had the Cox commission, Archibald Cox commission appointed by I think Johnson or somebody after Columbia University was sacked. Now, that was essentially a bunch of hooligans who trashed one of our leading universities, and the Cox commission went on about the wonderful idealism of this generation and how terrific they were. And it was just an unbelievable failure of moral... sort of moral accountability on the part of the older generation who should have... That I do not think you would see today. I do not see people today pumping up a younger generation and saying, "Oh, yeah, you are better than we are," in part because of the residue, as you say, of baby boomers who still think deep down inside, they probably are a little better than the World War II generation. And in part because I just think we are not going to run that movie over again. SM (00:29:08): I want to read something to you. This has a little bit to do with the meeting we had with Senator Muskie before he passed away when I was working at the university, and I took students down to Washington for our Leadership on the Rope programs. He was kind of... had just gotten out of the hospital, was not feeling well, but I am going to read this question first. Do you feel boomers are still having problems with healing from the divisions that tore the nation apart in their youth, the division between Black and white, divisions between those who support authority and those who criticize it, division between those who supported the troops and those who did not? What role has the wall played in healing divisions? Or was it primarily a healing for veterans? Do you feel that the boomer generation will go to its grave, like the Civil War generation, not truly healing? Am I wrong in thinking this or has 35 to 40 years made the statement, time heals all wounds a truth? And I want to follow it up with... We met with Senator Muskie and I asked that very question to him with 14 students in the room, and I think he was not expecting the question and he did not answer for a minute, and he almost had tears in his eyes. And then he said, "I just got out of the hospital and I had a chance in the hospital to watch the Ken Burns movies about the Civil War." And he said, "My only comment to you is that we had not healed since the Civil War." And then he went on talking about the generation that we lost due to all the men who died and making the comparisons of the populations. And I will tell you, the students, you could hear a pin drop in the room for the next 10 minutes. It was just an unbelievable experience. It was such an experience that one of my students went on to higher ed and got his PhD and that was the moment that he knew he had to go on. But your thoughts on that whole business about healing within the... Do you think there is an issue here on healing? SH (00:31:07): Well, yeah, I mean, I tend not to that language of healing and reconciliation and closure and all the rest of that. That is very much therapeutic baby bloomer language that we would not... Our grandparents from the World War II era, parents and grandparents, they would have never used... They would never have had midlife crises, first of all. Right? And they would not have used that therapeutic language about closure and all the rest of that. However, I do think that what is underneath all that though is, the way I sometimes put it, others have too. There is kind of a Hatfield versus McCoys intramural feud among baby boomers. I think on political terms, that is how you can explain Bill and Hillary versus Newt in the (19)90s. I mean, remember Newt calling the Clintons countercultural McGoverniks, which got everybody else that. And there was a business, by the way, last year in the presidential race, and something that, again, Sullivan and others pointed out, is that part of the genius of Obama was saying, "I am not part of all that." Hang on. It is a complicated story. But I mean, part of his genius, I think, was saying, "We ought to give a gift beyond this baby boomer feud that we have been carrying on since the (19)60s." He does not quite mean it because he is very much a product of the (19)60s and (19)70s leftism. But still, I think he had an insight there that yeah, this has now become a long running feud. The Civil War comparison I think is a pretty good one. If this is not geographical, it is ideological and cultural. And yeah, I think probably we will go to our grave with some of all that. I think they are going to have some of the young Americans for freedom fight some old SPSers in their nineties in their nursing homes, yelling at each other about the tent offensive or something. I think it will go on till the very end. SM (00:32:51): I know when I interviewed the late Gaylord Nelson, who I thought was a great statesman, I do not know if you ever had a chance to meet him. SH (00:32:57): Yeah. Never met him, but you certainly know his work. SM (00:32:59): Oh, my gosh. And he passed away and I went to... because he had helped us with some of our speakers and meeting people, and he came to our campus twice. He was kind of the real deal. And he always... When I asked him that question, he said, "People do not walk around Washington, DC with that they have healed on their sleeves." But he made one important point that I think was the most important memory of that meeting, he said, "But forever, it has left its impact on the body politic." SH (00:33:29): Yeah, that is right. Yeah. And I think it is interesting to say about Muskie. I mean, Muskie was one of those postwar liberals who I think was completely disoriented and surprised by what happened. And I mean, partly was Lyndon Johnson we know was upset about the riot. He did not understand why Blacks were rioting in Detroit and Newark and places like that after he put it all he can do for them. And I think that the new left, remember the new left was very radical, and their enemies were liberal. I think it was... I forget if it was Tom Hayden or Peter Collier, or which one of them said that our first object was to murder liberalism in its official robes. And so if you are going to establish a liberal like Muskie, you cannot understand... This is completely incomprehensible to you. And I think that explains why he hesitated in answering the question, because I think he still does not understand to this day or cannot accept it or finds it bizarre and hard to come to grips with. And I think he and people like Moynihan and others perceive how damaging this was to establishment liberalism. And it really was 20 years or more getting over it, and to some extent may still not have gotten over it. Clinton, I think, represented a walk back from the brink. I mean, Clinton signing on welfare reform, talking stuff on crime, and in other ways represented that we are no longer going to give in to the radical left and the new left on these subjects, even if he had some sympathies with it himself. But now under Obama, you have got a lot of those folks somewhat older and wiser and a little more shrewd who still believe some of that stuff, I think. As you saw this whole Gates affair the last... has been a real revealing moment, I think, for Obama and people on the left. But nonetheless, I think that is being blindsided by something that nobody could have foreseen as what so upset people like Muskie and probably Nelson too. SM (00:35:29): And of course, we had a chance to even have our students meet Senator Fulbright. SH (00:35:32): Oh, yes. SM (00:35:33): And he probably would fall into that same category there. SH (00:35:38): Yeah. SM (00:35:38): Overall, now that you mentioned that you were 11 when these things happened, so you are in the younger group of the boomers, but over the years, have you changed your feelings toward boomers? Obviously, you have degrees, you have done a lot of thinking and writing about it as you have gotten older. But have you been consistent in your thinking, or have you been really evolving and changing? SH (00:36:04): I think I have probably been pretty consistent in my thinking. Yeah. No, It would take a while for me to sort out my thoughts on all that. SM (00:36:14): Yeah. What do you think might be the lasting legacy will be of the boomer generation in... Of course, when I talk boomers now, I am really not only talking about the (19)60s, I am talking about the (19)50s when they were young and raised in that post-war era where hopefully a lot of parents were there. I reflect on it on the (19)50s and on. When I think of the (19)50s, I think of Dwight Eisenhower. I think of security, even though we had the McCarthy hearings and the threats of Russia, seemed to be a much more stable time. I remember that personally. And then all of a sudden, as I got to be a teenager, things, so many things changed. So really, when you are talking boomers, you are talking about the (19)50s, the (19)60s, and the (19)70s, and of course when Ronald Reagan came in and Assay Bay. So you are talking about a lot of things here. SH (00:37:07): Yeah. Yeah. I think what explains the (19)50s is, well, a lot of things. But you come out of World War II with a couple things. One is that the whole world's exhausted and broken, destroyed except for the United States, really. And so all that rebuilding time, I think, we have a whole generation of people coming back from national service, and they are very service and dutifully oriented people, and they start having kids like crazy. And I think I recur to the answer I gave a little earlier. I think it takes a while for the rise of prosperity and for some of the social ideas I was talking about that were fermenting back in the early part of the 20th century to exhibit themselves. It is hard to trace out causation on this because there is so many things that overlap. But yeah, I mean, that is why were the (19)50s so sort of placid and quiet. Well, I think the other thing about the (19)50s is, and other people have made this point, is that you had, in the (19)50s, you had the... and coming out of World War II, you had the triumph of bigness. I mean, in the (19)50s you used to talk about three things: big government, big business, and big labor, and big projects. We built the interstate highway system and out here in California, we built the water projects and the modern university system and lots of three ways. We built the suburbs all over the country. And that was regarded as a great success. That is back in the days when people would tell pollsters that by large margins, 60, 70 percent said they trusted the federal government to do the right thing almost all the time. Today that number's under 20 percent almost all the time. So the collapse of confidence in big institutions, like especially big government, but also big labor and big business. So it is a sort of simpler framework for the world then. And most people looked up from their morning newspapers and what they saw the government was a record of success. You had won a big war. You have built a big highway system, you have built middle class prosperity and new communities all across the country, and things went pretty well. It is not still (19)60s when things start going wrong with riots in the streets and the war that cannot be won and all the rest of that. But people start changing their minds about all this. SM (00:39:18): How important... Could you comment on the music of the year? Because when you think of the (19)60s, the music continues to be played on the radio. Every generation seems to love it. Most of the young people that I have been around, both generation Xers and millennials, they loved the music of the (19)60s, but it had seemed to have had a very important impact on that generation. When you look at the era when my parents grew up, the big bands were very important to them in the (19)40s and the (19)30s, late (19)30s into the (19)40s. Then you had the Sinatras, and of course Elvis came about in the 1950s and that whole period, rock and roll. But the (19)60s, could you just comment on how important you think when you defined the Boomers, how important music is? SH (00:40:05): Well, I mean, obviously, so (19)60s style music was the soundtrack to the student activism and whole youth movement. I mean, I am not a music critic, so I am not going to offer an opinion whether it is better or worse. But I do notice a couple things. One is that if you look at popular entertainment today, TV shows, especially in movies, you will find that for music background, they tend these days to use two periods, use music of the (19)60s and maybe in the (19)70s, and then rap, and rap-inspired styles today as you see in movies and TV shows. Whereas, in other words, the music of the (19)70s, disco especially, and a lot of the music of the (19)80s, has just disappeared. I mean, it is still a little bit of a round. And when Michael Jackson dies, people buy his records again and play them for a couple of days before putting them away again for good. But yeah, there is something, and I do not know if that is because it is connected with historical moments in some way or not, but yeah, I mean, that was the rock fest. Before the (19)60s, big musical events were just big musical events. But of course, bigger rock festivals of the (19)60s, and Woodstock being the best example I already mentioned, those became political events as well, in some sense, larger social events. And they are kind of still thought of that way a little bit today. I do not know if you had benefit concerts before the (19)60s, but nowadays, benefit concerts for political social causes are a big thing and pretty prominent. And all musicians think they have got to be part of doing something like that. SM (00:41:41): Right. Like Willie Nelson and Farm Aid, which began in, I think in (19)81. He was just on television last week talking about it. He thought it was a one-year happening, and it is every year since. SH (00:41:52): Right. But then you had... I remember one of the first ones was in the early (19)70s was the concert for Bangladesh, which I forget what that was, but that raise... in London or somewhere, that raised some millions of dollars for famine relief, I think was (19)70s. I forget when it was, sometime in the early (19)70s. But yeah, so yeah, music became politicized. That is the other thing is, music has always had some political content to it, but I think it... You know, you saw more of it starting in the (19)60s than you had before. You actually went out and tried to measure it. SM (00:42:26): If you were to list some of the bands or personalities music-wise, entertainment-wise who may have had a great influence on the boomers, who would they be? SH (00:42:36): Oh, I do not know. That would be a purely subjective response. I mean, you had the leading artists who broke the ground, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, of course. And then certain individual performers like Jimi Hendrix, but then some of... and they were not especially political, I do not think, I mean they had their politics, but their songs with a couple of exceptions. I mean, one of the Beatles, most famous tracks is their right-wing song Tax Man, right? SM (00:43:04): Yeah. SH (00:43:06): They was shocked that having to pay 98 percent tax rates on the large amount of money they were starting to make. And so that was kind of an irony in their case. But then you would have Buffalo Springfield, Crosby, Stills & Nash, they were much more explicitly left wing, anti-war, so forth. And help, I mean- SM (00:43:26): Mr. Hayward, I want to change my tape here. Hold on one second. SH (00:43:29): Yeah. SM (00:43:34): Okay. I am back. SH (00:43:39): Yeah, I am not sure what else to add to all that. I mean, that is... SM (00:43:41): Certainly, we cannot forget the Motown sound because when we are talking about rock, Motown was big. SH (00:43:46): Right, right. And that was not especially politic. I mean, off the top of my head, that does not strike me as especially political. Popular with civil rights folks, but I do not think of any... Off the top of my head, I do not think of any particular Motown ballads that were highly politicized in their content. Unlike some of the rock bands who wrote explicitly anti-Vietnam War songs and so forth. SM (00:44:07): Were there any books, you are an intellect, and yeah, I have asked this to some people, and I am a book person. I read a lot of books, and I was reading back when I was in college, so I had deep feelings on books. But were there any books that you think college students or young people or the boomers were reading when they were young that influenced them? SH (00:44:26): Well, yeah, I mean this I would want to think about, but off the top of my head, I think of a Charles Reich, Greening of America, which is a pretty late book in the (19)60s or maybe early (19)70s. J. D. Salinger's, Catcher in the Rye was popular, I think, for its sensibility. And which swathly fits into the beats out of the (19)50s, with Jack Kerouac and all the rest of that. Herbert Marcuse was very popular. What was his book called, One-Dimensional Man or something, I want to say. I am not sure if that is the right one. And a lot of stuff is kind of impenetrable, but it was popular for especially superficial leftist intellectuals. I know I am missing a whole bunch of books [inaudible]. SM (00:45:11): I know that Roszak's The Making of a Counter Culture was very big and- SH (00:45:15): Yeah, but I guess that was in the (19)60s, or was that a little later? I do not remember. SM (00:45:18): No, that was in the... I went to grad school and it was required reading. And then anything that Erickson wrote, the psychologist was- SH (00:45:28): Oh, yes. Right. Yeah. SM (00:45:30): He wrote a lot about the (19)60s and identity politics. It was so funny. SH (00:45:33): I have thought about the books of that era for quite a long time. So once upon a time I did, but I really sort of lost touch with that. SM (00:45:41): Right. I have a question here regarding kind of a follow-up to the healing issue, and that is the issue of trust. I start my question by stating that when I was in college in my 101 class in psychology, and I will never forget this professor talking to us, saying that it is very important to trust others. Because if you have an inability to trust, then you most likely will not be a success in life. Now, I was a college student first year, I did not really take that in, but I never forgot it. And then I saw what many boomers thought were lies that leaders did not... Nixon lying, President Johnson lying, Gulf of Tonkin, you studied... Even President Eisenhower lied with the U-2 incident. Now, recent John Kennedy lied about what was going on in Vietnam with saying goodbye to the Diem, the murder of Diem. SH (00:46:40): Right. SM (00:46:40): And then you have got so many others during that period when people were evolving, do you think that there is an issue... that boomers have an issue, have had an issue their whole lives with trusting others? They do not trust leaders, and in that era, they did not trust anybody in authority, whether it was a minister, a rabbi, a president of the university, a politician, anyone in a position of responsibility, I do not trust you. SH (00:47:08): Yeah, that is right. I know. I think that is a common theme is you just do not trust large institutions, public or private. And part of that has got its postulates. And again, some of the intellectual ideas of authenticity and individuality going back at least a century, you know, you want to trust yourself first before you trust somebody else. And partly it is the increasing complexity of the modern world. I mean, anyone who thinks about this seriously for more than five minutes understands that responsible governments and leaders have to conceal certain things and prevaricate about the truth. If you believe otherwise, you would say we would not have any spies at all if we would disband the CIA tomorrow, which no responsible person would ever do. And again, there is some cognitive dissonance in play. We are cynical and distrustful of institutions, and to a certain extent that is healthy, right? I mean, that is not too far from Thomas Jefferson's idea that the Tree of Liberty should be watered with the blood of pirates every 20 years or so, or should have periodic revolutions to renew things. And on the other hand, we always say, "We really want a leader we can believe in." This is part of the enthusiasm for Obama, change we can believe in. And we will always end up being disappointed. People like that. We were disappointed with Jimmy Carter, who told us he wanted to give us a government as good as the people, and then within a few years he was telling us the people were no good. SM (00:48:32): And even Ronald Reagan, who most people loved, but then Iran Contra toward the end, and then people started to question him. SH (00:48:39): Exactly. I mean, that was the worst part of the whole thing, was as somebody put it, it was as though you had learned that John Wayne had been selling rifles and whiskey to the Indians, and then that was a huge problem, yeah. And right. So no, I think there is something to all that, and we will probably never actually get that back. And that is a mixed bag. Yeah, I do not know what else to say about that. SM (00:49:07): Do you think that boomers have pressed this onto their kids and their grandkids, and is that healthy? SH (00:49:14): Well, it depends. I mean, a great book about this is now quite old, but I think is onto the origin of this was Robert Nisbet's Twilight of Authority. SM (00:49:23): I think I have that. SH (00:49:23): Back quite a long time, the erosion. So social reasons for the erosion of respect for authority in any forms, and it is not brand new, did not really start with the boomers, but accelerated around then for some of the reasons you mentioned, read the newspaper headline. If you trust the newspapers. SM (00:49:37): Right. SH (00:49:41): Walter Cronkite, the most trusted man in America, right? We do not even watch the network news anymore. I mean, if Walter Cronkite were still alive, we would not think of him that way anymore. It is impossible to recreate Walter Cronkite now, but that is just the way we have gone. And I do not think there is any changing that back. SM (00:49:57): If some people, even Johnson's, they talk about two things that caused President Johnson to resign. One of them was Cronkite making those comments on television, the second being that McCarthy had finished in second place up in New Hampshire. SH (00:50:10): Right, yeah. But then he was going to beat him in the Wisconsin primary the next week. SM (00:50:14): Right. SH (00:50:15): He knew he was going to lose. SM (00:50:17): Why do you think the Vietnam War ended? SH (00:50:23): Well, yeah, a complicated story. I mean, as I said a little earlier, I mean, that war was lost at the very beginning when it was decided to run it not as a traditional war, but as an exercise in game theory in one sentence, in this whole theory of graduated escalation with pen signals to the North Vietnamese. I mean, in other words, Johnson's people completely misjudged the character of the North Vietnamese in thinking they were rational actors who could be bargained with. In fact, they were revolutionaries who were determined to win and figured out early on that they could outlast us and were willing to do so. And the failure to recognize that fact meant the war was lost in the beginning, unless you were going to change your tactic. Well, it was too late after 60 days. That is when we made our final flint and said, "We are not going to effectively prosecute the war." But then at the other end of it, it finally ends... Well, it finally ends with North Vietnamese victory, right in 1975. But it ends for us when Nixon decides that he is going to escalate enough to make them conclude some kind of agreement to let us get out in one piece, which we more or less did. I mean, you put up the helicopters taking off in (19)75 was not exactly getting out in one piece, but it was... came pretty close. SM (00:51:29): Right. Let us see here. I am coming toward the part where we asked you some of the names for your mission response, but what does the wall mean to you in Washington? I lived in California too until 1983, and of course it opened (19)82. And the first thing I had to do when I came to Philadelphia is I had to take the train down to Washington to see the wall. Because it meant an awful lot to me and I have been at every Memorial Day in Veterans Day ceremony since 1994, and I am not a veteran, just because I feel I have to be there to pay my respects to those who serve. Your thoughts on the impact that this wall has had on America? SH (00:52:12): Well, I do not know. I think it was a bigger deal when it first opened up. I mean, in my next book on Reagan, as we were talking about, I have a couple paragraphs about how controversial the whole thing was when it was first announced and then opened up. And also people changing their mind. It is interesting. National Review Magazine initially criticized the design, and then when it opened up, they wrote an editorial saying, Tensiter saying, "Well, we were wrong. This is actually pretty good." So, I do not know, people bring their own aesthetic, philosophical judgements to that kind of memorial. I once reflected that, and actually, I think I tried to do the math once, but if you... In Europe, for example, did the memorial in that style to the dead of World War I, it would stretch down the entire length of the Mall, right? Because the numbers are so much larger. The idea of putting every single person's name on the wall is that is very modern American. It also reflects now our commitment to individuality. And there is certain things about that that are noble and laudable. I do not really have any strong feelings one way or another about those, the Vietnam War Memorial. SM (00:53:20): What does Kent State and Jackson State mean to you? SH (00:53:24): Oh, gosh. I do not have a strong response on that either. In both those cases I am now sort of vague on the facts about how much it was a provocation, how much was overreaction by the National Guard troops. You can always bring in the old themes of town and gown there. An awful lot of... I mean, this is certainly true of the police in Chicago in (19)68, but true National Guard troops, as long as there are working class people who resented what they were perceived of as these privileged kids who are acting up. And it does not excuse what happened, but I think it sometimes gets forgotten that there really is... Those particular moments, you mentioned Kent State, are reflective of the cultural division amongst the baby boomers. And that is where I mentioned before that Hatfields versus McCoys. So that was one place where real shooting broke out, like the old Hatfield-McCoy feud. SM (00:54:23): Right. I am to the part now where I am going to ask just some... give some names of people of that era just for some brief comments, and then also terms of that era. SH (00:54:35): Yeah. SM (00:54:36): Watergate. SH (00:54:38): Oh, the great crown and catastrophe of the (19)60s, you might say, even though it was in the (19)70s, but it was had its origins in the (19)60s, of course. SM (00:54:47): Woodstock. SH (00:54:49): Yeah, I already said my part about that. It was sort of the cultural apogee of the youth movement. SM (00:54:57): 1968. SH (00:54:59): Oh, yeah. The worst year for America since 1861. SM (00:55:10): The term counterculture. SH (00:55:10): Yeah, the pretentious name that the youth movement gave for itself. SM (00:55:11): Hippies. SH (00:55:15): People who did not bathe at all. SM (00:55:17): How about yippies? SH (00:55:20): Yeah. Well, that was the sort of formalized what? That actually was the acronym for Youth International Protest, was not it? SM (00:55:24): Youth International Party. SH (00:55:26): Yeah, Youth International Party. Yeah. Right. Jerry Rubin and those guys. SM (00:55:29): Yep. SDS. SH (00:55:33): Yeah. Students for Democratic Society. I mean, I do not really have a sort of summary one sentence about them. I mean, they were the organized radical force of it. SM (00:55:43): The weathermen. SH (00:55:45): Yeah, the violent streak of the whole... They were the mad bombers of the New West. SM (00:55:52): Vietnam Veterans Against the War. SH (00:55:55): Well, John Kerry comes to mind immediately. Yeah. SM (00:55:59): Boy, there are a lot of people that do not like him in this group. It is amazing. SH (00:56:05): When he was emerging as a candidate, what, four years ago, very early on, I thought, oh, this is all going to come back in a big way, and this election is going to end up being about Vietnam to some extent. And I am kicking myself for not having written an article about that, because what happened with swift boats and all the rest of that, I foresaw all that quite clearly. And yeah, that is another... That was really a classic example of something that Obama understood, is that one of the things that was wrong about the 2004 election is that we were fighting out our old divisions from the (19)60s, especially over the war, because Kerry was really a bad candidate for precisely that reason. But he had all that baggage. SM (00:56:43): The people that, not the Swiffo people, but there were other Vietnam veterans against the war that had problems with him. They did not dislike him because he is a Vietnam vet, but there were issues around that period that they liked his speech in front of Fulbright, that took a lot of courage and they praised that, but the fact that he was one of the few guys because he was wealthy that could fly to locations where everybody else had to hitchhike, take planes, ride in old cars, and he was flying in airplanes. That really upset a lot of the Vietnam vet. Young Americans for Freedom, which Lee Edwards has talked about a lot, but is a forgotten group when talking about the anti-war movement. SH (00:57:26): Yeah-yeah. Oh, was that your next question? SM (00:57:30): Yeah. Just your thoughts on the young Americans for Freedom, which was a conservative group. SH (00:57:33): Yeah. I mean, they have finally gotten some of their due. There have been a couple of liberal writers who have talked about how... This is ironic that at one point in the early (19)60s, it was generally thought across the spectrum that the youth movement was going to be a right-wing phenomenon, and Young Americans for Freedom starts before SDS, for example, and it turned out some pretty impressive rallies and turned out some impressive numbers of people who never got the media coverage for it. SM (00:58:00): Well, I think there needs to be a book written about it. SH (00:58:02): I think there was one by a guy named Andrews a few years ago, a short little book [inaudible] side of the (19)60s. It was mostly about... Yeah. SM (00:58:09): Yeah. I think there needs to be more information for scholars because- SH (00:58:13): Yeah, I do too. Yeah. That is right. SM (00:58:14): The enemy's list. SH (00:58:17): Oh, well, Nixon's paranoia again. But all politicians have their enemy's list, whether they write them down officially or not. That was a little bit exaggerated, I think. SM (00:58:25): Okay. Ted? SH (00:58:25): Yeah. A military victory for the US and a political defeat for the US. SM (00:58:37): Cambodian invasion. SH (00:58:39): Yeah. Another thing that was puffed out of all proportion. It turned out that key members of Congress had been informed about what was going on, and the Cambodian government knew what was going on, but it was supposedly "secret" for diplomatic and political reasons. You wanted to have certain amounts of public deniability for political reasons, and so that was one of those events that spun out of control. SM (00:59:03): Black power. SH (00:59:05): Yeah, the militant side of civil rights, which dismayed even Martin Luther King, of course. SM (00:59:10): The American Indian Movement. SH (00:59:13): A sideshow. Native Americans wanting to get in on all the fun. SM (00:59:18): Mm-hmm. Again, these are some names of personalities now. Andy Hoffman. SH (00:59:24): Oh, yeah. Sort of the clown prince of the new left. SM (00:59:27): Jerry Rubin. SH (00:59:29): Same thing. Yeah. He is even more the clown prince of the new left. SM (00:59:32): Timothy Leary. SH (00:59:34): The pharmacist of the new left. SM (00:59:36): Of course Richard Nixon. SH (00:59:38): Yeah. The perfect hate figure for liberals of all stripes. SM (00:59:43): Spiro Agnew. SH (00:59:45): Oh, yeah, I do not have a good quick one for him. Nixon's designated hitman, you might say. SM (00:59:53): Eugene McCarthy. SH (00:59:57): Interesting guy. One of the unappreciated geniuses of American politics, I think. And certainly this is more appreciated, one of the great wits of American politics. SM (01:00:07): Pretty well educated too. SH (01:00:08): Yeah. SM (01:00:09): And boy, was he a poet. A lot of people- SH (01:00:11): Exactly. Yeah. SM (01:00:12): He could have been a poet and never been in politics. SH (01:00:14): Right. SM (01:00:15): George McGovern. SH (01:00:17): Yeah. Sort of a tragic figure in a lot of ways. Yeah, I will leave it at that. SM (01:00:23): John Kennedy. SH (01:00:24): Well, as his reputation had it, but somewhat naive about the movement that he wrote to the nomination. SM (01:00:32): John Kennedy. SH (01:00:34): Yeah. Well, the boy prince of liberalism and we will never know how that might have turned out. SM (01:00:39): Bobby Kennedy. SH (01:00:43): The other boy prince of liberalism, about whom I think we have a quite inaccurate perception. SM (01:00:50): Sergeant Schreiber in the Peace Corps. SH (01:00:53): You do not have too much to say about that. He was this little decent guy, but that was not... a marquee job, but I think actually a fairly ordinary one. SM (01:01:03): Lyndon Johnson. SH (01:01:05): Yeah. The tragic figure of establishment liberalism. SM (01:01:08): Robert McNamara. SH (01:01:11): Oh, oh, God. The face of technocratic liberalism. SM (01:01:17): George Wallace. SH (01:01:20): Yeah. I do not... What do you say about him? Do not have much to say about him really. SM (01:01:25): Ronald Reagan. SH (01:01:27): Yeah. The other... Boy, what do you say about him? The fulfillment of the Goldwater Revolution in the Republican Party, I guess you would say. SM (01:01:39): Jimmy Carter. SH (01:01:44): Oh, I do not know. What do you say about him in one sentence? He campaigned on the slogan of Why Not the Best, and we are still asking that question about him. SM (01:01:57): Gerald Ford. SH (01:01:59): Oh, a very decent man who did well in a bad situation. SM (01:02:02): Daniel Ellsberg. SH (01:02:05): Oh, yeah. An opportunist little runt. SM (01:02:10): Dr. Benjamin Spock. SH (01:02:13): Oh, yeah. Another sort of shooting star, sort of overblown... of overblown reputation. SM (01:02:19): Norman Mailer. SH (01:02:23): Oh, I do not have anything to say about him really. SM (01:02:23): Okay. The Berrigan brothers, Daniel and Phillip. SH (01:02:26): Yeah. I do not really care about those guys either. I do not have anything to say about those guys. SM (01:02:36): All right. Let us see who we have here. Barry Goldwater. SH (01:02:36): Ah, yeah. The breakthrough figure for modern American conservatism. SM (01:02:40): About Huey Newton, Bobby Seal, Eldridge Cleaver, and Angela Davis, that group. SH (01:02:45): Yeah. That would be the same as the Black Power folks, the militant side of civil rights. SM (01:02:50): Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, and Betty Friedan? SH (01:02:55): Yeah, they are the gender... They are the vanguard of gender feminism. SM (01:03:01): Mm-hmm. Okay. Let us see. Is there any question that I did not ask you that you thought I was going to ask you that you would like to comment on, on the boomers in the (19)60s? SH (01:03:13): No, not really. That covers quite a lot. SM (01:03:17): I think I am missing one thing here. I know I have asked most of... You have answered some very good... You have done some deep thinking on these, I can tell, on some of the questions. I want to fill you in also on what I am doing is I will be getting these transcribed, but I am going to send you... I did not realize this because this was my first book, and I actually did early retirement to do this book because I have been working on it since (19)96 when I first interviewed Eugene McCarthy. And then I had my parents were... I had a lot of issues, and I went back and forth. Now I am finishing it up. And so the first 30 people, I did not know about, you had to get a waiver signed by all the people. They all agreed to do it, but they did not... Nobody ever asked about a waiver, but I am sending now waivers to the individuals, and you sign it, send it back to me, and then when I get it transcribed and I send the transcript to you to give the final okay in editing. And that is what I am doing with everyone. The original 30 is kind of an issue because seven of them have died. So I do not know what is going to happen there. SH (01:04:23): I have no idea. You will have to talk to your publisher about that or something. SM (01:04:26): Yeah. But waivers are important, even though they agreed to do it. SH (01:04:31): Yeah. SM (01:04:35): You have any other thoughts you want to say on anything? SH (01:04:37): I do not think so. We covered a lot of the waterfront. SM (01:04:39): Yeah, what I usually do with each interview, I take pictures of people, and I have really good pictures of you when you were here, but you may have gotten a little older looking. I do not know. SH (01:04:51): Well, I am balder, I am pretty sure, and I am a lot thinner. I lost a bunch of weight here a couple years ago, so we will be around September if you are in through Washington, or October, if you are in through Washington. SM (01:05:00): Yeah, why do not I do this? Because I got great shots of you, but I would like to have a more current, so when you are back down there, I will come down and take some pictures because I am actually going to be interviewing Dr. Sally Satel. SH (01:05:11): Oh, right, sure. SM (01:05:12): I am going to interview her along with M. Stanton Evans next week. Next week. And then I am going out to Dr. Murray's home to interview him. SH (01:05:22): Oh, good. Yeah. SM (01:05:23): So I will be down... And I am actually interviewing Ron Robinson from the Young Americas Foundation sometime when he is not having that conference of the... that is coming up for him. And even Dr. Ornstein is interested in doing an interview as well, but he has got a lot of family issues in August. SH (01:05:42): That is right. Yeah. SM (01:05:43): So, well, Dr. Hayward, thank you very much. SH (01:05:47): Sure thing. SM (01:05:49): And I will be in touch with you. When will you be back in... SH (01:05:52): Early September. SM (01:05:53): Okay. I will send you... Do you want me to send the waiver at AEI or at your home in California? SH (01:06:01): Oh, how soon do you want it? Do you want it end of this month or... SM (01:06:04): Yeah, I am going to be mailing them all out in September. SH (01:06:05): Oh, send it to AEI then. SM (01:06:07): Okay. And then you just send it back to me, and then of course, then you will see the transcript when it is transcribed and you can edit it and whatever. SH (01:06:13): Right. Okay. SM (01:06:15): All right. You have a great day. SH (01:06:16): Yeah, you too. Bye-bye. SM (01:06:16): Thanks. Bye. (End of Interview) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Steven Hayward Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Hayward, Steven F. ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Authors; Journalists; Hayward, Steven F.--Interviews Description An account of the resource Steve Hayward is an author, political commentator, and policy scholar. He currently serves as a Fellow at Ashland University's Ashbrook Center where he directs a program in political economy. Hayward earned a B.S. in Business and Administrative Studies from Lewis and Clark College and a Ph.D. in American Studies and M.A. in Government from Claremont Graduate School. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009-07-28 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.60 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 66:22 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/f651d4d971963c86e198be7ae7eb02ec.jpg 4a7db8257f23d3dbb2f40a0c4eaaf7f3 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/acc3be9cff4e426d027b9e5db043c174.mp3 8ac5f2d5736c05ce424258d9dd5053b0 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview ND Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Steven M. Silver Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Steven M. Silver is a psychologist, author and combat veteran of the Vietnam War. He is currently the Director of the inpatient Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Program of the VA Medical Center in Coatesville, P.A.. Dr. Silver has been working with trauma survivors since 1972. He received his Bachelor's degree in History and Government, a Master's degree in Counseling form Miami University in Ohio, and he has a Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology from Temple University.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:6915,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,3618091],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;}">Dr. Steven M. Silver is a psychologist, author and combat veteran of the Vietnam War. He is the former Director of the inpatient Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Program of the VA Medical Center in Coatesville, P.A. Dr. Silver has been working with trauma survivors since 1972. He received his Bachelor's degree in History and Government, a Master's degree in Counseling from Miami University in Ohio, and he has a Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology from Temple University.</span> Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Baby boom generation; Anti-war protests; Vietnam War; Civil Rights Movement; Post-traumatic stress disorder; Jane Fonda &amp; Tom Hayden; Nineteen seventies music; Rock and roll.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:513,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;12&quot;:0}">Baby boom generation; Anti-war protests; Vietnam War; Civil Rights Movement; Post-traumatic stress disorder; Jane Fonda &amp; Tom Hayden; Nineteen seventies music; Rock and roll.</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 124:11 Subject LCSH Psychologists; Authors, American; Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Veterans; Post-traumatic stress disorder; Silver, Steven M.--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Steven Silver Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Silver, Steven M. ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Psychologists; Authors, American; Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Veterans; Post-traumatic stress disorder; Silver, Steven M.--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Steven M. Silver is a psychologist, author and combat veteran of the Vietnam War. He is currently the Director of the inpatient Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Program of the VA Medical Center in Coatesville, P.A. Dr. Silver has been working with trauma survivors since 1972. He received his Bachelor's degree in History and Government, a Master's degree in Counseling from Miami University in Ohio, and he has a Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology from Temple University. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource ND Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.207a; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.207b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 124:11 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/5bdb22b3ae908811152b0b3bc5fc8e57.jpg cf91d4520a217957328d0ffd55a877c6 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/7063e6b9f4ce0c6cad17aa1d599fdcf5.mp3 84029d45994fe13bc714a96dc5ac37fe Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Dr. Ted Morgan Date of Interview 2011-02-04 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 117:15 Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 1 Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Ted Morgan is a Professor Emeritus in Political Science at Leigh University. He is the author of The Sixties Experience: Hard Lessons about Modern America. Dr. Morgan received his Bachelor degree from Oberlin College and his Master's degree and Ph.D. in Political Science from Brandeis University. He taught classes on Social Movements and Legacies of the 1960s, and Propaganda, Media, American Politics, and Organizing for Democracy.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13311,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:1},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,11791078],&quot;5&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;6&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;7&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;8&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;9&quot;:0,&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">Dr. Ted Morgan is a Professor Emeritus in Political Science at Leigh University. He is the author of <em>The Sixties Experience: Hard Lessons about Modern America</em>. Dr. Morgan received his Bachelor degree from Oberlin College and his Master's degree and Ph.D. in Political Science from Brandeis University. He taught classes on Social Movements and Legacies of the 1960s, and Propaganda, Media, American Politics, and Organizing for Democracy.</span> Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Oberlin College; Vietnam War; political activism; media; Baby boom generation; Conscientious objector; Anderson Cooper; FOX News; financial crisis; war discourse.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:513,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;12&quot;:0}">Oberlin College; Vietnam War; political activism; media; Baby boom generation; Conscientious objector; Anderson Cooper; FOX News; financial crisis; war discourse.</span> Subject LCSH Historians; Journalists; Authors; Morgan, Ted, 1932--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Ted Morgan Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Morgan, Ted, 1932- ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Historians; Journalists; Authors; Morgan, Ted, 1932--Interviews Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2011-02-04 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.135 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 117:15 Description An account of the resource Dr. Ted Morgan is a Professor Emeritus in Political Science at Leigh University. He is the author of <em>The Sixties Experience: Hard Lessons about Modern America</em>. Dr. Morgan received his Bachelor degree from Oberlin College and his Master's degree and Ph.D. in Political Science from Brandeis University. He taught classes on Social Movements and Legacies of the 1960s, and Propaganda, Media, American Politics, and Organizing for Democracy. https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/b30c89a5813b9d22d31c1eeaefa00516.jpeg 9ae9c7c486a266cfd0ecd9783b0f57e9 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/1f1b722cee46c878573c33824a41b481.MP3 584c1cd4f2ae5cf6c812e5e9c9802a29 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2022-01-26 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Dr. Thomas Grace Biographical Text Thomas Grace, a native of Syracuse, NY, is an educator and activist. Grace was one of nine students wounded and four students killed during the Kent State shooting. He graduated in 1972 with a Bachelor's Degree in History. He also earned a degree in Social Work from SUNY Buffalo. He worked for many years as a social worker and union representative. After his retirement, Grace received a Ph.D. in History from SUNY Buffalo. He is currently serving as Adjunct Professor of History at Erie Community College. He is the author of Kent State: Death &amp; Dissent In The Long Sixties. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 1:36:15 Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Digital file Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords Nineteen sixties; Baby boom generation; Kent State shooting; Student protest; Activism; College campus. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Thomas Grace Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Eden Lowinger Date of interview: 26 January 2022 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM: 00:03 Again, Tom, thank you very much for agreeing to do this interview. I would like to start out like I normally do with all my interviews, if you could kind of describe your early years before college, where you grew up, your parents background, some of your early adventures or any major happenings that kind of sent you in a different direction, life's path, your high school years. What was it like in those early years? TG: 00:31 Well, I was born five years after the war, March 2nd, (19)50. And I knew none of this at the time. But we were also just a few months away from the start of another war in Korea in June of (19)50. When I was born, I was the oldest of, as it turned out to be four children. The parents of Thomas V Grace, V as in Victor, and my mother, actually, her name was Helen Collette. And she did not like that name, Helen. So she dropped out or used to just sign her name H. Colette Grace. She is a Binghamton native; my father was a Syracuse native. They met at Syracuse University after the war, and I think in a biology class and were married (19)49 and I came along in 1950. He was the son of a disabled railroad worker, and an English teacher who was, who seldom taught. That was on my father's side, my mother's side, her parents were both immigrants from Slovakia. And he had worked on the railroad and her mother had been a homemaker in Binghamton. They, they went through, of course, the travails of the Great Depression, which was harder on my father's family than it was on my mother's. Binghamton seemed; they had a kind of a welfare capitalism that was practiced in Binghamton with a lot of the major industries there. They did not seem to have the unemployment that Syracuse did. And I mentioned this because it had a profound effect on my father's political values. He and his siblings and his parents saw the New Deal policies as having saved their family, providing work for his older brothers in the Civilian Conservation Corps. distributing free food on Saturdays, where they would go down and stand in line, pick up the free food. And like, like we see so common today, although now people just drive up in their cars to pick it up. But then you stood in line, there was a welfare caseworker that came to the house that would inspect my father's clothes to see how they were holding up and to see if there was enough coal in the bin. But they did not, they, the only home that they had they lost because they could not, could not keep up with the payments and the banks failed. So, whatever modest savings they had, they lost. And he just, oh, and-and after they lost the house, they-they wound up having to move all the time, because either the rents would go up and they could not make the rent, and then they would have to try to find some other place to live. So he actually lived all of his life in Syracuse. But while he was growing up, up until the time he was 18, I think they moved 11 times. Always on the south side of Syracuse, which was kind of a Irish American, African American neighborhood. He seemed to have good relationships with African Americans, went to an African American dentist, and then worked on the railroad while he was putting himself through school. He was 4F for the draft, his older brother did-did serve, was missing in action and was able to get back home okay. The other brother was also 4F as well. So he was putting himself through school working on the railroad. And you got to know a lot of the porters, they are known as red caps. And they were, that was the principal African American union in the country, A. Philip Randolph Union. SM: 04:43 Yes. TG: 04:43 And they he learned a lot from them. I remember a few years before he died, I asked him how he came to have such a deep and fairly profound understanding of the questions of race in the United States when, when so few white people seem to possess that, because he was not coming at it from an ideological perspective. He was coming at it from a class perspective, which, of course, has an ideology. But he did not, he did not. He was not an ideologue in any way. Although he was a partisan New Dealer. And asking him about this experience 50 years later, he proceeded to give me the name, so about half a dozen of these guys that he had worked with. And he had not seen them for 50 years. So, it is obvious that those relationships were meaningful to him- SM: 05:38 Wow, yes. TG: 05:38 -if you can, if he could remember all of that information all those years later. My mother was not, she was more of an emotional thinker, my father was, he was guided more by his intellect. They too suffered during the war, her brother was killed on, on Iwo Jima on George Washington's birthday in 1945. So you know, one time there was an M.I.A. in the family and another who had been killed. But as they said, my father's oldest brother was able to get back home, his pilot, his plane went down over China when they were flying on gasoline from India and China, flying over an area called Hump. So, I grew up with all these stories. I know, this is a long digression that I just gave you. But I grew up with a lot of these stories, and they kind of formed me. I also learned when I was about 10, or 11 years of age from my grandmother, this is my father's mother who I was close to, who had been the English teacher, that we had two of our ancestors who fought in the American Civil War. And I was coming of age during the Civil War Centennial, (19)61, (18)61. And, of course, the Civil Rights Movement was taking off. So, I am trying to figure out why the country could fight a war against slavery 100 years before, and we have all these unfinished issues. It did not, did not make a whole lot of sense to me as a preteen and adolescence. So, it is one of the things that caused me to start reading. And I mean, it was not until college that I really started to figure all this out. But these were things that I remember that puzzled me. And to some extent, my father could help me understand it, but he did not have a degree in history either. So it takes a lot of study to figure this out, as you know. So we grew up in a working class Italian American neighborhood, although no one in our family. My father was Irish, my mother was Slovak, so we did not have that background. But in other respects, and despite the fact that both my parents had gone to college, that was a rarity in our neighborhood, I think we were the only family on the block, the whole blocks that, where anyone not only graduated from college, but had attended college. I went to a Catholic grammar school, oddly called St. St. Daniel's school, SDS for short. SM: 07:07 Yes. Wow. [chuckles] TG: 08:10 Those initials would take on a new meaning once I got to college. SM: 08:12 Right. TG: 08:13 And then we did not have high school, in our neighborhoods. So the kids went all over the city to different places. So my parents selected a Catholic all Boys High School, it was college preparatory, it was about 10, 12 miles away. I would take a bus there every day. I did not really care for that experience at all. Although I had had all my all my schooling to that point had been in parochial schools. And I just wanted by the time I got to college, I wanted to do something different. I felt like I wanted to get away. You asked me about remarkable experiences growing up. I do not really think I had any I had a pretty ordinary childhood, I was very devoted to the game of baseball, which I still am today. I was a kid of modest talent, though, in terms of playing the game. But that did not dim my enthusiasm. And I went to the high school, as I told you and my father at that point had, by the time I was starting to get ready for college, he was a social services administrator at a facility that cared for the developmentally disabled in Syracuse and called the Syracuse [inaudible] school. And there was a great shortage of social workers in the country at the time. So, the federal government had a policy that if someone was had graduated from college that did not have a background, irrespective of what their background had been, they could have been a music major, they could have been a Phys Ed teacher, they could have been a sociology major, which would have been fine. Whatever their background, if they took a job up, working in social services. And that and applied, had applied and been accepted for a master's program in social work, then the federal government would, would pay for, for their two years of schooling with the understanding that they would return to their former place of employment over the summer, and then remain there for five years. And then the loan would be complete, or they, they would not have to pay back the cost of their schooling. So there was a guy such as that, that my father had hired who was a recent graduate of Kent State. So he told me about the school and that put it on my radar. SM: 10:43 Oh, all right. TG: 10:44 Three other places where I also wanted to study Civil War history, because I looked over the college catalogs, you know, when they came to get a sense of what their history departments were like, and Kent State was a large school, which I wanted to go to, it was, it was called coeducational. And it was the closest of the four schools that I had applied to. So that is where I went. SM: 11:11 It is interesting, when you talked about your father. You know, when you study the life of Dr. King, and what he went through in his 39 years, you know, he certainly fighting injustice and things like that, but he has brought up the whole issue of class, and poverty and all these other things. And so, he was often criticized for not just concentrating on the race issue, but on class issues. So your father was, well, he was a person that kind of was like Dr. King in a way. I-I, I would like to ask you this: did you ever feel during your first 18 years or even into your college years, that you belonged to a generation that was never before, it was, it was considered very unique. I can remember going to college right here at Binghamton, and I have talked with so many friends and they felt that there was this feeling that this youth of today, this 74 million that came out after World War Two, the sons and daughters of the boomer gen of the World War Two generation, were different. Especially the front edge boomers, those first 10 years between the- born between (19)60, excuse me, (19)46 and (19)57. Did you did you feel when you were young that you were part of something that was different and unique when you were, as a youth as a person, [inaudible] your peers? TG: 12:41 I do, I do not recall it. And oldest children are often the inheritors of tradition. And in that regard, I was no exception. And I took an interest in what had gone before. What, what my parents had been through, and I think may have failed to mention that my mother was a Binghamton native. No, I did not, I did mention that- SM: 13:09 Yes. TG: 13:11 -to the welfare capitalism that was practiced by the industries. But I was interested in what their lives had been like. And I was I was taken by the military experiences of men on both sides of my family and then on my ancestors. So, I was I was, I think through that prism of familial experience. I became interested in my own family's role and the development of the history of the country. And certainly learning that about my ancestors who had fought and both of them died in civil war. We recently discovered a third who did survive, he was with he was in the famous march through Georgia with Sherman. He was the only one of the three ancestors in the civil war that survived the experience. But all of those things were very formative to me. And in other respects, the things that I was interested in besides history and reading, you know, and just playing with my friends, was baseball. Play, I would play that all spring summer and fall. Just go down to the playground, there would be a bunch of guys there, we would choose up teams and you know, I played little league as well, but I played baseball from the time that I was about eight. I did have, when you asked before about adventures, but the biggest calamity that befell me when I was the young person is that I had something wrong with my hip, it was called a Legg Perthes, which my father had as well. And I believe it is not an inherited or genetic problem. But they had caused me to have to be in traction for a year. So you know, I got through with, with tutors. And when I, at the school I had to be on crutches for about a year while my leg was put in this kind of harness to keep some pressure off of it. So yeah, that was that was that was, that was something I had to kind of learn to get through, kids are pretty resilient. Not, and I was and I got by that. But I only mentioned that because I otherwise would have started playing baseball even sooner than I did. But as it turns out, I was not able to start playing until I was eight, because of this Legg Perthes, which kind of sidelined me for about two years. But in terms of the generational I remember thinking that maybe when I, it was in my very late teens, and start of college, because there were certainly other people that were saying that and-and there were a lot of stories about the effect of the baby boomer generation and-and then there was Kennedy's oration at his inauguration. SM: 16:10 Yes. TG: 16:11 So, I did feel in that respect, and is I think, a little further in response to your question that, that we did have an obligation, but I did not see myself as part of a, being so much special is I did carrying on a continuity that other people had carried before me. We all have a role to play here. And it is our, you know, it is, it is our time now. SM: 16:41 Right. TG: 16:41 But I did not see ourselves as separate and apart and distinct and better, any of that kind of stuff. SM: 16:51 Did you-? TG: 16:51 Later-later, I did feel that because so many people had had a formative experience by being part of the Civil Rights and anti-war movements, that that that generation would ultimately make its own mark and affect the generations that came after us. But that clearly did not happen. And I thought for maybe about when I got into my 30s or so that that still might occur. But then I realized that in some respects, we were different from those who went before us, and rather different from those who came after us. SM: 16:52 Right. TG: 16:55 And even our own generation. There was there was a generational divide within the baby boomers. SM: 17:43 I agree. TG: 17:44 There were people who had experiences that caused them to become left wing and-and sympathetic to people of color, and then later gender differences, et cetera, et cetera. But there were an awful lot of people who are born in the late (19)40s and (19)50s that do not think that way and seldom did. They may have adopted some of the cultural trappings of it, that our generation won the cultural war and lost the political and economic one. SM: 18:18 Well, you raised something, a question I did not even have here, the young Americans for freedom, which was a conservative organization during the Vietnam War. When I spoke to Dr. Harry, Dr. Edwards, Lee Edwards, in Washington, DC, he talked about the fact that when all the books are written on the (19)60s, what is left out are the conservative antiwar activists, and- TG: 18:44 Well, there have been books dedicated to that subject. SM: 18:47 Right. But the key thing I wanted to ask is that you brought up the fact that the continuity of understanding the generation that preceded you, what your parents did, and your responsibility to carry on, there was that term that we heard all the time that there was a big generation gap going on. Was there any generation gap going on within your family over what was happening in the (19)60s, especially the antiwar protests and civil rights and all the other movements? Was, was there any divisions I call it divisions within the family and, and divisions with your peers? TG: 19:26 I do not remember divisions really with-with my peers, the-the tension in our household was over the length of my hair. Not-not my politics, and I wanted to have longer hair and my father insisted that I keep it you know, kind of like, what they used to refer to as a Princeton haircut. So I was, there was always a big issue. I would go to the barber, and I would come home, and he would say, "You [inaudible] you did not cut off you know, you got to go." You know, so went through all of that. But in terms of my politics, I really inherited my-my father's politics. He did not really think a whole lot about the international situation. He was not, he was not pro- I would not say that he was pro-war. He was not, he was not all that anti-war. I do remember what a conversation that I have had with him, though that may help to answer your question. I remember saying to him, "Dad, I understand that the Black people have it really bad in this country." And I may, may or may not have used the word "oppressed," for a long time. But I understand now that a lot of them in this group SNCC, do not want to go into the service. And if they want to be part of this country, then they should help to defend it. That, that is how, so I had kind of a Cold War mentality, you might say, I did not really fully understand what Vietnam was about, and turn against the war, until I had been in school at Kent State for about five or six months. And that did not really come, that was complicated. I addressed it in the book that I wrote on Kent State. SM: 19:48 Right. [laughs] What a great book you wrote too. TG: 21:22 Well, thank you. SM: 21:23 The best book ever written on Kent State. TG: 21:25 Well, I appreciate you saying that, Steve. I worked at it a long time. So I always tell people, I better get it right when I spent over 10 years working on it. But I remember saying that to my father, and he looked at me and he said, "You know, they should be the last people to go to Vietnam," he said, "The country has done the least for them, that continues to do the least for them." He may have pointed out the disproportionate level of casualties that African Americans suffered during the first couple of years in the war. It was up in I think, in that high teens or low 20s, when they only represented about maybe 12, 13 percent of the population. He said, he said, "Let the rich kids' sons fight this war." He always look, his attitude was that a lot of white people are poor. Almost all Black people are poor. We, we need to band together to fight the rich that oppress us all. That was that was kind of his mentality. Again, he was not an ideologue, he did not, if he ever read anything about Karl Marx, I would be astonished. Because he never had those, he never came in contact with anybody that ever would have introduced him, you know, to those kinds of ideas. But what he did have was this "School of Hard Knocks" that he did, he grew up in poor and even though when he went to college, he always had that kind of class edge to him. And if he heard people putting down poor people, oh it used to send him off, really-really made him angry. Because he had been poor, he-he knew what it was like to-to, to-to endure, those, they are often invisible injuries. But I think he experienced them growing up and it never left him. SM: 23:34 I am going to ask this question, [inaudible], there is kind of divided into four areas, but it is just your overall perceptions of an era during the time that boomers have been alive. When you describe the era (19)45 to (19)60, what comes to mind in your view? TG: 23:53 Well, a lot of things I remember watching, used to be a program on television called the 20th century. And it was usually devoted to World War Two. So I watched, I remember watching that a lot. I remember as a little boy being taken down to the train station, when my cousin Dick was, he was in his uniform. And he was leaving for service during the Korean War, but he was being sent to Germany. But there was this sense. I could feel this like tension and unease when we were seeing him off at the train station like this is not good, that he is about to be departing on something that might be bad for the family. And, of course, he had a pretty ordinary experience in Germany. You know, nothing bad happened to him there. But when you are three or four and you at best, have an imperfect understanding of what is going on, I remember that that had quite an impact on me. I remember seeing President- well then Senator Kennedy, in a motorcade in Syracuse, New York, and this probably would have been in this springtime, of (19)60. And our family was really taken up with, with his candidacy. My father saw it as an opportunity for the, for Irish Catholic Americans to, to break through in a country that had been dominated by white Protestants. And, you know, we were just absolutely thrilled when-when he was when he was elected. We are going to keep this before (19)60? SM: 25:49 Yeah, I am done. The next the next part of this question is when you describe the era of (19)60 to (19)75 what comes to mind? And I, I want to state that this center here at what at Binghamton University, is dedicated to the (19)60s to the (19)75 era. TG: 26:06 Okay. Well, certainly, the presidential assassination was just a horrible, horrible event. It just, it just plunged our, the whole country but our family in particular, I do not think the TV was off for, you know, as long as we were awake for that bet that weekend of November 22, of (19)63. And I remember, one of the things that kind of helped lift that mood, a number of months later, when the English invasion occurred, and the Beatles just exploded. And if I felt like kind of a generational pulse, it was, we were just like- I remember my sister and I, my sister is about slightly less than two years younger than I am- Irish twins, as it were. We were both like, very taken with the Beatles. And I started like buying a lot of rock'n'roll albums. So I remember that, watched a lot of television as a kid, a lot of western movies. One author refers to it as the victory culture that we grew up with. And I certainly grew up with that as well. But I, I did pay a lot of attention to Civil Rights. I remember the horrible scenes of the Children's Crusade in Birmingham, in the spring of (19)63. That, of course, occurred months before the Kennedy assassination. I remember watching King's, some of King's speech