Month: March 2014

Using Place as Rhetoric

by

The Endres and Senda-Cook reading defines two places in protest, making the argument that rhetoricians have mostly spent time with place-based arguments rather than using place as rhetoric.  Place based arguments are pretty familiar to most people, and they are good for discursively invoking discourse or memories to make an argument.  Recently, “Occupy Wall Street” became an excellent example of using a name of a place within the actual title of the movement.  Using this tactic is effective because people all over the world can join the movement simply by using this slogan.  Essentially, just talking about the movement itself to a friend will spread the name of the place from person to person and raise awareness.

Using place as rhetoric is not as easy of a task for protestors.  It is necessary to first build on pre existing meanings of the place. Then, they must temporarily reconstruct these meanings.  Repeated reconstructions over time create new meaning.  For example, The Lincoln memorial originally was a symbol for the emancipation proclamation and freedom of slaves in America.  This memorial came to have meaning for the civil rights movement after it was used for protest.  It was essentially used as a marker for a backdrop to continue to build on previous meaning that it had.  This was an extremely effective way of taking a place that has meaning for one thing, and replacing it with another meaning.

A more in depth (and perhaps less well known) example of this can be seen in the Speakers Rule controversy at Ohio State.  On April 23, 1965, 100 picketers marched on campus and circled the Administration Building.  Within an hour the number had risen to 300 as they marched inside the building, and about 100 remained inside the building for the rest of the day.  Also, on April 28, 1965, over 250 students and a few faculty members sat in at the Administration Building and stayed overnight.  When they walked out the next morning, they were greeted by about 50 picketers who had been outside since 7 am.  Before these protests, the classroom buildings at Ohio State represented a place of open discourse and free exchange of ideas.  It was a place for progressive learning where students were moving forward in their education daily.  The protesters of the speaker’s rule chose to sit inside the building overnight because they wanted to raise awareness about the change of education that was happening.  Hundreds of students sitting within the confined walls of the building created a visual rhetoric that is not conducive with freedom in the learning space.  They reconstructed the meaning of the classroom to carry meaning of confinement and have prison like qualities.  For everyone else to see this meant that they would start to participate in the very question of the movement itself: what kind of education are we getting at The Ohio State University?

In today’s modern world, we have become engulfed with our own busy lives, and most of us do not have the time to spend on using place as rhetoric.  One would have to be extremely passionate about a cause to travel to a specific site to spend hours upon hours physically occupying a place.  Although I do believe that this way is more effective, it is simply unrealistic in most cases.  It is much more convenient to be a part of a place-based argument. These kinds of arguments can be posted all over social medias, the Internet, and on posters all over a community.  People can get involved in these arguments without physically attending a protest.  Technology is continuing to reinforce the idea that it is convenient to be able to work on a project from a distance, but I would argue that this proves to be false when it comes to social movements.

wide_crowd_in_front_of_Lincoln_Mem_-_Freed_slideshow

The Public Sphere and Counterpublics in the Digital Age

by

What does it mean for something to be public? In class we each drew our own version of what we thought the public sphere would look like visually.  I thought it was interesting that although many of our drawings were different, essentially they were all very much the same.  Each of us drew some sort of large circle or square (maybe even earth) that represented the public sphere.  So, no the public sphere isn’t just a circle on a piece of paper.  But, it gets the point across.  The public sphere is open, all encompassing, free, and general.

 

A German philosopher by the name of Jurgen Habermas reflects on the idea of public by saying, “We call events and occassions ‘public’ when they are open to all, in contrast to closed or exclusive affairs.”  I thought this analysis of the public sphere was quite clever.  When we were talking in class I didn’t even think of a public social gathering and why we call it that or what the difference between a public and closed event is. After learning about public sphere and counterpublics in class, I was intrigued to research more.  I am interested in the way public sphere affects the way in which leaders decide how to organize social movements.  When researching I found more about Jurgen Habermas, who is mentioned in Pezzullo’s article.  Habermas describes public sphere as “society engaged in critical public debate.” Additionally, he gives conditions of the public sphere: the formation of public opinion, all citizen access, debate over general rules.  His conditions and definition match much of what we talked about in class.  The public sphere is social media, everyday interaction, exchanging of ideas in a public setting. The public sphere is open to all and everyone participates in the public sphere daily.