in (19)63. And in the summer of (19)64, I remember the Civil Rights workers, quote, unquote, disappearing and Mississippi, and the efforts that President Johnson, then President Johnson was making to get the civil rights legislation passed. And I will add as a parenthetical here, that when I started graduate school in social work, I had a professor by the name of Fred Newton. And Fred's first job in social work was to take the position that Andrew Shriner, Shriner had, I am mispronouncing his name but- SM: 26:56 Right, (19)64. Schwerner. TG: 28:36 Schwerner, Schwerner, thank you. Schwerner had held in New York. And, and that was stunning to me. At the time, I was about 23 when I when I learned this, but I had paid close attention to all of those developments. You and also in the summer of (19)64, President Johnson came to Syracuse, New York to dedicate the Newhouse School of Communication. And that was right around the time of the Gulf, Gulf of Tonkin incident. In fact, I think he was flying back to Washington to give his joint address or give his address to the joint houses of Congress. So the speech that he gave in Syracuse was kind of like a dress rehearsal for that. And I was, I think that was one of the things that had an adverse effect on my understanding of the war in Vietnam, because I saw Johnson as carrying on Kennedy's legacy. And here he was speaking so forcefully about the war in Vietnam, which I again, imperfectly-imperfectly understood, in fact I understood it very poorly, to be very blunt about it. And even though I read Newsweek magazine on a weekly basis, whenever it came to the house and looked at photos in Life magazine, we did, we did get a lot of magazines and newspapers in the house. So I had a rich childhood in that respect. I understood the military aspect of the Vietnam War, but I did not understand the political aspect of it. So that had a deleterious effect on my political understanding of Vietnam, until I got to college- SM: 28:47 Wow. Right. TG: 29:02 -and met some people who-who had fought in the war and other people who knew a lot about the history of French colonialism. And all-all of those things, helped open my- those experiences and those encounters with people helped open my eyes to what the Vietnam War was all about. Let us see, I mentioned the cultural and musical aspects of the (19)60s I, I did develop an affinity for rhythm and blues and rock and roll and, and blues music. So I started to, I had quite a record collection by the time I started Kent. Of course, then there was the experience of the (19)70s shootings. When, by the time Cambodia was invaded, I was I had been very, very deeply involved in the Vietnam War protest movement, both on the campus and attending demonstrations as far west as Chicago, up to Cleveland, which was about 35 miles to, from Kent. And had been to Washington DC, for several antiwar protests by the time Cambodia was invaded. I also had a roommate at Kent State, whose name was Alan Canfora, who I believe you interviewed as well. SM: 32:02 Oh, Alan is the best. TG: 32:03 And he, by being a year older than me, and much bolder, I tend to be a reticent individual, somewhat introverted. Introversion, I am sure does not come out in the course of an interview, because I am discussing things with a fellow, or my life with a fellow historian, I know how to impose chronological order on one's past. So, the introversion really does not come out. But Alan was, [phone buzzes] was a very extroverted individual, who is also a very bold individual. In fact, I think it is not too much to say that he was a truly audacious person. So it was impossible not to become immersed in what was going on at that time, when you had a person who had views that were similar, but was so willing to take action on what he believed. And he also came from a family that, in many respects, was a carbon copy of my own. While neither one of his parents went to college, his-his father had been a union, a union leader, and a very partisan, ardent Democrat. His mother had been a nurse, like my own mother, although she her training as a nurse came in the United States Army, whereas my mother's was, you know she, she got her training at Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh and Syracuse University. And we, at that point, we were both against the war in Vietnam. And then, and Alan was also a year older than I was, and that it does not seem like a big difference. But there is a major difference between someone who is just starting college, someone already been in college for a year. SM: 32:11 Right, I agree. TG: 32:46 So, in, in a lot of ways he was he was kind of like my older, older, slightly older brother. And if, and if he, if he was the captain, I was his first mate. SM: 34:12 Yeah, very well said, I miss him tremendously. And, you know, I only saw him once a year when I come to the, to the remembrance events, but knowing that I will never see him again really upsets me. Because we always had some really good conversations. Since we are talking about Kent State now, I was going to ask this later on, but I got a lot of different questions outside of Kent State, but I want, since we are in it right now, could you talk about the atmosphere at the campus upon arrival there as a brand-new student? Did you sense right away that this was a lot different than any of my experiences before, that during those first five months on campus leading up to the terrible tragedy at the end of the year? TG: 35:01 Well, I started in the fall of (19)68. So, it was right after the Democratic Convention, which I have watched on television, and was horrifying, you know, to see people beaten that way. I was not necessarily in sympathy with what they were doing but it was appalling what the police did to the demonstrators there. And so that that was fresh in my mind, because that was the end of August, and we, Kent was on a quarter system. So we were starting school in late September. So it was approximately a month later. In fact, it was exactly a month later, I think. So we took, my father and I took the long drive out there, he dropped me off in the dorm, brought all my records in, and Alan may have told you the story. But I was I was playing John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers. And I have been playing Cream. And he could hear this music from a couple of rooms down the hall. So he came down to see who was playing the music and came in and introduced himself. And that is how we-we met, and we became fast friends. And, and soon, we were doing everything together. So I remember that as being an important experience. And I also had a friend that I met during the summer orientation, who was from Cleveland, his name was Jimmy. And I introduced him to Alan, so three of us became friends. And that friendship only deepened over the course of the year, although we did not see him as much because he did not live in the dorm, he lived off campus. In terms of the wider campus, I mean, it was it was nice going to school with girls, for the first time since I had been 13, or 14. And I did not really have that much of an interest in girls when I was when I was, you know, in my very early teens, but I had girlfriends in high school, of course and all. So that was really nice. And I was enjoying the classes that I took, particularly the history and political science classes. And the English classes, I was a double major in history and political science and English. I remember two political experiences. SDS held a meeting soon after the start of the fall quarter. And I went to that it was very well attended. There were a lot of people that were still juiced up from the Democratic convention. And there were probably 12, 15 of the people who had been there and experienced, some of them and experience that violence firsthand, had been locked up and threatened with their lives in the police station. So it was, it had been a significant emotional experience for the people who went there. And they understandably enough, emerged as the leaders of the chapter. But once they started talking about New Left ideology, I did not really get that I did not really understand at all. And I do not think I stayed for the entire meeting because I eventually became bored with it, because it did not resonate enough with me. Shortly thereafter, with Ohio being such a political battleground, I had the opportunity to hear someone speak on the campus who was there on behalf of the Humphrey campaign. And it was the first time in my life that I ever heard an intellectual speak, it was Carey McWilliams. And I thought to myself, what a privilege it is to hear a man have such rich experience and such, possesses such a towering intellect speak. And I said to myself, this is the kind of experience that I want to have more of as a college student. And I was impressed too with how he handled a person who had been beaten in the streets of Chicago, who spoke against the Democrats and-and Hubert Humphrey. The, McWilliams was sympathetic to what the man had to say. But he also said that all of the different, despite all the differences that have emerged, and have fractured the party, we have to come together against the person who is really a threat to the to our entire order that we have, that we have come to know since the since the Depression and World War Two and that is the New Deal and everything that it is done for the American people. That made sense to me, you know, to put all of that in perspective. So I became involved with the Humphrey campaign, I went to a blood bank and gave a pint of blood and then to use the $25 that I was given and I donated that to the Humphrey campaign. I got to hear the vice president speak and shake his hand about a week before the presidential election, because, of course, Ohio is being so sharply contested. And I also, working with a political science professor, went door to door for Humphrey in some of the working class neighborhoods in Akron to try to get out to vote for him. You know, I had some tough experiences there, but I, you know, people threatening me, you know, you run into lawless people here and there. But, you know, I, it was unnerving, but I stayed with it. And, and then Nixon also came to Northeast Ohio. And along with Alan Canfora, I went there to protest against him with the Young Democrats. I was a member of the Young Democrats, I was not a member of SDS. But SDS showed up in large numbers there, there was a very small number of Young Democrats, and they disrupted Nixon's talk. So, Alan, I remember him saying, "Tom Grace," he said, "Let us go out with those guys." So, we left the Young Democrats, and we spent the rest of the Nixon speech with-with the SDS who are just yelling and screaming, protesting Nixon. And Time Magazine said it was the most significant disruption of Nixon campaign event during the entire campaign. SM: 40:22 Wow-wow. TG: 40:34 So-so I, you know, I had a lot of rich, excuse me, I had a lot of rich experiences, packed into a few short months. And that only takes us up till you know, the presidential election, which I watched and was still in doubt when I went to bed that night. Of course the next day we learned, you know, the outcome. And within a couple of weeks after that, the Oakland Police Department came to Kent State to recruit for their police force. This is the same police force that shot and wounded Eldridge Cleaver and killed 17 year old Bobby Hutton, around the same time as the King assassination was completely overshadowed, of course by the King assassination. But SDS and the Black United Students banded together and blocked the recruiting, which created this massive crisis on the campus because the university administration said that they would be moving to sanction all the people who participated and perhaps expel them from school. Alan had gone into the area where the recruiting was going on and helped block it. I did not, which says a lot about the two of us, you know, him being a year older, prepared to take bolder steps, not as interested in education at that time, as I was. I was more focused on getting a degree and having a career in history. Alan was in school largely, so he did not have to go to Vietnam. Like so many of his friends had from town of Barberton, industrial city of Barberton where he grew up. So, he participated, and I did not-I was sympathetic to it, I agreed with what the people were doing. But I figured if I go in that building, I am going to get arrested. As it turns out, no one was arrested. Because all of the Black students on the campus of which there were about 600, to about 650, left in mass and said that they would not return to campus unless, until charges were-were dropped, or the threat of charges were dropped against all the participants. The university said, "No, we are not going to do that." But SDS predicted that with regard to the university administration, that they were going to come under immense pressure. And a lot of the professors were going to say that they did not want to be teaching at an all-white campus. And that is exactly what some of the professors started to say. Either they adopted the SDS mindset and rhetoric or whether they came to it, that same position on their own, I do not know. But the NAACP, and-and other advocates for African Americans started joining the calls to just put this whole thing behind them. Whereas people on the right were saying "No, they should be expelled." So, the president of the university, Robert White was in a rather difficult position as he had been throughout his tenure of getting flak from both the left and the right. But he decided in this particular case that he was going to listen to those of his advisers that were, in effects saying that, that amnesty needed to be granted. They did not call it that, because they would have been too charged the term, all they said was that they did not have enough evidence to press charges against people, which was really ludicrous because they had taken photographs of everyone. But that is what they, that was their face-saving explanation. So as it turns out, no one was charged. And that had a profound effect, not only on me, but a lot of other people. Because we grew up, we tend to grow up in a country that that that insists that you cannot fight city hall, that if there is something amiss in the society that you are trying to overcome, it is very hard to do anything about that. But we knew differently, having viewed what the Civil Rights Movement had accomplished up to that point. And then we had this experience where Black and white students stood together, each drawing power from the other, and not only blocking the Oakland police from recruiting on the campus, but also being able to stand together and force the university to cede the possibility of any charges being filed against the participants. SM: 46:22 See, this brings up the- and I have been to the remembrance events for many, many years. And before I came to Kent State for the first time, you may have heard this around the country, especially the couple years after the tragedy of the murder, what I call the murders at Kent State. And that is, that why did this happen at Kent State of all universities? This, in this conservative state of Ohio, at Kent State, why did it happen? Well, I was at Ohio State, so I know there is a lot of protests going on there. But I also know that Ohio University in Athens had always been given the name as the most liberal of the schools, where there was massive protests, even when I was working there in my early career. And you have just given some of the greatest examples of the activism that was taking place at Kent State, basically, you know, stating the truth about that this was a high- because of all the, the information you just given, that activism was alive and well. And-and, you know, having the older student like Alan and the younger student coming in, it was like the whole perception of the (19)60s was, it was always the graduate students that were kind of the leaders, and it was the undergraduates who were learning from them. Your-your descriptions are, are fantastic in terms of what Kent State was way before the tragedy of May 4 of (19)70. And I would like to ask this too about the president, President White, when I was read the first book, which is not a very good book, James Michener's book on Kent State, which came out I think in (19)71 with so much misinformation. It is, it is not even good anymore. But however, there was some strong criticism of President White in the book. And correct me if I am wrong, was he away the weekend of May 4th at a conference? TG: 48:26 Yes, it was for the American College. It was it was the ACT- forgot, I forgot that the what the acronym stood-stood for fully, American college testing, it might have been. And he was there that weekend. But he- SM: 48:45 But yeah- TG: 48:46 -he also- SM: 48:46 -I always thought that was terrible leadership on the part of a university president when a crisis was happening, and he was not there. TG: 48:54 Yes, but he dealt with crises by absenting himself from, he would abdicate in effect, leadership. And I think he felt that if something bad happened, and he was not there, that the responsibility might fall on someone else other than him. Because, as I documented my book, there were- SM: 49:18 Yes. TG: 49:18 -several instances earlier in his tenure, where there was a brewing crisis on the campus, and he turned responsibility for that over to his Vice President Raskins and a few others, Barkley McMillan, and people like that. And then he would go to his home and stay in touch by-by telephone. So, I mean, there is a lot of ways that that could be characterized- cowardice is one of them. But and I think that that is a fair charge, you know, to make against him. I will say, I do not say this so much in his defense is I do offering it as an explanation, that when I worked on my own book, and reviewed his correspondence from probably maybe (19)64, right up through the (19)70s shootings, that he always had to navigate the shoals of both the right and the left. And that was very difficult for-for him. And if he had been the president of Kenyon University, and responsible only to the trustees in that responsible to a governor and the taxpayers, et cetera, et cetera, the Ohio legislature, he might have been- might. Might have been a little more courageous, and willing to provide some leadership. But instead, he tried to, he-he navigated that that very treacherous political world by seeking not to make a mistake, and if a mistake were made, to turn through responsibility, to push down the level of responsibility to someone else. So, the fact that he was away during that period and did not come back, and then, and then to leave the campus to go to lunch with his aides, when he knew that the National Guard was moving against the student demonstration on May 4th, that, that that crystallizes everything. SM: 51:36 Yes. TG: 51:37 His-his entire tenure was crystallized in that moment. But-but it has to be seen in this like, wider scope of conduct as, as the president of the university. SM: 51:55 I just want to men- this is something I was going to say at the end of the area, but I think it is the perfect timing, when we are talking about not only Kent State but Jackson State, and, and in being there and talking to Alan and then coming to all the remembrance events that this was a simp- this was protest, freedom of expression. And-and I wrote this down, freedom of expression is central for all Americans who live in a democracy. Yet, why have the basic rights been denied to many who challenged the status quo, and the injustice in our society wherever it raises its ugly head? Kent State and Jackson State, this never should have happened. And a democracy may be, as Franklin Frank said, at the in 1776 independent [inaudible] when he described the wooden sun on the Washington's chair, was it a rising sun or a setting sun? Franklin said, it is a rising sun, if we can keep it. And to me, let me tell you this, this event, at Kent State on May 4th, just change my life, forever. And I have empathized even emotionally, with the four students who died and the nine who were wounded, and this is never should have happened. And it changed my career. And I just, in your own words, I did it with Joe Lewis, in my last interview, I want to just on that particular day of May 4th, where you were and what you did, and I know you were wounded. Just explain it because the people that are going to listen to this tape are not even born yet. These are going to be forever preserved. And could you go through then that like that, that day of May 4th 1970 from your viewpoint? Sure. Although as I have mentioned to you in some of our correspondents, electronic correspondence setting up this interview, I have been through this many, many times. I know. TG: 54:08 And in in a lot of ways, I am kind of talked out on it. I will do my best. But I also want to alert and educate future listeners to the fact that in (19)85 I sat down with a man by the name of Bob Morrison, he and his mother wrote a book called "From Camelot to Kent State" and it consists of oral interviews with well, many well-known figures from the (19)60s and others that are like fairly obscure like me, because I was not a well-known figure of the (19)60s by any means. The only way that I have any notoriety at all is because of something that happened to me on May 4th (19)70, that I was hit. But it was not anything that I did. It was something that happened to me. So, when I am intro- when people introduce me sometimes as a person who got shot at Kent State, for years, I did not know what to say. And then I, I eventually came around to saying to people, yes, that that I was, and it was not an accomplishment. It was simply-simply, it was simply something that happened to me. SM: 55:08 Right-right. TG: 55:36 So, and, and none of us know that the future, we do not know what is going to happen an hour from now or tomorrow or next week. And when I went to the protest on May 4 (19)70, when I, when I left my classroom building, I knew that it was a very fraught, fraught situation. And I had promised a friend of mine whose brother had been killed in Vietnam, that I that I would not go to the protest. But I heard at the very end of the class, a woman get up and announce that there was going to be a rally on the Commons, which is the central area where this confrontation occurred, the central area of the campus where this confrontation occurred. And of course, I already knew that that rally was taking place, and it made a promise that I was not going to go. But I sat in the room for a minute or two after most people had left the classroom and, and kind of deliberated. What should I do? And I eventually came to the decision that I had been involved in and too much, that this expansion of the war was too wrong. And knowing what I know, and the kind of commitments that I had made over the last year, year and a half, that it was just too important. And I had an obligation to go, despite the promise that I made to my friend. So and there was something else that was at work, too. And I know that Alan, my friend, Alan Canfora would have discussed this. My roommate's brother had been killed near the Cambodia border with Viet- with Vietnam weeks beforehand, and we had attended his funeral probably the last week of April. And then, only a few days later, Nixon announced the invasion of Cambodia. So this was a felt issue for us as well. Kent State was the kind of campus where it was not uncommon for a student to be there, and his brother being-being in Vietnam at the same time, or Kent State had about one out of every 10 of the male students in (19)70, were either reservists or veterans of Vietnam. And they had already fought the war and then on May 4th, there were dozens of them that were in the protests, they were at the rally, protesting a war that they had just fought. So I left my classroom building, it was a fairly short walk over to the rally site. When I got there, I saw hundreds of people, including several black flags that were being blown in the breeze. And I quickly recognized that two of my roommates were carrying them, so I gravitated to them immediately. The National Guard were off to the left. And the students were gathered around the base of a hill that is known as either Taylor Hill or Blanket Hill. It is a rather steep incline that forms almost like a natural amphitheater for that area of the campus. And there were maybe between three and five hundred active protesters. Another couple of thousand people that were onlookers, almost totally ringed this area of the campus known as the commons. And we were not there very long. Chanting anti-war slogans, many of them abusive. 1,2,3,4 we do not want your fucking war, 5,6,7,8 organize to smash a state, you know, stuff like that, pigs off campus. Et. cetera, et cetera. And Jeep came out with a campus patrolman riding shotgun. And I think two or three other Nat- and two or three National Guardsmen in the jeep. And they, and the campus policeman, Harold Rice, ordered us to disperse. I knew Harold a little bit. He was a nice man. And he was the kind of officer that would pick kids up who were sick on the campus and bring them over to the health center. And I will add parenthetically that about a year after the shootings, I was working a table to raise funds for a group of students, students known as the Kent 25 that have been charged for their role or their alleged role in all of the protests that occurred between May, May 1 and May 4. And he walked down the hall, made sure that no one was looking on either end, threw a couple of dollars down on the table, picked up one of the political buttons and attached that to the inside of his jacket walked off. So that gives you an idea of where Harold's sympathies lie. But on that occasion, he was trying to get us to disperse. And he was not doing it because he was trying to deny us our civil liberties. I think he was genuinely anxious and fearful for what was about to occur. But we did not know any of that. So it just whipped the crowd up into a further frenzy. And people were chanting, get the hell out of here, and cetera, et cetera, and someone threw either, it was probably a rock at the Jeep, and it hit the tire and bounced off and made a couple of passes. But I do not think they came as close as they did the first time. And then the Jeep returned to the National Guard lines. And they leveled their bayonets. They were given a command by their General Robert Canterbury, to begin firing tear gas and about 105 guardsmen leveled their- they all were wearing gas masks, most of them I should say were wearing gas masks and the gas dispersed the students and forced us up this steep incline that I referred to earlier. There was a large building at the very top of the hill called Taylor Hall, hence the name, Taylor Hill. And it was so large that to get up to the top of the hill and to safety and beyond, that students had to part ways. You either went to the left of the building or you went to the right, I went to the left of the building. And I had a handkerchief with me. So I kept that over my mouth and nose. But other people were rubbing their eyes from the tear gas, there was a- there was only one really clear picture that was taken of me at the protest that day. There was a close up, but you can see me yelling to a student not-not to rub her eyes, because that is the worst thing you can do. It just it just irritates the eyes. I have been tear gassed before in Washington and knew better than to do that. So when I got to the top of the hill, there was a girl's dormitory, Prentice Hall. That was to the left of Taylor Hall, the architecture building. And what a lot of the girls were doing, there were there were there was a first floor girls' bathroom with frosted windows. So they cranked these windows open, and they were moistening paper towels and passing them out to the students who had been tear gassed that were lying against the building on this grassy, grassy apron between the building and the Prentice Hall parking lot. So I spent most of the time there, either washing my face with these towels, or helping other people who had been gassed more seriously than me. So, while all this was going on, some students were throwing rocks at the guardsmen who had followed us up over this hill, and down onto a practice football field. There were not many people doing that, perhaps less than a dozen. Some of the guardsmen were throwing the rocks back at the students. I only know all of this because I saw photographs of it. I did not see that firsthand. But then I wanted to get a better look about what was taking place. So, I walked over to the-the very base of Taylor Hill or Blanket Hill, which on its reverse slope and the area of which I am now discussing was far more gentle, the one slope than the other side of the hill where the incline is very steep. And I stood there and watched these guardsmen leave an area where they had congregated about 75 of them on a practice football field, begin to march back in the direction that they had come from. And I was kind of pivoting to turn, turning my body to watch them as they were going. And when they got to the top of the hill, it seemed like I saw this quick movement, where you suddenly see 15, 20 men reverse course and stop their march and then turn around. And I heard one or two cracks of unmistakable, rifle fire. And I started to run. And within just a second or so, I did not get very far at all. I found myself on the ground, and I was not really sure what had happened it first. And then I looked down and I can, I could see what the bullet has done to my foot and ankle. And I was trying to in the process of raising myself to look at my lower body. I heard someone yelling, "Stay down, stay down. It is birch or it is buckshot," and he meant to say birdshot. He thought, and it was my friend Alan Canfora, who I really had not been with, since the rally had started when I first arrived on the campus, because when the tear gas came in, everybody got dispersed. So that caused me to realize that we were still under fire. And I needed to shield my body as much as I could. So I lay as prone as possible, while they gunfire continued. As it turns out, he wound up being hit too, although he had the shelter of a tree, a bullet, I do not know if it was a clear shot or a ricochet, but I went through his right wrist. And then after 13 seconds, the gunfire finally stopped. I discuss all of this in the book that I referred to earlier. SM: 1:06:59 Right, yes-yes. TG: 1:06:59 And also, another book that I also recommend to people because I think both of the books that I mentioned, are going to offer a superior account of what I am now describing, because they were offered years and years ago and my memory, memories of all this were much clearer than they are today. Now I am discussing it 52 years later. And in the earlier interviews I was discussing, when it was a 15 year old memory or when it was a 20 year old memory. Now it is 52-year-old memory. But I was, I remember when I was lying there, I was thinking, how are we going to get these guys to stop, we have we have no weapons of our own. If we did, if this were a real battle, we could return fire. We could. They were, they were, they were shooting and killing us. We could shoot back and try to kill them. But we did not have any arms. We were college students, we were just caught completely in the open. The only thing that was that stopped it was a major Harry Jones, who-who likely and oddly enough, is probably the one that gave the order to fire. But what-what he meant when he, if indeed he was the one that gave an order to fire, we do not know if he was saying, you know, fire-fire above their heads and people and the guardsmen misunderstood that, or whether some of them had who had hate and malice in their hearts, just wanted to kill as many students as they could, you know, started firing right-right into us. There were 60- between 61 and 67 shots that were fired, of that number 15 of those shots hit someone. So that means approximately one out of every four, four and a half rounds that were fired, actually struck someone so in that kind of an environment and from the distances that a lot of these guys were firing at us because people in some cases were hundreds of yards away from where the guardsmen, at their guardsmen firing line. These guys were pretty good shots because if one out of every four of your rounds, hit-hit the target, in this case a human target, that was, that was pretty good shooting. So it was it was it was terrifying being under fire and having being caught in the open and having no means of protecting yourself. Yeah, you mentioned something that I have heard before that you said that you went to Kent State to major in history not to be part of history and of course that was so true. When you look at the, when you were taken to the hospital, how long was the recuperation and-and when did you get back to school full time? Well, it was fairly lengthy recuperation. I was in the hospital in Ravenna, which is the county seat for Portage County where Kent, the town of Kent is located. I was there until the 13th of May. And then I was transported by ambulance back to my hometown in Syracuse, my father followed in his own vehicle. It was a time when a lot of college students were on the road protesting. There was a nationwide student strike. So here, you know, we would be passing all these cars on the New York state thruway, and on Interstate 90, and the ambulance says Kent on the side, and it has got a person in the back, you know, with-with long hair. So, it did not take a lot of imagination to figure what that was all about. And when we would pass a car that had young people, and it was long hair, they would be giving me a [inaudible] sign, you know, from their cars. So that that is something that I do not think I have talked about before in an interview. And that helped to kind of pump me up and to reinforce me because it was a very painful injury. And I had to go through a lot of surgeries. And I was in the hospital, in Syracuse until about, it was either June 28th, or June 30th when I got out. I remember what a great feeling it was just to see the sky again, and to breathe, you know, some fresh air because I had not been outdoors since May 4th, 1970. SM: 1:11:37 Wow. TG: 1:11:39 And, you know, at that point, I had a cast from my foot up to my thigh, or up to my hip rather, and had to keep that on until probably December of that year. Because you know, a lot of, my ankle was broken, had to be put back together. They had to fuse it, that was the only way they could do it. So that is why I have that, if you have ever seen me walking around with a limp, that is why, that is where that limp comes from. But it is not, all things considered, it is not-not too bad. I mean, I have a huge cavity in my foot. But I am for the most part able to walk fairly well and have led a normal life. So, while it was really bad at the time, and I have, you know, the [inaudible] red-red badge on my foot as it were, in other respects that led to very regular life since then, unlike my friend Dean Kahler, who is who was paralyzed and had a, his life was immeasurably changed. Whereas in my case, it was not. And I always like to tell people too that when I got back into coaching baseball, and I had a son, who played ball and then when he did not want to play anymore, I was able to get into an adult baseball league. It is called the Muni league. And we have some fairly good players, Joe Charbonneau who played with the Cleveland Indi- SM: 1:13:18 Oh, yeah, I got a baseball card of him. TG: 1:13:20 Yeah, he played in the Muni league here in Buffalo, although at a higher level than I did. Paul Hollins, whose brother was on the (19)93 World Series Phillies teams- SM: 1:13:33 Dave Hollins. TG: 1:13:35 Yeah. SM: 1:13:35 Yes. TG: 1:13:36 Yeah, he-he, he played. Paul, his brother, Paul, played in a Muni League. So I played in that for a couple of years in the (19)90s. Again, at a much lower level and on a bad team, and I was probably the wor- I used to tell people that I was the worst guy on the worst team. But I would still rather be the worst guy on the worst team than the best guy sitting on the bench. SM: 1:14:06 [laughs] Yeah. TG: 1:14:06 I was able to, you know, I was not able to run very fast I always used to tell people that I fielded like a DH and hit and hit like a pitcher and ran like a catcher. But I was still able to play. So, it could not have been that bad if I was able to go and play baseball for a couple of years. SM: 1:14:26 Who were the- I guess my history questions because I knew you are a historian too. So I had some questions strictly that, not even Kent State. But I have a que- who were the heroes of Kent State, if you can say there is a hero, who were the heroes of Kent State and who were the villains? TG: 1:14:48 Well, I think there was only one hero that that really stands out at Kent State and that was Glenn Frank. He averted a-a much wider slaughter. When the students regrouped immediately after the shootings, went back down to the commons, and sat down said they were going to refuse to leave. At that point, the general who had ordered the troops to attack us in the first place, encircled hundreds and hundreds of students who were seated at a compact [inaudible] says he was going to open fire into them if they did not leave. And Glen Frank and two other professors, all of whom are now deceased, and a history graduate student by the name of Steve Sharoff, pleaded with the National Guard general to give them time to get to convince the students to leave. SM: 1:15:45 Okay. TG: 1:15:47 And a member of the Ohio, an officer in the Ohio highway patrol was there as well. And you can hear some of the film footage and audio footage from that moment. And Sheriff is saying to them, "Can you give us five minutes" and, and then you hear the Ohio highway patrol officer say, "You got five minutes." At that point, Glenn, Frank goes over and he had a lot of standing on the campus. He was a geology teacher, World War Two veteran, wore a crew cut. I mean, he really looked the part of having been, you know, World War Two veteran. And he had enormous standing on the campus with the students, although he was a conservative man, and he was not at all in sympathy with what the students were doing necessarily, but he loved the students of Kent State, and his oratory, heartfelt, as it was, was able, was enough to convince the students to get up and disperse. Otherwise, there would have been a slaughter on the scale of Sharpesville in South Africa were something like 67 people were massacred during some of the first anti-apartheid protests of the (19)60s. So he, he was a true hero in other respects. And as a historian, I tried not to, and I use- and I adopted this approach, when I was writing the book, I did not want it to be a morality play. SM: 1:17:26 Okay, very good. TG: 1:17:29 That is up to other people who will hear this tape and study can stay on their own and read some of the interviews that I have that I have given and listened to all of the other interviews that you have done. That is up to them to decide. SM: 1:17:44 One of the things Tom is, when you look at the (19)60s themselves, and the divisions that were taking place in the (19)60s, many people at the time thought that there this could be another Civil War. I mean, this is like a general statement. I mean, we know what the Civil War was all about. But we were so divided as a nation, that there was a, there was commentary that, "Are we heading toward another one?" And now we are living in another era, right now, where a lot of people are saying, you know, the-the nation is so divided. Are we ever going to be united again? And so, so we are not, we are dealing with what happened in the (19)60s, you are a scholar of the Civil War. Can you put as a historian you know, I know you can write a book on this, but the divisions between America in the Civil War, the (19)60s and early (19)70s and now. TG: 1:18:48 Well, in the (19)60s, we saw this less in terms of being a Civil War and more in terms of being a Revolution. That is how I thought about it. That, that the people who were, had been disadvantaged and oppressed and made to fight a war that was immoral and illegal, that all these forces would rise up against the government and create a, just a more civil society. That was a complete fantasy. But that does not mean we did not think that at the time. And of course, when you have something like this happen to you, you want to have, you want to have a measure of justice or some type of retribution, you know, so. So the peop- the people who were responsible for inflicting this upon us are going to be made to pay for it. I never really had confidence that the government was going to do that, how that might take place, I really cannot say, but or I am not prepared to say in the course of this interview, but a lot of us were very angry about that for a period of time. So, so a number of us saw ourselves as being like radicals, revolutionaries, or what have you. Was not too many years after that, though, that I became involved in the union movement, which is how I spent the majority of my adulthood. And that is a very different kind of organizing, because you have to be elected to union office, you have to represent a constituency, you have to make sure that you are acting in accord with their wishes. So, you do not want to be too far behind where they are at politically, but you do not want to be too far out ahead of where they are politically. So, what you are doing is you are providing leadership, but you have to be in close contact with the people that you are representing. So that, basically, that kind of a mindset informed my politics, you know, probably from, from the (19)70s on, you know, right up to the present day, in terms of the tensions that now exist in American society, I see it as a very, very dangerous time. Not unlike the late, well not unlike the periods throughout the entire (18)50s. There was, there was a fair amount of border violence during-during the (18)50s, both on either side of the Mason Dixon Line, or on either side of the Ohio River. And, of course, it was occurring on the on the borders of the new states that were seeking to come into the Union, places like Kansas, and later, Nebraska. And then, of course, the combination of that was the raid that John Brown undertook, in mid-October of (18)59, where he and several dozen of his followers tried to take arms that they had gotten from a federal arsenal in Harpers Ferry, Virginia, and used that to start a slave rebellion. Of course, that was crushed, and they were either killed, and majority of them were executed. 11 of those guys, by the way, were from Ohio, [inaudible] Brown, and four or five of his sons. And five of them were African American as well. So but now the tension in the energy is all coming from the, from the right, we have several recent public opinion polls show that somewhere around 10, or 15 million people in the United States feel that political violence is, is justified in terms of pursuing their means. You know, a dramatic example of that, that was January 6th, of course, and that energy is not dissipating. If anything, it was, it was as potent now, it was a year and a half ago. So, I do not know what is going to happen with all that. But it is going to either dissipate on its own or it is going to continue to gain momentum and, and lead to some level of clash that is worse than anything we have seen so far in the last five or six years. Beyond that, I cannot really make any predictions and I hope that it dissipates on its own but there is no indication that, that is, that is the case. SM: 1:24:01 Another thing we hear today, from those who are protesting is we guess we are seeing a return of the to the (19)60s with this kind of protest. I kind of react negatively to that. I like the fact that people are protesting and speaking up and being heard. However, I am not, it is, it is a different time, the issues are different, although some are still the same. You talked about race, the whole issue of race, everybody's talking about race. I have never seen more books in my life, in Barnes and Noble than I see right now on the issue of race. And it is like my graduate advisor used to say who I interviewed Dr. Johnson, he used to always say, "Well, we are taking two steps forward, but we are always taking you know, a step backward. When we should be taken three steps forward and no steps backwards." TG: 1:24:50 Well, that always happens with race in this country. Whenever there are gains, those people that have held down advances of African Americans in particular, eventually put up their hands and say enough, and then they try to take back what has been gained. That is the, that is the story of racial relations in the United States. And maybe-maybe what I can do is make-make a comment on this. In the (19)60s, all of the shootings on American college campuses happened at state universities, they did not happen at prestigious institutions. Some, somewhere in the neighborhood of about 16 to 18 people were killed by the authorities between (19)67 and (19)72. The vast majority of those people were African American, with the exception of Kent State, where two young women were killed, they were all male. So that, so that the, the repression and, and the use of lethal force, it was a class dimension involved, class and racial dimension involved in that as well. And for all of the tumult that existed in the (19)60s, the lethal violence was almost exclusively the purview of the authorities, rather than the protesters. Whereas, whereas today, we, the people who were protesting in the (19)60s, were trying to bring about a more racially inclusive and just society, and they were trying to stop a war that millions and millions of people saw as illegal and immoral. And for the most part, the-the tactics that were used to bring about those ends were, were not violent. And to the extent that force was used in in the protest, it was usually force and destruction against property, rather than against people. Whereas today, coming from the right, you, you see this, this angry impulse is being directed towards people. And there is almost like an indifference to-to human life. I mean, how else could we get to the point where we are approaching, for instance, 900,000 people dead from a pandemic- SM: 1:27:43 Right. TG: 1:27:43 -and you have people who refuse to get vaccinated and refuse to wear masks to protect the rest of the population and themselves, you know, so that there is, there is almost like a nihilism that is that has engulfed American society. And it is more afraid now than at any time in my lifetime. And probably more afraid now than it has been in over 150 years. SM: 1:28:09 I agree. I agree. Well- TG: 1:28:11 So, it is not a pretty picture. And it is not an optimistic forecast. But at the same time, someone is listening to these 10 or 15 years or 20 years from now, I hope that they are able to, to say, well, it was it was it was it was dim and dark then. But fortunately, we did not go over the cliff. SM: 1:28:35 When, when did the (19)60s began and when did it end? TG: 1:28:40 Well, I dated in my book from (19)58 to (19)73. That is how I understand what took place at Kent State. SM: 1:28:50 Right. TG: 1:28:50 Chronological period of about 15 years. I think there are different endpoints. I think one could say (19)75 when the, when the war ended. They did not. They did not end however, on a grassy hillside on May 4th (19)70. SM: 1:29:09 Right. TG: 1:29:09 As so many people believe it is just, it is just too neat. When people try to squeeze a tumultuous era into a chronological one. From my point of view, that does not work. SM: 1:29:25 One of the things that I have always been dealing with in all my interviews, you are going to if you listen to them, I always ask this question. I remember I was interviewing Gaylord Nelson, the founder of- TG: 1:29:37 The former senator from Wisconsin. SM: 1:29:38 Yeah, I was in his office and he, I get to know him quite well and he gave me over four hours. I interviewed him, cut back and forth. But the question was this: I care deeply about Vietnam vets, and I have been going to the wall since (19)93, Memorial Day, Veterans Day. Know, I know quite a few of them. I have interviewed some of them. I have always been asked, "Why did not you serve in the war?" And it was a typical question, and I have to tell them why. But the question is this, Jan Scruggs, the founder of the Vietnam Memorial wrote the book, "To Heal a Nation." That was his book, that was his first book. And if you read the book, it is the purpose of it was not only to pay respect to those who served and died, and give them the respect they deserved, but to help the families of those who died and to show reverence also to those who served with the opening of the Wall in (19)82. Now, the question I keep asking, and this is how Gaylord Nelson responded, "are we ever been to heal from this war?" The divisions were so intense, that it seems like we never have healed from the war, even today. And when George Bush the first was president, he said, "the Vietnam syndrome is over." I always remember he said that. TG: 1:30:52 [inaudible] I think. SM: 1:30:53 Yeah, and it was (19)89. And I said, "You are kidding me. And impossible." So Gaylord Nelson responded in this way. He said, "People are not walking around Washington DC, you know, with not healing on their sleeves. They are not doing that." But he said, "Vietnam has forever changed the body politic." I would like your thoughts on that. TG: 1:31:23 Well, it made Americans well, let me put it this way. It took the French two wars to get over their ideas as being colonizers. They had to lose both Vietnam, and or all of Southeast Asia for that matter, as well as Algeria, before they lost their taste for foreign domination. I think it is taken the Americans, maybe three wars. Two in the Middle East one, and actually, four. Vietnam, the two in the Middle East, and Afghanistan, before Americans really soured on it. So, I think in some respects, we are a nation of slow learners. And we, of course, just ended our-our longest war, and that was in Afghanistan. Of course, none of the wars that took place after Vietnam, were on that scale, and involved as many soldiers and involved as many casualties. But there are, there are really different ways of if you look at the long scope of American history, most of the wars that America has fought with the exception of the Second World War have been controversial. And as-as Vietnam was. I think the real question is, "When will the country learn that it cannot, cannot and should not try to dominate the world." We are not the policemen of the world as-as the is the popular wisdom often has it. But it does not have that, the popular wisdom is not prevalent enough to keep us from becoming embroiled in these kinds of, from initiating very often and becoming embroiled in these kinds of conflicts. SM: 1:33:41 I only got a few more questions, and then we will be done. TG: 1:33:44 I yeah, we are maybe one more Steven, and we are going to have to wrap up, SM: 1:33:48 This is the last one, then. This is about the issue of trust. I can remember being [inaudible] the same the same age, and being in college and going to a lot of speakers on campus. And in hearing about we cannot trust leaders and I, there was this perception out there in the (19)60s and (19)70s, that if a person was a leader, no matter whether it be a president of a university, a head of a corporation, politician, President of the United States, you know, they cannot trust him. There is just- TG: 1:34:22 I know where you are going with this. I did not feel that way. I felt that there were people who had earned trust. And I was prepared to give it to him. And then there were other people that I knew that I knew could not be trusted, and were clear adversaries. But-but I did not. I did not dismiss all people who held positions of authority. And let us let us keep in mind, too, that the leaders of not only the Civil Rights movement, but the movement against the war in Vietnam, were often 10 or 15 years older than many of the people that were the, you know, the rank-and-file protesters. SM: 1:35:03 Yes, you are right. That is true. All right. Well, I guess that is it. Do you have any, do you have any final thoughts on? TG: 1:35:15 No, I think we have, we have, we have covered-covered a lot of ground and you-you asked good questions, Steve. And I would like to thank you for persevering with this too, because this is I know, the third or fourth time you have tried to set this up. So, I appreciate what you are doing to help preserve the history of these times through these interviews. SM: 1:35:36 Well, I will be at Kent State in, I do not, I do not care if they are having a ceremony or not, I am going to be there. [crosstalk] TG: 1:35:41 Well, we will get a chance to meet then because there is a committee that is re-forming now to do in 2020 what we were not able to do that year and in 2021. SM: 1:35:56 Very good. Alright, Tom, well, thank you very much. You be safe, your family be safe and healthy and happy here in the year 2022. And carry on. TG: 1:36:07 Thank you, Steve. You do the same. SM: 1:36:08 Have a great day. TG: 1:36:09 Look forward to meeting you in May. SM: 1:36:11 Take care, bye now. TG: 1:36:12 You too, bye. (End of Interview) Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Thomas Grace IIIF Item Metadata UUID 5751f9f3-df7a-48bb-b029-b36a0f5f4c0f https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/4b23a2afaf99b6dab64a85355200660d.jpeg 563439027250c4068115ecb23206422c https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/ae54f44eedda68f83ba71a6c6393bf79.mp3 774e1898e207f751fb6e3974a9f60e42 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2022-01-27 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Dr. Tim Spofford Biographical Text Dr. Tim Spofford, a native of Cohoes, NY, is an educator, author, and editor. Spofford's early writing was inspired by the killings at Kent State University and Jackson State University. In his first book, Lynch&nbsp;Street, he describes in detail the killings of Black Students at Jackson State University in Jackson, Mississippi. Spofford received a Ph.D., in English from the State University of New York at Albany. He has taught writing and journalism in schools and has produced numerous articles that have appeared in the New York Times, Newsday, Columbia Journalism Review, and Mother Jones to name a few. Spofford is the author of two books. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 2:19:29 Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Digital file Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords Rebellions; Riots; Voting rights; North and South; College students; 1960s; Liberalism; Radicals; Republican Party; Race issue; Neo-segregation; Resistance. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Tim Spofford Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Lynn Bijou Date of interview: 27 January 2022 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM: 00:03 All right. TS: 00:08 All right, let us roll. SM: 00:09 All right, Tim, I, as I do with everybody that I interview, the very first questions that always kind of around the same and that is, please describe your early years where you grew up. Your parent's background, your early experiences in elementary and high school before you went off to college, your background. TS: 00:28 Sure. I was born in Bennington, Vermont, a small city, mill city. My parents were working class. They had factory jobs before they married. My father had one after he married. And he, when I was three, moved to Troy, New York, another mill city, mid-size on the Hudson River, not far from the capital, Albany. And, they stayed there a brief time. And he-he was working in a steel factory. Allegheny Ludlum Corporation and Watervliet to another city nearby. And, a number of Black people started moving on to our block. And it was probably, it was probably I say a number. I think my mother said loads, but I was probably one family and they moved out. My parents were extremely poor and uneducated, did not have, did not finish high school, even. And-and they fled across the river to an all-white town Cohoes, New York, c-o-h-o-e-s, New York. And that is about 11 miles north of Albany, the capital. And-and that is where I grew up. And-and they were poor to start with, and they got poor, my father was an alcoholic, child abuser, and a gambler and not a good combination to raise seven children. SM: 02:24 Wow. TS: 02:24 I was the oldest. I was the oldest. And while his pay was not bad, by the standard of the day, the fact that he had seven children and all these bad habits, made us one of the poorest families in the city. What is quite germane is that, as young as maybe five, I started hearing stories that I heard throughout my childhood, from playmates, school friends. I remember walking to school one day and-and some friends that was walking, the walk was about a mile. So, we, we talked a lot. Anyway, they said that Black people moved into our city once and we were hustled out in the middle of the night. I heard that story. And I do not think it was just an urban legend. There were no Black people in our city and there were Black people in virtually all the other smaller and midsize cities around us. We were a city of about 26,000 back then. And so, I was looking at a book one day, "Sundown Towns," by a guy, I think it is Loewen, l-o-e-w-e-n. And he writes about, basically ethnic cleansing. And towns, towns where Black people were either purged from the city, burned out, lynched out, shot out, whatever. And-and in towns where, where there were signs up at the boundaries, saying in no uncertain terms, Black people and they did not often use the word Black, they used a less, a more expressive term. That you need to be out of here by sundown. And anyway, I believe his name is Loewen and, l-o-e-w-e-n, I think, he had a website and sure enough, my town was listed. There was a memory of a resident from the (19)40s or (19)50s, who recall police escorting a Black woman to a bus to get her out of town. SM: 05:02 Wow. TS: 05:03 So, I mean that is my parents were, you know, your garden variety racist. They were from New England and small town, city, Bennington whereby the way, abolitionist, Frederick Douglas ran his newspaper I believe, or worked with, worked on "The Liberator," I cannot remember which, which of the abolitionist's papers were printed in that city. And you know, I mean, New England has a proud abolitionist tradition. But it also has a proud racist tradition as well. And my parents shared in that they were also anti-Semites. Not, you know, not, I think garden variety, none of the most virulent, overt type, but just, you know, real racist and they were not afraid of using the N word. SM: 06:01 Wow. TS: 06:01 And so, I-I was a pretty conservative kid, I went to a Catholic high school, which kind of softened the more hard-edge racism that I encountered even from teachers in public school, because of the church's firm belief in charity, and so on. So-so then I went to Plattsburgh State College, State University, State University campus, in the Canadian border, and-and I read probably two books that really began to change my complete political orientation. And, one was the Kerner Commission report in 1967, which I read for one course. And then the, J. William Fulbright's "Arrogance of Power," about Vietnam, those were the two burning issues of the (19)60s. And I started college in (19)67. So those were the two burning issues. And early on, I read those two books like my sophomore year, and I began a pretty rapid change, becoming quite a bit more liberal. And then in (19)70, with the Kent State killings, it really disturbed my very little teacher's college community, which also had big air force base, a SAC, Air Force base with B-52 bombers, and a city of maybe 30-35 thousand, something like that. But it really unsettled that there was a power outage, it might have been sabotage and all the kids emptied the dorms. And we congregated and went into the street, and marched through the city, and went down to a big monument overlooking the Lake Champlain and-and then we marched to the federal building. It was a big, concrete, federal building, kind of a grand, neo classical building, and we took control of that, and I might say, we, I was there but I cannot take credit as any kind of leader. But, and we stopped the, processing of draft records. And there was a ceremony, we had a lot of turmoil, you know, student strike, I mean these things were real common. I wrote about these kinds of things in Lynch street. So, we had a student strike and four crosses, white crosses went up on the lawn, beside the pond in the commons of my college campus. And those represented the white students. And then, the 10 days later, there was a killing at Jackson State College in Mississippi. And there had been, oh, a, a, an attempt to burn the ROTC building there. As part of, you know, all the nationwide unrest after the Cambodia incursion and the killings at Kent State. So, there was something like that at Jackson State too, a protest in the daytime that was peaceful and, but there was always unrest on that campus, especially in spring because white people, racists, often would come through, straining through the campus on, on this major artery. They had come in their cars, and they would shout racial slurs out the windows and-and then the kids would throw rocks at them. And so there have been a number of shootings, which were related to this conflict over a period of years in the spring, and one was in (19)63, James Meritus, a famous, integrationist that you interviewed, he helped organize a number of protests along Lynch Street. That is the name of the street. And there were shootings that year. And then, then there was shootings along Lynch Street again, in 1967. I believe yeah, it was (19)67, I am pretty sure it was-(19)67. And then in (19)70, and then in (19)70, but what happened in (19)70 really overshadowed anything that happened in the prior years. There were a couple of kids wounded, but no one was killed, well, yeah, actually. Yeah, there was a non-student who was killed in (19)67, Benjamin Brown, and all of this activity happened on Lynch Street. And then, and then in (19)70, about 70 officers, roughly half from the State Police, roughly half from-from the city police. And they all came in armed, and state policemen had, they had some machine guns and rifles, and the police all had their pistols. And someone in the crowd of students did not, well, there was a crowd of students in front of a, a women's dormitory and they did not like the fact these police were coming out on their campus on Lynch Street. And so, one of them threw a bottle, and it was bladdered in the street near the police. And they all, not all of them, but many of them opened fire. And there were- SM: 09:03 Wow. Oh god. TS: 10:18 -literally hundreds of rounds, literally, hundreds of rounds poured into the dormitories, in front of them, behind them, into a Roberts dining hall, trees, they hit trees. I mean, bullets hit the ground all over the place. I mean, it was a mess. And they wounded, I believe it was 12 students. And they killed two and four girls were hospitalized for hysteria. I mean, you can imagine- SM: 12:56 Oh, yes. TS: 12:57 -something, something that horrendous, that many bullets, hundreds, and the shooting went on for 38 seconds. That is how long, it was, you know. And I think Kent was something like eight seconds. SM: 13:05 Thirteen-thirteen. TS: 13:14 Thirteen seconds, okay, that is the title of Joe Esther's book, "Thirteen Seconds." And this went on for almost 40 seconds. I mean, just think about some machine guns firing that long. In any case, I was horrified by this and-and one day, two black crosses showed up alongside the four white ones on my campus. And there was a little quiet ceremony, but there was no big turmoil, the likes of which occurred after Kent. And there was, 1-3 or 4 days of media hankering, hand wringing about Jackson State, but it was really pretty quickly forgotten. And I thought, jeez, you know, somebody's got to write a book about that-that is, cannot be forgotten. And so, it took me quite a few years, I got some training in journalism. And I got a master's in English, and I started a doctoral program in English; English slash Journalism at the State University at Albany and I have been teaching high school and including in my teaching a fair amount of Black literature. And-and then, when I got into the doctoral program I got into, Doctor of Arts and English it allowed a, it required actually a second field of study. I mean, mine journalism and an I went about getting myself some coaching from some very good teachers in nonfiction writing, journalism, long form journalism. And-and that was the, I asked that my dissertation be a, a book, a documentary narrative, reconstructing what happened at Jackson State and got permission, that would be in effect my thesis and but, I spent way more time, and way more money [laughter], and way more travel than almost anybody I knew at, at the university who went out for a Ph.D. And because I wanted a book out of this, I wanted this to count, I did not want it just to be on microfilm, or in a file cabinet somewhere I-I wanted it to be published and a lot of people recognize what happened. And so, I spent almost a year living in Jackson, Mississippi, and traveling throughout Mississippi and traveling in, to Washington, because a lot of the records, the documents were there, I bought all kinds of copies of documents, FBI, the FBI files. There was a, as you know, Presidential Commission that Nixon ordered to look into student, pardon me, to look into student unrest from-from those times, sorry, I apologize for my asthma. SM: 16:57 You are okay. TS: 16:59 And so it spend a good time, a good deal of time in Washington, and I could still see all the burn marks, the scorch marks on the buildings on Pennsylvania Avenue, right near the White House, and from buildings scarred by the Martin Luther King assassination era riots in 1968. SM: 17:28 Right. TS: 17:29 Those did not go away. Until I would say, it was probably the early (19)90s, late (19)80s. SM: 17:38 Wow. TS: 17:39 That was still had the marks of a, of a riot, what I call a riot quarter. And it was very disturbing. I mean, to see that go on that long. And there were all these other cities, Detroit, Newark, that really never sprang back, that really never recovered to the degree that one would hope. Those cities were really-really harmed. [crosstalk] And-and it just was heartbreaking, you know. And so, after I did that-that book, which was published by Kent State Press, I-I was a working journalist by that time, teaching college journalism and high school English and journalism no longer interested me and I was working at a newspaper covering education, which I absolutely loved. But at the same time, I-I was not happy. I wanted to write another book. And I wanted something more, or less perishable, something more durable to my work, and I picked this up also in Plattsburgh, I took psychology, I was a psychology minor. And one morning in this big lecture hall, my psychology professor mentioned, Kenneth and Mamie Clark and their research with dolls, and how they show that Black children were spurning black dolls in favor of white dolls. Because they were internalizing the resentment, or they were reacting to the low, to the mistreatment of Black people and-and were experiencing low self-esteem as a result. And just about anybody who had written on the subject of self-esteem and being Black had pretty much concurred with the Clarks, back then, concurred with Clark's understanding of what their research showed. And, but after the Black Power movement in (19)68, well actually it started, started in (19)66. But after really gained steam (19)68-(19)69 that-that, that belief has been widely challenged by scholars of all kinds. But in any case, I thought that I would like to write a book someday about this, Kenneth Clark and his wife, because I-I learned that they were very close, that they were very much in love and they worked together, their, all their married years. And-and all this really appealed to me as a second book about civil rights. And, it was not till 1993 that I started working on it part time while, while working as a journalist and-and that is hard to pull off for a particularly small paper where they are always getting you to crank out stuff constantly, as opposed to the New York Times where you write a story maybe once every three weeks. But I did it. And I, you know, I started it. And, but then I-I wanted to move south here to Florida, to work at a better newspaper. And it was very hard for me, very rough job, God it was even harder, the real sweatshop. And so, I-I put off the reporting, but continued the reading. And I did a lot of reading, and a lot of, Kenneth was extremely prolific. And I had hundreds of pounds of his, of his writings. [laughs] SM: 22:17 Wow. TS: 22:18 In interviews with him, I mean, you know, he just wrote tons of stuff, and tons of stuff was written about him. So, there were interviews of him, countless, I mean, he was the Black scholar of his era, the (19)60s and (19)70s. And so, I started, I was doing a lot of that, but eventually I said, I want out of this newspaper business. And I was 58 years old, retired from newspapering and went into this project full time and-and at the same time, a woman I have been needing to talk to at length for in-depth interviews had moved nearby in, in Sarasota area. This was, this was the Clark's daughter. And-and I would interviewed her only once, but she was living, she was on a visit to, to New York, but she was living in, first in Switzerland and then in Hong Kong, [laughs]. I could not very well write the kind of family chronicle, the in-depth biography that I wanted to write about that family, that Black family living in the suburbs. But, but starting out in Harlem, I wanted to write a really intensive biography about the way they lived, the way they thought, the way they, their activist lives, and so on. And the daughter was my key. And they had a son too, and he was very helpful to me. But, he lived in New York and I can interview him no sweat in New York, so I had no problem interviewing him there. But what Kate Clark Harris did for me was, as their daughter, she threw up in her garage door and open and allowed me to, to comb through several huge boxes. And I am not talking about little boxes like you get in an archive, but I am talking about huge boxes, stuffed full of family documents and-and it was a treasure trove. But the Clarks also, and this is why I needed to get out of the newspapering in business. The Clarks also had five hundred boxes, smaller boxes that kind you have in archives, in the Library of Congress, and I needed the time away from work, to read, and study, and copy an awful lot of those. Because as you know, when you are writing something in depth, you need copies in front of you, you cannot just walk down to the library when the library is 1000 miles away from you. And so, I spent nearly a year living in Washington, going through all that. And I interviewed Kate over a period of, you know, probably eight, nine years, long, you know, long interviews, probably, we had about 13, more than a dozen interviews, some shorter than others, but a lot of long interviews. And I finally got a chance to write that. And I spent 13 years researching, and writing, and editing, and finding a publisher, it took a long time. Nobody really gave any, me any encouragement in the publishing industry. Everybody said, "Nah, nah nobody is going to be interested in that." And but, finally, now, I think with Black Lives Matter, and after the Obama administration, I think there was, I think there was a renewed interest and I had three possibilities. One was Simon and Schuster, but ultimately, I went with Source Books. It was going to come out in August, the editing is done except for the proofreading. And-and that is my story. SM: 26:53 That is a great story. And-and I have the book, "Lynch Street," right in front of me here. I have a first edition copy of it. So- TS: 27:01 No kidding. SM: 27:02 -yeah, I have got some markings in it. But I think it is a great book. What I like about, I might repeat some of these things that you just said, but I want to go over them. I was very impressed with when you were doing the research for the Brooklyn Street, the number of trips you took down to Jackson, Mississippi, how you describe the environment from where you were living in upstate New York, or wherever it was, and then going there. And-and it is, it is the history, you go into a little bit about the history of Jackson, Mississippi, because of all the racism and the segregation and all the other things even before Jackson State was a college there. Could you talk a little bit about the history of Jackson, in terms of, because that is also I believe, was the home of Medgar Evers- TS: 27:08 Thank you. Yes, it was, yes it was. SM: 27:50 -he was killed there. TS: 27:56 Yes, he was. And, Jackson was the frontier capital city of a state that had slavery on an industrial scale. Most of it in the Delta region, where all the cotton plantations were. And then, after slavery, there was the, I should add, after Reconstruction, there was this, soon after Reconstruction very soon after it, sooner than other southern states. There was a you know these-these rebellions all across the state. Riots staged by thugs, white thugs, to frighten Black people from the polls. There were shootings, there were killings on election days to keep Blacks away. And so, even though Mississippi had a very-very large Black population, the whites kept a total iron lock on political power. After reconstruction, it was very rapid counter revolution, once those Union troops left, and Jackson was that capital city and-and there were a good number of, of Reconstruction era politicians who were Black, and some of them went to Congress even. John Lloyd Lynch was one of them, and that street in the Black neighborhood, the Lynch Street neighborhood was named for him, I am trying to remember the name of the other fellow who lived in Jackson. First name was Jim and I cannot remember his last name. He was a Mississippi legend, Black legislator too, of prominence and he was buried on Lynch Street, and a Black cemetery there that still has this extraordinary Reconstruction era, 19th century monuments to them once they- SM: 30:34 Wow. TS: 30:35 -died. It is quite a, it is quite a sight on Lynch Street. But in any case, Lynch Street was the Black neighborhood, there was another one, which was a pretty lively business district, [inaudible] street. And many of the Black people in the city, the poor Black people lived in little rickety shotgun houses, three rooms open, you know, and they were called "shotguns," there is lots of theories when they were called shotgun. These are extremely narrow little, basically shacks. And I was just shocked by the level of poverty- in Jackson, I mean, you know, a capital city not, not just the Delta, it was up in the Delta too, the most abject kind of poverty, just unbelievable. The squalor, the smell of the-these decaying structures, which I imagine were probably built during slavery days. It is something that a northerner never-never set eyes on, and I-I was just appalled at the poverty. And, but in any case, Lynch Street had those kinds of houses in the side streets, off Lynch, and a lot of, on Lynch Street there were a lot of fairly rickety, whitewashed, wooden homes on piers that were pretty poor, but others were more dignified. There were middle class people that lived on the street it, it was not really completely a slum, there were some slummy sections. But it was, the heart of the political Black community. The Masonic Temple was there. And that was, you know, a fraternal group, that was Black. And-and there were major funerals, held there. Martin Luther King spoke there on occasion. And-and that was like, almost the beating heart of that street and Medgar Evers, and a number of white activists in the early (19)60s, or mid (19)60s, or early (19)63, the (19)64, the integration, protests, a lot of those emanated out of that building, the Masonic temple and Medgar Evers spoke there all the time. And-and he had these like, t-shirts promoting integration, and civil rights, and he would hand them out there, he would speak and-and Black preachers would speak with him. And, there were a lot of civil rights rallies right there on Lynch Street. And in (19)64, during Freedom Summer, a lot of the, white as well as Black students from the north, and the South, a lot of them Mississippians, a lot of Black, I mean, they were living in the homes of, of Black adults on that street. And they were working in the civil rights movement during Freedom Summer- SM: 31:21 Right. Wow. TS: 34:17 - there, they are fighting for voting rights and so on. This-this issue that we are living through today, voting rights is hardly new. And it just tears my heart out to see what we are going through right now. SM: 34:31 Yeah. TS: 34:32 Because, you know, I lived to see, you know, I remember a time I could see a time when Black people had trouble voting, and I saw the places where they struggled to win the vote. And, poor Medgar Evers was gunned down right in that city, and his funeral was held in the Sonic temple and all the great civil rights leaders all over the country flew into Jackson for his funeral in that Masonic Temple on Lynch Street. And then when the two students who were gunned down, killed in Jackson, Jackson State University, Jackson State College at the time, when they were killed Edmund, Edwin or Edmund, I forgotten, Edmund, I think it is Edmund Muskie's chartered jet and flew congressmen and senators and-and civil rights activists from Washington down to, down to Jackson, and they showed up at the, at the Masonic temple for the funeral of Philip Gibbs when he was buried there. And when he was buried in the in the city, and I am trying to remember, I think the memorial service was also. But excuse me, the funeral was held in Ripley, that is where Philip was born. There I believe there was the funeral for Jimmy Green, James Green. That is- it, that was held in the Masonic temple. I wrote "Lynch Street," 25 years ago so I am, I am reflecting back. So anyway, so- SM: 34:33 Well- TS: 34:38 -I do not know, how does that, does that answer your question? [crosstalk] Town was rich, rich in slave history, in the politics of the slavocracy, a city rich in civil rights history. And I was very-very excited about being there and doing that research. I loved it. SM: 36:47 I was impressed with your, the number of times you went down there and how you described the-the environment, the trees, the humidity, I mean, everything was just, you know, compared to where you were, I think you, the book is very good, too, because of the fact that, you know, Kent State is well known, Jackson State is well known too, but not like, it evolved as you wrote in your book. I, that speech that Nixon gave on April 30th of 1970, you know, did tear this, the-the universities apart all over America. And you do a great description in your book about all colleges, you know, women's- TS: 37:28 Right. SM: 37:28 -colleges, Black colleges, you know- TS: 37:32 Even seminary. [laughs] SM: 37:33 Yes, seminaries. I mean it, it affected everybody. And the thing here is that it was, it took place in Jackson, Mississippi, that had such a terrible history of its treatment of African Americans. And it was segregation. It was, you can see a lot of people did not probably know a whole lot about Jackson State now, I believe, the coaches, which is a pro football players, now the head coach there at Jackson State. And the question I want to ask here is, again, that speech, if you could put it in your own words, how that speech itself really tore this nation apart. Because Nixon at that particular time, was trying to de-escalate the war. And this was like, I, college campuses, how there was an escalation. TS: 38:27 Well, we sure did. And we were, we were outraged. And-and what young people today have a great deal of difficulty understanding is one of the reasons why we, (19)60s students were so activist was that our lives were in danger. [chuckles] I mean, this was not some philosophical, some abstract academic debate. Our lives were in danger. If you went to Vietnam, you had a pretty good chance of dying. And if you were working class, and you are from a working-class town, you knew people who went and lost their lives. And so, this was very much a part of everyday life, and to watch television, and see the president come on and saying, you know, remember, all that stuff I said about a, a draft lottery. Remember all that stuff I said about the Vietnamization of the war effort in Vietnam, and how I was going to be bringing the American troops home. Well, forget about that. I am, I am marching into Cambodia, and oh, my God, I mean, it was like, dropping a match on a, a tinderbox. I mean, it was just unbelievable. And I knew at the time because we were, our city had a sack base, and I knew Air Force guys. And I knew that they told me, they told me, I could not believe it. They said, "You know, we have been doing flights over Cambodia. And we were bombing Cambodia," and I said, "What? You are not supposed to be doing that-that is illegal." They said, they were very knowledgeable, they said, "Yeah, we know it is illegal. And, but it is really happening." And this was before, it, that April speech. So, I already knew about it, it was already very concrete to me. But to see the President of the United States, come on, and actually justify it, and announce it. Wow, I mean, I- SM: 40:49 These-these are your words. This is a quote that you have in your book. It is on page 24. And this is Nixon speech, speaking that night toward the students or the people who were protesting. And I will just briefly be mentioned here, "My fellow Americans, we live in an age of anarchy, both abroad and at home. We see mindless attacks on all the great institutions, which have been created by free civilizations, in the last five hundred years, even here in the United States, great universities are being systematically destroyed." And that was part of his speech. TS: 41:25 Right. SM: 41:26 And-and, of course, we all know what him and Nick or Agnew we are doing for a long period of time, calling them bombs. And I think you have said that in your book, too. TS: 41:36 That-that, that remark, even more than the speech. I mean, the speech was the abstract embodiment of the policy. And we were horrified by that. But when they actually, you know, off the cuff, referred to us, and I cannot remember which one if it was Nixon or Agnew, I certainly knew at the time. I think it was Nixon, when I heard that. I mean, I can tell you that that really drove a wedge between young-young college students and the Republican Party. And-and really, the whole country because most-most parents were pro-war. I mean, this was a working-class nation at the time. People were not all that educated, sophisticated, unaccustomed it was right after WWII, it regarded themselves as, [coughs] excuse me, super patriotic. And-and, you know, our parents were not supportive at all of our anger, and our lashing out at, at this, at this war, and this-this incursion into Cambodia. It drove a wedge through generations, and through classes of people and-and there were students against students in our town, and I am sure of towns all over the country, they were very-very conservative. Very loosely goosey, people on the extreme right, who were running around town, threatening to use guns against students, or to protect their-their drugstore or whatever, we had one guy like that, and there were, there were just jockeys who lost their jobs over this. I mean, they would, there were people who were making comments on radio, and television that lost their jobs. You know, professors that got in trouble for their role on the campuses. It was just an incredible, turbulent time. SM: 44:06 Well Jackson State and Kent State are so united in so many ways, not only because they, the remembrance events that Kent State have always included Jackson State, but, and vice versa. But the one thing that, is personal experience myself, is that on the college campuses in the late (19)60s, I was at Ohio State in the early (19)70s. The divisions between Black students and white students was pretty strong. TS: 44:30 Right. SM: 44:31 And the fact is that Black students were saying, "Well, we are going to just work on the area of civil rights and protest that way," whereas the white students can do the anti-war stuff. But when this speech was given on April 30th, and the students at Jackson State obviously you know, heard about the four killed at Kent State and then this happened, they were protesting the war as well. And it was, the, it kind of as you state in your book, very important. It united again, the civil rights people with the anti-war people. TS: 45:06 It, to some degree it really did. SM: 45:08 It is historic in my view in that reason. TS: 45:11 Yeah. Well, it was interesting to me that Joe Hester's book, alleges that the first student hurt by the National Guard troops at Kent State was a Black student who was, [inaudible] that is in that book. Black students were upset too, because they knew that they were being drafted disproportionately, and disproportionately sent to Vietnam. They did not have middle class white parents, who were doctors, lawyers, dentists, whatever, judges sitting on draft, local draft boards, deciding who was to be drafted or not. They did not have that clout. But, there were plenty of people who are white like that, and they got a break. And-and also, a lot of Blacks felt that they were being sent to the front lines and dying, and they were dying in disproportionate numbers to whites. These are facts that-that young Black people were very aware of. Again, it was not like this was an abstraction, that this was some academic debate. They knew this. And so, Jackson State had that attack on a ROTC building, there was a small fire. They had a protest, one day outdoors on the commons, that was peaceful, they cared. But, the funny thing to me is, though, that nationally, journalists tend to look through one lens at Kent, and one lens at Jackson. And-and I have never talked to a white journalist on the subject, who agreed that there was anything in common between the two. Almost all of them said that well that-that, that thing at Jackson was that-that was just civil rights. And that thing, that was just, that was just the war, those two issues were joined at the hip. SM: 47:36 Yes. TS: 47:36 I mean, those were the burning issues of the (19)60s. And if you are in the least bit liberal, you were concerned about both of them. And if you were radical, you were more concerned- SM: 47:49 Yes-yes. TS: 47:49 -just a little about both of them. And, there was a lot of common cause struck between Black and white students, there were a lot of panel discussions on the campuses that week or two of turbulence. And a lot of those tables, those roundtables, included students of both colors. And-and they were talking about this together and respectfully. A lot of white students were trying very hard not to take over anything that Black students wanted to do, to dissent. They treated them respectfully and respect was returned. That is, that was my experience from what I saw on television and personally in life, in real life on the campus. And it was, it was interesting, but the media did not get it. What the media saw was, the media felt that well, you know, those white kids, oh, you know, they were kind of like, dope smoking hippies with long hair at Kent State and-and they were wearing their kind of grungy, any worn regalia. And then those kids at, at Jacksonville, you know, they, they were kind of sharp dressers, and they were more concerned about civil rights, and conflict on Lynch Street, and the twain never met. I mean that-that was the attitude that I got. SM: 49:29 Yeah, they were, they were all wrong. And the fact is your book- TS: 49:33 They were wrong, they were wrong, yes. SM: 49:33 -people need to read your book and-and understand what happened there. You had some great interviews in the book as well and one of them was a quote, and this was the 35-year-old Jackson State student talking about the four killed at Kent State. Now I am not going to use some of his words, but this is the quote, "The kids at Kent State had become second class n's," you know, what n's stand for. Oh, I know, yeah, I know exactly who that was, yeah. So, they had to go. Anytime you go against the system, you become a n. TS: 50:03 Right. SM: 50:04 Regardless of your color. And-and that was a 35-year-old student at Jackson State talking about after the tragedies happening at Kent State. TS: 50:18 That is right. And you know, I have never forgotten that idea, that concept. And I had seen it a couple other times in my life. But I think it is true. I think it is absolutely true what that, what that young man said, and the thing was that our, our parents, our elders, had lost a lot of, they were disenchanted. They felt that they had created this really great world, this wonderful, technically sophisticated, materially rich, middle class society. And, these kids were turning their backs on it. While we were, I mean, it was there was a real anti-material streak to our generation. And we felt that older people were making compromises with the, over the lives of Black people here in the United States, and over the lives of Asian people in Southeast Asia, to keep their way of life, keep their own white privileged way of life. This was a feeling pretty general among progressive young people. And we were not all progressive, believe me. But so, there was a real wedge between the generations, then. SM: 51:47 Could you talk a little bit, I want to make sure that the world knows at least, these tapes do not forget are going to be, people are going to listen to these 30 years from now. People yet unborn. Could you talk about the two students who died? I would like the world to know more about Philip Lafayette Gibbs and James Earl Green. I know James was a high school student. And I know that Philip Gibbs was a pre, a pre-law student at Jackson State. TS: 52:16 Sure. Philip, in some ways, was the most interesting, he was older and-and had political inclinations, therefore. So that is what made it, made him interesting to me. And the New York Times published a story saying that Philip was non-political, and was not interested in politics, and did not get involved in that kind of stuff. In other words, the suggestion being that he was completely and wholly innocent of any responsibility for the, for the Jackson State killings. Well, I agree with that part. Yeah, he was, he was innocent. But the thing is, he was not so innocent, that he-he did not have strong beliefs, and even actions regarding racism in Mississippi, because he did. He was an activist student, a high school student activist up in Ripley, Mississippi, a town that was once run by William Faulkner's, I think, grandfather or great grandfather, cannot remember right now. But anyway, who was assassinated there in Ripley in a town square. But in any case, Philip was, sat in on, at pools and theaters, cafes. He took part in sit-ins to integrate his town. He was very much an activist. And he, to be honest with you, I was told he really did not like white people. Because, let us just say that he did not come into contact very often with white people who liked him. And so-so he was that kind of kid. He was very political. He was very interested. Not so political that-that in, he was a leader in protests, and organizations like Snick, and things like that, no. But, when he was younger, he took part, as so many children did, in the demonstrations and protests in their towns of Mississippi, and in another small southern towns at that time. So that was Philip, and he happened to be in the wrong place. He was on a date that night. He just dropped off this girl, it was just, pretty much a platonic relationship, friendly relationship. It really was. I looked into it pretty deeply. And there were rumors about it at the time, but he-he was just walking across the lawn in front of Alexandra Hall after dropping her off. And he drops her off. He turns around, he walks a little bit, not very far. He did not get far, and he was gunned down. So, that is really sad. And then, I cannot help but call him Jimmy. Jimmy Greene was still a child. I mean, I cannot remember how old he was, maybe 14. And he was in high school. Jim Hill, that was the name of the high school. It was a segregated high school. Jim Hill was and-and Jim Hill was the other Black lawmaker that I was trying to remember. Jim Hill was a reconstruction era Black lawmaker, and he was buried on Lynch Street, in the Black cemetery there. But he went to Jim Hill and-and not too far from the high school. He went, he worked at a store, a little tiny mom and pop store called the Wag Bag. And- and, you know, he did he did, you know, just sort of manual jobs and he would, he was a car hop, he would, they, white people would drive up on Lynch Street, park at the curb. And Jim, Jimmy would come out and hand them their groceries, they would phone up first. And he would hand them through the car, through the car window. And, you know, and he set up, you know, gathered all the-the coke bottles and stuff that were stored to be recycled and that kind of stuff. I mean that-that is sort of work, sweeping up. Well, he was walking home, he lived in a little tiny rickety shotgun house. He was one of those poor kids that I was referring to earlier, lived on a side street off, off Lynch Street, off Dalton street, I think it was. And, he was just walking home from work, that is all. And he stopped to see what all the excitement was about. He was on Lynch Street behind the officers as they stood with their weapons. Some of them were facing, probably most but I am not sure, a lot of them were facing Alexandra Hall. But some of them were facing, behind them to protect police officers from any, any kind of rock throwing or whatever. But anyway, they were facing behind them, Roberts Dining Hall. And Jimmy was in front of Roberts Dining Hall near the sidewalk. And when the firing started, he probably ran, and he was shot right there. He was killed. And-and Jimmy brought money from his job. I mean, his parents had a lot of children. I do not remember how many they had. They had a very big family. And he was, I believe the oldest, I am pretty sure he was the oldest. And he gave his parents most of his earnings every week. And boy, they needed it. They really needed it. Those, those shotguns were really tiny-tiny places with just three rooms. And I do not know, I think the books tells you how many there were. They were, it was abject poverty. And, after the funeral, Charles Evers the brother of the slain civil rights leader, Medgar Evers. He gave them, he gave the family money to buy a house. SM: 59:35 Wow. TS: 59:36 And I interviewed them in that house. And it was not a shotgun. It was a very-very modest house, that could not have cost all that much but, Charles Evers, I mean this was his money. He did not have a fundraiser or anything for them. He just, he just, you know, in Mississippi real estate was not, Jackson real estate was not all that expensive, anyway, but I mean, really, he bought them a house. And they needed it. They really needed it, very poor. [crosstalk] It is sad story, so very sad story. SM: 1:00:14 Now, I think you mentioned that there is a memorial to them on campus that students walk by, just like they have at Kent State now. So, the students, many students obviously, probably do not know, current students, unless they know their history but, is that forever there on campus for them? TS: 1:00:37 Well, there was a, I think so, there was a small monument that looked like a, almost like a gravestone, a good size gravestone, in front of a men's dormitory. And I used to remember the name of the dormitory. I cannot remember it right now. But it might have been Sterling Hall, I am not sure. But anyway, there was a small monument there when I was doing my research in the, in the (19)70s and 1980. But then, the college was terrified that there would be another terrible incident on Lynch Street, because of white people driving through, and Black students are crossing the streets. And, you know, if somebody got hit by a car, or if somebody jeered racial, you know, racial slurs or whatever. The administration was terribly afraid that it would happen all over again, another incident like the three prior ones. And so, in the (19)80s, I believe it was, the state appropriated funds to put up a plaza, a big concrete plaza, to obstruct traffic from both sides, it was sealed off the street. And so, people could not drive through the campus anymore. And in that plaza, there is an inscription on it, and I cannot remember what it says. But it memorializes the loss of, of Green and Gibbs. And-and it, you know it-it honors those who were wounded there as well, if I recall. And it is right in front of Alexandra Hall, where the shooting took place. And the extraordinary thing is that if you, if you are there, well, let me put it this way, before the plaza was built, most students I talked to, and I mean, almost everyone had no idea what the bullet holes and Alexandra Hall from, now, I do not exaggerate. And I wrote a piece for The New York Times about, about the tragedy and-and I had a sentence in there saying that-that they did not remember. And, the copy desk told me that they were not going to accept that. They did not believe it, they did not believe that there were students there who did not know about the killings. Well, when I was doing my research, was in that 10 or 11, year period, after-after the incident occurred. The administration wanted to hush it up. They would not cooperate with me. And when it was an interview, they really would not. The president of the college would not talk to me. He was the president in 1970. He was still in office, and he would not talk to me. SM: 1:04:02 [inaudible] TS: 1:04:03 That is right. And-and the administration would not cooperate. I felt very fortunate when the library at least would let me go in and look at a, a little memorial collection of photos, and telegrams, and stuff that came out of that incident. And I felt very grateful for that. But they gave me a hard time. And I was shocked when they put that clause in and turn it into a memorial, but I guess they felt safe at that point. Safer because, more than 10 years had passed and without, without another terrible incident. And-and the fact that you know that, I think it helped everybody a lot including me. I felt better about the school and the administration, when they did memorialize what happened there, with this plaza, with the construction of this plaza. SM: 1:05:10 I have some, just general history questions. You are a historian. And I just want, you do not have to, really long answers here. But this deals with aeration. TS: 1:05:21 By the way, I apologize if I have been winded, [crosstalk] I got the impression you wanted me to, sort of, free associate. [chuckles] Oh, okay. What-what I will try to do is keep my answers brief for you now, and- SM: 1:05:29 One thing I do not want, I do not want to have, I have less of me and all of you. That is the most important thing here. But I just want to, hear your views on this as a historian, and so. And this dealing with an issue that- TS: 1:05:44 -if you want more, just ask for more. [chuckles] SM: 1:05:46 -Yeah, this is, as a historian, could you describe the racial progress with respect to what our presidents have done since WWII, and I break this down into four eras. The 1946 to 1960 era is Eisenhower and Truman. TS: 1:06:08 Okay, so you want to take that part first? SM: 1:06:10 Yep, yep, I am just, there is four of them, I just want to know what you think of Truman and Eisenhower with respect to race relations in America. TS: 1:06:16 Sure, okay. Harry Truman made the first move to, the first moves to desegregate the armed forces. Harry Truman, in campaigning for reelection in, pretty sure it was (19)48, had a civil rights plank, in the party platform. And he-he although a southerner showed a side of the party that we were not accustomed to seeing, pro civil rights, very surprising. And-and so that was his move forward. And- and he got a lot of grief for it because of Strom Thurmond of South Carolina basically ran against him and the Dixiecrat party, and-and that made it hard for Harry Truman to get reelected. A lot of Democrat, Democratic votes went to, to Strom Thurmond, the southerner, the segregationist, the Democratic Party was a segregationist party. That is important to remember. SM: 1:07:41 Right. TS: 1:07:41 It is not today, but it was then. SM: 1:07:43 Right. TS: 1:07:45 Okay, Eisenhower. His big claim to civil rights progressivism can only be that he sent troops to calm the situation at, in Little Rock, Arkansas, at Central High School, when there was a move to send nine Black children to study at Central, Central High School. And the-there was utter chaos. I mean, utter, utter chaos, terrible, terrible. Protests and-and beatings, beating of newspaper reporters, beating of like, photographers and cameramen, and slurs hurled at the children, the nine kids. They were kicked, and spat upon, and pushed down stairs, and oh, it was horrible, the way those nine kids were treated by the all-white, the rest of the student body which was white. And-and so there were troops patrolling the halls, and the grounds, and the street out in front and-and the governor then, Orval Faubus, Faubus was totally irresponsible at the time and stoked that I mean, he was a demagogue. And Eisenhower brought assemblance of rationality and peace to that situation. Assemblance, in part because he was motivated by the embarrassment to the American democracy created by this terrible, terrible thing. In Little Rock, the Soviet press went bananas over it, they loved it. They, they, this was a big propaganda gem for them. And, this was in the middle of the Cold War and we, the country hated communists. And, so this was his contribution. But in general, Eisenhower was pretty hands off on civil rights. He, another contribution he made but not a winning one was he nominated, Earl Warren to be chief justice of the Supreme Court. And Earl Warren had been a guy who had imprisoned or in turn Japanese, in western states during the war, and that was a, you know, a real black eye to him. So, he when, when he became the Chief Justice, however, he turned rather liberal, and went along with Brown versus the Board of Education. I mean, he-he worked very hard to get a unanimous and succeeded in getting a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court, to issue a ruling, striking down state mandated school segregation. And that was, oh, that opened the door to legislation, and court decisions doing the same to, to break down segregation, and in voting, and public accommodations, all through the south and even in northern states. Where there were, there were impediments to voting, even in states like Ohio, and unfortunately, there still are today. And so, that was a, a thing that he could claim to fame in the civil rights area. But he would not claim it- SM: 1:11:48 Right. TS: 1:11:48 -because he really was ticked afterwards, after that decision was handed down, and really rue the day that he had nominated Earl Warren. SM: 1:12:00 The, that was beautiful, the years 1960 to 1975, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, and Nixon. TS: 1:12:08 (19)60, (19)75, Kennedy first, pretty lame on civil rights. He, like FDR, before him and Truman, I mean, he was a, he was a Democratic candidate for presidency in a party that is, very much a segregationist party. So, he was hamstrung if he, if he did very much. He might not be elected, if he did a little, he would not get the Black vote. So, he tried to do as little [chuckles] as he could to get some of the Black vote. The Black vote at that time in 1960, was not solid, Democrat. I mean, there were many Black Republicans. They regarded the Republican Party as the party of Lincoln. The party that helped place reconstruction and put reconstruction in place. [coughs] Pardon me. So, there were things that, the Kennedy people did later on, that were more progressive. Robert Kennedy helped a little bit. But Bobby Kennedy tried to discourage the Freedom Rides in (19)61, he really tried very hard to get the Freedom Riders not to take their anti-segregation crusade on buses through the south. Because he thought there would be violence and there was, there was violence. And those young people knew that there might be and, but they were very brave, very courageous. And they wanted the world to see just how vicious white segregationists were in the south, to see that the south was essentially a police state. That is what it was. And by Robert Kennedy, so this is trouble for his brother. It was, it was, and that is what the activists wanted, they wanted trouble. And because they want, they wanted segregation gone. And they wanted to see voting and-and they were right, they were right, but boy, they were courageous. They took big chances. SM: 1:14:50 Oh, Johnson and Nixon. TS: 1:14:55 Okay, Johnson, well, Johnson is to me, a heroic figure, in the sense that he, you know, he-he really fought for civil rights legislation. Paradoxically, he used the n word all the time. He was a southerner, he knew it. He knew that he had prejudices. He was very familiar with that. I think he was trying to live it down. I think he felt some guilt about that. But he wanted a historic place in history. And he saw it as gaining, going to bat for civil rights for Black people. He did that. He also knew, I mean, he was very shrewd. He knew that this was going to evacuate an awful lot of southerners from the Democratic Party. And he was correct, because today, they and their progeny are largely in the ranks of the Republican Party. And so, the Republican Party has become a, what I-I, a word that I-I like to use, I like to utter is neo, it is, the Republican Party is now a NEO-segregationist party. And it, it does not stand in the schoolhouse door, and block Black people from going to school or university. But it is, it is shutting the doors, in my view to the voting sites, trying to discourage Black people from voting, and it is an old story. So anyway, Johnson was successful with the Civil Rights Act of (19)64 and (19)65, which opened like public accommodations and voting rights. And-and he did lots of other things, too. That is to the good, to the bad, off the subject of civil rights, the Vietnam War. This was of his making, for the most part, the-he inherited a problem of Vietnam. But he vastly enlarged it, greatly and it is, that is to his detriment. I mean, it is a shameful episode, that more than a million southeast Asians lost their lives in that horrible, really-really racist war. SM: 1:17:43 Nixon and Ford. TS: 1:17:47 Nixon was trying to turn the clock back on civil rights, but not so abruptly that he was exposed for doing it. He was trying to, he was no friend of Black activists. Not at all. He-he developed a southern strategy, what-what was called the "southern strategy," to win the democratic votes from the escapees, from the democratic Party who resented the integration legislation that Johnson promoted. And he benefited from that, benefited from those votes as people move from the Democratic Party, as southerners moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, and-and he used a lot of what we call today, "dog whistles," a lot of politely demagogic rhetoric. He and his vice president Spiro Agnew, to endear themselves to the southerners at the expense of Black voters. And but, he did not want to do it so abruptly that he would lose those suburban white voters. You know, because that is generally you know, the racist, the n word, the-the race baiting, that is not the style of conservative suburbanites. And he wanted to retain them. And so that explains, I think, part of that southern strategy, that dog whistle strategy. SM: 1:19:42 Did Gerald, did Gerald Ford do anything during his tenure? TS: 1:19:47 Well, geez, you know, I-I, oh geez. One other thing. Nixon, big thing. There is much more that I could say but, but I, Nixon is the busing, busing for the purposes of school integration was one of the hottest issues in 1970s. And in late (19)60s, and when George Wallace, a Democrat started winning, started gathering primary votes, in the presidential primaries for the Democratic Party, by opposing busing for purposes of integration, school integration, then Nixon came out and called for legislation to have a moratorium on court orders to achieve integration through school busing. And so, he went right into the column of the, what I would call I would call Nixon, a NEO-segregationist, that is the NEO-segregationist tactic of not using the n word, of not screaming and shouting, "Segregation now, segregation forever” but taking moves to achieve the same, the very same, end. That was Richard Nixon. And Gerald Ford, you know, I think it was just pretty much the same hands off, just let it go. Daniel Moynihan, a conservative Democrat, worked for Nixon and called for benign neglect of Black Americans in social policy, just let it go. We have, we have had an awful lot of turmoil in this country, just-just set it aside, benign neglect. And I think that is pretty much the policy, or the attitude of Gerald Ford. I mean, he was a, he was a conservative, he was not an advocate of, of civil rights. SM: 1:22:08 The-the next two groups, and then, then this will be the last on these questions on presidents, but it is an act of the (19)60s really, but it is the years 1976 to 2000. And of course, this is the beginning of boomers being presidents, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush the first, and Bill Clinton. TS: 1:22:29 Okay, Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter had been I-I think, you could say a segregationist in his, in pretty much his orientation, as most, virtually all white southerners were. But he did make progress, growth, there was growth there in Jimmy Carter. And there were even dog whistles in his presidential campaign that were kind of chilling, and I believe there were dog whistles in his gubernatorial campaign as well. To say, hey, look, I am one of the good ol' boys, you do not have to worry too much about me. During his presidential campaign, he-he made a statement that he favored preserving the, quote, "ethnic purity of our neighborhoods," ethnic purity now, what could that mean? Sounds to me like a housing policy that was not going to integrate neighborhoods. That is what it sounds like to me. And he caught a lot of hell for that remark, as he should have. He was not an outstanding advocate of, of civil rights, not really. He did hire Andy Young. The aid to Martin Luther King, Andy Young was a minister like King was, and civil rights activist just as King was, he was King's right-hand man. And he gave him the job of the ambassador to the UN, which was a very, a real plum assignment. And but then because Young met with, on the, on, on the QT with Palestinians. At a time when we did not have relations with the Palestinian, Palestinian authority. Well, felt Carter felt compelled to fire Andy Young, and that really, in other words, when it whenever it came to push, and shove, and if you could lose Democratic southern votes, while you would do what you had to do. And-and that is, that is what Jimmy Carter did. So, he was a tepid, I would call him a tepid, moderate on race. He had other Black appointees in his administration, which was to the good. But was he a, you know, crusader, crusader for civil rights? No, I definitely could not, could not say that. SM: 1:25:24 Reagan and Bush. TS: 1:25:28 Reagan was just-just-just terrible, just terrible. Right from the very first day, he announced his presidential campaign in the Shelby County at the Nashoba County Fair in Mississippi. The Nashoba County Fair, was always, I mean historically, the place where rabble rousing, demagogic political candidates showed up to give their speeches. And that was its history. There were some like way in winter. Perhaps the first progressive, Democratic governor of Mississippi. He gave speeches there too, but he did not give the kind of speech that Reagan gave. Reagan went there. And he said that he was for states' rights. And a very clear sign that sort of like ethnic purity, a dog whistle, that, hey, I am one of the good ol' boys. I am on your side, do not worry about me. And Nashoba County besides having that history of political demagoguery at that fair, I have been there. It is a fascinating cultural phenomenon. And that county was where three civil rights workers were executed by local law enforcement officers who are basically working as Klansmen to get rid of civil rights workers, to get rid of people wanted integration. And they killed Michael Schwerner, Ben Cheney, I believe it was Ben Cheney, Ben, I think, Benjamin Cheney and-and Goodman, Andrew Goodman. And Goodman, and Schwerner were white, and Cheney was Black, and they were executed and their bodies were disposed of, in earthen dan, and their car was burned, and tossed into the water, and a, a shameful, one of the most shameful episodes in, in American racial history. And-and so for Reagan to go to that county, in that fair, and to invoke states' rights was just appalling. He did plenty more, he tried to get rid of the liberal and he succeeded largely, to get rid of the liberals in the Civil Rights Commission. And he stocked the commission with, with reliable Black conservatives, he did all kinds of things that-that just made it very difficult for the movement to move forward. And-and set the tone for the (19)80s, which was a period, in the (19)60s, under Johnson, you know, there were all kinds of books about civil rights, all kinds of memoirs and-and polemical books about civil rights and segregation. It was a fruitful time to buy books and read about our Black fellow citizens. That was really common. By the 1980s, man, it is like the whole publishing industry just locked right up. And it was sad, it was sad, although, you know, a wonderful book like Toni Morrison's "The Beloved," toward the end of that decade was published that-that is a great thing. But the whole culture, just Black issues, were just, almost non-existent, just ignored. It was a terrible time. SM: 1:29:29 George Bush, the first of his four years. TS: 1:29:36 Well, you know, more of the same, you know, it is pretty much a question of inertia when you are talking about Ford, Bush, and Bush too, I mean, it is really basically inertia. I mean, that party is pretty much running on the southern strategy, of endearing itself to, to the Neo-segregationists’ whites in the south, and the Neo-segregationists in the north. And-and Bush infamously gave, oh, gee, I am, I am blanking out on his name. Now, one of his, one of his surrogates, and political consultants from South Carolina, I may not be able to dredge the name up just now. He died of brain cancer- -supply the name, if you can supply the name. Anyway, he gave him his head to, to produce these political ads for his presidential campaign. And-and one of them used the-the case of Willie Horton, a Black man who I think, if I am not mistaken, was convicted of, I will just say crimes. It was convicted, and I cannot remember exactly what the charge was. He was convicted, and he went to, I believe, federal prison. And when George Bush senior ran against Michael Dukakis of the governor of Massachusetts, the Bush administration, Bush campaign ran an ad claiming that Dukakis basically supported paroling people like Willie Horton, who committed these vicious crimes. And this ad was so demagogic, it was very effective. It was devastating. And it had the imprimatur of George Bush. It had his okay. And it was produced by a southern Neo-segregationist, who later apologized for it, he was dying of brain cancer. And he, and he actually apologized for, for, for doing what he did, and some of the things he did of a, of a highly insensitive racial nature. And so, enough said about George, George Bush senior. SM: 1:30:38 Oh, yeah. Yeah, Bill Clinton, because he is the first boomer president. TS: 1:32:42 I am, on this subject, I am just ashamed to claim him as a boomer president, not only because of what he did with Monica Lewinsky, [laughter] and that whole sexual affair, I-I loathed him for that. I was one of the Democrats at the time, who said "No, this is not something we can, countenance, playing grab ass in the, in the Oval Office with a 21-year-old intern." This is beyond the pale, he needs to, he needs to leave and Mr. Gore needs to step in and take over. But on the issue of race, I am, I am just thoroughly ashamed of Bill Clinton. His first year in office was in foreign policy, just a disaster. screwed up every step he took. Some, we sent some, I believe, a boat with some, I will call them law enforcement officers or troops, limited, limited number to intervene in Haiti too, to assist in Haiti. And then apparently, the story was that there were, there were some, there was some opposition that formulated on the docks, I think in Port au Prince, but maybe some other city in Haiti, and there were weapons shown, maybe a knife or two or whatever. And he-he, he basically, his administration turned that boat around and hightailed it back for the United States. That was an example of, of one foreign policy screw up after another. So, what did he do? One of the Black appointments he made was Clifton R. Wharton Jr., a Black man to run the state department day to day. He was not Warren Christopher, the Secretary of State he was, Warren Christopher's right-hand man and running the store, keeping the store open. And so, Clinton trying to assuage his critics appease his critics, I should say, over his disastrous first year in foreign policy, he fires Clifton Warden, a Black man, one of his most prominent appointments. When he goes to try to, to appoint a new attorney general, he nominates among other people. He nominates Lani, Lani Guinier, a Black woman, a civil rights icon, in her time, very much an activist and-and very accomplished attorney. And, soon as the, she had written a paper, apparently, a law journal article, I believe in favor of racial quotas to achieve integration, and the Republicans started screaming and hollering about Lani Guinier being a quarter queen. Well, did not Bill Clinton backpedal right off and basically dump her nomination and, lightning quick. So, when it came to loyalty to his appointees, especially his Black appointees, Bill Clinton was just no good. I mean, just terrible. And- and also to try to triangulate, to curry favor with that Neo- segregationist white vote. He came out and made remarks about Sister Souljah, I believe a Black pop culture icon, music icon. I know nothing about her, except for she made some statements or had some lyrics that-that some white people, many white people took offense to. And did not Bill Clinton come out with a great big statement putting her down in a very big way. Why the President of the United States would lower himself to make a demagogic attack on a Black popular music figure is beyond me, is beneath the office. And it was a disgrace. And now, on incarceration. He-he was very much in favor of tough legislation, locking, locking away people who were involved in drug cases and other, other small crimes. I mean, this really fueled our huge incarceration rate among minorities that we have in this country today. I think in this, in the (19)90s, early (19)90s maybe, there were something like 1 million people in our prisons. Maybe I am wrong, maybe it was in the (19)80s, we had a million and-and by the end of the (19)90s, and into the 2000s, we had 2 million. There is no other country in the world that comes even remotely close to the-the numbers and proportion of its population in prison. South Africa, the union, the fascist Union of South Africa, gave us some competition for a while. But, we were number one, and we still are, and it is a disgrace. SM: 1:39:19 The, very well said on those presidents these are the final ones, of course, and you have already made a comment about the, this is 2001 to 2022. George Bush the second, and President Obama, President Trump, and the current President Biden. TS: 1:39:36 [laughs] Okay, I think we are first at Bush now. Bush Jr. I, 42, I think I already addressed- SM: 1:39:48 Yes. TS: 1:39:49 -with the inertia problem, the continuing use of the southern strategy. I mean, that just did not change. He courted the far right, as president and as a presidential candidate in ways that he did not court the far right, as the governor of Texas. An awful lot of Texans, progressive Texans were shocked to see his behavior in office, in Washington as president, because he did not show signs of that, as the governor of Texas. So, I think we can go put a ditto on his name. Now, the next is- SM: 1:40:37 President Obama, President Obama. TS: 1:40:39 -Obama. SM: 1:40:40 He is still, he is a boomer, but he was only like two or three years old. But yeah. TS: 1:40:44 Yeah, you know, I admire President Obama for some things. As a wonderful family man, father, as a brilliant man. But he was not a, he was not in the presidency, a figure of consequence on behalf of civil rights, is putting Eric Holder in the Attorney General's office to head that job. That is, that is great. I mean, that was wonderful, a good move. But many Black leaders of the Obama era and since, have really pretty clearly delineated the ways in which he fell short of promoting and supporting civil rights in his, in his administration. And, I can give you a couple of examples. One was again, the lack of loyalty to a, an appointee, I believe, well, no, I am not an appointee, appointee, I think, I do not think she was an appointee. Shirley Sherrod was a, a federal employee who is accused of making racially offensive or insensitive remark, by a right-wing outlet, I believe a website and it ran, the site ran a film clip of her giving a speech. And it made it, it was cropped or edited to make it sound like she was anti-white, bigoted against whites. But if you saw the whole thing she, she was not, she was actually very much the opposite. She worked in the agriculture department. And she was a civil rights activist in Georgia. A very ardent civil rights activist, a really good woman, decent, decent person. And his, he-he had basically his administration fired her, immediately. Almost immediately after that-that irresponsible demagogic report went out. And meanwhile, it took a day or two to see the whole film and it clarified that she was not guilty of anything racist or anti-white whatsoever. On the contrary, she was very much a great help to white farmers. She was a friend of the white farmer. Most farmers in Georgia are white and they liked her. And, but when all that was clarified, and that came out, and corrected, still, the Obama administration did not call her up, invite her back, gave her, and give her-her job back. She lost out. And it is, it is Obama did call her and we do not know what he said to her. Now another one was when Obama made a very good remark about Henry Louis Gates in Boston, Cambridge, being arrested for being in his own house. Black man, the foremost Black scholar of our times, a white cop goes and arrests him on his front porch for being, for trespassing on his own property, and he was not trespassing. [laughter] And Gates rightly got incensed, and so he was, he was charged. And Obama rightly said, "Look, this was really stupid." I think stupid was the word Obama used. And boy, did not a, white neo-segregationists go bananas over that, and give Obama hell. And so, what-what does he do? He has the cop who arrested him, with Gates, show up at the White House grounds for a beer so they can sit down and talk together. You know, I mean, what the cop did was beyond ignorant, I mean it was so ignorant to, to arrest a man in his own home. And-and Henry is the most, possibly one of, one of maybe 5 or 10 best known African Americans in the nation. And he arrests the guy in his own home. Now, if that is not the very definition of stupid, I do not know what is. And then to, and then to just charge this very-very tepid, moderate, middle course between them to have a beer on the grounds of the White House with them both outdoors, where the cameras could see them from a long distance. What a shameful, just a shameful moment. But I admire Obama. He was a good president, for the most part, the ACA was, the, Obamacare was a wonderful thing. He handled a lot of racist abuse with a plumb abuse from the Tea Party, rabble rousers, name callers of all sorts like that guy from I think South Carolina, who said he lied. During his State of the Union speech, the man who screamed out "You lie," to him. I mean, Obama put up with a lot of crap. And he did it, gracefully, with a lawn, and I admire him for that. But I think he-he could have been more progressive on the issue of, of civil rights. He tried too hard not to appear the angry Black man in the presidential office, I realized he was hamstrung, I understand that I understand the problem he had. I understood that to be elected and reelected, you really need, need not, you need to keep even some of those neo- segregationist votes. But still, I think he could have done more. In his last year, he began to speak out more forthrightly in the Trayvon Martin case where Trayvon Martin, a young Black man was slain by a man, a kind of vigilante, who was trying to keep his neighborhood safe. When he said that, you know, if I had, if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon that-that was a, that was a wonderful remark. And he took an awful lot of crap for that. But that was, that was a help. That was a good thing. So, Obama is not anti-civil rights. But he is not, you know, he is not an avid in office, pro-Black figure. SM: 1:48:27 How about Donald Trump? TS: 1:48:31 Donald Trump went well beyond the southern strategy. He threw, he threw away the dog whistle. And he just openly embraced bigotry, expressed and stated, I mean, he was just wide open with it. When he announced again, it is interesting how these people announced their candid, candidacy. When Reagan did it, he did it in Neshoba county, embracing states' rights. And when Trump did it, he did it on his golden escalator at Trump Tower. And he called for a, well he-he attacked immigrants from Mexico as being, rapists, thieves, and murderers. "They do not send us their best people," he said, and he then very soon afterward, not long after he was, I believe he was in office and that is when he actually called for a Muslim, a ban on immigration of all Muslims. I mean just-just deplorable demagoguery, the kind of demagoguery, demagoguery we used to expect from southern governors in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Men who used the n word. That is what we, I mean, he was giving us that kind of leadership. And-and what-what was the result? I mean, we have had shootings at synagogues. We have had, you know just-just a terrible four-year period, we had the, backlash from the Black Lives Matter, people with the executions of so many young Black men, usually Black men. And mistreatment of Black people and jeez, you know, talk to a cabbie, even talk to a cabbie today, as I often do, and a cabbie will tell you that the-the abuse that they take, if they are a Muslim, or a Black man. The abuse that they take from white riders in the back, you know they are, they are, this has just become so much a part of our daily lives now. It is intolerable. And it is, you know, I just did not realize, I did not fully appreciate the degree to which good, wholesome, moral leadership mattered to white adults. I thought, in the mass, in the great mass, white adults did not need a babysitter on the subject of race and morality. But Donald Trump proved that they do. They do. Donald Trump did one wonderful thing for us, all of us. He taught us who we are, and America is still a racist nation. And I think he proved it. SM: 1:52:02 Very-very well said and, of course, our current president, Joe Biden, he has been here one year he got an African American female vice president, your thoughts on him so far? TS: 1:52:15 Well, Joe, was a tepid moderate in the Senate. He was not a progressive. He was not an advocate of, of school, busing for the purpose of school integration. And as a matter of fact, he was an opponent. And I think that really pretty well delineates where he stood on civil rights pretty much, in his Senate years. Delaware is a border state. Delaware was a rigidly segregated state, it had segregated schools, racially segregated schools. It is pretty clear where he stood as a Democrat, right in the tepid center. And while he did campaign, in Black barber shops and do things like that, and he handled himself with dignity, in friendships, and in his discussions with Black people that he met, nonetheless, he was not going to take any chances, on losing white votes by staunchly, but by being a staunch advocate of civil rights, but he was a thoroughly decent man. And James Clyburn, whom I really-really admire, sensed that he was, Biden was the only white candidate seeking the presidential nomination in, in 2016, who could win it- SM: 1:54:07 Right. TS: 1:54:07 -and win the president and take the presidency. And so, he backed him. And that won for Biden, the Black vote. But when, in an interesting moment, is, the woman who is now his vice presidential, his vice president, challenged him in a presidential debate, primary presidential debate, campaign debate on the issue of school integration. Biden did backtrack, you know, he more or less stuck with where he had been. That is not for, I think, for the purpose of school integration. And he later made a statement that did not get a lot of attention. But he made the statement that you know, vice president, Ms. Harris, also, you will notice is not campaigning aggressively on integrate, for school integration, which was true, because she too, needed white votes on behalf of the team, to become vice president. And Kamala Harris is really not terribly, terribly progressive herself. And the thing is, she at least kind of faked a progressive stand on school integration with him, and challenged him to try to defeat him in that, in that high-profile moment. But- SM: 1:55:50 I know. TS: 1:55:51 -I do not know, I thought that situation really told us a lot about both Harris and him. SM: 1:55:57 I know that he took a lot of heat for the Anita Hill hearings, so- TS: 1:56:01 Right. SM: 1:56:02 -yeah, when he was head of the committee. TS: 1:56:05 Right, well, I guess you could, you could argue that it was racially neutral, because what he did was to, you know, to the benefit of Clarence Thomas, who was also Black. And it was to the detriment of Anita Hill. And he has regretted and apologized for his behavior, and it was inexcusable. And, but that really does show you how conservative the guy was. I mean he was really quiet, Delaware is not a progressive state. I mean, in racial terms it, it was not. SM: 1:56:45 Some people, thank you for going through this. I think this is one of the most important parts of this interview was your commentary on our presidents because the issue of race today in the news is every day. You go into the Barnes and Noble bookstore, I have never seen so many books on the topic. And-and I think it is really very timely. Some people say the (19)60s was divided into two parts. The first part was 1960 to 1963. And the second one from 1963 to 1973, or (19)75, depending. And I think I know what they are referring to, they are referring to when John Kennedy was assassinated, that was the first half. Your thoughts on that? TS: 1:57:31 I-I, (19)60 to (19)63, I think there is some wisdom in that I would probably want to push the boundaries a little farther to (19)65. Because the legislation, that was the logical outcome of the early (19)60s, protests for civil rights came, did not come out until (19)64 and (19)65. But you could see that the tenor of the protests were growing more bitter, towards (19)65. There is no question about that, the rise of Malcolm X, for instance. But the (19)60 to (19)63, yeah, I can see some wisdom in that. But for me, I would expand the boundaries of that to (19)65 when the legislation that opened things like theatres, and swimming pools, and motels, and restaurants. I mean, this, really, you could argue that nothing concrete came out of all those protests until that moment in (19)64, when that (19)64 Civil Rights Act passed. And-and also, you know, the voting did not really, the floodgates did not really open until after (19)65, when the (19)65 Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act passed. So that is why I would push those boundaries that far. And then the other era, you said was what? SM: 1:59:22 It was the 1963 to 1973, or (19)75. You know, we have the new senator here at Binghamton, which is 1960 to (19)75. And that is because symbolically that is when the helicopters fall off the roof in Saigon. So, that gets kind of the end of the Vietnam War. But (19)73 was also the peace conference on Vietnam, which was not really. really that successful cause- TS: 1:59:47 Oh, so you are talking more broadly. I-I was talking specifically about civil rights, were you? SM: 1:59:57 -yes, I am talking, when I am talking about the six, the two breakdowns of actually, it was one of the people that I am going to be interviewing down the road, Dr. Josiah Bunting, the third, he said he has always looked at the (19)60s divided into two parts, the period up to (19)63, from (19)60, over the death of John Kennedy. And that period of activism, which is really from (19)63 to (19)73, or (19)75. TS: 2:00:23 I-I would not go with that part of it. From the point of view of civil rights, I think the, it was pretty much over, the civil rights movement was over by 1968. When Nixon was elected, it really is over. And, you know, you had that horrible, horrendous Detroit riots in (19)67. And then, the riots in (19)68. And, as the-the Martin Luther King, post King's assassination riots, the civil rights organizations were beginning to unravel. Stokely Carmichael's Black power movement, deprived Snick of white participants. And I-I, I think most people agree that the Civil Rights Movement dies with King in (19)68. It is, it is over, it is just over. And Nixon is in charge, and everything begins to reverse in civil rights, as I see it. At that time, so, now with the war, it is different. And-and I-I mean, from my point of view, I, the continuing war, and the continuing kind of hot resistance to the war. To me, that period ends in (19)71. Night you had, the turbulence of May 1970. And that, to me is the climax of the anti-war movement. That for me is the climax. I never saw anything like that, afterward. And it burned itself out, as I see it very fast. One year later, one in the spring, one year later, May (19)71. There was a-a big demonstration in Washington, major demonstration and-and carpet tacks where, the nails were spread on the bridges into Washington. Anywhere activists were trying to bring government to a halt that day. Nixon was basically wielding the city police as a bludgeon to, keep the- [silence] SM: 2:03:15 Hello-hello, hello? [silence] TS: 2:03:29 In May of I believe it was May, but maybe it was April, that-that huge Washington anti-war demonstration where activists were trying to close down government for a day. And Nixon brought in the police chief, and thanked him for basically beating up all kinds of war protesters, and that is what happened even innocent people just sitting on their front porches, adults not, not young activists, just sitting on their porch watching what was going on. I mean, police were going up, staircases, and onto porches, and beating the crap out of citizens. It was just unbelievable. And like the next day, Nixon has the-the police chief and to thank him for-for doing it. I think that is anticlimax. But still, I mean, it showed the resistance continuing. But boy after that, I do not know the anti-war movement- -to me, is pretty well shot. And it just, I think Nixon let the air out of that, anti- war movement with a couple of things. One big thing was the draft by having an all-volunteer army that made a lot of young people no longer fearful of dying. So, that removed a, a reason to fight for a lot of them. And, I think the whole tragedy of Kent and Jackson State had a real depressing effect on young people. I mean, the idealism was just, you know, it was just, awful, I mean, [crosstalk] hopes and dreams for a better country, you know. SM: 2:04:35 Right. At the times in the newspapers when this all happened, when the tragedies happened at Kent State and Jackson State, and of course, they were talking about when the war came to middle America, you knew the war was over. I mean, most of America is now going to, you know, be against the war. And there is some, there is some truth to that-that was in the papers a lot, at the time. TS: 2:05:48 It went pretty, it went pretty mainstream, but the heartbreaking thing is, that damn war continued. And we were exterminating all these Asian people every damn day with our bombs. You know, I mean, air attacks, week after week, year after year, I mean, even resuming bombing after, at Christmas time, the Christmas bombing of Henry Kissinger. Progressives of my generation today, think of Henry Kissinger as, a little better than a war criminal. But still I see our mainstream news media, genuflect to this-this 90 plus year old man is if he is some sort of sage. I just cannot believe it. That is how conservative the country is. SM: 2:06:46 I know it is hard to do this. And you can just, you can just, I got three more questions, and then we will be done. We are a little, but that is you, it has been a great interview. If you were to pick between (19)60 and (19)75, if you were to pick five individuals, male, female, I do not care what it is, that were either positive or negative towards the, this era, who are the five people that you would pick? TS: 2:07:16 Martin Luther King top, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson. So, that is what, three? Martin Luther King, Martin Luther King, wow. As the five most influential in that period, gosh I, it is not as if I cannot come up with names of that era. But those are the ones that really occur to me. Those are the ones that really-really grabbed me. SM: 2:07:30 Yep. Right. TS: 2:08:06 I mean, they there is just such towering figures. SM: 2:08:10 Yeah, I agree. I agree. I know, some people might say, Bob Dylan because of the music. And that is, that he has been a powerful person in the music world. There is no question about. TS: 2:08:23 Well, that is popular culture, I was thinking more in terms of, I was thinking more in terms of the political culture of the- SM: 2:08:32 Right. TS: 2:08:32 -of our society. Martin, I mean, my God, what an extraordinary man, and Nixon for the exact opposite, such an ordinary flawed man. And-and Johnson also in a way for the opposite, such an ordinary flawed man who had great aspirations, and did a wonderful, wonderful thing, and helping to encourage a second reconstruction. You know, that is, that is the, to me, that is his big, he gets a, a plus and a minus. You know what I mean? SM: 2:09:13 Yes. TS: 2:09:14 Nixon is all minus, all minus in my in my field. But we know, by the way, one thing I did not mention to you is that Nixon did decide to go on the Supreme Court case, in 1970, a Supreme Court ruling that forced the southern states, those that mandated segregated schools to stop immediately, before it was all delivered, speed, which was not very, which was all deliberation and no speed. Well, believe it or not, the Nixon administration, his ATW secretary, Fench I believe it was- went along with it. I mean, the administration was, went along with it. And the south integrated in the, by the 1980s, far more than the north ever integrated- SM: 2:10:07 Wow. TS: 2:10:07 -its schools. SM: 2:10:08 Yep. When you go to the Vietnam Memorial, one of the basic symbols of the (19)60s but, for all time, you know, that war, that unjust war that we all know about, that really is the watershed event along with civil rights, and for the boomer generation. When you visit the wall, and you look at that wall, what do you see? And what feelings are going through your mind, not just because the names are there, what do you see, sensing in your mind? What are you feeling? TS: 2:10:43 I am just speechless, like most people, speechless and heartbroken. And see, young bodies, dead bodies, corpses. I see a tragic pile, tragic waste, a pile of dead bodies. And I reflect on the uncounted, unnamed over in Asia- SM: 2:11:16 Yes. TS: 2:11:17 -because they lost about a million. No, actually, I think I read it was 2.1 million. SM: 2:11:25 Actually, you know- TS: 2:11:26 I think it was, I think I read it just-just like about a week or so ago, 2.1 million Asians. SM: 2:11:32 -yeah-yeah, I think you are right. And some people said up to 3 million because of the fact, we are not only talking Vietnam, we are talking Laos. [crosstalk] TS: 2:11:42 Laos, you know, Cambodia, North Vietnam, South Vietnam. Yeah, definitely. SM: 2:11:49 And another, another thing too. But when you hear people today, say, well the (19)60s have returned with today's protests. I have very funny feelings about this. I do not think it is the same of the (19)60s. At the activism of the (19)60s, we are going to- we are talking 70 percent of the people probably were activists, during that timeframe, and probably the same things happening today. But the bottom line is this, it was a different time, there were different issues. TS: 2:12:17 You think 67 percent of the young population were activists? SM: 2:12:22 No, that is I have gotten that from many of the interviews that I have had from- TS: 2:12:27 I sure do not. I do not, I do not think at all. SM: 2:12:31 -how many do you think there were percentage wise? TS: 2:12:33 Oh, much-much, much lower, much lower, you have to realize it is a big country. Well, I just think that when you think about those times, you have to realize the complexity. You there? SM: 2:12:56 Yeah, I am here. TS: 2:12:58 The complexity of American society, it is not all private elite universities in the northeast and-and public and-and distinguished public universities. I mean, it is a very diverse country. And I do not think you could say at all, most people were activist, nowhere near it, and I would not, nowhere near 50 percent. SM: 2:13:27 I-I was mentioning 7 percent. TS: 2:13:31 Oh, you said seven. I thought you said 70. SM: 2:13:34 No, I said seven, 7 percent. TS: 2:13:36 Oh-oh, okay. SM: 2:13:38 Yeah. And that is, and I have gotten that from a lot of including Tom Hayden and you know, other people. The key thing here is that when people say and I see these protests today, they have been going on for several years. And you know, of the whole, over the issue of race, it seems to be as, we have so many issues in this country, we take two steps forward and two steps backward. But the thing is, I, it is a different it is, I just cannot compare what happened to the (19)60s, and where people say we are back to the (19)60s. I do not, I do not buy it. And I do not know how you feel about it. It is a totally different thing. And today, it is even scarier than what it was back then. That is what, that is what I feel like. Still there? [silence] Oh my goodness, what is going on here? TS: 2:14:35 But, okay, enough-enough on that, on that subject. Is it like today, is today's Black Lives Matter? Well, in one respect, I think I have more respect for them. And the sincerity and depth of their commitment then for us, the boomers because those, those young people stuck with us and a lot of them were boomers too. There were a lot of boomers, I saw out in the streets. SM: 2:15:05 Right. TS: 2:15:07 They stuck with it for a year. You know, the whole Kent State, Jackson State furor that flamed out very fast- SM: 2:15:16 Right. TS: 2:15:17 -I mean, really fast. And an awful lot of it was very histrionic. An awful lot, the news media were new, back then. The broadcast media were new. And I think a lot of people in our generation really and-and some of the activists just a few years before the boomers, like people like Tom [inaudible], I think a lot of folks of his age, really enjoyed, Abbie Hoffman comes to mind, really loved the limelight, really loved to have the cameras on them. Very-very histrionic, very dramatic. And-and I have great doubts about their sincerity. I mean, not some, I mean, you know, some of them like Jerry Rubin went to work on Wall Street as a stockbroker, you know, who is another one. Eldridge Cleaver, he becomes a clothing designer, and he designs clothes with a big pocket for the testicles, to feature them in his- the pants line, and he was run. I mean, I do not want to caricature everybody as shallow, and histrionic. But there was a lot of that stuff in both the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement. A lot of crazy ideas, a lot of silly nonsense, a lot of posing. But I get the feeling from these Black lives matter people hold a whole lot of sincerity and with the Wall Street group too, after the, with the Great Recession, protesting down in Wall Street. I think there was a lot of depth and organization, and sincerity there. I do not want to say that, I do not mean to suggest all (19)60s young activists were shallow, and histrionic, but there was an awful lot of that. SM: 2:17:20 Right. TS: 2:17:21 And I just somehow respect the young people who got so involved with Black Lives Matter. I really, I really do great respect for. SM: 2:17:31 One presidential candidate that I did not mention was the hippie's candidate, Pegasus and I wanted to [laughs] make sure you make a comment on that. TS: 2:17:41 I do not know anything about him. Assuming it is a- him, I-I never had the name. SM: 2:17:47 It is a pig, it is a pig. That was Jerry Reuben in Pegasus. TS: 2:17:49 Oh, it is a pig [laughs]. Well, I would not okay. I remember that. No, no, I did not know the name. But yeah, do not leave out the pet Paulson candidacy. [laughs] SM: 2:18:03 Oh, that is how can you do that, my goodness? Yeah. The one final question I have is I have been trying to do this the last couple interviews, I have done the last three or four. And that is, these interviews are going to be eventually heard down the road by people who are not even alive. TS: 2:18:19 Yeah you said that, you said that. SM: 2:18:21 10 ,20, 30, 40. If there is anything you want to say to those individuals who have listened to this tape, or have an interest in the (19)60s and the (19)70s, and race relations, if there is anything you would like to say to future generations who are going to hear you, you may not be around anymore, I will not be. But they are going to be here, and they are the future. What would you like to say to them? TS: 2:18:48 If I can venture to offer some advice is struggle on. Do not give up. As you get older, keep on pushing for a better society. You too, are going to go the way of all flesh into the great beyond. Leave something behind for another generation, justice, social justice, fairness. That is my suggestion, struggle on. SM: 2:19:22 Very good. Tim, it has been great interview and I am going to turn off, hold on one second. Thank you very much. (End of Interview) Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Tim Spofford IIIF Item Metadata UUID 71f75c3e-6d02-4eda-8ccd-bb5fb721ed9a https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/8b281f038821877b5c6ffaac6ec6b695.jpg bf5e7247999d5aa55bbcfb75f9ed7e59 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/100431540e060eb86796f283148dff5c.mp3 9aa2a29114b1858a16cf6fffa51e64b5 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 1997-07-23 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Todd Gitlin Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 3 microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Todd Gitlin is a sociologist, educator, political writer, novelist, cultural commentator, and author of sixteen books. He wrote about mass media, politics, intellectual life and the arts, for both popular and scholarly publications. He currenlty is a professor of Journalism and Sociology and chair of the Ph. D. program in Communications at Columbia University. He received his Bachelor's degree in Mathematics from Harvard College and earned his Mater's degree from the University of Michigan in Political Science, and his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley in Sociology.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13311,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:1},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,4884200],&quot;5&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;6&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;7&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;8&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;9&quot;:0,&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">Dr. Todd Gitlin (1943-2022) was a sociologist, educator, political writer, novelist, cultural commentator, and author of sixteen books. He wrote about mass media, politics, intellectual life and the arts, for both popular and scholarly publications. He was a professor of Journalism and Sociology and chair of the Ph. D. program in Communications at Columbia University. He received his Bachelor's degree in Mathematics from Harvard College and earned his Master's degree from the University of Michigan in Political Science, and his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley in Sociology.</span> Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Baby boom generation; Generation gap; Rebellion against authority; Nineteen sixties; Tom Hayden; John F. Kennedy; George McGovern; Nineteen sixties-Nineteen seventies music&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:513,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;12&quot;:0}">Baby boom generation; Generation gap; Rebellion against authority; Nineteen sixties; Tom Hayden; John F. Kennedy; George McGovern; Nineteen sixties-Nineteen seventies music</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 75:34 Subject LCSH Sociologists; Authors, American--20th century; College teachers; Columbia University; Gitlin, Todd--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Todd Gitlin Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 23 July 1997 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:00): Put it right here. TG (00:00:03): Put it where? SM (00:00:03): Oh. Well, first questions I want to ask is, in recent years there has been a lot of written materials and actually a lot of journalists and even some politicians who claim that a lot of the reasons why we have problems in America today is because of the boomer generation. Replacing direct blame on that group of 60 to 70 million, whatever the count is, for all the bills of society. They are doing it in general terms. And when I say this, of course, we are talking about the breakdown of the American family, the increase of the drug culture, the lack of respect for authority, the divisiveness in American society, and maybe in some respects, even though the lack of civility we have toward each other because of those times. Could you respond to that thought, that kind of mentality that is out there today? TG (00:00:54): Well, first of all, I think it is not a rigorous claim. It is hard to know what it would mean to blame a cultural development of great complexity upon a generation of six- if it is a generation of 60 to 70 million people. And you are talking about upwards of a quarter of the American population. So if you are saying that one quarter of the American population is responsible for an abortion and culture, I am not sure what you are saying, generations do not act in lockstep. I think what is meant is that there is a particular segment of this so-called generation, and I say so-called because I should clarify why I am skeptical about the term. The baby boom is classified technically as consisting of everyone born between 1946 to 1964. Does it make sense to call this body a generation? These are people who the oldest of whom are 18 years older than the youngest of them. In what sense is somebody born in 1946, a member of the same generation as somebody born the year of the free speech murder. Born after the Kennedy assassination. So I think there is a lot of sloppy thinking here. What is meant is the charge that there is some critical mass of people who were the counter cultural or some combination of political activists and hippies or quasi hippies and that they are the ones who undermined authority. Now I think there is some truth to that. It certainly was the intention of these cultural movers and shakers to be the instruments of unsettlement in the culture to undermine authority. Sometimes in a targeted way and sometimes in a rather indiscriminate way. But to say that they are actors without influences is to say something absurd. They would then be the only actors in history not to have influences. So if one asks why there was a thrust to dismantle or well, to challenge or at the farther realms to undermine authority, you would have to ask why was authority vulnerable? This has to be part of the answer. And part of the answer to that question is because there were grave and blaring social problems which were experienced as social problems by large numbers of people, not simply by the activist here, but by people with grievances. And the authority to a considerable degree discredited itself. That is to say it made claims, which it could not live up to. In itself incapable of ruling legitimate. The Vietnam War is a very important part of the story of the undermining of this culture. The emergence of commercial popular culture and youth culture is another important part of the story. The emergence of the drug culture is another important part of the story. The implosion of the (19)50s family is an important part of the story. I mean, this is a very complicated story. As soon as I have complicated it, then automatically I think I have discredited any single factor charge. And so I need to do. SM (00:04:52): Let me check my [inaudible]. TG (00:04:52): Okay. SM (00:05:00): In 1997 and as we get into 1998, if you were to just... Again, it is hard to define the 60 million, but if you were to say what define the boomer generation in 1997 terms and the overall impact that this generation has had on America as they approach 50. Because obviously when Bill Clinton became president of all the media was talking about he was leading the boomers because he was born in 1946. So just as of this juncture, as boomers are heading into this age of 50, what has been the overall impact so far on America with this group? TG (00:05:40): Bill Clinton is a baby boomer and so is Newt Gingrich. Trent Lott is a little bit older, but Dick Armey I suppose is a baby boomer too. What is the aggregate impact of these people? Obviously, it cuts across political lines. You could say there is a certain recklessness in this generation. Again, well, I still do not want to call it a generation, but by generation here, if we mean those born between 1946 to 1964, there is a certain recklessness, there is a certain unruliness, there is a certain arrogance, a certain belief that there is a destiny compounded by normal American self-grand and a destiny to remake the world, start the world war, and so on. But obviously the ways in which the members of this generation played out were very different, I mean Bill Clinton's form of arrogance is quite different in its imports, certainly as political import than Gingrich is. So I suppose overriding this political differences, there is a certain libertarianism that is the hallmark of people of this vintage often cutting across, let us say, lines of economic preferences and so on. A certain assumption that individuals make their own destinies and that they grow, they should not be current. Nobody should tell them how fast to drive and nobody should tell them what to smoke. You could argue there is also certain puritanism that goes with them. But once we are off into these questions of this magnitude, I find it impossible to say anything terribly meaningful about the politics or the cultural impact on this generation or except on to say individuals. SM (00:07:49): I am looking at, you teach college students today. TG (00:07:52): I actually teach mostly graduate students here, but... SM (00:07:53): I am going to see your graduate students returning students have been out in the world a while. TG (00:08:00): A lot of them. I do not know, probably 60, 50. SM (00:08:03): Well, just your thoughts on today's young people, and again, even this generation Xers, there are lot of Muslim hate that term. TG (00:08:09): I do not blame them. Probably, as much as I hate boomers. SM (00:08:13): Right. But looking at the boomers and the children of boomers, what influence have boomers had on their children in terms of the values that they held? And again, you cannot define the whole generation, but the values they held at that time. Because at that time you saw many young people active the civil rights movement, certainly against the war in Vietnam, the new movements, the came as a result of learning from the civil rights movement with the women's movement, the gay lesbian movement, the Native American movement and the environmental movement. They all kind of came around that period. There was this idealism, this passion. And I would love to have your perceptions on whether the boomers have been able to transfer these feelings to their children and whether they have been able to carry these passions on into their adult or themselves. TG (00:09:04): Well, to some degree, I think on questions of personal liberty, the carryover is substantial. It is not absolute, it is substantial. That is the more or less libertarian parents have raised a more or less libertarian generation. A skeptical generation of parents has raised or is raising a skeptical generation of kids. A disabused of authority, parent generation was raising an equivalently disabused of authority generation. I think the parental generation was hostile to racism and so are the children in general compared to earlier generations of anti [inaudible]. So in all those ways, I would say, and also let us say the degree of tolerance there is of gay and lesbians and people with different trait and so on. I think at least in the middle classes, there is a considerable area. On the other hand, it is part of the human condition. I think that the young go into rebellion, and I would not want to generalize it, the ways in which that happens. Sometimes it happens by becoming more conservative. Sometimes it happens by becoming more adventurous and reckless. I think that the impact here have less to do or many of the impact have less to do with the impact, with the influence of the parental generation. Remember the influence of a reality of a life world, which is different. In particular, assumptions about the economic future. The shift is from a society that assumes that there is going to be fat on the land to live off and a generation that to some degree is more edgy and anxious and assumes that the world is any less more attractive. I would add, by the way, you asked about the environmental issues. I think there has been some influence by the generation. Although there are too, it is hard to separate out the influence of the parental generation and the influence of media and the general culture. So I would be interrupted to think that you could... SM (00:11:40): If you were to describe the qualities you most admire and the qualities you least admire in the boomer generation, what would they be? TG (00:11:48): Well, again, I do not think I can answer that question unless you tell me what you mean by the boomer generation. SM (00:11:55): Well, I would say probably I would break it down to those individuals that were young in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s, not so much the later boomers, because I see it even in higher education today. The people I work with that the younger boomers say those from (19)56 to (19)64 born in that period have no concept at all about what it was like then because they were too young. TG (00:12:16): Sure. SM (00:12:17): So I am basically referring to the people that were young through the mid-(19)60s, say through the mid-(19)70s. TG (00:12:22): And you are talking about the... I am sorry, go ahead. SM (00:12:25): So what do you think are the positive or the negative qualities of that aspect? TG (00:12:30): Are you referring to their qualities at the time or their qualities today? SM (00:12:34): Oh, just as you reflect on that era over time. The qualities, you can either say the qualities you had most admired then living through it or qualities that you reflected upon today and people that... TG (00:12:48): But you are talking about the qualities that they- SM (00:12:49): Yes. TG (00:12:50): ...embodied at the time. SM (00:12:51): Yes, at the time and whether the things that you felt were positive and some of the things you thought were negative. TG (00:12:58): Well, their rebelliousness against stupid authority and destructive and violent war making power was very fine. Much of it was driven by selfishness and much of it was not. Obviously, I admire the courageous and self-abnegating more than the self-interested. But I think it made a lasting contribution to American history. I admire, if that is the right word, doing this to take risks personally. Now to admire that is also to be willing to be critical of some of the consequences. Some of the risks were stupid and dangerous, especially the ones having to do with drugs. But I admire the riskiness and admire it, especially when I look at the subsequent young people who it seems too much more resigned to the world as it is. I also admire something else in, again, many of the people in this group. I admire something that here that by no means was generally shared. I admire the conviction that it should be done well, things should be done. And that meant well ethically. It also meant well technically, the spirit of commitment to doing work that one control, to doing work that was pioneering, original. All those things are admirable and some of those carry over into pursuits that are very different from what was it in play in the late (19)60s and carries over into running fancy restaurants with food, and get capitalism, if you will. SM (00:15:23): Looking at the two basic... TG (00:15:25): But in general, I think I admire people. I think in this culture it is very hard to care about doing good things and I admire people. Hold on a second, Steve. I [inaudible] missing. [inaudible]. SM (00:15:44): When you look at the two main issues of that era, which was the civil rights movement and certainly the war against Vietnam and the protest movement, I should say. I would like your opinion on how important you feel the young people were in ending that war and with particular emphasis again on that era, the late (19)60s, early (19)70s, what was happening on college campuses at the time, so-called 15 percent who were involved in some sort of activism. How important were they in ending the war? And the second part of the question is, how important were boomers in the Civil Rights Movement knowing that Freedom Summer was in 1964 and a lot of the civil rights war was in the (19)50s and the (19)60s and it would be about 18 years old if you were going down the Freedom Summer in the South because... So just your general thoughts on the impact that college students had on any of the war and how then if you could just how important the boomers were in the Civil Rights Movement. TG (00:16:46): The campus rebellion convinced the political leadership in the Democratic Party and political leadership to whom the Democrats were beholden that they should end the war because the war was tearing the country apart. And once Nixon was in power, the fact that the anti-war opposition was so demonstrative, convinced Nixon to Vietnamized the war that is to get American troops out. And eventually, I think and crucially place limits on the military expeditions, the military tactics that the US was willing to resort to in Vietnam, is what we mean by ending the war. I think if you performed the [inaudible] experiment and ask what would have happened if there had been no anti-war movement, if baby boomers had not enlisted any, it is hard for me to make a case that the war would have been shorter or less bloody. So I do not find that case persuasive. As for the civil rights movement, you are quite right. I mean the people made the civil rights movement happen. Were older than baby boomers, so case is closed. I mean some of them were foot soldiers in Mississippi in (19)64, and so they were not by themselves decisively. SM (00:18:17): You think they have carried on? TG (00:18:19): Again, I caution you against a hard and fast distinction between people on the basis of who might have been born in 1945 and who might have been born in 1946. SM (00:18:35): That is come up too, because many of the people I have interviewed are 55 and 54 and they quote, "Do not fall into the category of the boomer generation." TG (00:18:43): Well, the leaders... SM (00:18:44): They were on the front lines. They were like the... I remember Harry Edwards when he wrote that book, Black Students. He wrote down the definition of radicals, revolutionaries and activists and omics activists. I do not know if you remember the book. And basically a lot of the older students involved in the movement were the graduate students or at that time, or would be 55 years old now. TG (00:19:03): Sure. Yeah. But again, the category baby boomer comes along at a certain point in order to try to comprehend what was happening in terms that were not really political. And it is in that sense, itself an interested term. It is not a neutral term. It is a way of saying what we have here is a problem with a bunch of kids rather than what we have here is a certain stagnation and deficiency and often criminality in a political system. SM (00:19:39): And you were... TG (00:19:39): I am saying, I think, that what was in play were political controversies. The actions of generations. Generations were not the actors of the situations. SM (00:19:55): Individuals. In the groups. TG (00:19:56): Well, in groups, groupings, movements. SM (00:20:01): Let us put a time were back here and put back in time. You were obviously very involved with SDS and so forth and you were involved with many groups. You were against the war in Vietnam and you were obviously the epitome of the term activist from that era. I have asked this to everyone and you might want to go along the same lines of previous questions, but many people that I was around, I was allowed too on a college campuses, so I was assuming thing and firm and they want to [inaudible]. So I got around a lot of activist students too. We got about a lot of issues. We had a lot of things. But there was a feeling that we were the most unique generation in American history because of the times and you had made a reference of an adjective to describe the boomers or the group that was involved arrogantly. Is that a sign of arrogance by... Even you, you were involved that we were the most unique generation in American history. TG (00:21:00): I did not say that. SM (00:21:00): You did not say it, but some people felt that because of the times, because of the issues. Some people may even say in throughout history, nothing ever... There were so many issues that came together all at once. TG (00:21:12): Jean-Paul Sartre wrote in the introduction to a book by a school classmate of his, he wrote, "We thought the world was new because we were new in the world." He was writing about the group of French elite students who were born around 1905. He was describing during their 20s. Feeling that the world is new and that you are experiencing it is unprecedented, is not a new feeling. What was new in the (19)60s was that so many people felt that the world was an unprecedented world and so many of them had access to mass media, which were receptive to that message. And there you go to the rather arrogant claim that the novelty of this moment is unprecedented. I mean, yes, it was a terrible to stare at the war in Vietnam. It was terrible to stare at World War II. It was terrible to stare at story at the World War I. It was terrible to live through the Civil War. History is a nightmare. So I do not take claims like this very seriously, but it certainly is. It is factually true that many of the so-called boomers thought that the way in which their situation was essentially was new. Whether is that accurate? I do not know how to say. I mean it seems to be an unanswerable question. SM (00:23:01): This goes right into the next theory because we talk about maybe an attitude of uniqueness, but again, this quote, "We are going to be positive change agents for the world." It is an opposite. TG (00:23:12): Sounds rather arrogant. SM (00:23:13): Well, but during the Vietnam War protest, the immorality of the war, Dr. King been making that tremendous speech linking civil rights in the war in Vietnam. Seeing the morality not only at home, but in Southeast Asia. There was a sense of, I do not even know if we want to get in morality here, that many that were involved were morally right. TG (00:23:35): True. SM (00:23:36): And whether that feeling that we were positive change agents, that by we, meaning those that were involved in the movement and positive change agents for the betterment of society. And that is true that the war ended. TG (00:23:52): Do I think what is true? SM (00:23:54): That the individuals involved were positive change agents for society. TG (00:23:57): Absolutely. SM (00:24:00): Those positive change agents was you think many of those people have carried on? The war ended, so that is open. But the idealism getting involved, caring about others, do you think that has continued within this group as they have gone into their age? TG (00:24:18): As people age, they become more conservative. They have more to conserve. This generation, again, for all of its claims of novelty is no different from any other. It had other things to do. It had successes to make. It had property to acquire. It had families to raise. It had an America to live in. I do not believe that people will, a historical period into being, everything was in place for these movers to move and shake the world. In the (19)60s, they were great popular upheavals to be lived in and furthered and the period since, for a variety of reasons. The period since mid-(19)70s has been very, very different character, has been in many ways a rebellion against the rebellion. It has been a counter rebellion, which also follows from the tremendous magnitude and scope of the convulsions of the (19)60s. It was going to be a counter reaction, do not simply tell society to change and expect that it is going to cave in and say, "Okay, your kids are right." So when the convulsion came back, in the faces of the baby boomer, change agents. Many were cowed, many were chasing, many became more conservative. But all the evidence from sociological studies says that those who were politically active in the movements of late (19)60s and contacted 10, 20 years later were more likely to be politically active on the left than those of their peers who had not been politically active before. They made less money. They were more likely to be involved in so-called helping professions. But they are not 18 anymore. SM (00:26:32): The David Horowitz is not the world of rarity. TG (00:26:35): Well, David Horowitz was not a leader of the new left. David Horowitz is considerably older. SM (00:26:40): I want to get into the aspect of healing, getting back to the tremendous divisions of that era. Certainly the Vietnam War, civil rights, and of course the issue of rioting in the streets. We all know anybody who knows history of that 1968 Democratic convention. TG (00:27:00): Hold on a second. Hold on a second. SM (00:27:01): Yes. Okay. This gets into the question of healing. I made a reference to it earlier in reference to Senator Muskie, meaning we had. Do you feel that, again, I know you have a hard time with the term boomer representing the 60 some million or... TG (00:27:20): I have a very hard time with it. SM (00:27:22): But do you feel that the boomers who were acting, are having a hard time with healing from that era? Because, let me explain. The divisions were so intense and you know this. The divisions were so deep and today many people still do not forgive those who were on the other side. The Democratic Party actually is still they say, you are still having problems from that era, and the divisions within the party, within that era? TG (00:27:48): Sure. It is partly correct. SM (00:27:51): But do you feel that the boomer generation themselves are still having problems with healing from the divisions of that time as they have gotten older? That is those who were for and against the war, the veteran as opposed to the protest. TG (00:28:03): You mean healing internally or healing in their relation with each other? SM (00:28:10): Both. TG (00:28:12): Well, I think to feel abandoned by your country is a grievous feeling. Many people who were against the war and many people who were for the war came out feeling abandoned by their country. In a sense, both have a case to make. Both were abandoned in a variety of ways, and both had expectations which were not lived up to. So both feelings are understandable. Between each other, I do not take it to be given that people in a big and complex society should love each other. There was a huge political conflict. It is not a generational conflict. It is a political conflict. Societies that have been through bitter political conflicts do not easily heal. Those who were most committed on different political sides do not easily reconcile. Nor is it self-evident to me that they should. SM (00:29:26): I want to really get that... TG (00:29:27): But you see, there are many things that divide those who were devoted supporters of the war, and those who were devoted opponents of the war. There were many things divide. There were [inaudible] divisions here. The difference is getting wise. And so these differences also should not be collapsed simply into differences with respect to the experience of the war. But certainly it is the case. I mean, certainly the great division in American society was between those who had to fight in the war and those who did not. Now that was not of the making of baby boomers. That was making of the policy makers who decided who would be drafted and who should be sheltered for the draft. Those were largely class division. And that was a matter of political policy that was not undertaken by the boomers. The boomers did not make policy about who was drafted. Those policies were made by government agencies, by the selective service system, and ultimately by the political authorities who did not want to have middle class kids sent to war. So we had a highly selective draft. We had essentially a work class war. And of course, there was bitterness between those who went and those who did not. But what my point is, and it is not... There was also much bitterness between those who went and supported the war and those who went and hated the war. This is all very complicated. But my point is that it is not that the boomers created that division. That division was structured as a result of policy. SM (00:30:58): Do you think again, there should be efforts made to bring the opposing sides together, try to understand the intensity of the divisions, not only to heal more beyond the Vietnam memorial wall, which is supposed to heal the nation, transcribes books to heal the nation, which was geared toward the healing Vietnam veterans and their [inaudible]. TG (00:31:20): I will check. Make sure this [inaudible]. Should efforts be made to bring people together? SM (00:31:26): Yeah. Should efforts be made to bring posing sides together even today, to try to get a better understanding of the division so that there can be lessons of learning for future generations. That in times of difficulty, which may come forth, that there some specific lessons that can be taught and that healing should be one of them. Because I get back to that statement that Senator Muskie made, which was a surprise to our students and to me when I asked that question, because I thought he was going to go right back to (19)68, the divisions in America. That healing, that generations oftentimes become bitter and they carry that bitterness to their grave and that bitterness is transferred to their children who then carry it on for generations. And then may be one of the unique things that could have come up of the divisions of the (19)60s and its early (19)70s amongst the boomers is that, they make greater efforts to heal within the ranks. Not only between those who were for of those who were against the war, the tremendous divisions within the cities. I know the riots were happening. There is a lot involved here, but efforts be made to try to understand the passion of the times more. That efforts should be made to bring some together, knowing that we cannot heal 60 million people. But... TG (00:32:51): I think that conversation among people would disagree it is always... Do I think that no one should not have an illusions here? I think that the people who were on these supposed sides then largely do understand why they had the views they did. What they need is something much more elusive than understanding. And I do not know what it is. I do not know what it is. It alludes me too. God knows you have had plenty of conversations in America about the Vietnam War and what the complete [inaudible]. And I do not think there is a ritual solution. I think we keep looking for ritual solution to what was a deep political conflict. I do not think the wall does it. I do not think movies do it. I do not think boomers do it. I do not think anything in particular does it. I think it is okay for society to live with the differences. I do not know how. I mean individuals find their own way to avoid tangled landscape. But I do not know about collective solutions. I do not hear it. I just do not know. SM (00:34:13): [inaudible], of the old term [inaudible]. TG (00:34:16): I mean, I think the wall. I mean, just speaking personally, I think the wall is wonderful. It is very beautiful and very moving and very stirring and it does not feel me in this lightest, nor does it affect my views. Well, I value it greatly as a monument, but I do not. So as the work that is claimed for it. You think the nation... I am sure that the nation should be [inaudible]. A terrible war was done. Terrible crimes were done. Would it mean for me to change my view about the nature of these crimes? I do not know. They do not change my view. I do not have any regrets about that. And so there are consequences in history. People try to do difficult things and it is going to hurt. Why should we expect it is going to make us feel good. We live in a feel good culture. Why should we feel good about that history? I do not think history should make us feel good. I think history is shame. For me, not my project. I mean, I want to be a fully living human being, but I do not... I think life breaks everybody in some way or other. Anyway, who is right? [inaudible] strong and broken places, but the ways in which people are broken and then the ways in which they need to heal ourselves immensely the areas. I do not know how to think about doing it in one false move. SM (00:35:57): Sure. This site is working properly here. Could you, in your own words, define the generation gap that took place at that time between the boomers and the World War II generation? There has been books written about it, but from your own perspective, what did the generation gap mean to you? And then secondly, what does a generation gap mean today between the boomers and their kids? TG (00:36:22): Even in the (19)60s, I did not find the term generation gap very useful. I did not feel that I was involved in a generation gap. I thought I was involved in a political conflict. I mean, I also had differences with my parents, but those were also political differences. There is a lot of research by the way that goes to show that a great number of the activists of the left who did not especially experience a generation gap with their parents, they experienced a political conflict with the leaders of the country. Dick Flacks and many other researchers have discovered that the values of the student activists were not in general, not in general at least that where this was studied awfully different than the values of their parents. They came from relatively democratic families. That is the center of political families in general, where this was studied. So I never thought much of a concept and I still do not. I do not think it was a generation gap. It was a political country. SM (00:37:36): How about today between youngers? TG (00:37:41): You mean teenagers? SM (00:37:41): Yeah, teenagers and... TG (00:37:43): Teenagers are always at odds with their parents. The question is not whether they are at odds. The question is what social and cultural forms do they find and wish to express that? And those will always be different. My mother felt estranged from her parents in certain ways, but growing up during the depression, the circumstances were not conducive to, it was in a full-blown, acted out rebellion of this sort that we are. But it was not that there was no generational tension. It was enormous generational tension. I do believe it is in the human condition that there be such tensions and that young people need to set out to differentiate themselves in some way, which is a painful fixing process that hurts everybody, but is also necessary. SM (00:38:42): You teach a lot of college kids today and do you see activism happening that much amongst today's young people? TG (00:38:55): Not very much. SM (00:38:56): And I want to different age activism, because we all know chronical higher education stayed over and over again every year with [inaudible] studies that over 85 percent of law entering freshman in their high school years were involved in volunteer activity and continue to do so when they get into college. But I remember reading that volunteerism is often symbolic of a conservative era rather than a liberal era. That you have to define the difference between volunteerism on the one hand and true activism on the other, which means caring about the political process, voting and actually even being desirous of some juncture of getting into a position of common responsibility as a politician to serve others. And there is no issue in politics. [inaudible]. TG (00:39:39): It is a very different style of activity. I mean, I am not dismissive of it. I share this assessment that service is the, I have called it the silent movement of this generation again. And often enough it is in a certain sense conservative, not something expressive of a conservative era, but it is self-conservative because it aims to act in the name of conserving values. It aims to act in the name of values that are already in place. It aims to do something constructive. It wants to lay hands on and see a difference. It wants to tutor, it wants to take care of the battered women. It wants to take care of homeless people. It wants to reach out and touch someone. It wants to do good in a concrete palpable way. And that is very different from the activist style. There is not very much of the (19)60s activism. But which is not to say that there is no... Well, I do not know. I take it back. What is the state of the moral climate? What is the moral temperature of young people today? It is very hard to read. It seems significantly distracted and private, anxious, diffuse. It is very hard to find any pattern in it. It is a left wing, it is a right wing. It is identities. Certainly there is no thrust that I can make out. There is no pattern that I can make out. There is not certainly any organized movement. There is a great deal of fragmentation. Even among those who would describe themselves as activists, tremendous fragmentation. SM (00:41:38): Have there been any studies about, you mentioned, I do not get the gentleman's name, but that the sons and daughters of activists are activists. Any studies showing the percentage of those that were truly involved in those movements to pass this on to their kids? Or have they shared? This is another question. Have they really shared what they went through with their kids? Or do they feel that I am not going to burden them with what I went through with a young person because they have their own problems today? TG (00:42:13): I do not know of any studies. I am sure there are some. My impression is that most of them, certainly the ones I know have tried to convey to their kids what their (19)60s experience was. But also my impression that significant number of the kids could care less or feel burdened by it or sick and tired of hearing that of Gloria's old days, which understand saddled by memories which are not theirs. In some way imprisoned by their parents harking back to something that sounds so fabulous that they missed. Not a thrill for you. But I do not know of any studies that try to look at this system. I do not know. SM (00:43:10): I hate to use this term again because the quality that I mentioned that would be the most unique generation American history, but we were going into your own personal life. Do you feel that you personally, beyond your years as an activist now into the adulthood and middle age that you have made a contribution to society? Going back to that terminology that many people, that era felt that we are going to be change agents for the betterment of society. So the proof is in the pudding and the proof is in your life. TG (00:43:44): Yeah, I think I have made a contribution. SM (00:43:44): I guess, I say in what ways? TG (00:43:47): Well, I made the... You know I was a foot soldier in the Civil Rights Movement. But I think that was a great crusade that made small contributions towards the entire world movement. I think that was an absolutely necessary [inaudible] with largely healthy consequences. As we left [inaudible] intellectual, I tried to clarify what was happening as best I understood it. Try to make my understanding available to others. That is the intellectual project to try to certifying what is others to feel little more courage and less bewildered and more knowledgeable. I have done what I could in those directions. I think I have done it all brilliantly, no. I think I have done it perfectly, no. SM (00:44:54): When the best history books are written, and they will always say that history books, the best ones are 50 years after an event. Some of the best World War II books now are coming out now. Stephen Ambrose 1940 or early [inaudible]. When the best books are written in maybe even 25 years from now about this period, the (19)60s and a year ago is excellent. So I am not be degrading your book. I am just using what historians often says 50 years later, what are they going to say about movers? What will be the judgment? TG (00:45:29): Again, about 60 million people. I hope they are not making any judgment of 60 million people. But what could that possibly be? That is more than an entire population of Italy or France. What can you say about 60 million people? SM (00:45:46): But even judging even an era of that young generation, the (19)60s. That is booming on the late (19)60s and early (19)70s. What do you think they will be saying about that of the (19)50s? TG (00:45:57): The activists. SM (00:45:57): The activists. TG (00:45:57): Left activist activists. SM (00:45:57): Yes. The left activists. TG (00:46:02): Very different from the boomers. I mean that is a different, already you are down from 60 million people to maybe a few hundred thousand. We are talking about 1 percent of the generation. It is different. I think they will say what I have said. I do not think their judgment will be different. I think they will say that this generation had a big challenge. Did a lot of smart and important things. Made a lot of stupid decisions as well. You know they did. They do great things and they do awful things. And sometimes they do not know at the time which is which, and I think they will see as a generation with great successes and great failures. SM (00:46:43): If there is one... TG (00:46:46): I cannot imagine that they would say anything different. I mean, it would be goofy to do one to say part of that and not say the rest of it. That would be travesty. SM (00:46:57): If there is one event that stands out above all others in your life, the one event that changed your life more than any other, what is that event? TG (00:47:15): Probably the Cuban Missile Crisis. If I had to choose one event. SM (00:47:21): In what way did that have an effect on your life? TG (00:47:24): It convinced me that the respectable Emilio [inaudible], which I had worked in for years was... Its immediate effect was to discourage me from political activity altogether for one. But within a few months I had become president of SDS. I had [inaudible] and radical. SM (00:48:01): I am going to list some names of this period, names that are well-known. Just a few comments on each of them. What do you think? Just your thoughts on them. I have done this with every person and the gamut runs every different direction in terms of how they respond to these people. And these are the household names of the late (19)60s and the early (19)70s. Jane Fonda? TG (00:48:26): She was an actress who got in over her hat. SM (00:48:34): Did you place her? I met her in Tom Hayden at Kent State at the fourth reunion of Kent State [inaudible] before, at the room one and two. How would you rate her? I do not know how Vietnam better feel about it. But how would you rate her? Would you rate her really as a sincere activist? I know about you and about Tom Hayden and I know about Rennie Davis and I know the sincerity there. But was she a sincere activist? Was she really sincere? TG (00:49:06): I never met her then. I met her later. I cannot presume to judge her since I do not know her. SM (00:49:14): Tom Hayden. TG (00:49:18): Well, I knew Tom Hayden starting in 1960. It is hard to summarize. I wrote a great deal of Hayden in my book. Very gifted, charismatic person and strong. Late in the (19)60s, foolish and manipulative [inaudible]. But after that, deeply dedicated and effective. The figure through the early (19)70s when many people who have been involved in the anti-war movement has retired. SM (00:50:12): It is just a complicated figure. He has written a book on the environment recently. And then he just bought a book the other day that he edited essays on hunger in Ireland. He realized he was Irish. He was talking about his Irish background [inaudible]. TG (00:50:26): Middle name is Emmet, named after David Grish. SM (00:50:33): Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. TG (00:50:35): Well, I have also written a great deal about them. Abbie was also very gifted wild figure. Often creative, wholly unaccountable to others. Reckless. And after many relatively solid years, I think starting in 1967, she is quite brilliantly at times and creatively control and at the same time a brilliant cultural entrepreneur. Jerry Rubin far less talented. Far more manipulative and less sincere, self-promoted, less original. SM (00:51:43): About Black Power leaders of that era. The Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, Eldridge Cleaver, the Black Power figures. TG (00:51:52): Well, those are not Black Power figures. Those are Black Panthers. There is the difference. SM (00:51:56): But Stokely Carmichael. TG (00:51:59): Stokely Carmichael. SM (00:52:00): Right. TG (00:52:00): Okay, so let us take him one at a time. Stokely Carmichael, a very talented and charismatic figure. [inaudible], power turn I think in the end was a serious mistake. As he became progressively more incendiary, became progressively more destructive. Newton, obviously very talented and deeply pathological poet crag. A crag boss in the making. Deeply dipping and delicate, unbalanced man. Bobby Seale. I do not know who he was when he started. He got in over his head. He had very strong authoritarian tendencies. Similar, which I saw in person. What damage he did is hard for me to say. I do not think he was a figure the way he really wants. He is of lesser historical significant. Cleaver. Very smart, very tricky. There was some talent who was promoted far above his... And you remember, let us not forget a long-time rapist. SM (00:53:45): We talk politicians at this time. Lyndon Johnson. TG (00:53:50): Brilliant politician who could have been one of the great presidents and [inaudible] away on Vietnam. The most tragic president of the 20th century. SM (00:54:07): Kennedy. TG (00:54:10): Rustling. A moral, not deeply tested. He died at 46. A brief conference. Oh, it is a very limited. Aggressively deceitful politician with some very shrewd political instance, which enabled him to become president and obviously, was once turned against his own self-interest were also his downfall or felt much for him. SM (00:55:07): Gerald Ford. TG (00:55:11): As a political figure in the late (19)60s or as a president? SM (00:55:14): As a president. TG (00:55:15): As a president, best unelected president we ever have. SM (00:55:25): How about Robert Kennedy? TG (00:55:27): Another great tragedy. Started as a passionate McCarthy, right? And a very bold prosecutor. A man of tremendous force and calculating, capable of learning. Comes in late in (19)68, but then had enormous potential. And how old was he when he died? Could have been 42. Could have been one of the greats. Could have been one of the great presidents. SM (00:56:11): George McGovern. TG (00:56:13): I am very fond of George McGovern. I think the world as in... He was a moral man. Comes out of the best of American Protestant reform. He was an honorable man who made obviously some real miscalculations. But I have never doubted his moral clarity and his decency. SM (00:56:40): Eugene McCarthy. TG (00:56:47): Worst possible leader for a respectable political insurgency. He did one great thing, which was to declare for the presidency. And then he abandoned his campaign and his people throwing the towel. Failed to make deals with Humphrey, which could have prevented the election of Richard Nixon. A terrible political leader, a narcissistic, and work with a political leader. SM (00:57:26): What about Hubert Humphrey himself? TG (00:57:30): A great moment. Civil rights movement was great. He was a very good exponent of nuclear disarmament in the early (19)60s. And then his weakness of character bring him into a marionette Johnson. And he did not come on. He did not. He declare independence soon enough to say it to the Democratic Party. So he has had great opportunity. SM (00:58:01): George Wallace. TG (00:58:04): I just saw it. Four little girls last night. The Spike Lee movie about the girls in Birmingham. It is a wonderful film. I was reminded watching George Wallace, that is how horrible he was. Worst of American racism. Simple Man of several things. SM (00:58:35): Have other people. Timothy Leary. TG (00:58:41): I remember self-promoting reckless, irresponsible, non-artist. SM (00:58:49): The Berrigan brothers. TG (00:58:52): I have respect for them. Holy serious, old, talented. Dan, there I knew. Very talented poet. They were good spirits. SM (00:59:07): Martin Luther King Jr. Make sure I get this there. TG (00:59:31): He is one of the great men. Great figure who Patty Riff might have done as well one of those. SM (00:59:31): Malcolm X. TG (00:59:31): Good to know about Malcolm X. I do not join in the worships that is so common today. I think he is a legend man, a self-created man. [inaudible] fast when he was killed. Rather primitive, I mean beliefs. I mean, let us recall that to be a black Muslim minister, meant to believe that the white race had been converted by a scientist Yakub [inaudible] world. But he did have the strength to recognize that when he brings that he had been committed to a fundamental racist view of the world. When he made a position for powerful position strip himself of the protections and comforts of that view, a set of wrong views, long views and oh wait, he was killed for it. I think most of his great, most of his great potential will not be known. We do not know who he would have been. SM (01:00:43): Dr. Benjamin Scott. TG (01:00:54): I think he was brave. I think he was a principal person who was moral and came to the board when was needed at some risk to his [inaudible]. SM (01:01:09): Pretty close to being down here. A little bit more on this side. A little bit more on this tape. Muhammad Ali. TG (01:01:18): I respect his political principles. I heard he was an immature, great boxer who became a... SM (01:01:34): Who others? Ralph Nader. TG (01:01:41): Pretty impressive, very American style crusader. The individual and of course had a huge impact, had a great ability to attack. Very skilled and devoted author. Many who went on to do... In later years, he has been like so many people coming out of (19)60s lost in the co-campaign. He ran- SM (01:02:09): With the Green Party, I believe. TG (01:02:12): Well, but he did not run. I mean, it was all right to take a Green nomination and run and raise issues that the Republicans and Democrats were having. He keep that apology, but he did not really run. He ran half-baked campaign. He should have raised money. If you are going to do that, you raise money, you go out and talk to the maximum number of people. You do not run a stealth again. That is childhood. That is the McCarthy sin. SM (01:02:33): Spiro Agnew. TG (01:03:03): Mediocre politician. This corrupt character with his politics is bad, man. SM (01:03:04): About Barry Goldwater. TG (01:03:12): Interesting figure. I take it a man of principle. Its rights. He [inaudible] as well in history. Partly because he has had the scope and the depth of character to be willing to change his mind on certain matters. Partly because he is willing, because he does not seem to be a party man. He seems to be willing to speak his mind. He is the heroic figure of the Republican Party. He made it possible for them to produce Ronald Reagan. There is no Ronald Reagan without Barry Goldwater. So in that sense, I think, I mean you are of the wrong direction, but certainly a very important figure. SM (01:03:52): Senator Fulbright, your thoughts on him? TG (01:03:55): I respected Fulbright. I am anxious for my case on the war. But he was the earliest among the late comers on race, he was witness alleged good for a southern white democratic politician. [inaudible] of substance. SM (01:04:20): Senator Muskie. TG (01:04:23): I do not think much of that Muskie one way or the other. [inaudible] Fulbright, he was quiet New England politician. I do not think he is a major figure in that history. SM (01:04:37): For the women of that period, the Women's Movement. Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, the Shirley Chisholm, the woman that read the forefront of the Women's Movement. TG (01:04:45): I love the... SM (01:04:45): The great Gloria Stein, you mean. Betty Friedan. TG (01:04:49): The greatest of them is none of those. It is Betty Friedan. Betty Friedan is one who deserves credit. She was a very smart woman, wrote a very fine book, created a movement. There is very few individuals who are properly credited with kick-starting the movie. She has had largely thoughts for herself and been willing to make enemies, which is important in politics. Featured figures in the second half 20th century. Gloria Steinem, I never thought much about. I considered her actually interesting. I cannot really speak to her influence. I mean, I know she had some. It is hard for me to... I see her as a light person. Bella Abzug. She comes into her own in the (19)70s. I do not see her as belonging. I think she is... What happened, same thing for Shirley Chisholm. Less reports, but neither of them I think are formative. The way that Betty Friedan. SM (01:06:07): How about this thing? We have Robert McNamara. TG (01:06:17): Well, certainly during his time in office, the most destructive people I have heard in history. Since then, the man who [inaudible] chance to redeem himself. The book raises as at least as many questions as it answers. But I honor him for making effort. SM (01:06:42): Henry Kissinger. TG (01:06:44): War criminal. Maligned, I should say. Maligned force. SM (01:06:51): I want your commentary here because when you look at the two, when you compare Kissinger and McNamara? There seems to be even among Vietnam veterans, a tremendous hatred for McNamara obviously. And even the book in retrospect was even in upset most of the veterans. TG (01:07:08): I wrote a very critical piece on it. I mean, I am not a fan of the book, but do not get me wrong. SM (01:07:14): It does not seem to be the dislike or Kissinger as much as there is for McNamara. And in realizing that at the end of 1969- TG (01:07:21): There is a lot or someone who do not know. SM (01:07:21): ...28,000 Americans still died under the President Nixon. TG (01:07:27): Right. And plenty more Vietnamese on it. SM (01:07:29): Right. TG (01:07:29): They do not know. They do not know. Henry Kissinger is a much smoother player with a much more ingratiating to the press. A much worse figure in my life. SM (01:07:42): How about President Eisenhower? TG (01:07:45): Well, with respect to what? SM (01:07:47): Just these are names that are in boomers’ lives as a president, as a figure. TG (01:07:54): Oh, at the time he seemed, what if this may strike you a strange word, silly. The President, in retrospect as a figure, as a Cold War figure, not bad. Just in general, he was not so easily intimidated. And as Kennedy intimidated into reckless conduct. But a very limited man, very limited. SM (01:08:35): Music of the era. When you look at the music of the late (19)60s, early (19)70s, you personally, who were your favorite artists? TG (01:08:44): Starring when? SM (01:08:45): Actually, we are talking about the late (19)60s through the early (19)70s. TG (01:08:49): Well, when you say late (19)60s. When do you want me to start? SM (01:08:54): Probably around the time the Beatles came over in (19)64. Okay. That year. How music changed from (19)64 on. Because prior to that it was certainly a lot different. Rock and roll was already here. But certainly the Beatles changed things. And the folk singers. And how important, not only your thoughts on the music of the year, how important it was to the young people and especially with the messages that it portrayed and your personal favorites and why. TG (01:09:18): Okay. My personal favorites. Dylan, Joan Baez, Judy Collins, Leonard Cohen, Otis Redding. [inaudible] to who. Would be therein. That would be about. That is my list. That is my brother, too. SM (01:09:37): In the movement? What part did they play on in the movement? How- TG (01:09:44): In the political movement? SM (01:09:45): Yeah. How important was for that movement? TG (01:09:48): The only ones who were important in the political movement are Dylan and Joan Baez. SM (01:09:53): Any people in the movement can of just listen to the words they were capturing the time. TG (01:09:57): Just listen to the words now. SM (01:09:58): No. I met them on the music, but the music and the words. But... TG (01:10:01): Oh, yeah. SM (01:10:02): They kind of have sense of excitement and they had some passion. Phil Ochs was on that category too, was not he? TG (01:10:09): Yes, sir. SM (01:10:10): But was a figure. Yeah. Couple more names and we will be done. Woodward and Bernstein. Thoughts on that? TG (01:10:26): Reporters. Credit for what they did. They did real reporting and they were bold and they were right. So very important. SM (01:10:34): Richard Daley. TG (01:10:37): Nice. For the... SM (01:10:37): For mayors. What is very important? TG (01:10:42): Daley was rhetoric. Very, very limited man. Boss. SM (01:10:57): Okay, so then Daniel Ellsberg. TG (01:11:03): Ellsberg was an authentic hero. Okay. After many substitutes he did a very bold thing. And what he did had an impact. Personally courageous. Ellsberg year is a much more [inaudible] than... SM (01:11:25): Gandhi. TG (01:11:25): The first whistleblower. SM (01:11:33): I mean, first. I mean there were others in the past, but in other words, that is the first one I remember. TG (01:11:35): [inaudible] SM (01:11:44): He kind of, I asked right, was in the next [inaudible]. About the people around Richard Dixon is John Mitchell, Ehrlichman, Haldeman in that group. TG (01:11:49): Thugs. SM (01:11:52): Vietnam veterans yesterday told them Gestapo. TG (01:11:53): Well, I think that is silly. They are not Nazis. But these are very small people. SM (01:12:08): Again, the reason why I bring these names up, these are names that came of prominence during the... Actually the ones in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s, the names stand. And the last one I have is Sam Ervin. The old gentleman there who ran the... TG (01:12:22): Sam Ervin represents the best of American Constitutionalism. [inaudible] way. SM (01:12:27): Are there any figures that have not been mentioned that you think should be mentioned when you can look at, I want to say I got the people that stand out of that era. Is there one that is missing that I have not... I know for example, I could have said all the big four of the Civil Rights Movement. Roy Wilkins and Whitney Young and James Farmer. I could have included that, but I am trying to... TG (01:12:48): I think very well of them. I especially I think well of Farmer. I think Farmer is a great man. Who has fully understood. Farmer's instincts were brilliant and he has a long history that most people are aware of [inaudible] on or something. I understand he is quite ill and in bad shaped. I know there was a bit of some hope to get him a congressional medal of honor, but has not happened. SM (01:13:20): On several years back that picked him up at the Wilmington train station. He was blind. TG (01:13:25): Yeah. SM (01:13:26): But he was okay every other way. The mental capabilities were strong. And we put him up with the holiday in and gave a great speech. Tremendous. He had not lost any... The vigor that was in his voice. The strength was still there. The passion. TG (01:13:40): I am glad to hear it. He was a great speaker. I can hear him speech. SM (01:13:44): We have that on tape, too. And I will never forget this, Doctor... When I took him to train station, I asked him as, "Are there any words of advice that you could give me in terms of my everyday work here in relationship with the university?" And I bring in speakers and all he... Because I had spent a day with him and I expected him to give me a long... Well, this is what you should do and that should do because we are killing time waiting for the train. And he said some two words, "Carry on." And as a result of that, in all my letters, and I will probably send it to you too, the grand of my letters, I always say carry on. Because I really admire what people do and how they live their lives. And those are the greatest two words that anybody can feel in that is to carry on, especially when working for others and caring for others. So it is one of those anecdotes, it is one of my metaphors, it is part of my metaphor. I am basically done. Are there any thoughts that you would to conclude here, that you would like to say regarding that group of young people in that era, in American history? That even though to us, it does not seems like only yesterday, but here it is, 1997 and to young people, it is like a century era. Any other final thoughts? TG (01:15:09): Well you are asking the guy written, depending on how you want to calculate it, three books about the (19)60s. Do I have any more to say? Lots of articles. Give a lot of talks. No. I do not know any more else. SM (01:15:27): I want to thank you for taking time out of your schedule. Really appreciate it. TG (01:15:29): [inaudible] SM (01:15:29): Do you mind if I take some pictures? (End of Interview) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Todd Gitlin Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Gitlin, Todd ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Sociologists; Authors, American--20th century; College teachers; Columbia University; Gitlin, Todd--Interviews Description An account of the resource <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Todd Gitlin is a sociologist, educator, political writer, novelist, cultural commentator, and author of sixteen books. He wrote about mass media, politics, intellectual life and the arts, for both popular and scholarly publications. He currenlty is a professor of Journalism and Sociology and chair of the Ph. D. program in Communications at Columbia University. He received his Bachelor's degree in Mathematics from Harvard College and earned his Mater's degree from the University of Michigan in Political Science, and his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley in Sociology.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13311,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:1},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,4884200],&quot;5&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;6&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;7&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;8&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;9&quot;:0,&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">Dr. Todd Gitlin (1943-2022) was a sociologist, educator, political writer, novelist, cultural commentator, and author of sixteen books. He wrote about mass media, politics, intellectual life and the arts, for both popular and scholarly publications. He was a professor of Journalism and Sociology and chair of the Ph. D. program in Communications at Columbia University. He received his Bachelor's degree in Mathematics from Harvard College and earned his Master's degree from the University of Michigan in Political Science, and his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley in Sociology.</span> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-07-23 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.192a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.192b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 75:34 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/85675ac05b2f4469cd57b606563e498e.jpg ae68d53a4e584ba1d6bf13ef7fe11670 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/227288819d85c1196f5c5cd15ecfe6fd.mp3 f701598fe1945579dcd2245f69a9a4d3 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 1997-09-03 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen Mckiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Anthony Campolo Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Tony Campolo is a speaker, author, sociologist, pastor, social activist, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University and former faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Campolo was a spiritual advisor to U.S. President Bill Clinton. He has a Bachelor's degree from Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary at Eastern College and a Ph.D. in Sociology from Temple University.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:5003,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,5099745],&quot;6&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;}">Dr. Tony Campolo is a speaker, author, sociologist, pastor, social activist, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University and former faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Campolo was a spiritual advisor to U.S. President Bill Clinton. He has a Bachelor's degree from Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary at Eastern College and a Ph.D. in Sociology from Temple University.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data MicroCassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Generational gap; Ethics; Baby boom generation; Protest; Religion; Cambodian invasion; Vietnam draft; Lottery; Healing; Vietnam War; War photos; Richard Nixon; Gerald Ford.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:3,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:13228792}}">Generational gap; Ethics; Baby boom generation; Protest; Religion; Cambodian invasion; Vietnam draft; Lottery; Healing; Vietnam War; War photos; Richard Nixon; Gerald Ford.</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 54:28 Subject LCSH Authors; Clergy; Sociologists; Political activists--United States; Campolo, Anthony--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Tony Campolo Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 15 July 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:01): Dr. Campolo, the first question I would like to ask is in recent days, and in fact in recent years, there has been a lot of criticism of the Boomer generation in terms of blaming a lot of the problems of today's society on Boomers. Oftentimes we might hear a question, Newt Gingrich on the floor of Congress making generalizations about Boomers. George Will might write an article on the entire generation, blaming this group, that grew up in that era, for the problems of the breakup of the American family, including the divorce rate, the increase of drugs, the lack of respect for authority, and things like that. I would love to hear your thoughts on the Boomer generation and whether that criticism is a fair judgment of this 65 plus million. TC (00:53): I feel that the Boomer generation did rebel against authority. I think that it was a rebellion that perhaps was justified in some respects and in other respects it was not. The (19)60s, particularly, were a period where America was struggling to figure out what is right and what is wrong. [inaudible] Older people had absolute values of right and wrong when it came to personal behavior, and they were absolutistic about sexual activity, about what was right and what was wrong. They had absolute values about personal honesty. They had absolute values about respect, all those things that you mentioned. However, they abandoned any concept of absolute values and grappled with what, at the time, would have to be called situational ethics when it came to societal affairs. Case in point, civil rights, they would say, "Well, of course it is wrong to be discriminating against African American people." They would have said Black people, but it is not as simple as all of that. You got to consider the situation. We did not get into this mess overnight. We are not going to get out-out of this mess overnight. To expect immediate change, to expect that we are going to do everything right immediately on this issue is expecting far too much. We have to in fact be gradualists, very, very much into the situational ethic value system. The same thing can be said about the board in Vietnam. No one ever asked the question as to whether it was right or wrong. I do not think you could ask the older generation how we ever got into that war or what it was all about. There was a sense, however, that whether it's right or wrong, we need to stand behind our president. We have to stand behind our brave soldiers. Even if they are wrong, we must support them. And thus, the question was never, "Was the Vietnam War right, or was the Vietnam War wrong?" The question was always, "Are we going to stand behind the president and are we going to stand behind our soldiers, or are we going to be disloyal?" So, the issue was never phrased in terms of morality. It was phrased in terms of loyalty. This set up a conflict in which each generation accused the other of being immoral. The older generation said to the Boomers, "Look at you. You are smoking marijuana. You are sleeping around. You have rejected the sexual morays and values of our generation. You are libertine. You are immoral." The younger generation was saying to the older generation, "Look at you. You have maintained racial segregation. You oppress women. You propagate a war that is immoral without ever asking any questions about it." So that each generation was accusing the other of being immoral and there was a lack of respect across the line because neither group saw either the good or the evil, who never saw the good in those that stood against them, nor the evil in their own position. I do not think the older generation really understood the evil of maintaining a political economic system that fostered injustice, nor did the kids really understand the evil of deviating from moral patterns that their parents had established. There was a sense in which the kids saw the moral bankruptcy of the older generation on societal issues and hence felt that those people in the older generation had no moral authority with which to speak to them. To a large degree, I think that is right. I think that in fact, we lost our moral authority in their eyes because of our very refusal to deal with the social issues of our time in moral categories. We were very pragmatic, we were very realistic. We were very situational ethics oriented, and our kids lost respect for us, and that was the thing that gave them, I think, a sense that they had the right to create their own morality. SM (06:33): Very good. I got one follow-up. It is working. As a follow-up to this, if you were to look in 1997 at the Boomer generation, and Boomers are just hitting the age of 50, Bill Clinton is a forerunner of this. We also realize on some of the interviews that I have been doing that it is hard to define a generation, because people of 55 that I know in this process feel like they are closer to the Boomers than those that the younger Boomers might be, and Boomers being those born between 1946 and (19)64. If you are to look at the overall impact right now that the Boomers have had on America, could you give me again just a brief listing of the positive qualities of the Boomers, maybe some adjectives, and some negative qualities of Boomers, adjectives, knowing that Boomers are still right in their prime now and they still have many more years to live and produce? TC (07:25): I think the positive side was that they incarnated the best traits of liberalism. They were in favor of ending racism, sexism. They never really dealt with the gay issue in any significant way, although their openness to gay people was the beginning of the movement for gay and lesbian rights. They had a belief [inaudible] the government could be an instrument through which a just society could be created. They believed in the positive potentialities of political power. I do not think anybody believes in that anymore. I do not think we really see political power as something with positive potentialities. I think we almost see political power these days as a necessary evil that needs to be restrained and constrained. But in that era, they really believed that government could do things. They were the people who gave birth to the environmentalist movement. It's no surprise to me that a Gore and a Clinton should be such strong environmentalists, and an older man like Bob Dole does not quite get it. Decent to the core, but never really could grasp what all the fuss was on the environmental issue. I think that this generation, the Boomers also saw the evils that were inherent in corporate capitalism, and were suspicious of big business, and really raised questions as to whether or not we could have it just society unless big business was in some way constrained. Could we clean up the environment without restraining big business? I think of how they would have reacted if the information about the cigarette industry would have surfaced in the (19)60s rather than the (19)90s. There would have been an uproar on campuses. There would have been a furor that, beneath the surface, this is evil at its worst level. Corporate executives sitting around the table having concrete evidence that they have a product that is going to kill 450,000 Americans in any given year, and for the sake of profit repressing, suppressing that information. To me, the (19)60s, the Boomer generation, when they were in their collegiate years would have march, screamed, yelled, and would have, in fact, used that as a cause celebrity for bringing down the establishment. This is what American capitalism is about. I can just hear them. So, I think that that was their good side, that they saw the evils of corporate capitalism. They believed in government, they were idolists, and they really did believe that a better world was a social possibility. They believed they really could create a better world. SM (11:28): Negatives? TC (11:31): First of all, their values had no religious grounding. And I do not say that just because I am a religious person myself, but there was nothing beyond their own sense of right and wrong that legitimated their cause. They did not hear it. They did not hear a distant drummer. And so, when they marched out of step with others, they did so out of an existential decision, rather than out of a sense of oughtness from God. For instance, when I meet my friends from that generation, I recognize that many of them have given up and their response was, "You cannot change the system." And they gave up because their confidence was in themselves. And when they failed, there was no power to lean on beyond themselves. Religious people, on the other hand, I am talking about friends of mine like Jim Wallis. SM (12:50): He wrote a book. TC (12:50): Yeah. SM (12:51): On [inaudible], yeah. TC (12:52): The Soul of Politics SM (12:52): W-A-L-L-I-S. It is- TC (12:55): Yeah. But Jim is a guy who was active during the (19)60s. He is still active today. I would fall into the same category. It is an interesting thing, about a year and a half, two years ago, rather, it is a year and a half ago now, a group of us went down and protested the change in the welfare bill and were arrested in the capitol building. But the thing that was so interesting was that we were all older people. It was not the younger people that were there. There were elderly women given their... You went to court, as we had to explain why we did this, what happened? Why were not the young people there of this generation, number one? Number two is why we are the only people there to get arrested? Religious people, every one of us spoke out of a religious value system, so much so that the judge that hurt our case could say, "Instead of putting you in jail, I am going to ask you each to write an essay on why your religious convictions led you to stand against the government at this particular point." The fact that only the religious people are left, and the reason is that we recognize that the struggle is not a 20th century struggle, but the struggle is as old as the human race. And the calling to struggle is a calling from a God who transcends time and space. And hence we keep on struggling because we sense this higher calling and if we lose a battle and we lose more battles than we win, we lose battles in a cause that ultimately triumphs, which is what religion is all about. We do not have to see victory. I think the Boomer generation had to see victory. Victory would validate their efforts. And when they did not see victory, they did not have validation for their causes and hence gave up. And now they are selling stocks on Wall Street and have become part of that very establishment that they were so hard against. I think that the younger generation, that the Boomer generation to a large degree, was spoiled in the sense of being spoiled kids. In a sense, maybe more spoiled than this contemporary generation, because they were the last generation that knew that if they got a college education, there was a lot of money to be made after graduation. They never doubted that they were employable. They never doubted that the establishment would take them in on their own terms. This generation knows if they want to get a job, they would better play the ball game as the establishment prescribes it. I think another sense, I remember when the Cambodian invasion took place, there was a meeting at the Palestra at the University of Penn, and one student after another stood up and spoke against Nixon, the government, and all of that stuff, and a young man who is very religious but very radical stood, and he said, "How many of you believe in God?" Which seemed strange in the midst of this anti-war furor, and very few hands went up. He said, "We are the only ones who have a right to protest this war. And the reason is simple. If there is no God, then the highest law, according to the social contract theory, is the will of the people. Well, the people have spoken, they voted in Richard Milhous Nixon for a second turn. The American people want to pursue this war. We are a minority who oppose it. In a society like ours, we either have to win the election, which we did not, or go along with what the majority has prescribed. On the other hand, if you are religious, you never have to go along with the majority, because you are obligated not to the social contract, but to a biblical revelation." Strong point. And so, they were not grounded in anything beyond themselves. They were spoiled. They looked for, they had to succeed. They marched down to Washington like Joshua's army, marched around the city, blew their horns, and when the walls did not come tumbling down, they went home like spoiled little kids saying, "Darn it, they did not listen to us." So that is the negative side. SM (18:03): It is interesting and just a commentary for you in the next question, why is it? You know, I am of that generation, and I know that night when Nixon gave that- TC (18:10): Yeah. SM (18:11): ...speech on Cambodia because it was April 30th, 1970. TC (18:12): That is right. SM (18:14): And I broke my arm that night. It was my senior year at SUNY Binghamton, and it was two, well, weeks away from graduation. And I was in the operating room at the point that that invasion was taking place. And our campus was just being torn apart before graduation. And I will never forget being in the hospital a couple days later, the doctor, I was in a terrible accident, who saved my arm, and I had the magazine that my parents had brought in of the girls sitting over the Jeff Miller, and the doctor saying, "I wish they would kill all those damn students." And this is the doctor that saved my arm. And it was at that juncture that I knew I had to get in higher ed because of the lack of communication. TC (18:54): But I think that Cambodian invasion showed both the best and the worst of us. We stood against injustice and the obscenity of bombing people who wanted nothing more than the right of self-determination. It also revealed the phoniness of us. I was at Penn teaching on the faculty there at the time. They called off final exams. They probably did at your school as well. SM (19:20): They did. TC (19:21): And the purpose of calling off final exams was that students could participate, so that they could talk over the issues, so that they could develop a strategy for changing America. That was the lofty reason for calling off the exams. If you remember, the day they called off the exams, everybody got in their cars and drove home. SM (19:42): I was in the operating room. TC (19:43): Yeah. Well, that is what happened. SM (19:44): Yeah. TC (19:44): That is what happened. The discussion ended at that point, and they shouted and said, "How can you have final exams when we must deal with these issues? How can you have final exams at this time of crisis?" And so, the administration's capitulated and said, "You are right. You are right. We must, in fact, call off exams so that the students can come together and talk, and discuss, and come up with a strategy." They called off exams and the next day everybody was gone, which said beneath this veneer of concern was really not as deep a commitment to social justice as appeared on the surface. SM (20:20): See, some of the individuals that interviewed, just your thought on this that when the draft, because one of the big things was to end the draft, and again, Boomers, when they felt that that they had one on that issue, that there were no other issues. And even though knowing that, at this particular juncture in time, in 1970, the evolution of the women's movement, the gay and lesbian movement, the Native American movement, well, Latino Chicano movement, they were all around that timeframe. TC (20:49): There is no question that it diffused a lot of the concerns, but I have to say that the anti-war movement predated the initiation of the draft. The anti-war movement, if you trace it out historically, basically before they were ever drafting for Vietnam in any way, there were strong protests emerging on campus. The teach-ins started very, very early on, I would say late (19)50s, early (19)60s, the teach-ins were already taking place. So, when the draft was instituted, that stimulated concern, because all of a sudden, "This is going to involve us." But even then, in the early stages of the draft, there was no real problem for students, because students were exempt, as you may recall. SM (21:45): Students. TC (21:46): And yet, even though students were exempt, the protest movements against the war were still in pretty high gear. When, of course, the lottery was introduced, then it took on higher proportions. There is no question that the lottery, and which brought in the drafting of young people who were in college threw fuel under the fire, but it was pretty intense opposition to the war long before it. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons for the lottery, intriguingly enough, if you go back and trace it, was that the students themselves were calling for it. They were arguing that the war was incredibly racist because the white students were away at the universities and exempt, leaving the inner-city Blacks as the only people left to draft. And so, there was a strong protest theme that the draft has to end because it is a genocide. Instead of them ending the draft, Nixon said, "You are right, it is racist. Therefore, we will start drafting college students, too." It was not exactly the result of the protest that they- SM (23:05): Todd- TC (23:05): ...imagined. SM (23:05): ...Gitlin did not say that. TC (23:06): What is that? SM (23:07): Todd Gitlin did not say that when I interviewed him. He would not, probably. He got a- TC (23:14): What would he say? SM (23:14): You know Todd Gitlin? TC (23:14): Yeah. SM (23:15): Because he still is a firm believer that any of those individuals that were in the movement on the left were right on everything. TC (23:25): Well, they may have- SM (23:28): And he has not changed at all. But you- TC (23:30): That is interesting. SM (23:31): ...raised a good point because, you see, what you are bringing up something that someone else has not said, and that is great about this project, is that, you know, we are getting different perceptions on- TC (23:40): Hmm. SM (23:40): ...different questions. If you were to look at the issue of healing, now, one of the concerns that I have seen at the Vietnam Memorial, I have gone down there the last five, six years at the Memorial itself, and tried to get a grasp on whether there has been healing within the Vietnam veterans, and maybe even the people who come to the wall who are not veterans. I would like your thoughts on the Vietnam Memorial that was put together in that was opened in 1982, your thoughts on its impact on America, whether the job that it has done with respect to healing within the Vietnam veterans themselves and in the Boomer generation. TC (24:19): Well, on a psychological level, I am sure that the wall in Washington has had- SM (24:28): Would you like some water? TC (24:29): No, thanks. SM (24:29): No? TC (24:30): ... has had very positive therapeutic effects. To see these veterans that are weeping at the wall, leaving their medals there, in many instances, reaching out and touching the names of their comrades, all of this has had tremendous therapeutic value on a psychological level. I am sure there are social consequences for that. But I would dare say there is no healing on a societal level about Vietnam, that those who are convinced it was right are more convinced than ever. And those that are convinced it was wrong are more convinced than ever. A good example of this is the whole attitude system towards Bill Clinton, who opposed the war on moral grounds. Once again, the question is not whether was he right? Was he wrong? The question was he was not a loyal American. That is what the American Legion says about him. The question is not morality, the question is loyalty. And he was not "a loyal American." And they are still couching it in those terms. The fact that the President of the United States opposed the war on moral grounds, he was not draftable anyway, he was at Oxford. He was a student. He did not avoid the draft. People seem to forget that he did not do anything different than any other college student in America did. But in the midst of all of that, he said, "I am not going, but because I am not going to be drafted." But, on the other hand, and this is the big issue, "This war is wrong." And I find that all across America, the conservative political establishment still says, "We do not care whether it was right or wrong." We just know that you were over there at Oxford and you criticized the US government." That is where we are. And I do not know that there is going to be any social healing on this issue. And there can be no healing for the same reason why, on the individual level, there can be no healing until there is confession. If you're psychologically messed up because of something that happened 20 years ago, you got to get that out on the table. You got to talk about it. If you did something wrong, you got to repent of it. You got to set things right. You cannot simply repress the past. You have repressed Vietnam. I could go out there tonight and ask a very simple question of all your students. "Can anybody tell us what the Geneva Accord of (19)54 said and how that became the basis for war in Vietnam?" And there will not be one out there that will know, not a one. And these are educated people. We have done what the Japanese have done, we have written out of history those things that we would as soon forget. And so, you look at a Japanese textbook for a high school student, and you are amazed. They were the victims of America. They do not acknowledge the fact that they bombed Pearl Harbor. They do not acknowledge the fact that they invaded. It is all forgotten. And history is rewritten in such a way that they repress these things. And only recently, there are those in Japan who are saying, if we are ever going to heal the wounds of World War II, we have got to face up to our responsibility as a nation. Well, what we are saying, it is about time that Japanese do. My response is it is about time that America does, that we, in fact, still suffer from a guilty conscience because down, deep inside of people, there is an awareness that something went on there that was terribly wrong. We dropped more bombs on this little country than was dropped on all the rest of the world during all of World War II. We used chemical warfare, Agent Orange. We devastated the land. For what? What was the point? And if you were to go out there and say, "Did you know that the whole war was about trying to keep a free election from taking place?" Which is what it was about. The Accord of (19)54 guaranteed a free election in (19)58, and the people in Washington at that time knew that there was a free election in Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh would have been elected overwhelmingly. And so, we went to war to save people from voting, because if they voted, democracy would end. The incongruity of that. And if you went out there and- [inaudible] SM (29:53): Out there and asked the students. TC (29:54): They would not know that. And yet, that is history. So, we really have to say that, in that sense, these things, there will not be any healing. The healing will not take place because America is not ready to face up to what it is done. And I think it cannot face up to what it's done for a very important reason. A generation or two will have to pass away before we can face up to it. Senator Kerry gave a speech before the US Senate hearings on Vietnam when he was- SM (30:38): Senator from Nebraska? TC (30:39): No, the senator from- SM (30:40): Massachusetts. TC (30:40): ...Massachusetts. SM (30:40): Okay. TC (30:41): ...when he was the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and he was still in his uniform, he was still a soldier. I think he never has reached the pinnacle of greatness in that speech which will go down in history as one of the great speeches of history, as he said to the US Senate committee hearing, "How do you tell the last- " Peggy (31:06): "How do you ask a man to be the last- " TC (31:06): "How you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam?" That is a good question. "How do you say to the families of 50,000 men who lost their lives there, 'It was a waste.' How do you tell them that? How do you tell them that they gave their lives, not only for nothing?" Which I think they are beginning to realize now. "Hey, our sons died, and what happened? Nothing." "But worse than that, your sons went over and died in order to perpetuate injustice. How do you tell American? How do you tell hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people who gave their finest and their best to this country they believed in, that not only was it in vain, it was worse than that, that their sons became the instrument of death for three million innocent people? How do you tell them that? That is the truth and how can there be healing when nobody faces the truth?" SM (32:23): You look at the Vietnam War, why did it end? How important were students on college campuses? How important was Middle America witnessing the body bags coming home on national television? Jack Smith said the reason why the war ended was because middle America finally saw what was happening. That was his thought. I interviewed him. But I have had different thoughts. TC (32:46): I do not know why it ended. I think that the American people, of course, demanded that it end, that, at a particular point, even Richard Milhous Nixon was trying to figure out how to end the war and he was the one that ultimately did. But let me just say that when I look at the end of the war, it never really ended. It just petered out. They closed in on the embassy, and we got on our helicopters, and we flew away, and there were nothing left. Nobody wants to face this. The war ended for one primary reason. We lost it. SM (33:31): [inaudible] that. TC (33:32): You do not ask the German people. "Why do you think World War II ended?" The answer is, "The Russians entered Berlin and the Yankees met them on the other side. It was over because we were destroyed." Please understand that the last image that I have of the war in Vietnam is a helicopter taking off and people hanging onto it, trying to get out, the Marines making their last escape. It was not like Hong Kong, where the British pulled down the flag, saluted, turned the country over. We left in the context of sheer chaos, and defeat, and confusion. The very fact that you asked the question is evidence to me why there will not be any healing. We have not faced the fact that not only were we involved in something that was totally immoral, but we are refusing to face the fact that we lost it. We are still kidding ourselves to think that we had a ceremony in which we decided to walk away. There was nothing left of us. They wiped out everything. They closed in, it was over. SM (34:47): Yeah. It is- TC (34:48): Then, when you ask, "Why do you think the war ended?" Answer, "We lost." SM (34:54): You are the first person to say that in 41 interviews. TC (34:56): Stop to think about it. Did not make any difference whether you were for the war or against the war. Ford was the President when it finally all fell apart. And when it happened, he introduced into Congress a bill to make another effort. And even the right-wingers voted him down. "We are out of there. It is over. It is done. It is kerplunk." What is it about this country, that we cannot face the fact that we sin and that we lose? Must we always be righteous and must we always win? SM (35:40): I want to get back to something. When I was young and a lot of people late (19)60s and early (19)70s, the Boomers who protested against the war, those got involved in many of the movements, used to always talk amongst ourselves, that, "We are the most unique generation of American history. The most unique generation of American history." As a person, I still feel we were personally, that is just- TC (36:00): Because you were. SM (36:00): ...my feeling. But your thoughts on that kind of an attitude, that many of that generation of our generation felt? And then you look at as they have gotten older, and you have already made some commentary about the idealism of their youth waned because they wanted to make money on Wall Street. So, your thoughts on, well, we have had some people who said that, "World War II was the most unique generation of American industry. They fought a war. They won a war, they beat Hitler." TC (36:30): Yeah. SM (36:30): So, it is just your thought. TC (36:30): I think it is wonderful. But we won other wars before. Up until the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was the climax of something that began during Eisenhower's years. Peggy and I are old enough to remember something you do not remember. It was the U-2 episode. You have no idea what the U-2 episode told us. President of the United States said, "We do not spy. America does not spy." Can you imagine that? Can you imagine a president standing up and saying, "We do not spy. The Russians spy. We do not have spies." And guess what? We believed him. All of America believed Eisenhower when he said that. And the thing is that they dragged out Powers. We will always remember him. And they stood him up in front of the camera, and they said, "What were you doing?" "I was flying a spy plane." Think of the naïvete that we had, that we, as Americans, did not spy. I remember being in school in U-2, when they said, "Do you know what? People in places like Russia, when they read the newspaper, they cannot be sure that what they're reading is true. Aren't you glad that you live in a country where, when you pick up the newspaper, everything you read is true?" You refuse to believe that. But that was not just Peggy and me, that was all of America. We were the nation that did not lie. We were the nation that did not spy. We were the nation that did not commit sins. "America, America, God shed His grace on thee." We were the new Israel. We were the City on the Hill. We were the best hope for democracy. We were the people who were the free. America was the kingdom of God realized in history, and we believed it. We really believed it. And starting with Eisenhower, the disillusionment began to set in. And then beyond that, the cracks began to occur. "Was Jefferson really the wonderful man we thought he was, or did he have slaves? And was Washington really all that good? And what about Lincoln? Well, he abolished slavery. Did not you really believe in the inferiority of Black people?" And suddenly, Eldridge Cleaver wrote a book, Soul on Ice, that was crucial, in which he said, "The heroes of America are falling. We do not believe in them anymore." These heroes played the roles role of saints. They were the embodiment of all that was good, and true, and wonderful. Suddenly they were not that wonderful. Suddenly American was a spying nation, just like the Russians. And suddenly we realized that our newspapers lied to us. We could not believe what we read. And the disillusionment began to set in. And Vietnam was the clash between one generation that was the end of an era, the end of the age of innocence. I am not the first to coin that phrase. The end of the age of innocence. And the (19)60s and the Boomers were the beginning of the age of cynicism. And that was the clash between the two. This generation that came along called the Boomers just did not believe. Think of the songs. (singing) Do you know that song? SM (40:24): Mm-mm. TC (40:29): See, I do not think you can understand this here unless you understand music. I think Pete Seeger, Tom Paxton, Joan Baez defined the age, the transition came with The Beatles, who made social revolution into a private thing. "You got to get your own head together." That was their message. "Forget the world, get your own head together." But here were the songs of the year. (singing) See the cynicism right at the end? (singing) The cynicism right at the end. (singing) And this song by Tom Paxton. (singing) I remember this song. SM (41:32): That is my [inaudible]. TC (41:32): You remember that song? SM (41:35): Yes. TC (41:36): "But you must teach me, Sergeant, for I have never killed before." Ooh. "Tell me about the hand grenade. Does it tear a man to pieces with its ... " And people were singing those songs. Bob Dylan singing, "The times- " SM (41:54): They are a-changin' TC (41:54): " ... they are a-changin'." Your sons and your daughters are beyond your control. There is a new value system out there, a new way of looking at things. We do not believe in you anymore. We do not believe in what you are teaching us. We do not believe in your sense of American history. We are not even sure we believe in American anymore. SM (42:12): I know Country Joe and the Fish was another group that sang, and in fact, country, Joe and the Fish did an album recently on Vietnam. TC (42:20): Yeah, it was an incredible era in which the music called everything into question. "Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes made of ticky tack." You remember those? SM (42:37): Mm-hmm. TC (42:37): The suburban dream that we all had. World War II, we were all going to buy a house in the suburbs. And suddenly, as Pete Seeger says, "What is this suburban community? Little houses on the hilltop, and people made of ticky tack and they all drink their martinis dry." SM (42:54): You made a very good observation, because most Boomers, and I being one, and others feel that the beginning of the change in the attitude of Boomers was assassination of John Kennedy. A Camelot, the idealism, "Ask for not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." And you make a very good analysis here by saying, "A lot of the things in terms of cynicism started with Eisenhower." TC (43:16): Yeah. SM (43:17): The lies. And again, of course the free speech movement really began on the Berkeley campus in 1963. And they saw authority, just, they were not allowed to do something on a college campus. It spread nationwide, and young people got involved, freedom summer of (19)64 and so forth. But your thoughts, you have already talked about Eisenhower, but if you were to pick one major event that you think had the greatest impact on Boomer lives in their youth, what is that event? TC (43:46): Martin Luther King's death, maybe, if they were old enough to remember that, had America going up on flames. It had to be a defining moment. SM (43:58): We will finish up. It is 7:30. TC (44:00): Yeah. SM (44:00): I got a lot of questions, but I am at fault because you got our communication [inaudible 00:]. TC (44:04): But I think that would be a key thing for me, was the death of Martin Luther King. And the reaction to that was not a reaction of, "Let us go on from here and carry out his ideals." The reaction to that was total frustration, the total polarization of the Black and white communities. Up until that time, we were singing Black and White (Together). You remember that song? S M (44:33): Mm-hmm. TC (44:35): (singing) Peggy (44:35): [inaudible] we shall overcome. TC (44:36): We shall overcome, yeah. Suddenly, it was Black separatism, power now, and the Black people basically moved on the scene. This was the era when Muhammad Ali suddenly emerges on the scene and says, "I am not going to fight this war in Vietnam. So I got nothing against those people." You know? SM (44:58): Mm-hmm. TC (45:00): "And why should I fight to protect this America, this white America, that has trashed me and trashed my people? And we listened to him because there was a sincerity about him that could not be ignored. All of America saw a sincerity. Even those that despised him, despised him because of his sincerity. But I think that the death of Martin Luther King was the watershed for most young people, in which they had the sense that there would not be a peaceful, democratic solution to the agonies that were tearing this country apart. SM (45:44): This leads me into a question dealing with the issue of trust. Do you think we will ever be able to trust again? Now, you made reference to Eisenhower, and certainly, we know what happened with Watergate, and we saw what McNamara did, and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, President Johnson was not really honest with the American public. So, we had a succession of leaders not being, and just basically- TC (46:07): Bipartisan. SM (46:09): ... crooks. And as young people, as growing up, they see this. And certainly, maybe the first lies we are seeing with Eisenhower lying to the public. Just your overall thoughts about trust, and then, most importantly, when we look at today's young people, the people that you are going to be talking to tonight in this audience, I do not think they trust. And so, where have the Boomer parents been, raising their kids? TC (46:31): My argument would be that cynicism had its raise in [inaudible] the (19)60s, but cynicism has now taken on a life of its own. Cynicism is cool. It was a cheap excuse for ignorance. Namely, you have students in a campus who want to look sophisticated. They have not read anything. They do not know anything. But if they walk around with an air of cynicism, it will be a cheap duplication of intelligence. "But I do not believe in politics." "Why," should be the question. "Because they are all a bunch of liars." "Oh? What is the empirical evidence that you have rounded up for that?" They have no reason for their cynicism? It is cynicism without a hook to hang it on. And it's part of the cultural milieu. It is part of what goes with being cool. And if you want to be cool on Westchester's campus, you better act cynical. And if you cannot explain the faces of your cynicism, that is all right. You can put people off simply by using obscenities like, "It's all a lot of bullshit." That is their word, bullshit. Everything's bullshit. And they sound like they have been there, and back, and they know it all. They have read it. They have experienced life. They know what life is all about. The truth is they do not know anything. It has become part of a garb that displays itself as intelligence when in fact it is just a cool way to be. And when cynicism is admired, the cynic should always be cynical, with tears in his eyes, not with the sneer on his lips. The cynic says, "I cannot believe in America anymore." And the tears are running down his cheeks because he cannot believe anymore. But to do it with an arrogant sneer, that, of course, is unbefitting any human being. SM (49:07): I am going to close over this question. The final question was going to be actually asking you a lot of names, here, and just getting your response, but I think the basic thrust of what I am after is in the meat of the interview in the beginning. I want to get into your thoughts on the concept of empowerment. Going back again to when Boomers were young, there was a feeling, a sense that, "We can be the change agents for the betterment of society, that we could possibly be the ones to end the war, that we could be the ones to bring Black people and white people together," you know, "because we see the injustices in- " TC (49:38): Mm-hmm. SM (49:38): " ...society, the injustices against women, injustices against gay and lesbians," all that whole period. Just your thoughts on this concept of empowerment that supposedly so many Boomers had as when they were young, and what has happened with a concept of empowerment today as they have gone into adulthood. TC (50:01): Well, I think that the best example of that may be with Bill Bradley, who still believes in the ideals of the (19)60s. I think he is really the best example of the answer to your question. He thought if he went to Washington and became a senator, and maybe even president, he could change things from the top down. He has not given up the idea of empowering people. "But you do not empower people," he is concluded, and I have talked to about this, "by seizing control of the government and doing what is right from the top down. Empowerment begins from the bottom up." And so, he has now gone on to identify with the communitarian movement. "And what we need to do is we need to people together on the grassroots level. We need town meetings. We need to gather people together in a given neighborhood, and have them exchange ideas, and determine what is best for their neighborhood. We need to stop looking to Washington for the answers and start looking to ourselves for the answers." And there is the initiation, I would say, of a whole new politic in America, that maybe is going to be led by the Boomers, who said, "We took a shortcut. We really made a mistake. We said, 'The way for you to have power is to elect me, and I will make the decisions.' No, the way to make power is for me to step out of office." That is why I say Bill Bradley, as a model, is me to say, "The answer is not you elect me. See, you have power, now. No, you do not have power. If you elected me, I have power. And all you have done is given me power." I love Bradley's comment, "People do not live in a democracy just because they are able to elect their kings. If the person up top functions like a king, the fact that he got the crown through tradition and inheritance or that he was elected king makes no difference if he functions like a king." And so, you have a Bill Bradley that said, "I thought that the way for people to be empowered is for them to elect me. I now see that the way for the people to get power is for me to give up my office, and go back, and organize grassroots meetings to get people to seize control of their destinies. And if they cannot do it on a national and international level, at least they can do it on the community level." That is why organizations like Habitat for Humanity are thriving, because the X generation has picked up that theme. "We, too, want to change the world, but we're going to change it from the bottom up, not from the top down. We are not going to go to Washington and ask them to put in a new government housing program. We are going to build a house up the street and we're going to do it ourselves. And when it is done, we are going to look at it and say, 'See, we did not change the world, but there's one family now that has a house.'" And Habitat for Humanity now is picking up momentum. And I was on the executive committee of Habitat for Humanity in its earliest stages of development. And we thought it was great when we completed 1,000 houses a year. Now we're completing 50,000 houses a year across the country. It is picking up momentum all the time. And there is a bottom up change. And so when you go to Washington and hear the State of the Union address, there is Newt Gingrich wearing a Habitat for Humanity button on his lapel, and there's Bill Clinton wearing his Habitat for Humanity button on the lapel. Both of them are committed to Habitat for- SM (54:09): Democrat- TC (54:09): ...Humanity. SM (54:09): ... nd Republican alike. TC (54:10): Yeah. So whatever is going on up here, there is a sense that real power and real change is going to take place from the bottom up and not from the top down. And I think that is the great discovery of the X generation as opposed to the Boomers. SM (54:24): Well, thank you very much. TC (54:25): Okay. SM (54:25): I will let you get some- (End of Interview) Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Tony Campolo Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Campolo, Anthony ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Authors; Clergy; Sociologists; Political activists--United States; Campolo, Anthony--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Tony Campolo is a speaker, author, sociologist, pastor, social activist, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University and former faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Campolo was a spiritual advisor to U.S. President Bill Clinton. He has a Bachelor of Arts from Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary at Eastern College and a Ph.D. in Sociology from Temple University. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-09-03 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.62 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 113:55 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/bac1fef74b323b349e80a680e127c990.jpg dfc6695046460981748ce05b4e4cdd58 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/b268cfb34e5134e1d6285f64c254ebd3.mp3 993d90b7b9efe4d9510ea5c7155160c5 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2010-03-18 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed William L. O'Neill Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data MicroCassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. William O'Neill (1935-2016) was a historian, scholar, author and professor of history emeritus at Rutgers University. Dr. O'Neill was the author of more than a dozen books on subjects related to the twentieth century of American social and political history. He has a Bachelor's degree form the University of Michagan and earned his Master's and Ph.D. in History at the University of California, Berkeley.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13059,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">Dr. William O'Neill (1935-2016) was a historian, scholar, author, and professor of history emeritus at Rutgers University. Dr. O'Neill was the author of more than a dozen books on subjects related to the twentieth century of American social and political history. He has a Bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan and earned his Master's and Ph.D. in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. O'Neill is the recipient of&nbsp;the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award from Who's Who in America.&nbsp;</span> Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;AFDC; Welfare; Baby boom generation; Eugene McCarthy; communism; Red Scare; Women's Liberation Movement; Hippies.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:513,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;12&quot;:0}">AFDC; Welfare; Baby boom generation; Eugene McCarthy; communism; Red Scare; Women's Liberation Movement; Hippies.</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 199:22 Subject LCSH Historians; Scholars; Authors, American; College teachers; Rutgers University; United States—History—20th century; O'Neill, William L.--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: William O’Neill Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 18 March 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:03): Testing one, two. Here we go. Again, speak up. I remember I said that a couple of times and, oh, all right, here we go. What was America like from 1946 to (19)60 in the following areas, just your perceptions? I know when you wrote American High, you talked about that you looked at it more from a functional perspective as opposed to an idealistic perspective than a lot of the boomers may have thought. Because they were fairly critical, but when you think of the 19 from this (19)46 to 1960, I have got five categories here that I like. Just your thoughts on what was it like to be an African American during that timeframe? A female. What was family life like? Religion? Because I know people went to church a lot. My grandfather was a minister. The leaders that you thought were the most inspirational during that timeframe, there is a lot here, but these particular groups, because this is when boomers were born and right up to the time they went to junior high school. WO (00:01:27): Well, of course, I do not know much about what it was like to be an African American. Segregation was of course, universal in the north too, as well as the south. In the south, it was a matter of law, and they had savage punishments if you violated it, they were still lynching people. In the north was intensely segregated too, but in a non-violent way. It was not a matter of law, it was a matter of custom. Realtors would not sell or rent to Black people except in Black neighborhoods. Of course, their income compared to whites was extremely low. Their opportunities were very limited compared to what they later became. The big compensation, I think, for them, was that their family life was so much better than it is now. The divorce rate was slow, the illegitimate rate was low. This was an era of two parent Black families who generally stayed together for life and raised their children and under very difficult circumstances, but what has happened since that is the opportunities for blacks who have improved and enormously, but the Black family has disintegrated. Over 70 percent of Black children are born out of wedlock now. Most Black children do not have fathers. Well, they have them, but they do not know where they are kind of thing. I never know what if I were Black, how I would look at that because ... SM (00:03:02): Do you blame- WO (00:03:04): ... Have been great, but the losses have been big too. SM (00:03:06): Do you blame Lyndon Johnson for part of that? Because a lot of people criticize him for the welfare state, and even though the Great Society was, is praised over what he did in Vietnam, a lot of people are critical that really hurt the African American family, because that is the 1960s, '63 after Kennedy died, right, till (19)68. WO (00:03:34): Well, what enabled Black women to raise all these illegitimate children was welfare or aid to families with dependent children. That was the actual title aid to families with dependent children. That was eliminated under Bill Clinton in I think 1965 or 1995 or (19)96, so that program does not exist anymore. Women, again, in most states, three to five years of that kind of support, and then it is over. If welfare had been the cause of the Black families' disintegration, then it should be recreated by now, but of course it has not been. It clearly could not have been the principal factor. SM (00:04:21): Mm-hmm. How about women? What was it like? You have written about it to be a female in (19)46 to (19)60 in the (19)50s and late (19)40s. WO (00:04:32): Well, it was a tradeoff. Women were discriminated against but of course, until Betty Friedan came along with the Feminine Mystique, there was not a strong perception of that among anybody, including, I mean, I knew lots of women. I married one and they did not feel oppressed or discriminated against, although in fact they were not necessarily oppressed, but they were certainly discriminated against. It was difficult for, for example, when I was a student at the University of Michigan, and we all took this for granted in the 1950s, the ratio of men to women was two to one. That was not because the women had inferior qualifications. It was because the admission system was rigged so that a woman had to have superior qualifications to the average male who was admitted in order to get in. Of course, when it came to graduate school, medical school, law school, the discrimination's far worse there. When I- something I have never forgotten, when I entered graduate school at the University of California in Berkeley in 1957, they had an orientation meeting and there were maybe, I do not know, 100 students who had just been admitted. One of the senior faculty, a full professor addressed us and he said, this is a literal quote. He said, "If you are married or female, get out of this program. We only have room for serious scholars." If you were married or a woman, by definition, you could not be a serious scholar. There were women who got PhDs then and they had a terrifically difficult time finding jobs. Now, the plus side is, in those days, men earned, including working class men, but particularly working-class men and middle-class men, they earned enough money to support a family by themselves. A male's wages or salary were sufficient for him to support a wife and three children, I guess was the average at the time. The divorce rate was quite low compared to what it is now, about half what it is today. The tradeoff was yes, women were discriminated against, but more than we were all conscious of. In retrospect, you can see this much more clearly. I did not see it at all at the time and not [inaudible] and then when I started thinking about these things, I am sure it was an eye opener for lots of people, but the plus side was that although women were discriminated against, for the most part, for most of them, they were able to marry, have children, be supported by their husband and stay married to their husband. It was a lifelong deal, and many of them did not think it was that bad a deal. SM (00:07:48): Some of the feminists, and I have interviewed a couple of them, one in particular actually is Dr. Lash, she mentioned that she fell, women were never asked how they felt in the 1950s. In reality, if you were to talk to them as they got older, they stayed together for the kids, but they really did not want to get divorced. Secondly, and then unhappy marriages and whatever that effect that had on the children, but they also, if she felt that if you asked a lot of the women of that period, they would say, "Yes, I was totally unfulfilled," because a lot of them had secretarial training and so forth, and they met their husband. They married young, had kids, but they were not able to use their skills until later on. Some others had exceptions of the rule. There were women that were working, but overall, they were housewives. Your thoughts of that kind of, that is- WO (00:08:49): That anecdotal evidence is really hard to deal with. Most of the women I know my age, more or less my age, have been happy with their lives. My wife, for example, this is just an anecdote, does not mean anything necessarily, but when we got married, I was still in graduate school and she got a job teaching at a public school in Berkeley, and she taught there for three years. She hated every minute of it. It was there, she was the new girl in school, and so she got the worst classes. She threw up every morning before she went to school for about six months, I think. She never got to like it. I mean, it was always rough. The minute I got my PhD at a full-time job, she quit and was thrilled to quit. She then spent several years because I was always at universities, taking courses in areas of interest in her and developing. She is in fact an artist. She was never able to make a living at it, but art is her biggest interest. She was able to take art classes and produce work, and then she was very highly motivated to have children. After a couple of years of taking courses, she then had two children. Are you a father? SM (00:10:19): No, I am lucky. I have been married to my job my whole life. WO (00:10:22): Okay. SM (00:10:23): My career. Thousands of students. WO (00:10:24): Well, it changes your life and it is not always an unmixed blessing, but she had never regretted that she was very highly motivated. She really wanted to be a mother. I have never asked her if she felt that she had a fulfilling life, but it seemed to me that she has had the tradeoffs that she had to make were ones that she made consciously and was not forced into. In fact, I did not want to have children. I was married to my work in those days, a young man and just getting started and had no money. Well, I had a salary, but it just barely covered our requirements. When she had wanted to have a ... And she just [inaudible]. She was very highly motivated. She was determined to have children. I went along with it. It is not like men do not make sacrifices too or did not. It is still true. We all do whatever the balance of power or whatever it is, men have to make compromises and sacrifices too. I went along with it. Our first child was so horrible. She grew up to be a very fine woman, but as an infant, she was just awful. Even she was defiant and a runaway by the age of two. SM (00:11:56): Oh my God. WO (00:11:56): It just made our lives so difficult. And then my wife said, "Well, it is time to have another child," and I said, "Are you insane? We could barely cope with the one we have." Well, we did it. We went and had Kate. SM (00:12:10): Right. You talked a little bit about the family life of the boomer family life. I am trying to make sure that when I talk about boomers, people had mentioned that they thought boomers were white men or white women, but I want to make sure boomers are everybody that lived from all ethnic backgrounds, gender orientation, you name it. Just your thoughts on what it was like to grow up as a kid in the 1950s, because I have not had too many people that I have interviewed that really have concentrated on that period. They like to talk about the (19)60s and the (19)70s, but they do not like to talk about the (19)50s. I need more information because I felt religion was very important in the (19)50s. My grandfather was a minister at the Peekskill Church in New York for, he died in (19)56, I was a little boy, but we went to church, and I know that his church was packed. My dad would come back in the late (19)50s when [inaudible] took his place and it was packed. Something happened in the (19)60s, attendance went down, but just the concept of what it was like to be a family life was like and religion in the 1950s. WO (00:13:22): Well, Chris, again, you have to remember that America was overwhelmingly white in that period. The Hispanic minority, practically non-existent. Immigration from Asia and Africa and South America was just impossible. The only immigrants who got in were whites from Europe. The country was about 89 percent white, something like that. Within that context, a lot of class and regional and income differences. What is striking about the family life in that period, first of all, is this is the era of the baby boom. Birth rates had been falling for as long as there had been censuses, and particularly since 1860 when the census really got professional and good. Every generation had fewer children than the one before it. The parents of the baby boomers were, of course, children of depression and war. They have been through a lot and made many sacrifices. With the case of the war generation, they have been separated for long periods of time and they were determined to make up for lost time. Veterans served in military on the average of three years at the time. They all regarded this as three lost years. I mean, not that they rejected the call to service. There were very few conscientious objectors in World War II. They accepted their duty. It was their responsibility to defend the country, but nonetheless, they hated the military, almost all of them, and regarded this is three lost years when they could have finished school and gotten married and had children. When they got out, they decided to do everything at once. It just baffled older people, social critics and the like. Here is a generation they know sooner get out of the army then they get married, have children go to college, all at the same time. You are supposed to do those in sequence, decent intervals between them and so on. It led to this very false school of social criticism about the lonely crowd and the corporation ... SM (00:15:37): David Riesman. WO (00:15:38): ... And all that. I am about 10 years older than the war generation, so I did not participate in their experience. Initially, when all this social criticism came about, again, the lonely crowd, the conformity and mindlessness and tacky houses in the suburbs and all that stuff, and without giving much thought to it, I went along with it. In later years, when I went back to study this, this period from many different demographic standpoints looked better and better, that the birth rate was high, higher than it had been in several generations, and higher than it would ever be again, at least up until this point. The marriage rate was higher too. The divorce rate was lowered. Family incomes grew steadily. The houses in the suburbs were, what is the alternative to a nice house in a suburb like Levittown? Well, a tenement, some crappy apartment in New York that you are paying. For most veterans who bought houses in Levittown, their housing costs fell. They were paying more in rent for overcrowded, under ventilated apartments in New York than for a nice two-bedroom expandable cape, with grass and a driveway and this kind thing. They were family-oriented to a degree unprecedented in American history before that time. The wives too, of course, were similarly motivated because they had had the same deprivation. They had been separated from their boyfriends, their husbands, their future husbands, whatever, and had worked in difficult conditions in war plants and things like that. They felt they had lost three years of their life too. As I look back on them now, I mean, I think they were a wonderful generation and we call them today, they never used that phrase at the time, and you talk about all the complaints that were made about the generation, now, we call them the greatest generation. They were great at peace time too. SM (00:18:05): Yeah. It is interesting because I want to get into the leaders here, but you say in your book in American High that when Eisenhower came to power, the country was infused with confidence. It is created expectations, and there was unity. Isn't that what happened when Kennedy came in too, that many of the critics of the (19)50s looked at Kennedy and said, "Whew, what a breath of fresh air, new ideas, somebody who's young," some fairly critical of the (19)50s overall, and as it says here, very complacent, as you said in your book, complacent, unremarkable, marked by intolerance, conformed to materialism. Of course, African Americans were treated poorly. You talked about lynching. Dr. King became nationally known. There were some really bad things happening, but it was kind of hidden. We knew about the Cold War, we knew about the threat of the nuclear bomb, but what was happening in America within our own borders was kind of hidden from boomer children, so to speak. That is why I think a lot of people are critical of the (19)50s because not only were these things happening, but we allowed them to happen and we did not make any effort to change. You talk about the fact also, in your book that after World War II, it was a kind of reconstruction period. It was everybody had been deprived. I know my mom, I know the stories my mom told me about they did not have any butter. I mean, there was no rubber. I mean, they could not drive very far in cars. There was all kinds of restrictions, but the social critics do not look at that. They look at the bad things and the status quo and the lack of being individual thought and your thoughts again. WO (00:20:08): The period looks ... Now, of course, the (19)50s did suffer from racism, sexism, and homophobia. Every previous era in American history had suffered from these things too. The (19)50s is not unique in that way. What makes the (19)50s unique is the progress that was made. This was the beginning of the period of the fight against racism. Now, that with around supportive education and then Montgomery Bus Boycott, and in the (19)60s, it would lead to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, so race ... The greatest scandal of American life, which had been a scandal before there was a United States of America, that is the (19)50s is the era when the fight against it really takes off. The worst thing in American life is being seriously addressed for the first time. Well, since the Civil War, I mean, that was many, many hundreds of thousands of union men died to destroy slavery, but then that was it, and discrimination and lynching and all these other things just went unaddressed until really the 1950s. In that area, you get the start really important social progress. In other areas, I have become, I think more I have come to admire Eisenhower more than I did. For one thing, I was as a lifelong Democrat, I voted for Adlai Stevenson, but I have come to appreciate Eisenhower, despite his style, which in public, he was this homuncular, grandfather-like figure. Spoke in long, boring sentences and never seemed to say anything. Of course, we now know that was an act, that he really was not like that at all, but that was the public persona that he represented, which could hardly have been more tedious or bland. While he was putting out this facade of mediocrity, he was ending the Korean War, cutting back the military, drastically paying down the national debt, starting the interstate highway system. I know lots of people think this country pays too much attention to cars, that we are too car-centered and we should have more railroads and stuff. I think that is true also, but the interstate highway system was a tremendous stimulus to the American economy, not only in the jobs that were created in building it, but in the time that was cut from transporting goods from place to place. It was the greatest public works project in the history of the world. One of the big reasons why the American economy grew so rapidly during the (19)50s and (19)60s when it was of course, still rebuilding, built the St. Lawrence Seaway ... SM (00:23:04): Yeah, the [inaudible]. WO (00:23:06): ... He kept income tax up. The Republicans, even in the 1950s were gung-ho on tax cuts. He refused to do it, because his feeling was, and he said this publicly, that a strong economy is more important than a strong military because you can always build up a military, but if your economy is shot, you are screwed. Well, he did not put it in that way, of course, but that was his argument, and he said that repeatedly. He refused to cut taxes in order, to pay for the interstate highway system to pay down the national debt, to pay for the St. Lawrence Seaway. This is also a period, he was the first to provide federal funding to schools, public schools, and higher education. The country, during this period, the college population expanded between 1955 and 1960 by about 150 percent. Never been anything like it in the history of this country. Thanks to the fact that the economy is blooming, and the states are doing well, and the federal government is supplying some kind of money, this huge increase in enrollment was met by building new colleges and universities and expanding the old ones and hiring full-time faculty members with PhDs. That is almost all the hiring was done during this period. Now, when I look at us today, of course, this is parochial of me Because I have spent my life in higher education, but higher education has been decaying for such a long time now. So much of the teaching is done by exploited graduate students. The full-time, tenured PhD faculty keep shrinking everywhere, not just at Rutgers. That is happening everywhere. The university's trying to make up the difference by admitting unqualified students and charging a lot of money in tuition. In the 1950s and (19)60s, tuition was essentially free. I mean, there was a tuition, but it would be like $100 a semester or something of that sort. Today at state universities like Rutgers, it is $12,000 a year. That the whole concept that public higher education should be free is just gone. Nobody seems to care. Increasingly what you could get the education [inaudible]. That was not how we did it in the (19)50s and (19)60s or even before that. SM (00:25:28): I know Eisenhower, even you criticize him for not being very good in the area of civil rights, although he ... WO (00:25:35): He was very blunt. SM (00:25:36): ... Yeah, although we know what happened at Little Rock, but what is interesting is oftentimes pressure has to be put on leaders to get things done. Harry Truman, of course, integrated the military in the late forties, and I can remember the story of A. Philip Randolph threatening a march on Washington and ... WO (00:25:55): During the war. SM (00:25:56): ... Yeah, during the war, and Truman did not want that. He eventually integrated the army, which meant that I think (19)57 was when King was there for, I think, at the Lincoln Memorial. WO (00:26:14): Truman integrated the army in theory in 1948, but it took quite a long time to ... The services really dragged their feet that when they ended formal segregation, oh, in five to 10 years, something like that. Even into the (19)60s, although segregation had officially been ended, you barely saw a black officer. Black soldiers were mostly in construction battalions and riflemen. In fact, in the (19)60s, one of the problems of the Vietnam War is that in (19)65, (19)66 when the fighting really became intensive, Black casualties in relation to the number of blacks in the military were extremely high. Well, the reason was that they were all in the combat arms. Everybody who scored high on Army qualification tests, who would normally be white, got into intelligence and signals and things like that, and Blacks all got to be gunners and rifleman. SM (00:27:26): Yeah, McCarthy was an important figure. I can remember as a very young boy sitting on the floor in my home in Courtland before I went to school and seeing this man on television yelling to answer questions. I remember Roy Cohen, I remember that young lawyer to his left, but I remember he was scary to me as a little boy within that black and white TV. I was [inaudible] and even as a four-year-old that this is a guy that even a four-year-old was afraid of. David Kaiser's written in his book, 1968, that he sees Kennedy and McCarthy linked all over the place when you talk about the boom generation. He links three things that really affected the Vietnam War, and he thinks McCarthy, Kennedy and an attitude of appeasement, kind of like what happened in Munich that happened. When he talks about McCarthy, he is talking about all the links with the Kennedy’s, and they were friends and McCarthy- WO (00:28:33): Joan Kennedy in particular ... SM (00:28:35): McCarthy was challenged them- WO (00:28:37): ... [inaudible] supporter of McCarthy. SM (00:28:41): Right. Well, and of course you talk about in your book about the Hollywood ten. To me that was a precursor of the enemy's list that Nixon did and the COINTELPRO program. I know that M. Stanton Evans has written a book recently kind of saying some good things about Senator McCarthy, but yet- WO (00:29:06): Gee, what good is this? SM (00:29:08): Yeah. It is actually a revisionist look at the man. You have to get the book. M. Stanton Evans, he is a conservative, but your thoughts on McCarthy and how important he was during that timeframe in terms of shaping about fearing about speaking up. David Kaiser also talks about the fact that many white men in that period looked up to African Americans like Dr. King because they were not threatened by McCarthy. They spoke up against injustice, Dr. King in (19)57, Montgomery Bus Boycott, and they did not worry about him, but many white men who may have spoken up did not because of what was going on in America, soft on communism type of a mentality. WO (00:30:00): I am missing your question. SM (00:30:01): The question is, McCarthy, how important was he? WO (00:30:05): Well, of course he was about five years, he was tremendously important, but he was important primarily as a weapon used by the Republicans to get back in power into the meeting. Well, he had a sort of primitive shrewdness about him, but the man was completely incompetent, and so was his staff except for Roy Cole. Roy Cole was smart, but otherwise, he had a terrible staff. He would go around saying, "There are 185 communists in the State Department," and he would wave papers that presumably prove this. The next time he would ask, "Well, there is 65 communists in the State Department," and he would be president. Finally, he got down to Owen Lattimore, who was not even in the State Department. He was an East Asian scholar who had been serving as a consultant to McCarthy. Well, so where is the fire there? There was not. It was a damp squid. Owen Lattimore was a fellow traveler, but he was not in the State Department and had no influence on public policy and did not matter at all in terms of the life of the country. McCarthy's success was owning to the fact that the Republicans supported him strongly, including even Robert Taft, who was widely admired for his integrity, but did not hesitate to urge McCarthy to get down in the gutter and throw mud at everyone else and did some mud throwing in of itself. The proof of that is that when Eisenhower became president in 1953, McCarthy's days were numbered because he did not realize that he was just a tool, was a means by which the Republicans were going to get back into power. Now that they were in power, there could not be a 21st year of treason and all these other ridiculous charges that he made, and he did not get it. Part of it, I think, was because he was so alcoholic. When you look at the films that have been made of him, the documentaries like Point of Order, which is surely the best known one, you can see that he is visibly drunk when he is speaking. He slurs his words, and he gets things wrong. Here is this drunken fool who becomes a national figure and a real threat to civil liberties, solely as a mechanism by which the Republicans came back into power. Once they are back into power in 1954, they cut him off [inaudible]. SM (00:32:40): Do you think Nixon learned from McCarthy? He was not like McCarthy, but he saw- WO (00:32:48): No, he was so much smarter than McCarthy. SM (00:32:48): But he saw that he could threaten people with his enemies list and the COINTELPRO Program. WO (00:32:54): Yes, he did not hesitate to use McCarthy methods, but he was so much smarter than McCarthy and so much really more careful about who he went after and how he phrased it. He would usually leave himself an out some sort, so he could red bait and get away with it, but McCarthy was just so crude, and as I say, incompetent. He destroyed himself. SM (00:33:23): When you look at your three books that I brought with me today, could you describe what it means to what American High means, what coming apart means and what a bubble in time means? WO (00:33:40): Mm-hmm. Well, I have a general theory about modern American history, which these books fit into. I have been trying to think of a way to possibly write another book that would integrate this thing, but it seems to be the arc that the United States has followed, is in the 1930s ... As follow is in the 1930s, of course, it was the Great Depression and a good deal of national despair, which fortunately Franklin Roosevelt came along. And after that, people did not despair so much, but there was a long period of hardships experienced by a large part of the public. And then there was this awful era of appeasement. On the part of France and Britain, which the United States fully supported. Roosevelt was always sending encouraging messages, keep up the good work of surrendering handler, not with so many words, of course. And then when France fell, and Britain was all alone, the last beacon of democracy in a continent that had been completely taken over by the Nazis, the American people, as unfortunately polls pretty reliable by this time. But also, the American still did not want to get into the war. They wanted to wait until New Jersey was invaded and that would be the right point at which to start defending ourselves. And Roosevelt kept trying to explain it would be better to start defending ourselves using Great Britain while it was still independent as a phase. So that was kind of the nature of American life in the 20th century, I think. But once forced into the war, against the will, of course, the American people made a fabulous effort. And in saving much of the free world, they also rejuvenated the United States. And the self-confidence and the economy blossomed. And in the post-war period, we got this long run of success with the economy. The economy. Average incomes between 1947 and 1973 doubled. That is in real terms, that is adjusted for inflation. That is real terms. Since 1973, family incomes have only gone up by about 10 percent. And that is mostly because everybody is working more. Husbands are moonlighting, wives who never would have worked previously are now working part-time when men who worked part-time previously are now working full-time. We put in more hours. American families put in more hours of work than anybody else in the developed world. And that, plus borrowing, is the only reason why family standards of living have improved, or did improve up until what, 2000. But before that, in the year that ended in 1973, the American standard of living doubled because incomes doubled. Real incomes doubled. And as I said before, it is a period of tremendous reconstruction. In 1945, there is a huge housing shortage. In 1950, the housing shortage is over. And then you get the highway and all the other things, the huge expansion of education. It was gigantic on all levels because the baby boomers are here, this huge generation, bigger than the country had ever seen before. Which we did not have an infrastructure to support at the time they started coming. The infrastructure was created, the schools, the churches, which also boomed during this period. So, it is America. The racism, the worst feature of American life, is seriously attacked for the first time since the Civil War in the 1950s. So, this is a period of enormous national self-confidence, which is fully justified by the results. Then as you get into the 1960s, of course the picture becomes somewhat more ambiguous. The growth continues. It goes right on; the economic growth goes right on into the 1970s. Well, as you know, I am not a big admirer of President Kennedy, and he was a cold warrior from the beginning. He was determined to escalate the arms race. He campaigned on nonexistent missile gap between the United States and the Soviets. There was a missile gap, but it was in our favor by a big margin. The first generation of Soviet ICBMs had failed. And Eisenhower, Nixon could not say that because the information was derived from these illegal sky flights over the Soviet Union. And so, Nixon could not say, well, in fact, we were way ahead of the Soviets in ICBMs because owing to our secret and illegal overflights... SM (00:38:50): Gary Powers. WO (00:38:52): But I am not a big sympathizer with Nixon, but there is a certain irony in his hands being tied in this way. And then when Kennedy became president and Secretary McNamara finally gets the figures and he announces, well, there is no missile gap actually, we are way ahead. And Kennedy made him take that back and insisted on greatly increasing expenditure on missiles despite the fact that we already had this huge lead. The Soviets, of course, then had no choice but to reply in kind. And so, we ended up with something like 40, 000 thermal nuclear warheads on each side, enough to destroy the world many times over. And that all starts with Kennedy. It could have been avoided, it seems to me, with better leadership. He was extremely capable of certain ways, but he was such a hawk where the Cold War was concerned. He never thought about the long-term consequences of what he did. And then we get Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society, which is the biggest outburst of progressive social legislation since the New Deal and has never been matched since. Remotely. Nobody remotely has come close to the Great Society. And then he also gives us the Vietnam War. And that enables the war, is unwinnable and unpopular. And it gives us Richard Nixon as a president. And it also is the beginning of the inflation that become so marked in the 1970s, because since the war was so unpopular, Johnson did not want to pay for it. Or that was he wanted to borrow rather than the tax to pay for it. The country was rich at the time; you could afford it to raise taxes. If people were saying in polls, which they did up until 1968, that they favored the war, well want them to pay for it. But Johnson was afraid to push it because the polls showed there was a majority of Americans supported it. But he believed, I think correctly, that the support was rather thin and would not stand up. And if serious sacrifices were required, that support would wither away. So he avoided the tax increases that might have forced all the, I am not an economist, but all the economic histories that I have seen see the beginning of inflation in his trying to fight the war around borrowing money, at a time when we could afford to actually tax. But he was right about the support being thin because once the huge casualties started to come in and the Tet Offensive proved that all these optimistic projections are wrong, support really eroded very rapidly. And so, Nixon was able to come in and that is the end, actually, it was not the end of reform. Nixon was surprisingly open-minded. Currently there's a lot of discussion about the fact that Ted Kennedy, before his death said the worst thing, he ever did was to refuse Nixon's offer of universal health insurance in 1970. Nixon offered a more generous plan than Obama's trying to get now. And in his memoir, Kennedy says, that is the great mistake of his life. Because he thought he could get a better one. SM (00:42:23): Yeah, I read that memoir, I thought it was pretty good. Pretty good memoir. WO (00:42:32): So then, the economy is kind of shaky because the war's expenses are vaulting high, and the tax increases are not paying for it. In the end, Johnson did put through some tax increases, but they were not enough. So, when Nixon becomes president, inflation is starting to creep up. It is not a monster yet, but it is starting to creep up. And although Nixon, as I say, turned out to be surprisingly open-minded on a lot of social issues, he signed on to the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and expanded funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities and a variety of other things. Not because he was a great hearted liberal or anything, because he was a smart politician dealing with a Democratic Congress. But the one thing that nobody was willing to do was to address the inflation issue. And then in 1973, you get the first oil shock. The young people are at war and the Arab oil boycott, which did not actually deprive the country of all that much oil, but it created hysteria and energy prices started to shoot through the roof. And Nixon did not deal with that, and Ford did not deal with it, and Carter did not deal with it either, although he wanted to, I think. And he did give speeches about energy conservation, all of that. But the inflation just kept getting worse and worse and worse. SM (00:44:13): Let me change this. WO (00:44:13): So, by the time Paul Volker, who bless his heart Has reemerged- SM (00:44:29): Oh yeah, he is always behind the presidents here. WO (00:44:32): Paul Volker, whom Carter had appointed as chairman of the Federal Reserve, finally decided to end the inflation because Congress would not do it. There are a number of tools for dealing with inflation, but what they basically involve is some combination of cutting government expenditures and raising taxes. But you got there is too much money, you have got to break the money supply down. And neither Carter nor Congressman would take any of these steps because they are unpopular. Nobody wants their taxes to go up and nobody wants their government services to be decline. And so that left only Paul Volker and he broke the back of inflation, as you I am sure remember, by jacking up interest rates. Labor at its prime was at 21 percent at one point, precipitating, of course, a recession, a big one. But with the Congress and the President having failed to act responsibly, he did not have any choice of the matter. In fact, Carter campaigned against him in 1980. His own appointee. Blamed him for the hard times that were coming. Well, my theory is, and it is not just mine, a lot of economists think this too, the economy never recovered from this experience. The rate of economic growth not only declined somewhat afterwards, but the whole way in which income was distributed changed as well. So that while there has been economic growth since 1981, when Ronald Reagan became president, the increase in growth has been funneled almost entirely to rich people. That was not true earlier. In the 1950s and (19)60s, if the economy grew by 3 percent the workers would get a 3 percent raise and the president of the corporation would get a 3 percent raise. And of course, he was making a lot more money than the workers. So, his 3 percent would be a lot more than theirs. But still, the ratio between what the CEO got and the workers got would be 50 to one, something of that sort. Since that time, and Ronald Reagan had a lot to do with this, but he was also the expression of a kind of national impulse in a way was to cut taxes. And people really wanted to have their taxes put out because of course, owing to the inflation of the 1970s, most people's income had fallen. If you were on a salary, as I was, we got raises, but they were never equal to the rate of inflation. And so, the real worth of my salary fell by a third, something like that, during this period. So, one of the easiest ways to deal with that from politicians’ point of view was to cut taxes, which Reagan did. But of course, he cut them particularly for the rich. Then he got the lion share of the taxes. But that began the era in which people came to see that the solution in every problem was tax cuts. And he restored some of them. It was a curious kind of dance. By the end of his presidency about half the tax reduction had been restored. But that still left tax cuts as the mantra on the table that the Republicans rallied both ceaselessly and as a solution for every problem. And with incomes failing to rise as they had done before, older Americans were had gotten used to having their real income go up 5 percent every year or two. And now suddenly it is not going up at all. Or by tiny infinitesimal amounts. SM (00:48:34): And pensions are not going up either. WO (00:48:36): And pensions are not going up. And if you get a tax cut, well that puts a few dollars in your pocket and it is only a few dollars, but it is better than nothing. And so, we got into the cycle, which we are still pursuing today. President Clinton was never really strong enough to be able to deal with this. He helped around the edges. He did increase taxes a bit on rich people. Did not restore the things to what they had been, but he did increase them a little. And we had the short period of budget surpluses. But that was due to the stalemate between the Republican Congress and the Democratic president. Clinton wanted to spend more, Congress wanted to cut taxes more, and they canceled each other out. So, of course, as soon as George Bush got into office, the Republicans fell on that tax surplus like the old son, the proverbial fold and what had been surpluses became huge deficits. So, anyway, so this is the arc of modern American history. We start from a low point in the 1930s in World War II. The country really redeems its failings and its slowness in recognizing the danger. Well, it never did recognize the danger. The danger was forced upon us. And at that point you could not deny reality anymore. But nonetheless, tremendous effort on the part of the whole population something. Everybody contributed to it one way or another. Victory over the forces of fascism and Japanese imperialism. And then this long, wonderful surge of growth, which benefited everybody, not just rich people. It benefited everybody. And this huge expansion of our infrastructure, and housing, and education, and just everything got better. Since 1973, most things have been getting worse. And the infrastructure is deteriorating. The free college concept, it is just gone. College is expensive now. Even public colleges are expensive. So, it seems to be that in most areas, the Civil Rights movement really matured. That progress did not stop. And of course, women relative to men are in a much stronger position than they used to be. The horrible immigration laws that kept everyone except white people from immigrating to the country, they are gone too. And I think as a nation, we are much better off now that we get immigrants from all over the world, and it is really a national asset. So, there are some pluses. But on the whole, it seems to me that in so many important areas of life, standard of living, quality of education, the state of the infrastructure. Country has been going downhill since the (19)70s. And I am hoping Obama can, I think expanding healthcare will help. That will certainly improve the standard of living, not just, I think of the people who are going to be added, the 30 million or so uninsured. But if the bill will go through with something like their present form, it's going to help everybody by slowing the growth of costs in health insurance, by preventing insurance companies from canceling people because they're too sick. And from denying coverage to people because they are already sick, that is going to help a very large part of the population. And one of the things that keeps this country from achieving its potential, I think, is that healthcare costs have been escalating at a rate towards sucking up everything else. And in the past 10 years, the cost of health insurance has doubled to the point where healthcare now takes up 1/6th of the gross domestic product. If this continues in 10 years, it will take up 1/3rd of the gross domestic product. We will be doing nothing but supporting healthcare. All this has just got to change. And if it does change, then I think there is some hope for the future. But I do not think the last 30 years has gone at all well. SM (00:53:00): Phyllis Schlafly, who I interviewed along with David Horowitz, say that the troublemakers of the (19)60s are now running the universities and teaching within the universities. Is that going overboard? WO (00:53:15): Not a lot. Not a lot. One of the peculiar features of universities is, whereas the left failed everywhere in American life, except universities. They had, the last was pretty successful in universities. And a lot of the faculty and many administrators are either former leftist who finally got a chance to put their abstract ideas into abstract practice, because it does not affect anything outside the university. It is inside our little world. Yeah, I would say that. And also, another curious thing is that the new left outside of the university has no heirs, but in the university, new left professors trained graduate students and imbued them with their views. Undergraduates are really hard to brainwash on. Conservative used to say, well, students are being brainwashed. It is very hard to brainwash students. I do not know why that is, but it is very difficult. And my efforts at this have been very largely failure. But graduate students, whom you work with much more closely and over a long period of time, are more susceptible to influence. And to fashion. Academic disciplines have fashions, it is just like everything else. And the undergrads do not recognize them because they cannot tell what is new from what is old. But graduate students like to be on the cutting edge, as they say, and latest fashions. And so, the only place in the country where the left has any real influence is in universities. SM (00:55:02): Yeah. Harry Eders, even in his books of Black students that he wrote around 1970, (19)71, where he defined the difference between revolutionaries, militants, activists, and anomic activists, talked about the fact that militants were the graduate students who were the leaders of the anti-war movement on college campuses. And many of them were the pre-Boomers that were born between (19)41 and say (19)46. Some of them. And because people like Tom Hayden and that particular group. What are your thoughts on the various academic studies programs that are an offshoot of the (19)60s and early (19)70s? Particularly talking about, I know you bring up in your new book, but about the women's studies programs, Asian studies, gay and lesbian studies, Native American studies, popular out west. Chicano studies on the West Coast, Black studies, and now even environmental studies. So, you have got all these different studies. Your thoughts on these are all the movements, the people of the late (19)60s, early (19)70s, these were all movements that looked to the Civil Rights movement as their role model and their teacher. Just your thoughts on all these various studies programs in university campuses. WO (00:56:26): Up to a point, I do not have any objection. In fact, I wrote the first critical history of the old feminist movement ever to be done by a professional historian. And I did that because I felt that women's history, which we did not even call women's history then, the book came out in 1969 and women's studies and women's history were not really defined at that point. They were a few years later. So, I was writing women's history in a sense without even knowing that I was writing women's history. But it was clear that women were clearly being underserved by historians, because here was this rich history and all these fascinating people involved in it who never got into the textbooks except a brief obligatory mention on note 27 or something. And so, I was really pleased to see student women's liberation of course, that movement really galvanized women in graduate schools. And young women, faculty members who could transition pretty easily from... One of the first women to teach women's history at Rutgers, for example, was a French historian. She got her PhD in French history. But having all that scholarly training, it was easy for her to switch from, I do not know what her dissertation, some conventional 18th century French stuff. She was able to transition very easily to women's history. And others did that as well. One of the ironies of the situation for me is that I regarded myself as a founding father of women's history, but all the men got frozen out. There were in, the 1960s, there were 10 or 12 historians who were writing on women's subjects, about half men and half women. Almost all the women went on to become presidents of the OAHA and the American Historical Association in the organization of American historians, things like that. The men all got forced out. Oh, I got insulted in meetings and it just, I never got invited to anything. So, we were all ostracized in that way and it kind of hurt my feelings a little bit on the end, until we're playing by things to write about. Anyway, a long way around by saying that in the case of women's history, I really did welcome it and I think it is a real field and I am glad to see it. I think some of the others too, some of these seem so small or have so little in the way of historical material to work with that I really wonder about them. But some of the Hispanic studies, Haitian studies, things like these are perfectly legitimate fields. They were taught in the past, not on a scale or the orientation that they are now. But what I think is wrong with the current education is that all this has been done at the expense of the basics. We get students, I get students, whose reading and writing skills are so primitive, they can barely write, they cannot write a grammatical paragraph, many of them. Their knowledge of almost anything is nonexistent. They do not know anything about the past. They do not know anything about the rest of the world. So, it seems to me that yes, it's good to have academic life open up in this way and to place emphasis on previously neglected areas, but at the same time it would still be good if students had the basic skills they did 30 years ago. 30 years ago, students were so much better qualified than they are now. They all could read and write. They had high levels, they had some knowledge of history, and they had good work ethics. Almost all of them. I did not know it was a golden age, but it was a golden age of teaching. I did not have to discipline them, or force them to come to class, or bludgeon them into reading the assigned books. They just did all these things. That was accepted. SM (01:01:00): Do you think there is any link between, again, I can remember back at Binghamton University students to get out of the draft went in teaching, but they had no interest in being teachers. They did it to get out of the draft and they planned to quit as soon as the war was over. Of course, we are talking 1970 now. And so, they would be influencing students in the mid (19)70s and then beyond, in high school. Do you see any link there between the poor-quality education, that these people were not committed to teaching? WO (01:01:36): I do not know enough about the secondary school system in this country. The one I went through was completely different than what exists today. All I know is that, again, 30 years ago, the students I got were just much better prepared for college work than they are now. Lot of them are just not prepared. And what the universities have done is dumbed down the courses. In order to meet their lowered abilities, we have lowered expectations at great inflation. And you can get away with a lot if you give students As and Bs, even if you are not teaching anything. And even if they are not learning anything. SM (01:02:18): That is so different, when I was at Binghamton, because Dr. Donnelley hardly gave one A in each of his classes, he taught Russian history. You really had to earn it. One A, and we are talking great students here. And I took three courses from him, and I got an A once, and I got a B once, and I got a C once. I was furious that I got a C. But in that day, you knew you were in a great professor, you knew he made you study. You had to work hard for everything, and you did not go off and, as I have seen today, students go into their advisors and say, I am a straight A student and this is wrong that you are giving me that thing. So, I think you, you are onto something here. One of the things you bring up in your new book too, because I have been perusing through, I got to read it full force like the other two. But I picked and choose some of the things that I read. About when George Bush was president in particular, George Bush Senior. I want to ask you; do you believe in political correctness? What did the universities learn in the (19)60s with respect to student activism? Our universities, as Clark Kerr said, beholden to the corporations, businesses, and applied research. And even Ohio State University now, if you look on their website, their biggest thing is they talk about their research. It is a research university. The question I am really asking here is, I interviewed Arthur Chicory, the great educator, about a week ago, and he's written a 20-page piece and it is going to come out in a major magazine, basically very upset with the universities today. He says the corporations are again running the universities. And then that, and he was referring back to the (19)60s and the Clark Kerrs and the uses of the multiversity kind of an idea. Are you seeing again that universities are beholden to the corporations? WO (01:04:27): Well, yeah, but I think in a different way. When Clark Kerr wrote his book, he saw the university service role in a very broad way. He was not just helping corporations make money, it was just strengthening society as a whole and provide it with this sealed, well-trained, well-educated people that are needed in various walks of life. But it did include corporations as among those who would benefit and took the perhaps naive view that benefiting corporations, which employ some millions of people, would benefit a large part of the population as well. Today it is a much more crass kind of arrangement in which universities support health, science, and engineering departments. I do not think humanities get any money from corporations. They support them to encourage the kind of research that will benefit their own company and complement their own research efforts. And often I think it is hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. So yes. And the reason for that is because universities are in big financial trouble. Have been increasing for quite a long time, but over the past 10 years, it has gotten awful. And so, the departments like the humanities department said they cannot do that. I do not know who would sell out to corporations. They do not walk for bias. So, we never have the opportunity to discover the extent of our... But when the state keeps cutting your funding all the time, and it's not just New Jersey, of course, it is every state has this. Universities like Michigan, California gets less than 10 percent of their operating budget from their states. They are almost entirely self-supporting. And you cannot do it on tuition, and you cannot do it on federal grants. You have got to have more money. And corporations, if it serves their purposes, will supply it. So, I do not see if there is any choice in this area. Yeah, corporations' influence is considerably greater than it used to be. I do not think it is because anybody likes it, but it is because universities are increasingly desperate. SM (01:06:39): Yeah, you have probably hit it right on the button here because the university I just came from, everything is linked to some sort of raising some sort of scholarship or fundraising. We had a basketball coach that refused to go out and do fundraising. He was a great basketball coach. He said, I am not here to be a fundraiser. I am here to be a coach. And he quit. And he was a historic basketball coach. He just said, I am not here for that. And they give a lot of scholarships out. And now it is almost like every program you do has got to be linked to, has a value to raising some sort of funds. George Bush, you really bring this out in a bubble in time. I think this particular section of your book needs to be read by everyone. In fact, I am emailing several people that I have interviewed to get your book and to read this section on George Bush. This is the section where the serious text on freedom of speech, President Bush's speech at Michigan, where he talks about the spirit, the speech, and the enterprise. And Marine Dow responded by saying that political correctness is a broad range of generally liberal attitudes, especially in support of the rights of women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, or conservatives and traditionalists. Look at people who espouse these views to the exclusion of others' rights... These views to the exclusion of others' rights and free speech. Conservatives and traditionalists were the ones that are basically making these attacks. I find it interesting because the free speech movement in 1964, and I remember Sam Brown who was in the Carter administration. When he first got involved in activism, he was talking about that he could not bring a communist in to speak. So, what is the difference between what happened in Berkeley in 1964, where they were not allowed to hand out literature and thus it became a free speech issue, and Sam Brown's experience, I forget what college went to where they could not bring in communists to speak? And what is happening here about political correctness? Just your thoughts. Free speech, basically. WO (01:08:56): There is a big difference between political correctness and McCarthyism. McCarthyism was presented by most of the faculty. It was to the degree that university professors did not lose their trials. Three at Rutgers. You never stopped hearing about that here. Three professors in the 1950s lost their jobs for taking the Fifth Amendment before some investigating. But the great hope of the American faculty even developed from the conservative professors who were opposed to McCarthyism, were opposed to loyalty tests on the part of the faculty. Political correctness, on the other hand, has a very broad base of support among the faculty. Lots of it, which is why you could get those things through. Why you could get speech codes and these absurd regulations about what could be said and not said, and what kind of posters you could put up and this kind of thing. Political correctness is... McCarthyism was external. It was forced on colleges and universities. Political correctness is internal. It is the faculty that has come to believe that. There is a real irony in the reversal here obviously because in the (19)50s, faculty were always demanding free speech as an essential, universal freedom of course, particularly freedom among academics. How can you teach if you are not free to say what you believe is true? Now, you get faculty members who say, "No, you cannot say what you believe is true if it is going to offend women, Blacks, gays, transgenders, you name it." SM (01:10:43): You say that is a real negative on the boomers? The boomers have laid this on society, and because they are the teachers and the administrators, that is a very negative thing. I want to ask you about you, your personal background. Because I know you went to Berkeley. I believe you got your undergraduate degree, was it at Michigan? WO (01:11:09): Michigan, yeah. SM (01:11:10): Michigan. Tell me a little bit about yourself. In other words, when you were young in high school growing up, who were the people that you looked up to? Whether it be family members, people in your local community, people that you read about in history books, or people you saw on television or heard on the radio. Who were the people that really inspired you when you were young, and what did they have that you liked about them? WO (01:11:38): Well, I grew up in a small town in western Michigan, about 5,000 people. It was then this, well still is, it is the economy seat. It was basically a rural agricultural area, so it served farmers. A little bit of manufacturing. Tiny Paris Institute today at a quite large state college, but then just little tiny private institution. There was no real intellectual stimulation there. My family are Irish Catholic Democrats in a Protestant Republican town. 90 percent of the people were Protestant Republicans, so we were very much an isolated minority. I was bookish even as a child. That is not unusual among academic people. So, apart from Franklin Roosevelt, who was second only, or possibly even superior to the pope as a revered figure. He was superior, actually. The Pope [inaudible]. And Winston Churchill. My father, for some reason, although as I say as an Irish Catholic family, my father just adored Winston Churchill and did not chair the... Many Irishmen were still sore about British oppression and things like that, but my family then, even though they were poorly educated and had been in this country a long time, the founding O'Neill came over during the famine in the 1830s. By the time I was born, my family only been here for 100 years. So, the anti-British sentiment had faded over that time. Anyway, so it became a host of the big inspirational figures in my family. And there were some people I had, some teachers that I liked and thought were good. SM (01:13:52): Who were they? WO (01:13:52): I had an English teacher in high school, who was awfully good at... In many ways, I appreciated her more after I left than when I was there because she was one of those who made you learn and diagram sentences, and do stuff that seemed beneath you. Because you do that in grammar school and you should not have to do it in high school again. But she was absolutely right. She made us do it in our senior year and she said, "You are going to go to college now. The work is going to be a lot harder," which in those days it was. "It is going to be a lot harder than what you have here, so you really need to brush up on your basics." We were therefore learning the parts of speech and diagram sentences. We all felt this was kind of demeaning because here we were seniors and all that. But of course, it was the best thing she could have done for us. I really did appreciate it when I got to school. I did not have any idols, people that I looked up to. I read a great deal of history of biographies. And of course, being a young boy, I was not reading about Aristotle. I was reading about Napoleon, Caesar and figures like that. It was very much a part of the great man period history. It really appealed to me. SM (01:15:10): Your college years as an undergraduate and graduate student, were there any speakers that you saw when you were a graduate student, programs you went to in the out of classroom experience that influenced you? WO (01:15:21): Yes. Nobody in my family on either side had ever graduated from college or even really gone to college. My mother had what was called business school, but it was typing and that kind of stuff. So, there was nobody in my family with any experience at all in this. But being Catholics, of course, they adored Notre Dame and thought it was just the greatest university in the world. Since I had knew nothing and had no idea what I wanted to do, so I agreed to go to Notre Dame and I spent my first year there. It was really unpleasant. It was a boys' school at the time and I never had a date the whole year, and neither did anybody I knew. There was a small girls' college, St. Mary's, adjoining the campus, but you had to be an athlete in order to date a girl at St. Mary's, so that was really out. Otherwise, the campus was so stark. They did not have any of the things campuses listen to today. There was no student center, no athletic facilities except for athletes. They turned off the power in the dorms at 10 o'clock so you would not be studying. SM (01:16:42): Oh my God. WO (01:16:44): And then a priest would come around with flashlights to see if you were masturbating or studying. Either one would be [inaudible]. And you did, you had to check in for mass three days a week. You did not have to actually go to mass, but you had to get fully dressed to go down to the chapel and sign in, at which point you might as well go in. So, I told my parents that I just was not going to go back. They were paying my way and I said, "If you do not want pay my way, I will join the Army or something. I will find some way, but I am not going back." That was bad. So, I transferred to the University of Michigan, and I was short some credits because I had taken courses in theology or religion at Notre Dame. Did not transfer. So, I went to summer school and took Western Civ. I cannot remember the name of the professor. He was a senior faculty member at Michigan in those days. The senior faculty taught the introductory courses. That guy was a wizard. For one thing, the education of Notre Dame was very poor, but I did not know that because I did not have anything to measure it by. I would gone to a mediocre high school with a couple of good teachers, but no real [inaudible]. I took this Western Civ course, it was like the heavens had opened. A world I never dreamed of, even though I would read a lot of history and biography on my own. Focusing on military history and having no context, really. I was kind of an autodidact in that way. Then suddenly, here is this guy who is going over the whole sweep of western civilization to about 1000. I think that was the first half of the course, up to the year 1000 in a sweep of civilizations and incredible concepts. SM (01:18:42): Mesopotamia. WO (01:18:45): It transformed my life. It was just such a revelation. I never knew that anything like this existed. So, of course, I then majored in history. And he was not the only one. Almost every instructor that I had there, I can only think of one I did not like. Almost every instructor I had taught at such a high level. You really had to work your ass off of course because they were... Unlike today, where I assume my students knew nothing, they assumed we knew a lot. What they were providing us was material in addition to the vast body of knowledge we hope you possess. SM (01:19:27): I think Phil Donahue was at Notre Dame around the time that you were there. WO (01:19:32): I think he was, yeah. [inaudible]. SM (01:19:33): And I know Regis Philbin was the group before Phil Donahue, because he is another graduate of Notre Dame. He talks about that a little bit. WO (01:19:40): I can assure you, although I know Regis Philbin still loves Notre Dame, but he probably loves it for the football comradery. The university just sucked. It was terrible. I was going to say, going to mission was like ascending in heaven. So, bad. Wow. Eventually, of course, my father wanted me to go to law school. He had this belief that he would have been more successful in business if he had been a lawyer. I think he was quite mistaken. He did not have any of the qualities it takes to be successful in business, and he was one of these people who could not work for anybody else because he had such a bad temper. But he was such poor manager, he could not work for himself successfully. He was doing all right. He did [inaudible] away through school because he was doing all right then. But he eventually went pro. He had this false idea that a lawyer would have been more successful, and having no notion. But of course, once I entered into academic heaven here, I was getting these magnificent courses. Well, then I wanted to be a historian, too. And I would already been accepted in law school because I was programmed to do that. But in my senior year, Michigan offered an honors program. We offer much like the one that we offer here. It was very common. The payoff in that senior honors course was to write a very long research paper, 9800 pages, which I did. Then, I realized that if I could do that, I could probably write a dissertation, which meant that I could be any historian and I would never have to leave this life. I could dwell in the realm of ideas and narrative in a great box. SM (01:21:32): I think it is great that a teacher inspired you, though. That is the same thing with me. Probably that teacher had faith in you, too, did not he? WO (01:21:42): It was a real big course. SM (01:21:44): Yeah, but there had to be someone along the line that said, hey, you are not only a good student, but I have an interest in you in terms of your future. So, that was important sometimes, the faculty- WO (01:21:55): I do not think I really talked to a faculty member about that until I took this senior honors course. When there were two faculty members to like 18 students. Michigan, even then, was a very large university and most of the courses I took were very larger courses. It was not until that point that I actually talked to faculty members about this. Yes, I was encouraged. They told me, yeah, you could do it. SM (01:22:17): I have just some general questions and then we will finish up here. This might go a little bit over. One of the criticisms of the boomer generation is, and actually I do not think it's a criticism, but where they say that 15 percent were activists. That could be conservative or liberal. People that were activists for various causes in the (19)60s and (19)70s. WO (01:22:38): [inaudible]. SM (01:22:39): Some people say five to 15. WO (01:22:40): Or these activists as being difficult, very loosely. SM (01:22:40): People involved in- WO (01:22:44): I knew some student activists in the history department. The graduate students in history of this class had a very high percentage of activism. It was remarkable. But among the undergraduates, they might show up for a rally or a riot once in a while, but I would not call them activists. SM (01:23:01): Well, the question I am trying to get at here is that the people that criticize the boomer generation oftentimes say that only 15 percent were ever involved, whether it be five or 15. WO (01:23:16): That is fine, that is fine. SM (01:23:18): But my question is, can you agree that the larger portion, which is 85 to 95, was subconsciously still affected by this period? Because if you believe in student development theory, because that is what I am. I am a student of Arthur Chickering, Alexander Aston, Eric Erickson, Rogers. When you talk about you cannot pinpoint the effect that some experience is going to have on a student right away. It could be five, 10 years down the road. So, maybe there were fewer at that time, but then others stood up and spoke up, and later on in life, late 20s, 30s. Do you believe that this whole generation of 78 million was subconsciously affected by what happened in the (19)60s and (19)70s, and it is really affected their lives in some way? WO (01:24:10): Yes, I do. Yes, I do believe that. Well, the increase in divorce shot up. The divorce rate doubled in the years after the 1960s, is a reflection of the self-indulgence and self-absorption of the activists, the doing your own thing. Taking drugs and free love, live for the moment and suspect authority and do not trust anyone over 30. And of course, eventually became over 30 themselves. But the whole emphasis on the boomer generation, not everybody, I do not want to stigmatize them all, but the boomer generation to a degree unprecedented previously is self-indulgent, self-absorbed, and materialistic. Not anti-social exactly, but has a lessened sense of social obligation and responsibility. I think it all comes out of the (19)60s. Not the create a socialist revolution, which actually almost nobody believed. The SDFs and a few others were doing that, but the real message of that was personal freedom and self-indulgence. That really sold. SM (01:25:31): Yeah, it is interesting you say that because C. Wright Mills, who wrote white collar and we all read about him when I was in sociology class, Dr. Lehman, who actually was fired from Bingham for leading a protest in downtown. She was only there a year. But C. Wright Mills said that the goal of the university education is not to need the university. The individualism and think on their own, the concept of in loco parentis kind of ended during this timeframe. That the universities were not supposed to be parents and were not activists doing this in the (19)60s and (19)70s. So, the question I am asking here is that there is the individual right there. Some of the things that students are reading and being educated about, some of the writers we have looked up to, says that the individual is important. Carl Davidson has written a great book on the multiversity in a series on the 60s, and he brings this up about the importance of the individual. Because if the individual is not there, then you do not have freedom. And if you do not have freedom, you do not have power. And students wanted power. Or at least to be looked upon for their thoughts. Is what I am saying really true, what C. Wright Mills said? When you talk about that this is one of the goals of the boomers was to really be an individual as opposed to be a part of a collaborative group? WO (01:27:07): Well, I do not know how. They were just as conformist as young people always are. Young people are pretty much by definition, is- SM (01:27:14): Let me change... (01:27:14): Okay. WO (01:27:24): My impression of students in the (19)60s, and of course I was, which is derived largely from Wisconsin where I was a faculty member. It was not my self-esteem anymore. But my impression was that the students in the (19)60s were just as anxious and concerned about their identity and wanting to be a part of the group, and to conform to group norms and all that. Very few students want to be fearless individuals and completely unlike everybody else. They want to be popular and well- liked, and succeed in the areas that students think are important. But what developed among students was a feeling that this generation of students was too well-educated and sophisticated to be treated like previous generation of students, who had had all these regulations governing personal conduct. The girls had to live in, and boys had to live in segregated dormitories and there had to be hours. Well, they did not have lights out except at Notre Dame. At Michigan, for example, the girls had to be in their dorms at 10 o'clock at night on a school night. They could stay up until 12 on weekends. Well, with the beginnings of the sexual revolution and all that, students rebelled against these restrictions, against in loco parentis. But it was sort of collectively. It was not fearless assertions of individualism. It was they believed as a class that they deserved rights that their predecessors had been denied. The universities of course fell all over themselves in branding them, because you're also now getting the protests over civil rights and segregation in the south, and the war in Vietnam. Universities could not do anything about the treatment of Blacks in the south or the war in Vietnam, but they could integrate the dormitories and eliminate the in loco parentis restrictions. That was easy to do. They also did other things, too. The students in Wisconsin and other universities, students went beyond that to an end to the language requirement. Students had always hated the language requirement, but they have never been sufficiently impressive as a pressure group to be able to get university administrations to listen to them. Again, in the (19)50s, students had tried to organize a protest and said do away with the foreign language requirement. They probably would have been expelled, right? No, the university took a very hard line. The dean of women at Michigan was an ex-WAG colonel and the girls were terrified of her. So, the universities really started caving in. In loco parentis, sure that had to go. In the age of sexual revolution and self-expression and doing your own thing, you could not hold the line on that stuff and what was even the point? But when they gave away the language requirement, some of these other things, boy, that is when I think the downhill slide began through universities. Because now you are in the business of pleasing the customers, and that had never been the attitude before. Michigan took the view you were damn lucky to be here, and most of you will not graduate anyway. Michigan was one of those schools where it was terribly difficult to get in, but the senior graduating class was about one-third the size of the freshman class. And they bragged about it. They did not succeed, this is bootcamp. It is not bootcamp, but this is a task. It is going to be very difficult. Most of you are not going to make it. And they would see that right off. SM (01:31:20): Yeah, you probably looked to your left, looked to your right. WO (01:31:22): Yeah. Yep. SM (01:31:22): Yeah, they did that at Binghamton, and just everybody stayed. WO (01:31:24): Yeah, they did that at the university. Rutgers operated somewhat differently. Their admission standards were more stringent so that you did not have to fail. In fact, in my early years here, I hardly failed anyone. But they were actually students very well-prepared, hardworking. Even the kids got Cs, those were good, solid Cs. They made an effort to get there. Now, you get a C in many courses just for signing up. SM (01:31:51): I thought boomers many times, especially those that were activists, said I want to be around people who think like me, who have the same interests that I do. In other words, I want to be around people who are against the war in Vietnam. I want to be around people who went down south for civil rights issues. I want to be around any of these movements. People who think like I do. Well, isn't the goal of a university is to bring people together who do not agree? I have been thinking about this because that seems if you are just an individual and you are not part of a group where you listen to opposing points of view, that is not a university either. It is a lot of things that come up here, the contradictions of this whole era seem to really make you think. What do you feel led to the AIDS crisis? I have had many people, because when we talk about the (19)80s, and we think of Ronald Reagan. Of course, he said, "We are back," because he's going to bring the military back. During the (19)60s, all the society had gone downhill. But the AIDS crisis is something that he did not really deal with. He could not even say gay and lesbian, as a person. I have had scholars who were gay and lesbian scholars that I have interviewed said that they almost come to tears when they talk about Ronald Reagan. And then, of course, the AIDS crisis is one of the biggest crises of the time. For gay lesbian boomers, it wiped out maybe one out of every two men, who were living within the inner cities. A lot of them were scholars, a lot of them were great writers. The loss of talent. WO (01:33:37): I had a friend I remember in the history department, who died of AIDS. I liked him very well. He was gay, but he was... I do not want to make a pun here. He was just a great company. I loved him very much. But he was in the first generation who died. He was extremely promiscuous. They did not take any precautions. SM (01:34:04): You think that part of what the (19)70s was about, because a lot of people when they talk about the sexual revolution, they really talk the (19)70s, not the (19)60s. We still had- WO (01:34:15): I think it was more pronouncements. SM (01:34:16): Yeah, but that kind of led to the AIDS crisis, and then it is what happened after it was found out that people were dying from this, where Ronald Reagan is really dislike by many people, even bringing them to tears. WO (01:34:33): I do not know enough about it. SM (01:34:37): Right. Of all the presidents from 1946 to 2010, which is the time the boomers have lived, we have made a reference just about all of them in our conversation here. Is there anyone that you think had the greatest impact on the boomer generation, from Truman to Obama? WO (01:35:03): No. Not being a boomer, it is hard for me to say. I guess it would be John Kennedy, but not the actual John Kennedy. The myth of Kennedy was. Even today when people are polled and say, who was the greatest president? Well, they normally cannot think beyond the presidents they knew of their lifetime, the ones that they saw on TV or whatever. But Kennedy still comes up a great deal, and on the part of people who cannot possibly have remembered him. My gosh, he was elected 50 years ago. So, you go any younger than that, oh, you would have to be 60 at least to have any faintest personal recollection of his presidency. So, it is the myth of the candidate. The falsehoods, essentially. They have had a great effect. SM (01:36:01): What do you think if you were to, you are writing a book and you are writing two chapters, and chapter one is you are writing on one specific quality, that this was the best of the boomer generation and I am going to write about this and break it down? And what's the worst about the... What were the single worst and the single best, and how would you illuminate within the chapter? WO (01:36:30): Well, again, up until Bill Clinton, there were no boomer presidents. He was the first one. So, there have only been two. SM (01:36:41): Two. Yeah. WO (01:36:41): And I was too young. So, there is not a lot of choice there. SM (01:36:49): Right. In terms of maybe influencing their lives, some people will say that Lyndon Johnson, what a great person in the area of social issues, the domestic policy. But he was a dismal failure in Vietnam and some did not like his personality, and others did. You still get back to those two that are the boomers? Yeah. WO (01:37:18): And as different as Clinton and Bush were, they did share the negative stereotypes that people associate with the boomer generation. They were self-indulgent. Clinton of course, in gross and obvious ways, but Bush was, too. You had this dissipated youth that went on and on. Which typical boomers, not that they are always dissipated, but they hang on to their youth. They are more afraid of maturity and more reluctant to enter into it. I think those are real fair characterizations. Then once he became president, God, he vacationed more than any other president. More than Reagan, more than Eisenhower. Nobody spent as much time vacationing as Bush did, and as little time governing, and as much time working out. That is another boomer thing, working out. Previous presidents did not. Well, Theodore Roosevelt did. It is hard to think of previous president who were focused on exercise. SM (01:38:22): Harry did. Harry Truman, he liked to walk. WO (01:38:24): He took his walks. Yes, yes. SM (01:38:26): Yes, and I think that kept him alive a lot longer than most people because of all the tensions he went through. WO (01:38:32): It is a very good health habit. SM (01:38:35): Just a couple more things here. I know we talked a little bit about this, but I am not going to talk about very much of these things. You say that in some of your writings here, that the new left or the activist group within the boomer generation, really it was a short period in the end because they burned out. The draft ended, which was the main cause that united them. WO (01:39:09): Yes, I think by the end of the draft, collapsed. SM (01:39:11): The violence of groups getting frustrated that they had to go, whether it be the American Indian Movement, the Black Panthers or Weathermen, all three of them, they went to violence. Even the environmental groups today are dealing with this particular issue, which is really hurting their cause. That they get frustrated and they go the violent way. Is that the reason why? When people talk about the (19)60s, they talk about all these groups and all these people and Woodstock and the counterculture and the activism and protests on college campuses. You got the split between the white students and the Black students in the late (19)70s because one was protesting against the Vietnam War, the other was against working the area of civil rights. WO (01:40:10): I may say that I am happy that the left has collapsed, and I am sorry that it still lingers on in the university. Although, I have to say it never did me any harm, I do not think. I just did not like it. Was that they never developed an adult pace and they were overly dependent on the draft. Once the draft had Nixon, Nixon believed that he could get rid of the draft, that would be end of the student movement because he thought it was basically self-centered. And to a large extent, I think he was right. Take the draft away. The war in Vietnam is an on-campus issue as long as you have a draft. When the draft is gone, the issue is gone, too. SM (01:40:56): Do you see a link right now between what is happening on college campuses in California and across the country, that students are seeing the issue of their pocketbook and they are not going to take it anymore? Just like people said, I am not going to take the draft anymore? Because it is their self-interest. The middle class may not be able to go on to college because tuition is going up 17 percent. I know in Pennsylvania, they are talking about raising it $1500. WO (01:41:25): Students at Rutgers paid 12,000 a year in tuition and fees, but that is absolutely outrageous. It should be essentially free. It used to be essentially free. We're talking about 20, 25 years ago. SM (01:41:40): Do you think this issue could be something that unites the students around the country? And again- WO (01:41:44): Well, it is certainly something they all have in common. SM (01:41:46): Graduate students are taking a lead at Berkeley on this. And actually, I never thought I would- WO (01:41:52): Of course, they do not pay tuition in the world. SM (01:41:53): Yeah, but what is interesting is that these students are saying for the first time, I do not care if my career is threatened by this. It is wrong and I am out here and I am going to speak my mind. They are threatened by this. It is wrong, and I am out here, and I am going to speak my mind. That is what has been critical of the students of the (19)80s and the (19)90s and even the (19)10s. Is they fear, oftentimes, that by speaking up, they will lose a job, their career could be hurt. A lot of students in the (19)60s never thought that. Just your thoughts on- WO (01:42:22): No, they did not. SM (01:42:24): Just your thoughts on that, that this could be something that universities are very concerned about. WO (01:42:30): Well, they ought to be. Now, I completely understand why universities are doing this. When your state aid collapses, what are you supposed to... You have only got a few options here. And raising tuition, and many more students, which Rutgers does too, crank up the tuition and admit more students, and shrink the faculty. SM (01:42:49): Mm-hmm. WO (01:42:50): So, your student-generated income goes larger. There is a fewer faculty members you have to spread around, but Jesus, there is got to be a limit to that, and it seems to be a backlash too. SM (01:43:02): Yeah. And of course, faculty oftentimes say administrators need to be cut back, because after all- WO (01:43:08): They have actually expanded a lot. I mean, the percentage of employees who are administrators has gone up a lot over the last 20 years, and at a time when faculties generally shrunk. SM (01:43:23): My last little section here deals back again with political correctness. I want to get your thoughts on the quotes that you put in your book, which I am going to encourage my friends to read, because I think it is great. You have the quote from Barbara Ehrenreich, who I would met twice, that, "Political correctness is the enforcement arm of multiculturalism or feminism." Then you have got Leon Botstein, who I have brought to campus, who really challenged our secondary ed teachers. Oh, they are not were prepared for this. Because he is an advocate that he does not believe we need a senior year in high school. He thinks the senior year is a waste. But the quote here is, "In practice, the call for diversity now prevented any real exchange of opinions on campus." And then Dr. Asante, who responds, "Racists are hiding behind the First Amendment." This is an interesting thing on college campuses. First of all, I am surprised Dr. Botstein had said that, because he's very liberal, but this is oftentimes what people are afraid to say, and what they believe, for fear that they're going to be hurt, that their careers could be threatened. A faculty member may believe this, but I cannot do it because my department chairs, it could have an effect on me. And then students... Just your thoughts on Ehrenreich, Botstein, and Asante's commentary on the dialogue of today, and whether all that took place from the Free Speech Movement of (19)64, and all that happened in the (19)60s, through the mid (19)70s, about freedom of speech on college campuses. Different points of view. Everybody's equal. The concept that all voices count. And then you have these discussions here, where people are afraid to speak their mind again. This happened throughout the (19)90s, and obviously today, and you have seen it on a college campus throughout your career. WO (01:45:27): Yeah. I love that by Barbara Ehrenreich. I think, of course, it is actually true. The academic leftist, of course, have backed off considerably. The early (19)90s was the flood tide of these speech codes, and prosecutions of faculty members for making somebody feel uncomfortable. That was a serious charge, "So-and-so feels uncomfortable in your class." I guess your job as a teacher is to raise the comfort zone of everyone. I never thought that was my job. So, they had backed off, because the publicity was so terrible, and justly so. I mean, you claim on the one hand academic freedom, and then you are denying it to your colleagues over silly stuff. You're like that poor man of New Hampshire, with the Jell-O and the vibrator. SM (01:46:17): Mm-hmm. WO (01:46:17): And those things clearly well-meaning, and not attempting to be salacious. So, they have backed off from the deal. You do not see that stuff in the public area as much as you used to. Otherwise, where did you want to go from here? SM (01:46:37): Who is more correct? Is Ehrenreich correct? Is Botstein correct? I find Botstein is commentary something that should be put into a book. I know that [inaudible] wrote a liberal education. We all read that. I have seen him debate a couple times, he is very good at what he does. He debates the other person, that other person is very good too. It is a pretty civil debate. But to hear this from Leon Botstein, this young, I think of him from the (19)60s, because I think he was the youngest college president ever at Bard College, and he was a liberal, and I think he was 27 years old. And for him to say this, to me, sends a clear message that we need to be doing a better job within the university environment, and that tolerance, and beyond tolerance. We went through those phases of tolerance and beyond tolerance. Are we back to tolerance again? WO (01:47:39): It is hard to say. One of the annoying things is the, which I do talk about some of the book, is the tremendous overemphasis on identity, on sexual identity, particularly racial and sub-racial identities. Ruckers, for example, the current president is terrifically proud of the fact that the student body contains more racial minorities than it does whites. Well, this is a white majority state still, which means the whites are being discriminated against in order to achieve higher numbers of people in other racial groups. And such as the climate of opinion and politically correct universities is this is seen as a good thing; discriminate against whites, and usually Asians too. He never says that. SM (01:48:34): Well, my alma mater, they have gone through a terrible situation with the basketball team, which you have probably have heard. They won the division last year, because Dr. DeFleur, the chancellor, wanted to bring in strong athletic programs, and linkage with our strong academics there. She is a great president, I am not going to question her, but she has been under their heat because they had to fire the coach. They actually paid him, and because of the fact that they brought in mostly African American basketball players from New York City and elsewhere, and they were unbelievably players. And that put a lot of pressure on the other state universities, that they not only have to bring in quality athletes in linkage with the academics, but they found out now, through the last year, that there was agreements made between the admissions office. The admissions' person never would have admitted these people, but was pressured to do so. The coach was in direct linkage with this, who they hired. This is some coach in Georgetown. WO (01:49:36): I did read that. SM (01:49:37): And it has become such a serious issue. Dr. DeFleur is retiring, but I think she's retiring because I think there is a lot of pressure going on there. And there is a plan that has to go into places so this will not happen again, and sends all the wrong messages. And alumni are furious. Alumni are furious, and they want the administration all gone. And Dr. DeFleur has committed 19 years of her life to making that a great institution. But unfortunately, in this one instance, it is marring her, and it goes right back to this thing here. This is an issue that universities have to face. In conclusion, the violence that took place within the time that boomers were young and growing up, I mean obviously there has been violence. The holocaust happened for the World War II generation. Violence has always been part of what it is like to be a human being. I am very lucky that in July I am going to have two hours of the Robert Jay Lifton, and I am going to Boston, and we are going to talk about the psychology of the Vietnam veteran, but I have asked him to talk about the psychology of the anti-war protestor. And from his perspective, in terms of with veterans, it is post-traumatic stress disorder. But I want to get a better grasp of people that were on the other side, and he has agreed to do so. But the violence, it had to have shaped boomers, because they grew up with being in maybe 8th grade, 9th grade, 10th grade, with respect to the assassination of John Kennedy. (19)68 saw a United States senator and candidate murdered along with the greatest civil rights leader of all time. The unbelievable violence that took place, not only in Chicago, but the riots that took all... You know. The deaths in many major cities throughout the '60s. Then, obviously, you had the violence and the killings at Kent State University and Jackson State. And actually, I did not know this, but if you study it, there was a student killed at Berkeley, in 1969, at the People's Park incident. And we do not ever talk about him, and he has lost in history, and he should be discussed because he had nothing to do with the protest. He was just standing at the top of a building, and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Do you think this did to the psyche? Forget the fact that they are the new left. They were part of the violence too. What happened in Chicago, with the Black Panthers that were killed, and the COINTELPRO, and all the bad things that happened. But the violence, I am talking about the violence. What did this do to the psyche of this 78 million, as they moved into the (19)80s, and (19)90s, and beyond? Any thoughts? WO (01:52:40): Well, it certainly upset me. The (19)60s were terrible. The (19)60s were terrible in that way. This is a violent country, since World War II, at any rate. Compared to most other developed countries, we have had far more violence than almost any of the Britain has. Its soccer hooligans, I guess. That is a highly specialized subgroup. But this is just normally a violent country. We have got a big homicide rate. We had lynchings, well, if you could count the murders of civil rights workers, right into the 1960s, were far more heavily armed than anybody in the first world. And getting more so by the day. So, we have a certain amount of background violence, that just, we hardly notice it all. It's there all the time. But the race riots, and the violent demonstrations of the (19)60s, went beyond anything that we have seen in peace time. As you consider a little bit the Vietnam War, it's hard to know what peacetime is. We always seem to be engaged, and we are shooting somewhere. SM (01:54:07): I- WO (01:54:09): I do not know. I really do not know. And certainly, was extremely upsetting to me. How could it not have been upsetting to him? SM (01:54:19): See, I know that there was a book that came out around mid (19)70s, by Oba Demery. I do not know, I think that is how you pronounce his name. It's called Violence in America. And of course, this is talking about what happened in the (19)60s, but it goes way back to the wild, wild west, and how we have been killing, God knows... Native American's wounded knee. So, it is part of what we are as a country, and as a race. As he said, we have been always been a violent nation. And with Howard Zinn passing away recently, whether he like his politics or not, he made a commentary when his last speech. They had it on YouTube. And in that speech, it was pretty powerful. He said, "I was a World War II pilot, and I came back, and I thought when the war ended we had ended war as we knew it. We were not going to have war anymore, because we just defeated the Japanese and the Germans." And he said, "You know, since I came back, and used the GI Bill to get my PhD, he says, we have had nothing but war. War, after war, after war." And as you bring up, the only time we had the break in here was the Clinton period for four years, but even he got involved and skirmishes, Blackhawk down, and those kinds of things. WO (01:55:40): It required other statements of other decades. There was really nothing. SM (01:55:45): Yeah. So anyways, I am done. Are there any questions that you thought I was going to ask that I did not? Any final thoughts on the boomer generation, that you would like to mention? WO (01:56:04): Well, I personally like many of them. But it is true that I am somewhat against them as a group. I am somewhat prejudiced. And what I think one of the paradoxes, that I have never been able to resolve, is that the war generation, which is now officially the Greatest Generation, produces the boomers, who are the most in self-indulgent generation. And maybe they were over-shielded by their parents. SM (01:56:34): But you see, the boomers also attacked the consumption, the materialism, yet you are right- WO (01:56:40): Very few. Oh, very few. SM (01:56:42): Well, they did not, and that is what the multi diversity, the students in the universities attacked them. That was the generation gap. That was a lot of the issues that were happening within that definition. WO (01:56:54): That was just this tiny group of leftists, who were not all representative, the students as the whole. Even in the (19)60s, students consumed as much as they could, and they were more affluent. The parents were more affluent than previous generations had been, so they consumed more. And of course, now it is unbelievable. It seems like every other student has a car. And of course, they have all got cell phones, and laptops, and every electronic device known to man. SM (01:57:28): I know that the 40th anniversary of Kent State is coming up in about six weeks. I am going. Been there three of the last four years. And Mark Rudd's going to be there, former SDS. They are having an SDS reunion there, because Kent State had one of the strongest SDS chapters in the country. And well, Allen [inaudible] and the group, they were some of the ones that were actually killed. Allison Krause and Jeff Miller were SDSers. The other two were innocent. But they got Mark Rudd, Bernardine Dohrn is coming back from, she was the Weathermen, but she was SDS. So, they are having a [inaudible]. They were having a revival of the SDS group. I was not SDS. But then they're going to have a lot of speakers. And of course, the representative from Jackson State is always there too, because two were killed. WO (01:58:19): I read lot ago that Mark Rudd had in effect apologized for the Columbia takeover. SM (01:58:25): I interviewed him for my book. And he wrote his, it is a very good book. It is called Underground. And he admits that they were... I mean, it was totally wrong, going into violence, and he says it is the greatest mistake he ever made. They were involved in a group of people that were, even if you did not like them, they were committed. They were generally committed to ending the war, and they had no violence in their aspects. It was all protest, non-violent protests. You could be arrested, you can take over, and you can disrupt. But I have interviewed a couple Columbia University students, who were there at the time, and when they went the violent direction, that ended SDS. WO (01:59:06): But others like, Bernardine Dohrn, specifically, are unrepentant, who claim everything they did was already justified. How were they going to get along to you out here? SM (01:59:16): Well, I wanted to interview her too. I did not want to interview her husband. But she did not respond. She is at the University of Chicago Law. She did professor there. She did not respond. Mark did. I really enjoyed my conversation with him. You really understand. He opens it all up. He tells the whole story. And if you know the whole history at the very end, Mark Rudd and Vernon Dorn did not like each other. And there was some friction within the... And then Mark went off in his own direction. He is now a grandfather. And the day I interviewed him, he was at the beach in California with his grandson. And he is proud of what he did within the SDS, but he is not proud at all about the violence. He is just- WO (02:00:04): So what profession did he go into? SM (02:00:07): Well, he is a teacher now. He has been teaching in a community college for quite a few years. He is really a mathematician. He is very strong in math. He has always been good in math. Of course, he was hidden. He was underground for a long time. And what is interesting... I got this still on. But what is interesting is that they all lived out in the Sausalito area in California. When they were hidden, it was the boats. WO (02:00:29): What a great place to hide out. SM (02:00:32): Yeah. And actually, my sister is going out to visit friends, who has a boat right there in Sausalito. And no one knew them, because there were a lot of hippies, and that whole group there. And so no, that is why they were stay underground for so long. But then he finally let himself- Loud if you can. Are you ready? WO (02:00:59): Yes. SM (02:01:00): Okay. When did the (19)60s begin, in your opinion? And why did it begin, and what was the watershed moment? WO (02:01:16): Well, I would say the (19)60s began in 1964. That was the year of the free movement at Berkeley. SM (02:01:25): Mm-hmm. WO (02:01:26): It was the year of the Civil Rights Act. Well, first Birmingham, then the Civil Rights Act. So, it was really, and of course [inaudible]. But there were a series of big events, and really things... SM (02:01:44): Mm-hmm. When you think of the (19)60s and the early (19)70s, what comes to your mind? Was there a specific event, or a series of events, that continued to shape the boomers, not only in when they were young, but also in their adult years? WO (02:02:00): The (19)60s really did not last very long. I mean, it could take (19)64 as the starting point, which for purposes of my book I had, you have to do these things by decades. So, I started in my book in 1960, but in fact, the events that things lost started in 1964. And by 1971, they were essentially over. So, a very lot happened in a very short period too. SM (02:02:35): But when you look at the term rebellious incident, well that is an adjective that is often used to define boomers when they were young. And we're talking about a generation of probably 70 to 75 million. Some people have written that a lot of them were rebellious because we had the draft at that time, and maybe they would not have been as rebellious otherwise. What is your response to that? WO (02:03:00): Oh, I certainly agree. The political activity had everything to do with the draft. And once Richard Nixon essentially eliminated the risk, even before... Nixon believed that- I hate to agree with Nixon. Nixon believed this was true. And so, he reshaped the draft to eliminate the risk to almost everybody. And the first thing he did was, you were only liable at the age of 19. So, if you were over 19, you did not have to worry about it. And if you were 19, there was a lottery that told you, to win, how high your risk of being drafted was. And he was reducing the brute strength in Vietnam very rapidly. Very few people were at risk. And so again, by 1971 chances of being drafted were negligible. SM (02:04:02): But when you look at all the different types of movements that came about in that era, which not only included the anti-war movement, and the civil rights movement was ongoing. And then you had the development of all the other movements; the women's movement, the gay and lesbian movement, Native American movement, Chicano movement, Earth Day, the environmental movement. There was a spirit happening out there, that they were tired of the status quo, that many of these young people were tired of that status quo. And of course, the question that ultimately asked is there truth to that? And secondly, have they carried these ideas into their adulthood? WO (02:04:43): Well, of course the environmental movement, it is still moving. SM (02:04:49): Dr. Neil, could you speak a little louder too? WO (02:04:53): I guess. I do not think I can turn up the volume here. SM (02:04:57): Okay, that is all right. WO (02:05:00): Well, the environmental movement became permanent, and it was not just a matter of young people. The [inaudible] came out at the beginning of the decade, and there were a number of others as well, so it was never... A new leftist was a young people's wisdom. Environmentalism was not, feminism was not either. That started relatively early, with Betty Friedan. SM (02:05:28): Mm-hmm. WO (02:05:30): And that is become, essentially, it is not the picturesque phase of feminist, the women's liberation movement, and that sort of thing. That died out in the (19)70s, but the more permanent of termination, to secure equal rights, never did die out. What are the others? We do not hear much about Chicano rights. A right for [inaudible]- SM (02:06:00): Mm-hmm. WO (02:06:01): Who is very much alive. But again, with the kickoff with the riots, at the bar in New York City, name that I cannot remember, that was relatively young people, but it became institutionalized. SM (02:06:20): Mm-hmm. WO (02:06:20): And you noticed, when you see today, for gay married and the like, it is remarkable. Many of them are middle-aged people. SM (02:06:31): Is there, when you look at that whole era of boomers, that are defined as those born between 1946 and 1964, some people have had a hard time looking at generations that are confined to years. And I have had that in my interviews. But is there one specific event that you feel had the greatest impact, an event, a happening, that affected this generation? WO (02:07:02): No, I do agree that it is a very specific generation. I mean, I do not even think it is a matter of opinion, really. The demographic had a population explosion in the (19)50s, and by 1964 or so, that explosion was over in the first [inaudible]. So, I mean, I do not see how you can deny the boomers are an actual generation has seen, still, the largest single movement in American history. But I do not see it as defined by a single event. For example, the things that are most common in my book, and in most books about the (19)60s, we are talking about the sort of tip of the iceberg. But the movement, like the work we have discussed, and famous individuals, when you are talking about 75 million people, a very small fraction of that total was involved in the things that we talk about. SM (02:08:06): Right. WO (02:08:06): The real change, the thing that distinguished the boomers, I think, from previous generations at any rate, more than anything else, the self-indulgence, and the pleasure consumed. [inaudible] rate goes way up. SM (02:08:22): Mm-hmm. WO (02:08:22): Drug use goes way up. The rebellion is not so much a form of political one as it is throwing off traditional American values. And that- SM (02:08:33): Yeah, that goes right into my next question. Please list some positive characteristics of this generation, and some negative ones. WO (02:08:53): I mean, at the time, in the (19)60s, and when I was writing my book, I had been impressed by the Civil Rights Movement, which was fabulous. And for a time, by the new left, but those movements burned out so quickly. I mean, civil rights reaches its peak, probably in 1965, with the voting right back, and the events [inaudible]. And then, by the end of the decade, we have got Black Power, which absolutely destroyed the integrated Civil Rights Movement. And you still have civil rights advocate today, but it is a kind of lobby, not a movement. SM (02:09:38): Mm-hmm. WO (02:09:40): So, the movement period did not last very long. And most of the things, the boomers, the public once again, to politicize the ones you read about at the time, most of them did not last very long. They burned out pretty quickly. And it is hard for me to think of the long-term positive attributes. And I think quite a lot of negative ones, again, in terms of self-indulgence, and the drugs, and the enormous increase in divorce rates, and the like. My favorite- SM (02:10:24): You bring up what George Will and Newt Gingrich have said, "Oh, for a long time, whenever they get a chance to take a shot at the (19)60s generation, or the Boomers, is that all the reasons for the breakdown of American society falls into that particular group." And George Will has actually written on it in his books. And when Newt Gingrich came to power in 1994, there were often times when he would say it, even though he was a boomer. And the divisions in our society, the breakdown of American society, the drugs, the families, the lack of trust in positions of leadership... Are George Will and Newt Gingrich right? WO (02:11:07): Well, they are half right. I mean, I do agree with them, with what Trooper said- SM (02:11:12): What is that? WO (02:11:14): But what they never said, that the other half of what's been damaging to America in the last 40 years or so, has been the rise of right-wing extremists, and the Evangelical Christians, and the politicalization of schools, the effort to prevent abortion, and to stop speaking of evolution in the schools, and the denial of gay rights. I mean, the right-wing has a great deal of influence, and they never mentioned that the problem with this country isn't the notion of mere self-indulges. SM (02:11:46): Right. WO (02:11:47): It is the calculated exploitation of people's fears, right when you are [inaudible]. SM (02:11:53): One of the interesting points, too, on the criticisms of the boomer generation, is they will always point out that only 15 percent of 70 to 75 million were involved in any sort of activism. And they use it as a negative, but that is still a pretty large number, isn't it? When you consider 70 million people. WO (02:12:13): I mean, the movement, can you think of that kind of participation? SM (02:12:20): That is a lot. Could you comment on how important the boomer youth were, in college students in particular, in ending the war in to Vietnam? WO (02:12:36): I think they were most influential in since of their parents. A lot of people in Congress, and in important... I am reading right now the new biography of Paul Nitze. SM (02:12:52): Oh, yes. WO (02:12:54): And- SM (02:12:54): Yes, I have it. WO (02:12:56): Nitze's children were part of the movement. They were opposed to the Vietnam War. So, there he was in the Pentagon, [inaudible]. He was trying to defend it. No, I think they had a lot of influence to their parents, and I think that was more important than marching on the Pentagon, or think. Huh. SM (02:13:18): One of the things, and this is getting into modern day universities, is I have had a sense for several years, and you as a professor, probably unlike your comments on this, that people in positions of leadership and universities today, i.e. administrators, are afraid of the term activism, for the main reason is that it brings back all the memories of what happened in the (19)60s and (19)70s. And to them, it means the disruption of classes, the break... there is a real worry that volunteerism is popular, but activism is not, they do not like the term, am I right in assuming this? WO (02:13:59): That is my impression. One positive thing I wanted, I omitted, but I think the boomers began, and that was the tradition of local activists. Not great sweeping, let us say the end of the world or whatever, but the fact that ordinary people in neighborhoods started mobilizing the developed freeway from going through the middle town, or waste plant being built in their neighborhood, or whatever. I mean, on this local level, which is an ideological. It is really based on trying to preserve their immediate environment. There is a tremendous amount of this grant activism that is not political, but that the date from, and certainly was inspired by the exit of the (19)60s, that is become a permanent piece of American legacy. SM (02:14:50): Mm-hmm. WO (02:14:54): But then, what you were saying about administrators, the access of the (19)60s began the process undermining the university. I am absolutely convinced for that. It started with [inaudible] credits. SM (02:15:06): Yes. WO (02:15:07): And I thought that was typically reasonable. I mean, by the 1960's in the effort, they usually did it through the female student. The dormitory in Michigan, where I was an undergrad student, women had to be in their dorms by 10 o'clock on weeknights, and 12 o'clock on weekends. And theory believes that boys were very little opportunities for mischief. I mean, that was such an outmoded thing. So, I thought the getting rid of the local [inaudible] was perfectly fine. Then we started educating against requirements like foreign language, with very considerable success. Most universities came in on that one. And so, we have not had required foreign language, but in a great many universities for a very long time. And then they went after other aspects of the curriculum... memory. Then they went after other aspects of the curriculum that they did not like? Like science requirements- SM (02:16:05): Mm-hmm. WO (02:16:06): ... and that sort of thing. And, it is very true Rutgers is where been I have spent most of my career and I know it is good, do not [inaudible] prestige as well, but there was a cutting of the curriculum and newspapers were putting in the word "Vietnam" or "abolish racism". They would get rid of the foreign language requirements, and things like that. And the curriculum, it never recovered from that. SM (02:16:32): Well, what's interesting is that the people that run the universities today are the Boomers that were on campus and they witnessed what was happening at that particular period. And I do not know if the people that are running universities are those that were more conservative as opposed to the more liberal students that were doing the anti-war movement and other movements. WO (02:16:53): Basically, I think it was the more liberal students because the administrators that I am familiar with fell all over themselves to introduce Black studies, race studies, and Ebonics studies. And I do not mean that these things should not be introduced, but they were done for political reasons not for academic reasons at a time when there was so few experts. I was in Wisconsin, I thought it was dumb when the Black studies program was introduced because some students were marching into classes and disrupting them and taking the microphone away from a person. And it would usually be like 50 white students and one black, and they were demanding a Black studies program along with honestly cobbled ones together, which included a nurse, a geographer. I mean, there were not any experts at the time. It was just placating the students. It was always, administrators [inaudible]. And it makes it relatively easy to blackmail them. SM (02:17:54): Well, what was interesting as you well know then, and of course I was a student at that time, is that you give into my demands and we will just demand more demands. WO (02:18:04): Right. SM (02:18:05): That happened an awful lot. A lot of the Boomers, at least when I was... I went to Binghamton University and I know there was sense there, as well as when I went to grad school in Ohio State, that we are the most unique generation in American history. WO (02:18:20): Oh, absolutely, [inaudible]. SM (02:18:21): Yeah, and I know a lot of people still believe that, that are in their early (19)60s, now. Your thoughts on that kind of an attitude? WO (02:18:31): Oh, they were very full of themselves. I have an anecdote, today, [inaudible] word. They will probably block that out, but it was really illuminating to me. One of the things... again, I thought it was constant from (19)66 to (19)71 and those were absolutely the worst years of student activism. And one of the things those graduate students demanded, the graduate students at the University of Wisconsin lead the whole campus-wide to left. And they demanded that the [inaudible] department meetings be open to all students who wanted to come. And so, the department caved in on that. There was a lot of caving going on at the time. And so, the radical graduate students started coming and the result was that regular faculty would not say anything. So, the meetings became meaningless because nobody would have an opinion that might inflame the graduate students or whoever. Oh, after about six months of this, everything had to be done by committees and behind closed doors not at the actual meetings. The department finally decided to rescind that rule and during the (19)60s everything controversial was all an elaborate parliamentary of protocols. [inaudible] school's order was dragged out at every occasion. So, before we got the vote to ban these sorts of departmental meetings, there were a series of preliminary votes and it finally got to the penultimate vote, which was if you voted "yes" on this it meant that you were going to vote yes with students because they were with the radical students sitting right next to me in school, but I put my hand up that I was going to vote. One of these students, he turned to me and he said, " O'Neil, you prick, we will get you for this." SM (02:20:34): Oh, my gosh. WO (02:20:34): I actually laughed because it was such an inflated opinion on their influence. I knew they were not going to get me. SM (02:20:43): My gosh. Yeah, this brings up a question of you personally. When you were a professor in the (19)60s and (19)70s, how did these students differ from other students from other generations? Say the Generation Xers, and the current Millennials. How did these students different? Were they more inquisitive? Were they more well-read? Did they have a better knowledge of history? Just your thoughts. WO (02:21:14): The actual (19)60s students and I was [inaudible] over the decade, essentially. On the one hand they were still extremely well-prepared for college work, the deterioration of the general educational system had not set in yet. So, they were extremely well-prepared. They were capable of doing high level academic work and because they had been so politicized by the war and race movement and things like that, that they asked... this is all apart from the demonstration movement... any regular classroom work, you had to be prepared and I always tried to anticipate before I gave a lecture, but, it might be interrupted as imperialistic. And if a student accused me of that, how would I respond to it? And it would not be just a matter of name-calling, they do not, for instance, they will say, "well, how can you defend the policy that entailed using the Philippines, whatever the issue." So, they were smart and well-prepared and well-read in subjects they were interested. It was the most exciting teaching I have ever had. I had not really signed up for exciting teaching but it turned out to be a more of a challenge than I had anticipated. All though, in later years I came to miss some of the manners of them and the one thing they all agreed on was it was important and you needed to get it right. Starting in the (19)70s, things started to go downhill and by the (19)80s it was very marked. Oh, they were poorly prepared, they were not interested... great inflation- SM (02:22:55): Yep. WO (02:22:56): ... a lot of students just were for teaching. So, teaching today is not remotely as much fun as it used to be. SM (02:23:07): Wow. I know when we had Tom Hadden on our campus and he met with, several years back, some of our students, student government leaders, they talked about the power that they had to be able to deal with budgets and everything. And Tom shook his head and he said, "I am talking about, do you have real empowerment, not power?" And they did not even understand the term empowerment. And I think that is another term that is referred back to that period of the '60s because of their desire to be involved in all committees and know how the money is being spent. Today's students do not seem to even care how the money is being spent. WO (02:23:43): No, they do not. SM (02:23:46): So, do you think that the students of that era, the Boomers, really understood empowerment, whereas today students cannot even define the word? WO (02:23:58): Well, we were all winging it, including them. It was not like they had a master plan. They tended to be moved by events. And then the faculty and the administration would respond to their reaction to the events, or they would raise up the bans periodically, usually [inaudible] watering down the curriculum or something of that sort. So, it was all very ad hoc. No, I do not know if they [inaudible]. SM (02:24:36): Could you describe a little bit about the generation gap? The differences that the Boomers had with their parents and... because today, college students and millennials seem to be closer to their parents then at any other time. Their parents are so involved in everything and there does not seem to be any generation gap. And the 2nd part of this question is, why did the generation Xers that followed the Boomers dislike Boomers so much? We actually have programs in this at the university in the early (19)90s and a lot of them just looked at Boomers and said, "you are too tight, we're sick of hearing about your youth, we are sick of hearing about the time that you were young." And they just had problems with it all together. Just your thoughts. WO (02:25:30): Well, the Boomers' parents, remember, were the war generation. Both of their parents born through at least part of the depression, and pretty much all of the war. They had endured hardship and [inaudible]. During World War 2, all eligible men went into the services and most men served for years. That was the average, the armed service, most of them received as a rule. So, their generation had gone through hardship and the women had worked in defense plants or they were single mothers and children were raised even by themselves. And then after the war, they became... they were even criticized for this, but they became really eager to make up for lost time and so they got married and everyone had children, all at the same time in a sequence. And they did this by working hard, by self-discipline, by practicing all these traditional virtues. And apparently, they spoiled their children in the process, because they had had it hard, they wanted their children to have it easier and the result was the overconfident, over privileged, self-indulgent Boomers. SM (02:27:00): The generations that followed, I want to clarify that, I think I said it wrong. They disliked them or liked them for two reasons: number one, those that disliked them were tired of hearing about the nostalgia of that particular era; and those that liked them were those that wished they had the same issues and causes that would unite their generation that they had. Your thoughts on just this complexity of responses to following generations toward this group. WO (02:27:32): I think that was true of college students. I do not know how it was in the general population because they are grad students, majority of people in any generation are not college graduates. And they are preoccupied with making enough money to live on and paying the mortgage and getting the kids through school and maybe they do not have time for that. I think it's strictly a phenomenon of some of the college... but it is true, I noticed that. SM (02:28:08): Okay, I want to read this and get your response to this: "do you feel that the boomer generation, or Boomers, are still having problems with healing due to the extreme divisions that tore the nation apart in their youth? And this could be linked to division between black and white. Between those who supported authority and those criticized it. Between those who supported the troops and those who were against it. And also, the Vietnam memorial has tried to play a part in the healing within the veterans’ generation and I do not know if it is done much to the general population. Do you feel the boomer generation will go to it is grave like the civil war generation, not truly healed? Am I wrong in thinking this way or has 35 to 40 years made the following statement true: time heals all wounds?" Is there truth to this statement? WO (02:29:11): [inaudible]. Look, as an academic I have a limited perspective. I deal with students and faculty, who are not necessarily representative of any generation in particular. But, my sense of the Boomers is that they are not wracked with post-traumatic stress disorders, anything of that... [inaudible] season in the (19)60s. They seemed to me to have remained so. SM (02:29:48): Hmm. How about the healing, do you think that is an issue? And I want to follow this up with something, I took students to see Senator Edmond Muskie before he died several years back and we asked that very same question to him, in a room with 14 students, and I had this actually videotaped. And he did not respond right away because we were trying to get at what happened in 1968 and the tremendous divisions of the Democratic Convention and the lack of healing. And his response said, "we have not healed since the civil war." And then he went on to talk for 10 minutes on the Ken Burns series that he had just witnessed while he was in the hospital and so, his answer to, we had any healing since the (19)60s, he said, "we have not had any healing since the civil war." Just your thoughts on that. WO (02:30:44): Well, I think that is true of the south. I think it is striking. The south has been forced to improve course through the voting rights act and the enforcement of it, and these things. But it is utterly remarkable to me how the south has [inaudible] very worst attributes. I saw the other day, just for example, in the last election only 15 percent of white males in Louisiana, compared to a number of other states, voted for Obama. These people they still have slavery because- SM (02:31:21): Oh my gosh. WO (02:31:23): So, I think where the south is concerned then that is certainly true. But the rest of the nation, though more in the North and [inaudible]. SM (02:31:33): So, you think the divisions are still here and that is just part of our history and we have no shot at healing, like many in the civil war when they went to their graves they still had not healed? WO (02:31:50): Maybe in another hundred years the South will fully [inaudible]. But I really feel this is outside of the national framework, pretty much for the rest of the country. SM (02:32:02): How about the Vietnam memorial? Obviously, you have been there and when I first moved back from California in 1983, the first thing I had to do was get down to the Vietnam memorial, and I go down there quite a few times every year. What kind of a job has that done with respect to trying to heal the nation, even beyond the veterans? WO (02:32:27): Well, at the very core of the memorial park, it means to heal. But then I still read about members of congress who are still blaming the democrats for losing the Vietnam War and the Boomers for being responsible for that wound that we just cannot let go. And there are the Vietnam veterans themselves who are still tormented by their experiences which should not be surprising because it was full of World War Two veterans. 50 years after the fact. I know World War Two veterans 50 years after the fact who still has nightmares, that kind of thing. The war is quite different- SM (02:33:18): Right. What do you think the lasting legacy will be of the boomer generation once the best history books are written? Obviously, you have already written best history books, but a lot of people think the best history books are often written 25 to 50 years after a specific era or time. What do you think will be the overall analysis? WO (02:33:45): And when I wrote my book, I was trying to represent what I felt was... what I thought was maybe some kind of ultimate verdict. You cannot make an ultimate verdict. The book came out in 1971- SM (02:34:00): Right. WO (02:34:00): ... so, giving the ultimate verdict. But, yeah, it is often true. Some of the best civil war writing history has been done in the last 20 years. SM (02:34:12): Do you think there will be more criticism or more praise? Or is it just impossible to say? WO (02:34:27): People even in the (19)60s, there was a cycle of opinion among educated and successful professional Americans, in which the first sentencing was mired, the Boomers because of their participation in the civil rights movement and the movement in particular. By the end of the decade, many of those same people who turned against because of the rise of violence and seeing the Black Power and the weather movement, those sorts of things. Well, the reputation of the Boomers in the (19)60s rose like a rocket and fell just [inaudible]. Have not changed my mind, yet. SM (02:35:24): Do you think the Boomers as parents and now as grandparents have really taught their kids about activism or have shared it or have been quiet or? Sometimes I make an analogy, I have talked to so many people, that it is like people come back from war and they do not like to talk about it- WO (02:35:47): Yep. SM (02:35:48): ... and the question is: do Boomer parents and grandparents talk about it to their kids? Do they share? Do they just go on and live their lives? I do not know if you can answer that but. WO (02:36:01): Now, seeing it in academia twice, I know a lot of former new-leftists, they are just rampant, still. And my impression is that all though they still cherish their youth philosophies, and indeed, we all hear stories about and still have the same values to the extent that they are compatible with professional success. But in the abstract. So, it is again, getting tenure and getting promoted and- SM (02:36:37): Right. WO (02:36:37): ... pulling your [inaudible]. But in the abstract, they are still in favor of [inaudible], usually [inaudible] and all that. SM (02:36:53): Quick- WO (02:36:53): There is so many impressions of their children but it's only getting passed on. SM (02:36:54): Yeah, but what is interesting is that people will look at Boomer leadership and they look to Clinton and Bush. WO (02:37:01): Yeah. SM (02:37:02): Because they actually are the Boomers and some will say they both have characteristics within them that really define them as Boomers, both of them. And actually, President Obama is a Boomer, too, he is a very late-stage Boomer at 48, now. But- WO (02:37:22): I really do not- SM (02:37:23): Yeah, he is a late-stage Boomer himself so he still has that little- WO (02:37:26): Oh, wait, does he? SM (02:37:28): He has a little bit of an influence. WO (02:37:35): Well, I do not see an influence. [inaudible], I feel like. I do see it in Bush. What is it about Bush? SM (02:37:40): Well, I do not know, people were all commenting based on qualities, "doing it my way or the highway" kind of an attitude or something like that. WO (02:37:52): I still see him as an old-fashioned reactionary. SM (02:37:57): Do you think this Peter Max slogan from one of his posters really defines the Boomers? Here is a quote: "you do your thing, I will do mine. If by chance we come together it will be beautiful." Now that was a very important statement on Peter Max posters in 1972 when I at Ohio State because I had it hanging in my room. And I wish I kept it because that poster's probably worth money now. Does that really define them? WO (02:38:26): No, I do not agree with that at all. SM (02:38:28): Okay. WO (02:38:28): Many leftists that I knew, and at Wisconsin I knew a lot, because the graduate students were radicalized. No, they were completely intolerant. They did not have room for anybody else's opinion. You were either radical or a fascist, in [inaudible]. SM (02:38:47): Could you talk a little about the music of the era and how important it was in the lives of Boomers. Secondly, who were the artists you feel shaped the generation more than others? And maybe some of the songs. WO (02:39:01): That buffoon [inaudible] to me, I grew up in the big band era, my eras were the one by [inaudible] Frank Sinatra. That was my youth. When rock and all that came along as part of a culling. SM (02:39:22): Do you feel that part of the activism that was part of this generation, music played in important part? WO (02:39:41): I do not know, it was kind of like their sacramental music. others incited fervor. There was a boom but... yeah, to the degree that you were inspiring sort of religious type emotion and the sacramental music would enhance that. SM (02:39:53): I am going to seize a couple more questions here and then I have a section where I just mention some names. You have already mentioned, what does the- I am going to repeat myself- what does the wall... just say a few sentences here, what does the wall mean to you? WO (02:40:10): The Berlin wall? SM (02:40:10): Yeah, no, the-the Vietnam memorial. WO (02:40:13): Oh, well, it just think it is beautiful and moving. SM (02:40:20): What does Ken State and Jackson State mean to you? WO (02:40:22): Oh, well, those were bloodbaths. 196-[inaudible] SM (02:40:37): That was 1970. WO (02:40:39): Right. SM (02:40:40): Where were you when 1970 when you heard about that? WO (02:40:44): I was a visiting professor at New York from Pennsylvania and the semester had just ended. It ended several [inaudible] early. And so, the students who were at campus by the time that happened, there were not any real reactions. SM (02:40:57): Wow. WO (02:40:58): So, unlike at other universities where they had to [inaudible]. SM (02:41:02): Yep. What does Watergate mean to you? WO (02:41:09): Oh, the greatest [inaudible] reveled in Watergate. And I never thought the public really knew about all the scandalous parts within the institution and all of the fall-out all over the nation. No, I thought it was Nixon [inaudible] for weeks, then he got [inaudible]. He was just delightful. I wish I known now longer what I realized then, he would get acquitted at some point. SM (02:41:41): Do you think that had an effect on the Boomer generation? WO (02:41:49): No. That is in 1975, it is pretty well-formed at that point. (19)74, (19)70. SM (02:42:02): Okay, what does Woodstock mean to you? WO (02:42:05): Oh, it did not mean anything to me, I thought, as I said- SM (02:42:09): At least to the generation? WO (02:42:13): Well, I guess those at Woodstock had a great time, I know, I had some younger friends who went there but I do not see it as a great seminal world-changing event. SM (02:42:26): How about the term "counter-culture"? WO (02:42:30): Oh, that was a definite [inaudible] piece that took place in propaganda in the (19)60s. A lot of it has become cliched, 30 years later it is pretty difficult recap the origin. But at the time, I thought it was dangerous and quite remarkable. SM (02:42:57): I am going to change my tape here, hold on a second. Okay, and if you just speak at just a little bit louder, I know we cannot put the volume up, but. Okay, another one: the hippies and the yippies? Just your thoughts on them. WO (02:43:21): Well, the hippies started out at least as being pretty charming. I remember the first time I saw one [inaudible] was in Washington, D.C. I was working at the Library of Congress. And I was walking, got off the bus, and I was crossing DuPont Circle, and a guy with long hair came up and gave me a flower. That was, I think, the first hippie I ever saw. It must have been about (19)63 or (196)4, something like that. So, they were charming at first, but as you know they descended into gross and vanity. And there have been many similar children of hippies who were really kind of abused, mostly from neglect more than. But, [inaudible]. I got a big bang out of the yippies. I thought a lot of the stuff they did, the throwing dollars in the New York Stock Exchange and big demonstration... democratic demonstration, [inaudible] it was really about, this is Eddie Hoffman and some of the others, were really kind of geniuses when it came to turning the establishment on its head and creating a no-win situation but Chicago was [inaudible]. If the authorities had allowed the yippies to go ahead with their demonstration it would have been embarrassing to the democratic party and- SM (02:45:03): Right. WO (02:45:04): ... in the city of Chicago, to no end. But, in attempting to suppress them, they embarrassed themselves even more, so. But like all these things, the yippies ran out of steam. Eddie Hoffman [inaudible] in the later years [inaudible] caricature of themselves. SM (02:45:21): How about the Students for Democratic Society and certainly the Vietnam Veterans Against the War? WO (02:45:28): Well, SDC is a big different [inaudible] to me. I taught at University of Colorado before I went, and I was asked to be a student for faculty advice... and they had to have a faculty advisor in order to have a [inaudible]. So, I was the faculty advisor to SDS for a couple of years and this was still the era of non-violent activism. They were very much inspired by Martin Luther and so they would have non-violent demonstrations. But I liked them a lot, they were wonderful people. Well, I got to Wisconsin and the tide was already changing and the SDS, I dealt with there had abandoned non-violence and they were having street fights with the police. SM (02:46:20): It is the weathermen, yeah. WO (02:46:23): These were not actually weathermen, they were just regular SDC [inaudible]. SM (02:46:25): Right. WO (02:46:27): But they were having [inaudible] war from the history department windows pitched down on between the SDC and [inaudible] police. The police teargassed them... and the police would throw the tear gas back at them and then they would have [inaudible]. So, that was a healthy disillusioning. SM (02:46:51): How about Vietnam Veterans Against the War? WO (02:46:52): Well, the ones that I knew I admired very much and I think some their [inaudible] is really, well, in a better position he really represented some of the fears of the war. They were very thoughtful and well-informed. Very just kind of people. SM (02:47:15): How about the Young Americans for Freedom? WO (02:47:23): Oh, over-privileged Nazis. SM (02:47:23): How about the Black Panthers and Black Power? WO (02:47:26): Oh, I thought they were a terrible movement. Again, they destroyed the old civil rights movement, the non-violent civil rights movement which had accomplished everything we got in the civil rights act and the voting rights act and everything of value. And then these nincompoops came along and that old "power comes from the barrel of a gun" and other bullish cliches. And they ruined the civil rights movement, it was just appalling. The Black Panthers, I did not know this at the time, but there has been a lot of work done on them, were more of a criminal organization than anything else. SM (02:48:00): Because Bobby Seale, Eldridge Cleaver. Remember, Kathleen Cleaver, Angela Davis, Hutton, they were all part of that group. WO (02:48:12): Oh, it was founded by ex-convicts. That should have been a clue. SM (02:48:18): Yeah, Huey Newton had that poster that was on a lot of campuses. Also, the term that Nixon used, "the enemies list", when you hear that what did that... how did you respond? WO (02:48:32): I thought it was hysterical because it included the president from Harvard and other universities. [inaudible], some football stars. It was virtually a mark of honor to be on the list. We used to go around lying about it, saying that they were on the enemies list. SM (02:48:55): Mỹ Lai? WO (02:48:56): Oh, that was horrible, that was terrible. And kind of summed up sort of "everyone's about the Vietnam war, actually." SM (02:49:07): 1968. The year. WO (02:49:09): Oh, well, that was the year that was... a lot books, I think, focus on that one year. SM (02:49:14): Yes. Wow. WO (02:49:17): Well, I thought the war was going to start... well, I saw fighting outside of my door. SM (02:49:24): Do you buy what some people said, that we were close to a second civil war? WO (02:49:29): No. That is the kind of overreaction you get when you are in the middle of things. SM (02:49:29): Okay. WO (02:49:43): I knew in the abstract that we would get [inaudible]. At the time I was writing my book but I did not still see myself sort of [inaudible]. SM (02:49:44): Right, and tech? WO (02:49:44): Well, that was what changed the world of war, that was the point... and it probably... over the world. And at this point, the public opinion polls supported [inaudible] up until then. And Ian [inaudible], and those other liars, they write [inaudible], blah, blah, blah. And they were all really [inaudible]. And it convinced Richard Nixon, I am sure of it, convinced Richard Nixon that could not facilitate policy [inaudible] to get reelected. SM (02:50:34): This is another question I would like to read. This deals with the issue of trust. And that is, the boomers experienced many leaders who lied to them and were dishonest in many ways. The result is that many, if not most, did not trust any leaders, no matter their role in society, whether they be a president, a congressman, a senator, corporate leader or religious leader, or leader in any role. What effect did this have on their trust both then and now? If boomers distrust do their children distrust? Psychologists often say that if you cannot trust someone then life has little meaning. Your thought on the issue of trust within the boomer generation. WO (02:51:16): Oh, I think they got over it. I mean, the public. One of the slogans at the time was do not trust anyone over 30. SM (02:51:24): Yep. WO (02:51:31): Well, they all [inaudible] over 30. The ones that I know retain a certain residual distrust of the federal government. But that does not [inaudible] seems to be [inaudible] the other institution is equally evolved. SM (02:51:56): All right. Why did the Vietnam War end? WO (02:52:00): Because Richard Nixon recognized that it was an absolute no-win situation politically, and that he had to wrap it up, one way or another. And of course, the way he chose was not [inaudible] by any means. And I do not know how else he could have done it. SM (02:52:18): When did the (19)60s end? WO (02:52:21): Well, I am thinking (19)71, thereabouts. SM (02:52:29): Is there a specific event that you knew, and when you saw it, it is over? WO (02:52:36): Well, the election of Richard Nixon. And then within, I do not know, six or eight months of taking office, he started pulling troops out of Vietnam. Very, very, soon and very rapid. The draw down was crazy. It was [inaudible] over bombing raids, but that was deliberate on his part, because he wanted the right wing [inaudible] that he was [inaudible] along, but in fact, he [inaudible] rapid rate that by the end of 1971 the offensive action [inaudible] Vietnam. The draft was over basically by then. And that was end of the (19)60s. SM (02:53:21): Mm-hmm. Please describe how important race, economics, and culture is in understanding the boomer generation and era they lived. WO (02:53:33): Well, race alone for [inaudible] was the first great cause. There were chapters, particularly on campus, the creation of [inaudible] and students and my own coordinating studies in 1960. That sit-in movement spawned a support group, I guess, in major universities all over the country. It was the first movement that the boomers [inaudible]. And in most cases, it was lifelong. I mean, even after white people got kicked out of the [inaudible] the Congress of Racial Equality and organizations like that, it did not change their views. Oh, I think that was terrific. SM (02:54:26): And I know Kennedy was very... President Kennedy and actually Teddy Kennedy, in his new book talks it about it too, about Michael Harrington talking about poverty and economics, and certainly that played a part too. It is not just about race, it's about how much money people make and poverty and so forth. That is certainly a part of this generation. WO (02:54:50): [inaudible] very interested in the problems of poor white people. SM (02:54:54): Right. Right. Couple more, then I am going to ask you some individual names, and then we will be done. What were the most important books that you felt were written at the time that may have influenced boomers when they were young? Authors. Books. WO (02:55:19): Boy, that is hard to say. I mean, I know the books that influenced me. SM (02:55:21): What books influenced you? WO (02:55:27): Well, Michael Harrington's book was a tremendous eye-opener. SM (02:55:32): Mm-hmm. WO (02:55:32): And Rachel Carson's book too. Of course, those were books that had tremendous impact. My views on Vietnam were shaped by Bernard Fall, who was [inaudible]. Did you read any of his? SM (02:55:52): What is his last name? WO (02:55:52): Bernard Fall. SM (02:55:53): Oh yeah, Bernie Fall. Yes. WO (02:55:57): One of my few successful prophecies was when I knew the Vietnam War was going to turn out badly, because I would read Fall. And the United States was making [inaudible]. So [inaudible]. SM (02:56:12): Yep. How about your personal story? How did you personally decide to become a history teacher? WO (02:56:25): Well, I was in a program when my father, who was not at college. In fact, he only went [inaudible]. And so, he ended up in the oil business, as a wildcatter of all things. And he felt that he was politically handicapped by not being a lawyer. He was always [inaudible] other people. [inaudible] career and I took it for granted too. I was the first person in my family to go to college, so [inaudible] knew anything about it. And I majored in [inaudible]. And in my senior year, I wrote... A lot of people think of it as a serious [inaudible]. You write a senior’s honors thesis to do with [inaudible] very long. And I realized... I think it was probably 100 pages. And I realized suddenly, just like a revelation, you're [inaudible]. Then I realized if I could do [inaudible] that way I could probably write a good thesis. SM (02:57:28): Wow. WO (02:57:37): Granted I could [inaudible] and I would not have to go to law school. By that time, I had moved... I had roomed with some law students, so I knew what a grind and how horrible it was, and [inaudible] and soul destroying. Then suddenly I realized I can make my living doing what I most like. SM (02:57:51): Discouraged? WO (02:57:52): It was [inaudible]. SM (02:57:53): You went to Berkeley too, did not you? WO (02:57:56): Graduate. SM (02:57:57): Were you there during the free speech movement, or... WO (02:58:00): I left a year before. SM (02:58:01): Okay. WO (02:58:01): Knew some of the students that were involved in it, because free speech movement just did not come out of nowhere. SM (02:58:06): I know. WO (02:58:06): And [inaudible] in Berkeley in [inaudible] between 1968 [inaudible]. And of course, in 1960 there had been the big demonstration against [inaudible] in San Francisco, and a lot of Berkeley students participated in that. Oh, I knew some of the students at the sit-in. [inaudible] But I left in [inaudible]. SM (02:58:37): When you wrote your book, American High and Coming Apart, and obviously you have written other books, and now your new one, what kind of feedback did you get from people when you wrote those books? Obviously, it is a sense of accomplishment to have written the first two that I mentioned, what I consider great books. WO (02:58:57): But you would be surprised, apart from reviews, but you would be surprised at the little mail books like that get. I once wrote an op-ed piece in The New York Times on Solzhenitsyn, and this was in, I do not know, (19)78, something like that. And it made it because the Harvard Review was critical narrative. [inaudible] I did not know why me. I mean, I know nothing really about Russia. Anyway, I did write an op-ed piece on him. I got more mail from that single op-ed piece than I have from all my books put together. SM (02:59:39): Unbelievable. Wow. WO (02:59:42): I mean, if I get 10 letters in response to a book, that is huge. SM (02:59:49): That American High book is a classic book. WO (02:59:53): Now, over the years, I have gotten [inaudible] letters. But I mean, I still get them. SM (03:00:00): Mm-hmm. WO (03:00:00): That is because [inaudible]. SM (03:00:03): In all of your experiences as a professor in the classroom with boomer students, are there one or two specific experiences you will never forget, that stand out? WO (03:00:19): Well, of course, the one I just told you about, the graduate students, that certainly- SM (03:00:20): Right. WO (03:00:20): ... stuck in my mind [inaudible] this absurdity. No, in class, I think [inaudible]. In class I had a lot of really thought-provoking periods [inaudible], but not since. SM (03:00:51): Mm-hmm. Before I ask the first questions on individual persons, are there any questions I did not ask that you thought I was going to ask? WO (03:01:04): No, I think I had a lot [inaudible]. SM (03:01:04): All right. This is the last part of the interview, and this is for just your immediate thoughts. You do not have to go into any depth, but just your thoughts on some of these individuals from the period, and terms of the era. Tom Hayden. WO (03:01:24): Oh, I admired him at the beginning, the Port Huron Statement and [inaudible] sort of thing, but by the time he became... By the end of the period, I felt sorry for him more than anything else. Living in this restrictive fear. SM (03:01:38): Jane Fonda. WO (03:01:45): I never hated... I do not hate her. I never hated her, or... I felt sorry for her too, I suppose. She did not have anybody to tell her who to... Well, and she's apologized. SM (03:01:58): Right. Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. WO (03:02:07): I admired them both in their early yippie phases. I thought they were funny and smart, and manipulated the establishment too. Abbie became kind of pathetic in later life. And Jerry Rubin was never able to find his bearings afterwards. SM (03:02:28): How about the participants in the Chicago Eight trial? The Eight. WO (03:02:33): Oh, yes. That was [inaudible]. I did not really have any opinion, other than they joined [inaudible]. SM (03:02:42): I am interviewing Rennie Davis in 10 days. WO (03:02:46): Oh, he was one of the ones. Oh. SM (03:02:48): Yeah, he has become a very successful entrepreneur. I think he is a millionaire. WO (03:02:53): Really? SM (03:02:53): Yes. If you go onto the web, you will see he is involved in the environment and he's still an activist doing unbelievable things. He does not talk about the (19)60s anymore. That is the past. But he is going to be... He has got his own life now, totally different. WO (03:03:12): Remarkable. SM (03:03:14): John Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy. WO (03:03:18): I never liked John Kennedy [inaudible]. He was basically a very conservative Democrat. I liked Adlai Stevenson. I did not care for him. I did not like Robert Kennedy either until 1968, when he really seemed to have... At which time he really seemed to have gone through a change and become [inaudible] about being ruthless. But he really seemed to have become less ruthless and more deeply concerned with the social problems, so I came to admire him [inaudible] being assassinated. SM (03:03:57): How about Teddy Kennedy, since he just passed, and has got a big book out right now? WO (03:04:02): Yes. Well, I think like almost everyone, I thought Chappaquiddick was so despicable. For years bear the thought of it, but still he outlived it, and he paid his dues and became a great senator. And by the time he died I admired him a lot. SM (03:04:21): Lyndon Johnson. WO (03:04:23): Oh, he was so disappointing. I thought Johnson in (19)64 was just great, and the campaign was great. And he stood for peace and justice and civil rights and everything desirable, and then he sacrificed everything to the war in Vietnam. I was just crushed. SM (03:04:45): Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. WO (03:04:46): Well, Spiro Agnew was definitely successful. I do not know if he is still alive or not. SM (03:04:53): No, he passed away. WO (03:04:54): I never changed my opinion about him. Richard, I spent a large part of my adult life hating Richard Nixon. I hated him from about the time of the [inaudible] case on, I would say. And I got to vote against him repeatedly, because I voted against him in (19)56 and then in 1960, and then in (19)62 I was in California, so I got to vote for him again, against him again. And then in (19)68 and then in (19)72. So, I had a long record there. And there was nobody I hated more in public life. But years later, like, oh, starting in the end of the Vietnam War, I began to develop a grudging respect, because he did get us out of the war in the face of great [inaudible]. I have mixed feelings about him. He was an evil man who did open up China. Who ended the war in Vietnam. Who expanded the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Arts, and signed off on clean air and clean water legislation. [inaudible] I am ambivalent toward Nixon. SM (03:06:08): How about Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern? WO (03:06:12): Oh, I loved Eugene McCarthy. I worked for his campaign. [inaudible] But he was disappointing too because he frittered away the reputation that he had built up in 1968. He did not run again for quite some time. And then when he did start putting himself up as a presidential candidate it was under hopeless circumstances. He just threw his following away. It was one of the really... [inaudible] I never understood. McGovern. I liked McGovern, but I thought even at the time that he was going to ruin the Democratic Party. SM (03:06:57): The buses. WO (03:06:59): He was the captain of every little... SM (03:07:03): Sargent Shriver. WO (03:07:06): Oh, there is somebody, you know, solid life of service. Have to admire him. SM (03:07:11): Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. WO (03:07:15): Well, Martin Luther King is the greatest of all my political heroes. He changed the country. I did not know anything about Malcolm X until after... I used to see him occasionally on television when he was still a Muslim or a Black Panther. SM (03:07:34): Uh-huh. WO (03:07:35): And I thought he was kind of dangerous, because he was so smart and so clever, and pursued a Black racist agenda. It was only after his death I learned that he was a... through the autobiography, that I learned he was actually a more complicated person. SM (03:07:55): Right. Yeah-yeah, yeah. He said all white people were not devils. WO (03:07:57): Mm-hmm. SM (03:08:00): Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford. WO (03:08:05): Well, I know people who hated Ronald Reagan, and I never could because I grew up on his movies. My feeling now, while he was president of the States I always voted against him and I was really unhappy with his presidency in many ways. Since his death, there have been some books that came out that have explained in great detail what was never explained at the time which was how he and Gorbachev negotiated an end to the Cold War. And so now, while I still think his domestic program could hardly have been worse, I have come to respect his role in ending the Cold War, which it turns out was really an important one. SM (03:08:54): Gerald Ford. WO (03:08:55): Oh, he is just nobody. Through pure accident got to the presidency. SM (03:09:03): How about Dwight Eisenhower and Hubert Humphrey? WO (03:09:09): Well, Eisenhower, I have been a lifelong Democrat so [inaudible] heart is not in these the way... And one of my great political heroes, probably second only to Martin Luther King, was Adlai Stevenson. I thought Eisenhower was a peaceful president. And I thought that until I started writing Coming Apart and then I had to write a chapter on Eisenhower. 1960 was Eisenhower's last year. And then I had to start Googling up his record. He ended the Korean War. He did not start any others. He held the line on the [inaudible] anyone could. He nearly balanced the budget. He balanced the budget three times and he came pretty close the fourth time. [inaudible] Started the Interstate Highway System. He was actually a pretty good president, something I did not understand while he was president. SM (03:10:00): How about Hubert Humphrey? WO (03:10:06): Oh, Hubert Humphrey. Oh, I always liked him. He was such a great liberal. But he really sullied his name by becoming a cheerleader for the Vietnam War. SM (03:10:16): Yeah, I agree. How about Edmund Muskie, his running mate in (19)68? WO (03:10:21): Well, I admired him, and I am sorry he did not win. I think he was... In all the dirty tricks that people did, I think the one that was most [inaudible] the only ones that were really effective were the ones that [inaudible] Muskie. SM (03:10:37): Right. How about the women leaders like Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug? WO (03:10:42): Oh, I like them all. SM (03:10:48): What kind of an influence have they had on boomers? WO (03:10:54): You know, it is hard for me to tell, not being [inaudible]. SM (03:11:03): Right. How about U-2? WO (03:11:07): Oh, the band? SM (03:11:09): No, not the band, the Gary Powers. WO (03:11:11): Oh, oh, oh, the U-2 incident. SM (03:11:15): That seems to be the first time when boomers saw a person who lied to them, which was Eisenhower. WO (03:11:21): Yes. That was probably the worst thing Eisenhower did. In a sense, the big summit with Khrushchev in Paris was coming up and he allowed U-2 over-flights to be made right up until the wire. If he canceled them like two months before the meeting... And of course, he knew the Soviets knew all about them, they just were not saying anything because it was so embarrassing. Yep, it was a major blunder. [inaudible] SM (03:11:55): Robert McNamara. WO (03:11:58): Oh, did I ever [inaudible] him. I mean, bringing all that brilliance to bear in order to stop a war. And I [inaudible] for waiting 25 years to [inaudible]. SM (03:12:12): Right. He just passed away. How about Dr. Benjamin Spock and the Berrigan Brothers? WO (03:12:19): Oh, I liked Spock. I mean, [inaudible] influenced on [inaudible] book. As an antiwar protestor I thought he was pretty dignified and effective. SM (03:12:33): Mm-hmm. WO (03:12:44): Because the Berrigan Brothers could be rather [inaudible] appreciate that they alienate more people than they persuade beyond a certain point. SM (03:12:52): Jackie Robinson. WO (03:12:55): I am not a sports fan. SM (03:13:00): Okay. WO (03:13:00): Of any kind. SM (03:13:00): All right. WO (03:13:00): [inaudible] SM (03:13:01): The original seven astronauts. WO (03:13:03): I thought the manned space program was a [inaudible] in the beginning. And I think it has been proven [inaudible] it is incredibly [inaudible]. All the successes have been in the unmanned [inaudible]. SM (03:13:24): Just a couple more here. I think I may have already mentioned Huey Newton. WO (03:13:31): Oh, I thought he was a scoundrel. Yeah. SM (03:13:33): Yeah. WO (03:13:33): [inaudible] SM (03:13:35): Walter Cronkite? WO (03:13:40): I appreciated him. SM (03:13:43): Daniel Ellsberg? WO (03:13:45): Oh, I thought what he did with the Pentagon Papers was just great and took a lot of courage. [inaudible] go to jail. SM (03:13:53): And some of the simple things that influenced boomers when they were really young, Walt Disney and Howdy Doody. WO (03:14:01): Oh, I miss Howdy Doody. Yeah. Yeah, I did grow up on Walt Disney. SM (03:14:09): Yeah, Walt Disney, I am learning more about him after he died. Whoa. Things that I did not even realize. WO (03:14:18): He was pretty conservative. SM (03:14:20): Yes, he was. But his movies really had an influence. And John Dean. WO (03:14:28): Oh, I was [inaudible] very impressed with his performance at the time. Like everybody, I was glued to the TV during the hearings. And since then, as more and more revelations have come up, I have been staggered by the accuracy of his memory. Most people, including me... memory's kind of a fragile thing. And he had practically total recall that has been proven out for the most part. SM (03:15:02): He has written some pretty good books recently. WO (03:15:06): I bought his book Blind Ambition. [inaudible] SM (03:15:09): Oh yeah, that was very, very good. I think that is about it. Trying to think if there is any other names here. I cannot think of any. Finally, I just want to thank you for taking the time here. I wish I could take your picture. I take pictures of everybody. Somehow, I got to get a picture of you. But I will figure it out. WO (03:15:31): [inaudible] have pictures on my dust jackets. SM (03:15:35): Yeah, maybe if you could send me a picture on the computer or something like that. But all the pictures I have taken are ones like... You are the first person I would not have taken their picture. I have even interviewed people then I actually went to their place and just passing through took their picture. So, we might have plenty of time to do that. And I guess my last question is this, again, I want to get back, because you are probably a great professor. I have read all about you for years. You are not only a great writer but you are a professor with unbelievable academic backgrounds. When you think of all your years in the classroom, and again, I am going back to the boomer generation here, were there specific events where the students themselves walked into the class and said to you, "Today, can we discuss what is happening in the world as opposed to your lesson?" Because that happened a lot when I was a college student. Did you ever have that? WO (03:16:34): No. No. The way it worked... I came to Rutgers in 1971, and Rutgers is in a much more [inaudible] campus [inaudible] by a whole lot, and so the students I had were not political at all. Now, what would happen to me is that I would be talking about some historical event in the past and then the students would compare that to what had just happened. And then we would end up, through that door, talking about current events. I do not remember specific occasions [inaudible] when they would lead with it. SM (03:17:21): Okay. Very good. I am looking through my list at names here, see if I missed anybody. I think I did not mention... Did I mention the communal movement? That is the one thing I... Your thought on communes? WO (03:17:35): Oh, they always baffled me. SM (03:17:39): There is only three in existence today, as my understanding. WO (03:17:46): Really? Out of over 100. SM (03:17:46): Yep. And the thing, they were young people in the (19)60s, and they still live in these three communes, and they are now in their (19)60s. I do not know how they did it, but... They're in different parts of the country. Again, finally, are there any questions that I did not ask that you would... Any final thoughts on the boomers? WO (03:18:07): No. No. SM (03:18:07): All right. Well, that is it. Want to thank you very much for the interview. I will certainly send a transcript once we get the transcripts done, for you to give the final okay. WO (03:18:17): Okay. [inaudible] Edit out the ums and ahs. SM (03:18:24): Yeah. And again, I got a lot of transcripts to do here. I am doing this myself. I am transcribing it all myself, so it takes a little while. But got great interviews. And it has been an honor to talk to you. Just hope you continue to keep writing. I cannot wait to read your new book. WO (03:18:43): Well, I hope you like it. SM (03:18:46): Yeah. Have you gotten any reviews? What is the feedback? WO (03:18:49): The pub date was 10 days ago, and so I have not gotten any reviews yet. SM (03:18:56): Right. And you are still teaching part time though? WO (03:18:59): Yes, I teach one course a semester. SM (03:19:01): Yeah, please do, because you are good at what you do. And thanks again for writing Coming Apart and American High. They are unbelievable books. WO (03:19:09): Well, thank you very much. SM (03:19:12): Well, you have a great day. And it was an honor to talk to you. WO (03:19:15): Same thing to you. SM (03:19:16): Bye now. WO (03:19:16): Bye. (End of Interview) Description 3 microcassettes Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. William O'Neill Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource O'Neill, William L. ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Historians; Scholars; Authors, American; College teachers; Rutgers University; United States—History—20th century; O'Neill, William L.--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. William O'Neill (1935-2016) was a historian, scholar, author, and professor of history emeritus at Rutgers University. Dr. O'Neill was the author of more than a dozen books on subjects related to the twentieth century of American social and political history. He has a Bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan and earned his Master's and Ph.D. in History at the University of California, Berkeley. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-03-18 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.204a; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.204b; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.204c Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 199:22 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/abc025a431a1c146a42ddfdd47107bee.jpg e83c83c726c9ee63007c3fd9e77d90e6 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/a61c46fc62f49f369fa26455193be36b.mp3 d5fde6ff7ae3efaa251234a5d7c43478 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2010-05-26 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Zillah R. Eisenstein Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Zillah Eisenstein is a scholar, political activist and Emerita Professor of Political Science at Ithaca College. Her work focuses primarilly on political struggles for social justice. She was able to document problems such as the rise of neoliberalism (both within the U.S. and across the globe), the growth of imperial and militarist globalization, injustices of racial laws, diseases and affirmative action in the U.S.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:6535,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,5099745],&quot;5&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,0],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;}">Dr. Zillah Eisenstein is a scholar, political activist and Emerita Professor of Political Science at Ithaca College. Her work focuses primarily on political struggles for social justice. She was able to document issues such as the rise of neoliberalism (both within the U.S. and across the globe), the growth of imperial and militarist globalization, injustices of racial laws, diseases, and affirmative action in the U.S.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 1 Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 86:35 Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Civil Rights Movement; Communist Party; Communism; Marxism; The Way We Were; Women's Rights movement; Feminism; Baby boom generation; Feminism; Racism; Black women; Abortion; Sexism; Second-Wave feminism; Women's studies; Eleanor Roosevelt.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:3,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:13689059}}">Civil Rights Movement; Communist Party; Communism; Marxism; The Way We Were; Women's Rights movement; Feminism; Baby boom generation; Feminism; Racism; Black women; Abortion; Sexism; Second-Wave feminism; Women's studies; Eleanor Roosevelt.</span> Subject LCSH Scholars; Political activists--United States; College teachers; Eisenstein, Zillah R.--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Zillah Eisenstein Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 26 May 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:03): Testing one, two. Could you give me a little bit about your background, your growing up years, and what it was like to grow up... The influences that were a force in your life that maybe helped you in your career path? And also, when you are talking about this, I am always asking people about their college experiences. Was there something during their undergraduate years that had an influence on you that... Where you changed and went in a certain direction in your life? ZE (00:00:38): Well, my growing up years were enormously influenced by being the daughter of people who had been in the Communist Party and whose whole life was committed to civil rights activity. So, I had three sisters and we just grew up. Saturday mornings, you went and picketed Woolworths. I mean, that was... SM (00:01:04): So you learned that as a little girl, then? ZE (00:01:06): Oh, yeah. Yeah. No, I mean, my politics is from the womb. SM (00:01:12): Right. ZE (00:01:13): So in some ways just giving... As I was walking down here, I just thought, "Well, maybe I should just talk about my parents rather than myself." You know? SM (00:01:26): Talk about your parents, because... ZE (00:01:28): But I will just say just quickly, and then you can kind of do what you want with it. But my mother actually is the woman that... The way we were. You know? SM (00:01:37): Oh, yes. ZE (00:01:39): Okay. Well, it is based on her. Her name was Fanny Price. And I always forget his name, but the guy who wrote and produced the film, mom used to always say, "We were told that," and mom said, "Do not be silly." My mother went to Cornell, she went to the ACT School. She was completely poor, she got the [inaudible] scholarship. That is how she went to school. It was like the ritual story that was always told to us as children about work hard to get your intellect, and then you will go forth with whatever you want to do. But they did that as communists, not as liberals. But anyhow, when he wrote his book, the guy, whatever his name is, in the book finally, it came out I think maybe eight years ago, he says, "The woman who I was mesmerized by in my days at Cornell was Fanny Price." And- SM (00:02:39): The person, Barbara Streisand... ZE (00:02:41): Yeah. SM (00:02:41): Wow. ZE (00:02:42): I mean, my mother was really annoyed, she did not like the film, she said that was not... But mom did. When she was here, she founded the Young Communist League at Cornell. And then, of course, I never really heard very much about this until I got my job at Ithaca College and came here. And then that first semester, I was feeling pretty lonely here. It was kind of strange. And they came up for a weekend and she said, "Come on, let me take you on Cornell's campus and I will show you where I gave the first young communist [inaudible] speech." And it was on Bailey Hall and stuff like that. SM (00:03:20): Oh, my God. ZE (00:03:20): So anyhow, that is my roots and my sister's roots. I mean Sarah, who was Roz's friend, we both did... We did civil rights activism at a very you age. My two youngest sisters, when my father along with Staughton Lynd and Howard Zinn, the three of them are taught at Atlanta University. Well, no, Staughton was, I think at Morehouse. My dad was at AU, which was the graduate center for the Black colleges. And then Zinn was at Spelman. But there was a picket. I stayed home to study for my SATs, my sisters Julia and Gia, who were very young at the time, like seven and nine, I think. Anyhow, all of them were arrested. And Staughton Lynd came to get me to go help find them because my sisters had been separated from my parents and taken to juvenile detention. So anyhow, that just gives you a flavor. I mean, our life was very difficult and intense and rich as children. But there was a lot of anti-communism, we often were ostracized for that and it was not your typical upbringing. I mean, my father and mother lost their jobs pretty regularly because, still, of the leftovers of the hounding of people out of jobs. And so we grew up just everywhere. I mean, we lived everywhere. SM (00:05:13): What was it like? Because we are talking about the boomer generation, but a lot of people I am interviewing, one third of them are not boomers, they just lived during that time. So it has become much more than just a boomer thing. But when you look at that period after World War II, which is the red diaper babies and the pressures put on people who were affiliated with the Communist Party through the late (19)40s and the (19)50s, even into the early (19)60s, what was it like living in America at that time, being the child or of parents who were communists? And how did you get along with your peers? ZE (00:05:48): Well, I mean, it was very difficult. If you were kind of found out, oftentimes you were found out though, in weird ways. I mean, you would say something in a class discussion and someone would yell, "You are a communist." Like if you said something about equality or whatever. I mean, it is not like you walked around... Nobody walked around saying, "My parents were in the party." You would have to be out of your mind. But at the same time, there was such a vigorous social community that was part of the civil rights movement. That really was the way that an awful lot of communists... I mean, my parents joined the Communist Party primarily because of their stance against racism. And that is really what... SM (00:06:37): Yeah. Like Paul Robeson. ZE (00:06:38): Yeah. Well, I mean most US Communists, it was the place, if you were truly anti-racist, you would be a communist. Although most of the time people think communism meaning the economics... My parents were economic communists as well, but... But even the way that we were brought up, nobody had private money in our household. Nobody. And it has to do with how my own family functions now. But anyway, so that is that. Then I go to college. College already is the Vietnam War period. I do remember I had a job in the kitchens to help pay for school. And I remember waking up one morning and there was a picket line outside the cafeteria. And again, it was just kind of this memory bank. I did not know what it stood for but I knew I could not cross the picket line. That is just how I was brought up. So I remember going back to my dorm and then trying to find out what it was. And I was a student worker, but this was at Ohio University. Most of the people really were Appalachian poor and I worked with women, uneducated. They were at poverty wages, so was I, but I was a student, so it was not comparable. You know? SM (00:08:16): So you were at the Athens campus for your undergraduate degree? ZE (00:08:18): Yeah. SM (00:08:19): What was your major there? ZE (00:08:21): Political Science. SM (00:08:23): And what years were you there? ZE (00:08:23): I was there (19)64 to (19)68. SM (00:08:27): Unbelievable, my first job was at Ohio University. ZE (00:08:31): Oh, yeah? SM (00:08:31): Yeah, I started in (19)72. I went to Ohio State Grad School, in (19)72 got my master's degree. Then I worked at the Ohio University of Lancaster campus as Assistant Director of Student Affairs. And I know it was one of the most liberal schools in the state of Ohio at the time. And what really got me when I got there was the fact that they had purged many, many students out of that school. And they went from a campus of 18-5 to 13-5 in (19)72. And what saved Ohio University, were the branch campuses, which was at Lancaster. I think they had one at... Oh God, [inaudible]. Well, they had three branch campuses. We had 2000 students, so it had really helped them and they did not go under. After Kent State, I guess all hell broke loose. ZE (00:09:20): Yeah. SM (00:09:21): And I had some unbelievable experiences of being in that conservative community in Lancaster. ZE (00:09:26): Yeah. SM (00:09:27): But I lived in Columbus, I commuted. But... ZE (00:09:30): Well, so anyhow. SM (00:09:31): Yeah. ZE (00:09:34): So that actually, the politics there about the strike, became... I became very involved in the class issues that existed in Athens and worked and was trusted very deeply by many of the real workers as opposed to student workers. And then I was pretty active in anti-war stuff. SM (00:10:02): Did you have Dr. Hunt for any of your classes? Ron Hunt? He was a professor for the science labs. ZE (00:10:07): No. SM (00:10:12): Was there any generation gap with your parents? Because obviously they influenced you and you had the same values in terms... ZE (00:10:18): No. There were not... SM (00:10:19): You did not really have any generation gap issues because you were... ZE (00:10:22): No, I mean we were a real community because of the hostility in which our family existed. But later in my life, when I became a graduate student and was doing my PhD in feminist theory and was also becoming very active in the women's movement, as a socialist feminist but still in the women's movement, I had enormous conflicts with my father who really believed that communism was sufficient, you did not need an autonomous women's movement. So the politics, the political struggles that we went through were within progressive politics, they were not your normal left, right, or whatever. SM (00:11:09): I know that Dr. Johnnetta Cole, who I really know... ZE (00:11:11): Oh, sure. I know her. SM (00:11:12): ...I am a big fan of hers. Her very first book, I think, was Sister President. And in that book, I remember reading years ago that she had a conflict there when she was in college because she was first of all, an African American. And second, well, she knew she was a female too, but there was a lot of pressure where she was going to school that you concentrated on race first and gender second. ZE (00:11:36): Right? Yeah. SM (00:11:37): Did you see a lot of that within the African American community during the times you were at... (19)64 to (19)68 in your PhD, that in the women's issues, that it was more dominated by white... ZE (00:11:51): A lot of them were. I mean, the mainstream women's movement, clearly white dominated. I became very involved in the early parts... When was it? I think it was maybe around (19)76 actually. Angela Davis, me, and Bell Hooks, the three of us did a big event at Haverford College. Hortense Spillers was the provost there then, and it was called Racism and the Women's Movement. Clearly, that was just huge conflicts that existed because the assumption about the whiteness of women or even the language that Blacks and women, Blacks are men, women are white. And then of course, Black women would say, "And we are just supposed to be brave." Okay? SM (00:12:40): Right. ZE (00:12:42): That is my whole life. I mean, all of my books, everything is about this question. So it is like I cannot really do it quick. SM (00:12:53): That is what is great about the interview process. We had asked questions I never expected to ask. We had JL Chestnut, the great lawyer who wrote Black and Selma on our campus many years back, 1990s, mid 1990s. We had the Black student union in that room. And the question I am asking is this, he started his lecture to talk about Selma and he looked over in the room and he says... Looked at the African American women and said, "I am very proud of you. You are doing great things." And then he looked at the men and he went after them. And it was almost as if the African American female in mid-1990s was very successful in life, whereas the black male is still having major issues because... Be in prisons and everything. And obviously, these males were going to be successful because they were in college and the... But they were a little shocked by it, and it was a great learning lesson. And to me, when you are talking about women's issues, that African-American women in the mid-(19)90s compared to African-American men in the mid (19)90s, obviously they were way ahead. In this man's eyes. ZE (00:14:03): Yeah. But I mean, we cannot... There is not time to... SM (00:14:05): Right. ZE (00:14:08): That is just also post-Reganism, it is the whole restructuring of the penal system. There is a whole new Jim Crow here and Jane Crow as well. So, I mean a lot of it is structural transformations and repositioning of women's labor, and particularly Black women's labor in the whole global system. I mean late (19)90s already. So the idea that you blame black men or that black men are the way that Cosby talks about it, or even Skip Gates, it is really, I think of incredibly retro politic. What you were asking is about black women, did they see a hierarchy of relationships between gender and race? And Barbara Smith, a well-known black feminist that I often have done stints with years ago. One time she was asked by a kid in the audience, which has been more difficult for you being black or being a woman? And Barbara said, "I am always both. So cannot answer that." SM (00:15:21): Wow. How has the relationship between men and women changed since 1946? Now, this is a broad question here, but we are looking at the boomer generation and I am trying to see what the women of the boomer generation, can you describe some of the changes that have taken place since 1946 with respect to some of the laws that were not in the books at that period after World War II, maybe even the activism, the movements, the creation of organizations, the sexual revolution of just some of the things that kind of define the women that were not born until after World War II? ZE (00:16:08): Well, again, I mean, I just actually started writing a new talk for this keynote that I am doing in Australia in about four weeks. And the question really is, for me, you need new feminisms just always need new politics because the structures of power are always changing. So on the one hand, it looks like everything has changed and everything has changed and nothing has changed. And both of those things are simultaneously true, I think. So mean, again, my answer would be different if we talked just even a year ago, but today, majority of women in the labor force, there are more women in the labor force in the US right now than there are men, first time ever historically. So the fact that there was in the early (19)70s through the (19)80s, enormous access to abortion. Right now, there is much less access to abortion. There are something like 80 percent of counties have no federally funded clinics at all. I have a daughter in medical school right now. In most medical schools, abortion is not being taught. Legally, totally the same. Okay. Roe v Wade, (19)73. SM (00:17:36): (19)73, yep. ZE (00:17:37): All right. But then there have been, and I did a whole book about this. There have been a series of about six different huge decisions that have whittled away at abortion, particularly for younger women, and that you need more consent, etcetera, from parents, doctors, etcetera. But the biggest issue right now is that although, and this is what I would say is abortion remains legal. So women in the US have the right to abortion, but they get to choose to have an abortion, but they do not get to have one. In other words, the access. And that is really. As we have become a much more unequal society since World War II. I mean post-World War II, it was a bit of a boom. And then we have been moving to now where we are one of the most economically unequal, I think one of the top five countries in the world. And what is his name? Jude, what is his first name? He has been writing all this stuff in the New York review of books. He was actually saying that inequality is much more devastating a problem for a society than even poverty is meaning the extremes of wealth and poverty. SM (00:19:00): And women still only make, and was it 80 percent of what a man's salary is? ZE (00:19:07): Anywhere between.72 to.77 cents on the dollar. But then of course, you still have sexual ghettos in the labor force, then you have, where you have women in the labor force in areas that did not used to be the case. You are still.77 cents to the dollar. So the sexual hierarchy of the labor force exists. But again, change. Well, 1971, you have a law that says sexual harassment on the job is illegal, did not exist before (19)71. You have all kinds of, again, laws that have changed the ability to bring charges of rape. You have even date rape law. I mean, all of that is new. Yeah, okay. A lot of the domestic violence law, new. And that all comes from technically a radical feminism that argued that the personal is political. And therefore that really is, I think, just one of the most revolutionary ideas of the last century. That idea has transformed politics every which way, including Bill Clinton and his penis. So... SM (00:20:45): What do you think of, I interviewed Phyllis Schlafly, and she was very nice, and we got her on her campus. She is a distinguished lawyer and she has not changed one iota from the Phyllis Schlafly from the (19)50s in terms of a couple of things she said. "The troublemakers of the (19)60s are now running the universities, and they run the departments." And she was, I think, referring to women's studies and some of the other areas. And then she said she was wanted to run for political office, but she asked her husband, her husband said, "Please do not run." And so she did not run because she was one to please her husband. That was the most important thing, was pleasing her husband and not pleasing her. ZE (00:21:30): Oh, I mean, I have written on her. I spoke with her one night. She was disgusting. She comes out and she says, I want to thank, I forget his name, for letting me be here. And when I stood up, I said, I want, I am really happy to say I did not have to thank anyone for being here. SM (00:21:48): The second wave is what happened in the late (19)60s of feminism. One of the things that I have noticed in all the interviews is the amount of sexism that was really prevalent in just about all the movements. The anti-war movement was well known for being sexist in the civil rights movement too. In fact, I remember we had a program once where we had a speaker that said of Dr. King, were alive today and be embarrassed when he was talking about not having very many women. There were Dorothy Heights. You look at 1963 in the march on white, you see Dorothy Height over the right and Mahalia Jackson singing, but very few females. And even in the Native American movement there was sexism, in the gay and lesbian movement there was there is sexism. I could not believe it. It is prevalent in all these central movements. Was that the major thrust as to why women left some of those movements and really started that second wave was because of the sexism and the movements of the late (19)50s and (19)60s? ZE (00:22:49): Well, I mean, clearly, I mean, there is just many, many different ideas about that. But on the whole, for women who were political activists, many of them did feel as though they needed to really make their own autonomous space. And there was even a big difference between saying that they were not separatists, they believed in coalition, but that they really needed autonomy to be able to give voice to themselves within larger communities. And I am a little on the young cusp here in that, I mean, I was very involved in the anti-war movement, but really it was not sexism that took me in that movement that took me to the women's movement. It was actually the intellectual work I was doing. And also given my own upbringing in terms of communism and realizing that there was a system of patriarchy and masculinist privilege that no politics theorizes or addresses. And even today, what is so interesting is the minute you talk about anything that is related to sex or gender, none of the normal political categories work. So you can have right-wingers and even feminists coming together on particular issues because the issue's related to the body. And it has no place in any political theory. SM (00:24:47): I remember that going back to the movie, The Way We Were. I remember the scene where she is out there speaking, and of course people were throwing all these words to toward Barbara Streisand, but it was like they were negative, so to speak. And of course, Robert Redford was fascinated by her in the end, but because she was so different. ZE (00:25:10): Right, exactly. Well, that is what this guy says about my mom. SM (00:25:15): What I said here, the describe the second wave of what were the forces that made it happen and describe the boomer women and the roles they played. One of the things that is been interesting in the people I have talked to is in respect to the Civil Rights Movement, they said, this is not a boomer movement. The Civil Rights Movement was already well established, and the youngest boomers were probably 18 years old when all these things were happening. Although they did Freedom Summer in (19)64, we all know about the white students, predominantly Jewish students who went down with African American students. And so you cannot deny that. And that many of the people of the free speech movement had the experiences of being there and Freedom Summer, even. Abbie Hoffman and some of the hippies were down there at that time, but they were a little older than the boomers. They were like the pre-boomers. And then the other thing in development on the women's studies on college campuses, would you say that is a big plus that boomer women have... ZE (00:26:15): So what are you defining as boomer women kind of starting when? SM (00:26:20): Boomers are born between 1946 and 1964. But I have had issues just about everybody has the issue with, they do not like the term boomers. They do not like defining generations. And many of them do not even like Tom Brokaw. Greatest generation, come on. They do not like these generational things. They talk about events, they talk about periods, not about generations. But when we are defining that young boomer women of the (19)60s and the (19)70s and right into the Reagan period there... ZE (00:27:00): Well, I guess to me, it would make more sense to actually call those particular women. They were feminists at that time. So the most significant movement of my lifetime, for me, was the women's movement. It nurtured me, it gave me strength, it made me very brave. And that is where I got my sustenance. I was in an all-male program, all male professors for my PhD, and I was doing work, it was actually on the relationship between Marxism and feminism and political science, which was for most of my professional life, an enormously male dominated field, when my husband would sometimes go with me to the national meetings, he would say, "This is worse than lawyers." I mean, it is like all men. And now that is changed some, but I did not care. I was fascinated by political theory. It still fascinates me. But I am a political theorist who is an activist as well. I do not think theory, if theory cannot be used, it is not, to me, theory. Theory has to really articulate the presence and movement of your own being. So it is not something that is foreign and disparate. And that is, of course, how I try to get my students to think about it. So the point here though is that these feminists did, many of them fought very hard for women's studies. Now, I would argue that a lot of women's studies programs today no longer have the clarity of politics that they had initially. And I was part of some of the earliest fights at the University of Massachusetts, actually. Some people wanted to call it women's studies and others, including myself, wanted to call it feminist studies. And there was a huge debate about whether women, I women itself is a term that already authorizes a system. And what we were saying is, we do not want to be part of the university as it exists, as feminists. We want to change the university, we want to change the base of knowledge, we want there to be new things to be studied. And there has been, I think that the struggle no longer exists, but through the (19)80s and early (19)90s, it was a fabulous struggle on college campuses, I think. About really whether you wanted to be mainstreamed as a women's studies program or feminist studies or gender studies as it is called more often now, or whether you really wanted to be a dissident location in the university. In other words, that you were trying to... That there is just a contradiction in terms that you cannot really create the kind of knowledge base that you want. Meaning here, again, if the personal is political that no academic discipline is set up without the parameters of those really the borders between those realms in economics, it would have to be that the family is an economic unit, not that the economy exists outside of. So the point here was that it was just huge conflict and that the conflict was good and that, you know, you really wanted to bring that conflict onto your campus. That does not exist today. SM (00:31:20): But where would you put that political correctness? Would that be part of that debate too? The PC thing that was so big in the Chronicle higher education that was books have been written out. ZE (00:31:30): Well, the PC thing, I think, was just really, it was a right wing part of progressive politics, and it was just a way of trying to, again, be able to contain and authorize as though there are only certain answers are acceptable. Whereas I remember a few times in my own classroom where someone would say something and say, "Well, I do not know if this is politically correct." And I said, "No, actually there is no correct. That is the point here." Now think, okay, but the idea that you want to take when people are trying to get you to think openly and then you come back with what the old stuff, which is just to say that there is only one way to think. So to me, that was not even interesting. SM (00:32:36): But what you are talking on basically about this debate over women's studies is like the (19)60s, the debate over the war in Vietnam, the movements and all the issues within the movements, it is a continuation, which is a sign of activism. And activism is continuing. Whereas some people are saying that a lot of those people just went off to make a lot of money, raise their families, and they realized at a certain point that idealism goes by the wayside. Do you believe a lot of people within that generation continue today to believe in the ideals that they had is when they were young? Because one of the critiques of that period is that, it was a period, and it was a unique time, not a unique generation, but a unique and different time that allowed them to have the freedoms that today's students do not have. because they have to work. And so... ZE (00:33:33): Oh, that is just bullshit. SM (00:33:34): Yeah. But how do you feel about your generation or the boomers? ZE (00:33:40): Well, again, the people that I who had been involved with, then none of them went off to make a lot of money. Are there people of the boomer generation who were completely self-centered? Yeah, but that is part of the problem with this phrase, boomer generation. Okay. So I mean, the point here is that you just, I mean, it is kind of a false construction. The boomer generation is just these people who by accident, happen to share a historical moment. Okay. But that accidental or random sharing gives them nothing in common other than the shared historical moment. Yeah. So if you want to say that historical moment was one of opportunity, etcetera, that existed, but simultaneously with that was existing struggles against the Vietnam War, struggles against racism, and then the real struggles against patriarchy and sexism. But those are not... SM (00:35:01): You raised a good point. If you were pressed, and only if you would not even do it if you were not pressed. But if you were pressed and you do not want to use that term boomer, would there be another term? The other terms that have come out is that the Woodstock generation, the Vietnam generation, the protest generation, the movement generation, knowing that when, another thing is one of the criticisms of the generation of (19)74 to (19)78, I do not even know the exact numbers here, is that only really five percent to 15 percent, depending on whatever person you are talking to or book you have read, were involved in any sort of activism. Anyways, the 85 percent to 90 percent, 95 percent people just went on with their lives and were influenced by the times. But we were not out there protesting, and we were talking both conservative and liberals here now were not inbound in any of the movements, but we were still talking about a large number. If we were talking 74 million, even 5 percent to 15 percent is a large number. So yeah, you raise a really good point here, because so many of the people I have talked to cannot stand these terms. ZE (00:36:15): Who, well, I mean, can understand. I think that one can take a term and use it and say that the term itself is, it is important because it creates a continuity of your thought, but that at the same time that continuity is false or I do not like false. The continuity is much more complex than unity. There is no unity here, although there might be continuity. And then the real issue is that within the boomer generation, if you want to give that as the, or Vietnam, I would call them movements, Vietnam, the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, that there were movements and that some people were in multiple movements who also happen to exist in this period called or identified as the boomer generation. But that really, on some level, the problem with the term boomer is the idea that was these were the ones who actually made it, right? But in a lot these movements, nobody was interested in making it. SM (00:37:43): Do you remember that moment where you have already mentioned how important the women's movement was in shaping you, inspiring you, being the force that drove you in your life. Do you remember the moment when you left the anti-war movement or any of the other movements and said, "This is the movement that I most identify with?" ZE (00:38:04): No, because I have always been more, I mean, because the civil rights movement is like when I was five. And I mean, even the work that I do, I have always worked with more black feminists than white feminists. And it is so much of the work that I am recognized for, and the rest of the world is the intersections of political struggles. So when I went to Bosnia or Cuba, I mean, it is always because I refuse to... It is not the problem with seeing the women's movement, even as a singular movement, okay, it is made up of just cacophonous differences. SM (00:39:00): Worldwide. Yeah, global. Look, that is the question I have later on. I will ask it now. And that is, when did the women's movement become global? Because when you talk about the second wave, you know, read the first wave, you talk about Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and then you about the period in the early part of the 20th century, and then the suffrage movement. And then you have the second wave movement of the late (19)60s, early (19)70s, but it was the United States movement. It seemed like the only person that seemed to be global was Eleanor Roosevelt who worked... ZE (00:39:41): But there were movements everywhere. I mean, and my newest in my book, Against Empire, one of the problems here is the idea that feminism is western and feminism is the United States. There were Egyptian feminists doing incredible things in the 19th century, you know, you have feminisms everywhere. The idea that now there are some countries that they have not used that term feminism, they will talk about women's movements. That is a much more encompassing concept. But that really what you are, if I can be so bold, what you are really saying is when you say, when did feminism become global? It is really... SM (00:40:37): It has always been? ZE (00:40:38): Yeah. When did the United States begin to recognize, when did the West begin to recognize other feminisms across the globe? All right. And even a lot of people talk about global feminism, and that is a way that they try to, it really means the women's movement in the US across the globe. And in my writing, I always talk about feminisms across the globe rather than global feminism. But if what you are also asking, early 1970s is really the beginning of the global economy. I mean, the modern global economy, and again, working with women of color, given the slave trade, okay, capitalism has always been global, so you got to be careful even about what, but the new modern, cyber, global, early 1970s. And is it interesting that, of course, that is when you start to have much more publicness and public viewing of the feminisms across the globe. SM (00:41:47): Where does Eleanor Roosevelt come into this? Because Eleanor, she was such an exception of a First Lady. To me, FDR was racist in some respects. And well, she put him in his place many times and she protected her husband. But obviously we all know about the incident at the Lincoln Memorial with Marian Anderson and her quitting the daughters American Revolution, the Declaration of Human Rights that she was found in the United Nations. She seemed to be in the 1950s, a female that was so at the forefront of everything. I find it interesting also, it is just a commentary here that the three people that had the biggest FBI records in American history are Martin Luther King Jr. Eleanor Roosevelt, and John Lennon. Eleanor Roosevelt? They must have worried about her because she was saying things that... Does she play in your thoughts, does she play any role at all in terms of an inspiration to those that found she died in 1962? ZE (00:42:53): Well, I think she was an inspiration to what you would call, I mean, of course, Blanche Cook, who... SM (00:42:58): Oh yes. ZE (00:42:58): She thinks... SM (00:42:58): Cook, yes. ZE (00:43:02): Me? No, she was not an inspiration for me and personally. And politically, I think that she is an inspiration within a kind of notion of liberal feminism. SM (00:43:15): I got to turn... ZE (00:43:21): And I do use these terms pretty technically, but liberal feminism here, and I mean that very much in terms of women who basically did believe that women should be given the same chances as men in our capitalist society. There was no criticism of capitalism as needing a system of patriarchy that could never give women equality. And Eleanor Roosevelt, on the whole, she was a liberal feminist, and liberal feminism is imperial. And it is used to, I mean, in my most recent political and intellectual work, I have really argued the way that feminism has been ill used by the United States to justify the wars, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the idea here of women's rights and fighting against the Taliban, etcetera, etcetera. Whereas the United States does not care about women's rights, not there or here. SM (00:44:33): Wow. ZE (00:44:36): But the argument, again, though, I am at this point in my life, I am uncompromising in the importance of the politics of every different form of feminism on this globe. And how could you not think that this is not the most central political struggle when everybody just, they need to wrap up, women not let you see their face need to [inaudible] their bodies to why is it that we have a medical plan? The one thing that could not be agreed on was abortion politics, East/West Germany, when they are trying to come together and unify, the only thing they could not agree on for a united constitution was abortion rights. Hello. So the point here, all right, and this has just been in really recent stuff with all of the issues around immigration, and the silence always is about the female in those dialogues. SM (00:45:50): I find it interesting too, my niece had a baby and she is finding all kinds of issues because of the fact that where she works, they have no place for privacy and this is an un... I have now read that this is a problem all over the country. When they want to nurse their child at work, there is no place for privacy they have to do in the lady's room. And then there is also the thing about the three month of the six weeks or three months, everybody agrees it should be three months of leave. And then it is, well, there has been a lot. ZE (00:46:26): But all I am saying is, how could anyone, right now, with more women in the labor force than men, how could anybody not think that there should be a daycare plan in this country? Yet, not a word. Now, my thing is the more silent something is, the more important it is politically. The noise... SM (00:46:48): Why are not there more people like you? Because of the fact we are talking about, okay, I am overuse this term. We are talking about boomer women who were in the late (19)60s, early (19)70s, got involved in the women's movement. Many of them gone on to become corporate leaders and so forth. Where are, are the women who we are talking about... ZE (00:47:08): Those are your boomers who, or someone like Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice. I mean, the point here is, and we have not even gone there, that part of when you asked what has changed, and I said, well, everything has and nothing. So, just the fact that Hillary Clinton is flying around the Secretary of State. But also what is interesting is that she lost her campaign because she could not get it right. She really just screwed herself royally, I think by running as his wife. And that just was not going to do it. She either had to run as her own self and maybe she could have won that way. SM (00:47:56): Some people even said if she had divorced him after his presidency that she may have won. I read that. ZE (00:48:01): Well, no, but she wanted it every which way. But what is interesting is that in the end here, she was radicalized by the people who did support her in the end, which were older white women. That is who supported her. They were probably a lot of your boomer people actually. All right. But everybody else hung her out to dry. So is not it interesting that now that she is Secretary of State, she and Obama have said that women's rights have to be central to the US foreign policy. So I am just, now that is new and different. Okay. That is never been said before. Okay. Now whether that means anything is just something totally different. SM (00:48:53): The great writers of that period, obviously you are really into books and reading and ideas. The free speech movement, to me, I think it is one of the greatest things that ever happened in higher ed. I, that is my degrees and Mario Samuel and Bettina Abigail and all those people, I just love them because it was about ideas. The university is supposed to be about ideas and debate. And so have we gone back in the university, the university, I interviewed Arthur Chickering, who was the great educator education identity, and he was surprised that I asked him to be interviewed, but he is retired now. And he said the biggest problem today on university campuses that he is really upset with is we have gone back to corporate control of universities. And when you look at the free speech movement back in the (19)64-(19)65 of Berkeley, that was one of the reasons they were attacking the university. It was what Clark Kerr was saying about the multi diversity, the corporate takeover. And he said the knowledge factory, just that term factory turned students off. Seems like we are going back to that again. ZE (00:50:05): Oh yeah. SM (00:50:06): And I think that might be part of the problem with the attacks on women's studies, black studies, gay and lesbian studies, is that whenever there is a threat to the bottom line, things seem to disappear. Are you worried what is happening on universities today? What I am getting at is that the lot of the people that are running today's universities are those boomers that experienced what we went through in college, but now they are running universities and they are using the experiences maybe in not so good a good way or whatever. ZE (00:50:41): Oh, I think that the university system in this country is in total crisis, total ethical, political, financial. SM (00:50:54): I am sensing the corporate takeover again. Decisions being made... ZE (00:50:58): Well, yeah, I mean there is... SM (00:51:00): Especially in that tough economic times too. ZE (00:51:02): Well, but I think also what is being done is that the tough economic times is also being used to justify political shifts that, and I mean, I said that straight out to our provost. I said, "Look, if you want to make changes, say what you want, those changes. But do not say that it is for the economic crisis because what you are trying to do here has nothing to do with the economic crisis." SM (00:51:30): I think there is the fear of controversy again, and whenever there is controversy, but debate is controversy. ZE (00:51:37): But the other thing that is also difficult is that so many of the junior people now, they really, they have been educated and have moved through and become professionals, and all they know is neoliberalism. SM (00:51:55): How important, what I was getting at here was the books, the writers of the period when you were in undergrad and graduate school, the Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, certainly Gloria Steinem and what she did, the political powerhouse of Bella Abzug. She was from New York and I was from New York. So they were powerful voices, very powerful voices. And Mauricia, I am going to actually be interviewing Susan Brown Miller in a couple of weeks in New York City, and I heard she had some issues with Betty Friedan or debating him or something, but she was also in that group who was also in Freedom Summer and also wrote a book, a children's book on Shirley Chisholm. And it was really involved. Were there any influences? Were any of those people in Kate Millett? ZE (00:52:48): Yeah. No, these are not my people. SM (00:52:50): Those are not your people. ZE (00:52:52): I knew them. I worked with some of them. Bella Abzug actually asked me to, when Carter was president, he held a forum in, actually it was in Texas, and it was, what do women want? And Bella Abzug called me and asked if I would come to the meeting and I said, "No, I will not come." And she said, "Why not?" And I said, "Well, that bullshit. They know what we want. We are supposed to tell them and they are going to give us what we want? No, I will not come." So she actually talked to some other people and they called me about that. And they said, Zillah, go and try to get them to think in the terms that you are talking about. And I said, straight out, "The work I have done is I have tried to get Marxist to become feminists. I do not know how to talk to liberals, why they should become feminists." And so they said, "Well, do it. Try to do it." So I said, "Okay." And that was the beginning of a whole new, I mean, actually the politics that I have done, it is not like I sit in a cubby hole and think about it. That was the next stage of my life. I mean, my earliest work when I was in my 20s was Marxism and feminism, given what I came out of then this was happening in our country, the Betty Friedan's, etcetera, which I just thought, "Okay." But look, who was she writing about? She was writing about white middle class women in the suburbs. Okay. That is not really interesting to me. I mean, definitely not what the age I was, the politics I came from, get a life. So anyhow, so the next stage really was, so why should liberals? And I still remember I was on a run and I thought, "Okay, so what would you say to someone like that? Okay, you want equality with men. Okay, now, okay, as a Marxist sealer, what would you say? Well, which men do you want equality with? Everyone of who you want equality with rich men, right? Rich white men. But how about the working class man? You want equality with him, well we already kind of got that." But anyhow, and then out of that politics came a book that made me pretty well known in a lot of... It is called The Radical Future of Liberal Feminism. People there were so open to becoming radicalized as feminists. And therefore, my whole argument was in that stage of my life that if you become a radical feminist, you cannot remain liberal. SM (00:55:49): Wow. ZE (00:55:50): Okay. It is just a conflict in terms. SM (00:55:53): What is a liberal feminist? ZE (00:55:54): A liberal feminist is someone who believes that you can attain equality and freedom for women like men in capitalist, patriarchal society. SM (00:56:07): Is that Gloria Steinem? Is that what... ZE (00:56:08): Mm-hmm. SM (00:56:08): That is And Ms. Magazine and Mary Tom and all that group? ZE (00:56:12): Yeah. Although it is interesting. I mean, Ms. just recently, I mean, I have been doing this work for, what, 35 years? Just recently has really started to say, "Zillah, will you do a block for us?" SM (00:56:24): Oh wow. ZE (00:56:25): So, things change. And politics does get more com, but Gloria Steinem? SM (00:56:37): I think another one was Caroline Bird. You, she wrote some books too. ZE (00:56:40): I do not know that. SM (00:56:41): Yeah, I think we have already gone over this. Where have the women made the greatest gains? I think we have already talked. Where is there still needs, where are the needs still today? What is the goal? We are talking global here now, we are not talking to the United States. What this book is about is mostly about the US. Although I am interviewing a professor at Harvard who teaches Vietnamese history when I am up there, and I am going to talk about boomer generation from the Vietnamese perspective, 3 million that died, which now only the people that survive will make up only 15 percent of the Vietnamese population. But I can really now try to get the other side of those who died. And where do you see, I will say this country, and where do you see the world in terms of things that women need that still have not been achieved? Is there one thing you would like to see in your lifetime that would happened? ZE (00:57:55): No, I mean, if we are, let us just talk about the United States. There is horrible poverty among women in this country. Horrible poverty right now. And there is also less, I mean, when you ask that, what do women... I mean, first of all, I do not really think that there are particular things that women need, but so much of what women need as human beings, they share with men. So, I mean, I have always deeply argued and believed that when people talk about women, you know, you think you are talking about something specific. And when you are talking about men and human, you are talking about the universal and the general. Well, if we look historically, what has happened is that we say that we are talking universally, and we would never get to the specific needs of what women need in terms of what makes us particular, like abortion, like reproductive rights, like prenatal care. I mean, the things that are particular to women. Well, the truth is, if we actually met women's needs, all of their needs, economic, sexual, racial, etcetera, well then everyone's needs would be met. Got to flip it. In other words, the more specific you get here, the more universal and human you become. So when you asked me what is it that women need? Well, what we need is we need a different economic system that does not racially profile, sexually profile, and exploit on that basis. People need to have what they need as human beings. And that does mean food, shelter, clothing, education, dreams, hopes. We are so far away from that in our country right now. SM (00:59:56): Do you feel though that universities are, that professors are sometimes still part of the problem? Because I have actually asked a couple of my fellow students to go into a class where they are talking about poverty, and the professor will always say, "There is the poor, there is the middle income, and there is the rich. And then raise your hand." Why does the professor always have to say that there will always be the poor, the middle class, the rich, and they one actually did. And basically tellable history has shown that there is always poor. So he did not get, it is forever. Itis part of the human condition. It will always be, maybe we need to be asking the question that it does not always have to be. That there is the ultimate, but we still we are always striving for something. ZE (01:00:54): But I just, at this particular moment that I think that our society has become, for your boomers, driven, isolated, competitive, and selfish. SM (01:01:10): How about the criticism of the women's movement, and this may be a right-wing thing, but it is all about identity politics. When the movements took place in the late (19)60s, we are not just talking about the women or all the movement, Civil Rights, the environmental movement, the gay legend, everything. It seemed to be, there seemed to be a unity. Now, whenever there was a rally, a women's issues event, you would see the anti-war people there. You would see the Civil Rights people there. You would see the, they would all be there. Now when you see protests, you see a single issue. It is kind of like the criticism is that it is identity politics now. It is not the, it is single issue, it is women's issues, it is Native American issues. Native American issues are not going to be at an anti-war rallying. Whereas in the late (19)60s, a lot of the movements were together. There was more of a sense of togetherness. And now there seems to be a separateness. You see it on college campuses where self-segregation is very common amongst college students. And when you ask the people who run the Affirmative Action Office or multicultural affairs, who I am very close to, they will say, "Steve, it is their choice. It is a different time. It is their choice. They still believe in working together, but they like to close their doors. They like to be around people of their own kind." When we were hearing that back in the (19)60s. So where has the progress been made? So I am, what I am getting at is, has identity politics really hurt each of the causes that we are talking about here? That when you talk about women's issues around the world, I think you can really identify if it is the United States. But when you are talking about what is going on with the way women are treated in the Middle East, I mean, I cannot even really identify with that. That is just plain wrong. And I would like to see groups coming together again that identify with a certain cause, but then they also care about this cause and so they are going to be over there fighting so that when you have the issues you are talking about that you have the environmental movement saying the what is happening to women here effect directly affects the environment, civil rights, Native American, gay and lesbian rights, you name it, they are all together. ZE (01:03:43): Well, I do think though, that there are, at this point, through some of the environmental work going on and related to actually issues around food and sustainability, that there is more and more, I think there is kind of less identity politics than there was for sure in the (19)90s. But I also think that what we are seeing is the incompleteness of some of what started to happen with what got called as identity politics, specifying particular needs within the larger community, which clearly needed to happen given that the specific needs were not being articulated. Then just as you are ready for some of that to really start to build interesting coalitions, you also have some of the most right-wing politics in this country that really starts to destroy the possibility of some of that unification. And so I think that oftentimes that term identity politics confuses the who really is at the helm here and really how the politics emerged. And I think that identity politics did, I mean, if we are going to use that phrase that it became pretty conservative, but that a lot of the conservatism of it was not about the identity politics or the particular politics, but really had to do with the way that then they were re splintered by the Reagan period, by the Bush administrations that really were, and even Clinton, I mean, Clinton was pretty bad on a lot of these issues. SM (01:05:53): See, when you had the Three-Mile Island situation, there was a perfect example over the environmental movement in the women's world should be united because it was affecting children and their futures. The same thing on the tragedy down in the Gulf right now. I see that directly as a women's issue. Why are you saying the women's issues? Because that is, we are talking about food, we are talking about reproduction, we are talking about a lot of issues here. I mean, the environment in the women's movement to me, seem like a great mix in so many different areas because it is about the future of the human race. ZE (01:06:26): Well, I mean, in Africa, most of the leaders of the environmental movement are women and women's activists. SM (01:06:35): It is interesting that one of the questions I have asked everyone is the blame game that is often that I got to be unbiased here and saying it, but that when Newt Gingrich, I asked him to be interviewed. And, of course, I have asked him twice to the interview and he said, "No." But in (19)94, when he came into power, he along with other Republicans or conservatives, make comments that [inaudible 01:07:00] another one in many of his books, that a lot of the problems we have in the world today and in society today goes right back to that (19)60s and that (19)60s generation, that is a term they do not call them the boomers, the (19)60s, generation, (19)70s, that the sexual revolution, the drug culture, the breakup of the family, the divorce rate, the lack of respect for authority, the beginning of the isms, it is all about me, me, me, me, and not about we, we, we. And then Dr. King was always talking about, we-we. He always preached we, but they are very critical of everybody that was involved in that timeframe. And how do you respond when you hear, even Mike Huckabee has this TV show, I will not even watch it. There is a constant little jabs in there. I do not dislike him as a human being, but I do not like the jabs. And certainly even John McCain, when he was running for president or when Hillary was running before she had to drop out, he made comments about her too, being within that generation, even though he was a close friend of her. Those little snide remarks. And we knew what he was saying. How do you respond to people like McCain, Huckabee, Gingrich, who is a boomer, and George Will, and people like that. I know they probably sue me if I put them in. So that is part of the question. And so. ZE (01:08:34): You mean about their... SM (01:08:34): How do you respond when they say that the reasons why we have problems in our society, the breakup of the family, which could be a women's issue, lack of respect for authority, the marriage does not mean that much. A lot of them do not believe in same sex marriage either the man and a woman, either it is like Beck, the Beck Show or O'Reilly or Hannity and Home Hannity, that group. They are powerful influences on the conservative side, Rush Limbaugh being another. And when people listen to them, oftentimes they believe itis fact what they are saying. They have that much of an influence over people's thinking. ZE (01:09:20): Well, their depictions, I think are just totally faulty. They are historically inaccurate and they are politically pretty naive. I do not see the so much of what it is that they are saying as valid. And again, the whole issue of the me generation and the self-centeredness, of course, people said that about feminism from the start. It was the idea that women were selfish about their own needs and not concerned enough about family needs and children. SM (01:10:15): If you were asked, and this is again a very general question, but you have known a lot of boomers in your life. You have probably taught boomers and you have had friends who are boomers. What are their strengths and weaknesses? Can you generalize? We are talking about a generation now that might be different than the World War II generation that is certainly different than millennials of today that are on college campuses. And certainly that Generation X group, which really despising boomers, we had programs on them. Were those born from (19)65 to about (19)80. They did not like boomers. ZE (01:10:56): Well, again, I mean, for me, given what we have kind of covered today, to me, the boomer generation is really, it was one of the last periods of successful and multiple political movements in this country. I think the richness of anyone living in this particular boomer generation is that they have been nurtured by the sense of possibility that can exist through collective action. And I think that in the post boomer period, that has not existed in the same way. The anti-Iraq war stuff, it never got mobilized at the level of the Vietnam War. Now there are real reasons for that. There was a draft, it was a whole different economy. The way that we were at war with people so disconnected from that war at this moment. But to me, the roots that I have in the movements I was a part of have enriched me exponentially. SM (01:12:34): Who are some of the people that, you mentioned [inaudible], but who are some of the people that your parents or your brothers or your sisters and brothers and you actually worked with or met during the time of your activism prior to getting your PhD? ZE (01:12:53): Well, when I was little, [inaudible] was a friend of my father's, and then there were just lots of people in, I was really such a kid. I mean, I do not know all the names of... Many of them were famous people at the time when I was really young. Our house was always filled with activists. I mean the people like Martin Luther King, that whole generation, I do not know who, I mean Julian, I think it was Julian Bond actually, who was the lawyer for my parents when they tried to take us away from my parents because of the time when Gia and Julian were in detention. They were challenged in the courts for being... It does not make sense. I would need to be more careful about people's names for... SM (01:14:10): Well, I know Julian, so I interviewed him early on in my project. ZE (01:14:17): I am pretty sure he was the lawyer who, and then people in Atlanta, like Asa Yancey, and they were part of the Civil rights movement. Of course, in terms of my own life, Angela Davis, Jeanette Cole, Beverly Guy-Sheftall, Barbara Smith. I mean, these are all people, again, very well known in certain arenas. SM (01:14:49): Do you remember also some of the specific protests you were at? Some people were in 1967 at the Pentagon when they levitated the Pentagon or some people were at People's Park Berkeley in (19)69. ZE (01:15:06): The first one I remember is 1971, and it was the first all-women’s March against the Pentagon for the Vietnam War. And actually in my house, I have framed one of the incredible posters, I carried it then. But that I remember as kind of really a first kind of autonomously, meaning as myself, as opposed to just my parents, my sisters, stuff like that. SM (01:15:41): See how we are doing here, we still good. One of the questions I have been asking two things. The issue of trust and the issue of healing. We took a group of students, I have said this, that I have asked this question to every single person we have interviewed, 170. But it was partially because the students came up with a question. In 1995, we took a group of students to Washington to meet Senator Edmond Musky, and that was part of our leadership on the road programs. And he had just gotten out of the hospital. I did not know that when he arrived, but he had been ill. And the question was this, due to all the divisions that took part in the (19)60s and early (19)70s, divisions between black and white, male and female, those who supported the war, those who were against the war, those who supported the troops, those who did not at all, with all the assassinations that took place during that timeframe in (19)68 and the riots and the cities and the burnings and all these things that the current generation of students that I was bringing had only read about the history books. Do you think this was the beginning of another civil war? Did we come close to another civil war where the divisions, and secondly, do you feel that this generation, this boomer generation, is going to go to its grave comparable to the Civil War generation not truly healing from the war and all the divisions that took place? It was a broad question. It is about healing. I will tell you what Senator Musky said after you respond. But do you think, and then this is why I am going to be meeting with Robert J Lifton because I want to get his thoughts on the psyche and his thoughts on not just those who were in the war and protested the war, but the whole generation. Do you think there is an issue of healing here that even the divisions that you have had as you have gotten older, something really still stirs you when you are going to go to your grave really upset with like Susan Brown Miller, she was upset with, she had the division between her and Betty Friedan. I do not know. I do not know. I will soon find out what that song, but I read about it. So I heard it was pretty intense. ZE (01:18:06): Well, I do not know. I think that that question is maybe works better for people who had an identity and a political life during the Vietnam War and do not feel like they do anymore. I mean, for me, you heal and you re heal and you are scarred again and you heal again. And so, I mean, I have been through the stuff with the Bosnian war, particularly with women. I have been very involved with the Afghan and Iraq wars. So Vietnam was very significant at one moment in my life. But that is in the past. And I live in the present. And I think we have to remake our present all the time. So I do not know, life is, I have had a lot of pain in my life that has nothing to do with politics. I have lost my sisters to cancer when they were very young. I have struggled myself with cancer. I have a fabulous daughter who I [inaudible] the world that she is entering. So I mean to me, I do not get to not heal. I have had to heal. SM (01:19:40): That is brilliant what you just said because Senator Musky, I think the students are hoping that he would talk about 1968 because of the convention and all. He did not even mention it. It was to me, the whole question we were asking was about that. He said that we have not healed as a nation in the issue of race. And then he went, as we saw back in when he said he could not run for president, where he might show a tear in his eye. Well, he did show it. We had this on tape. He did not answer for about a minute. The students are looking at each other. What did we just do here? And we saw the tear. He said, "I have just spent the time in the hospital. I have been very sick." And he died sick within six months after this. And he said that, "I just saw the Ken Burns series and touched my life. 430,000 men died in that war. The south almost lost an entire generation. Now that is hard to heal from." And so he said, "The issue of race." And then he went on explain Why? ZE (01:20:55): Yeah, but I mean for me, what is going on in Rwanda, the way that people have had to repair themselves, the incredible atrocities in the Congo right now, I mean as a woman on this earth. But the point here is that you just do, I mean, do not know. SM (01:21:29): The other, just a good question of trust because a lot of the things that I have read state that this generation as a whole did not really trust a lot of people. And of course I can remember that experience as a college student where not trust. A lot of the people in this generation and particularly in the new left, did not trust anyone who was in a position of authority or responsibility, whether it be a university president, a United States Congressman or President, even a rabbi or a minister or a corporate leader. Anyone, you just cannot trust your leaders. And a lot of it was because they had witnessed political leaders lying, whether it be the Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, other experiences. Do you see this as an issue within, even in the women's movement, the issue of trust that eventually, I remember what a professor said in my Psych 101 at Binghamton University once. He said, "If you cannot trust other people, you are never going to be a success in life." So there comes a point when you have got to trust others. And I do not know what your thought on thoughts are on the issue of trust, if that is an issue within the generation. ZE (01:22:47): Well, again, it is a made-up issue. I mean, do not trust anyone over 30. I mean clearly, all of that. For me, given my own childhood, just generational stuff, just has not really been much of an issue. And the question of I believe in people. I believe deeply in people. And if that means trust, I mean, fine. But I just think that the greatest challenge is as that the burdens that are created in this world that if you have no other choice but to believe that you can make an imprint and a difference. And that also my own, again, in my own life, people have always been there to help me through. And in my most recent book that is, it is about the Obama election. I mean... SM (01:24:18): When's that coming out? ZE (01:24:20): It is just out. It is called, The Audacity of Races and Genders. And then the subtitle is, A Personal and Global Story of the Obama Election. But there is one, it is made of 25 frames just, and it kind of goes all over the map, all over the globe, all over personal. And I actually, I was diagnosed with a rare and difficult form of cancer. And I had had surgery and then was coming through chemotherapy. And the election was, I mean this was during the primaries and there was this real tension that was developing between Obama and Clinton. And it was the issue here of he was a black man. She was a woman. He was black. She was a woman. And once again, in a lot of circles, the discussion was that feminism was going to get pitted against race. So several people who were working in the Obama campaign and friends of mine from who knew them etcetera, said, "Will you write something on this?" And I wrote this piece, which is in the book, it is called Hillary is White. And with the internet the way it is, it just went viral and it was translated into a gazillion languages, went throughout Africa. I mean, it was just unbelievable. And it was that into the campaign into, but I was really up. (End of Interview) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Zillah Eisenstein Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Eisenstein, Zillah R. ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Scholars; Political activists--United States; College teachers; Eisenstein, Zillah R.--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Zillah Eisenstein is a scholar, political activist and Emerita Professor of Political Science at Ithaca College. Her work focuses primarily on political struggles for social justice. She was able to document issues such as the rise of neoliberalism (both within the U.S. and across the globe), the growth of imperial and militarist globalization, injustices of racial laws, diseases and affirmative action in the U.S. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-05-26 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.47 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 86:35