 

Habermas also talks about the private sphere — which he deems “are groups of individuals within the public sphere” These inner circles of the public sphere are private, less open, and usually more trusting and serious.  Often within the private sector is where we encounter a counterpublic — or a common idea or knowledge that has become widely accepted by this private or public group.  In my research I discovered that many other philosophers and students have criticized Habermas’s work because of his lack of focus or discussion of what we now call “counterpublics”.  Often ideas, concerns, or opinions within a group go from being private to widely accepted or even common.  These counterpublics are then thought of as common amongst the public.  We talked in class about the social movement, Breast Cancer Awareness, and how breast cancer has gone from being not spoken about publicly to being a commonly known cancer and is now not only part of the public sphere, but there is a whole Month dedicated to Breast Cancer Awareness.

 

My further questions about the Public sphere and counterpublics have to do with the media and the role of the leader in counterpublics.  Media plays a huge role in the public sphere, especially in the last decade with new social media sites sprouting every week.  Ideas, opinions, and movements are shared all across the world via media.  Media represents each of us in some way or another.  However, much of media is presented non face-to-face, which makes it difficult to fully engage in the public discourse and interactions.  I am looking more into the role of digital media social movements and their leaders for my final project, and I plan on using the public sphere and counterpublics for further analysis.  I question whether many ideas or groups that have started digitally have become counterpublics or whether having digital media has sped up the process of uncommon ideas becoming common.  Additionally, can the digital world take an object or idea that is known, such as an equal sign = and change the meaning of it . . .

and can that same thing be done to an idea or social movement.  I am still trying to work out my thoughts on all of this and I had a slightly difficult time grasping counterpublics, but I would love feedback.

Habermas, Jurgen (1992), “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere”, in Calhoun, Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge Mass.: MIT press

Habermas, Jurgen (German(1962)English Translation 1989), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Thomas Burger, Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press

The Spring of Dissent: A Focus on the Civil Rights Movement at OSU

by

The spring of 1970 was a period characterized by social upheaval of which student activists were at the vanguard. There were a number of student led demonstrations, sit-ins and other forms of resistance across many university campuses in the United States. The most famous and by far most deadly of these demonstrations occurred on the campus of Kent State University in Kent, Ohio where on May 4, 1970 four unarmed student protesters were shot dead by National Guard troops sent in to quash student demonstrations.

Like many other institutions of higher learning the Ohio State University was at this time also experiencing a very strong and sustained pressure to reform from a cross-section of its student body. One of the leading student groups calling for change were African American students protesting racism, discrimination, scarcity of African-American oriented studies, as well as the overall lack of diversity on campus. Black student activists on more than one occasion presented their list of demands to relevant university officials but their attempts at opening proper channels of dialogue were either completely ignored or were reduced to mere “concerns”. Having their efforts their efforts at achieving peaceful accommodations rebuffed the student activists then turned to employing more confrontational rhetoric which sought to force the university to address their list of demands. To propagate this closed fist rhetoric students used a number of venues of which the most prominent was Our Choking Times, a nonconformist black student newspaper that served as a mouthpiece of African American student activists. Student activists were able with great effect to utilize this newspaper as a platform to rally for the changes which they sought and to put immense pressure on university officials.

The pressure on the university became so great that on May 7, 1970 fearing a similar outbreak of violence like the one that occurred at Kent State, university officials decided to close the entire campus to students and all but the most essential of faculty for a period of almost two weeks, to this day the longest period of campus closure in the history of the Ohio State University, cementing the Spring of Dissent as a decisive period that laid the groundwork which made the OSU of today a much more open and tolerant institution of higher learning.

It should be noted that the methods first employed by students seeking redress for their legitimate grievances did not start out so aggressive, or confrontational. Students began their quest to right the wrongs that they saw in all the right ways. For instance, as was mentioned earlier students frequently asked to have meetings with the president or other higher officials only to have their requests ignored or outrightly denied.

The president’s papers show further evidence of the rhetoric strategies of the confrontational African American students of The Ohio State University in the spring of 1970.  It is very evident in the dialogue between President Fawcett and members of the Board of Trustees, in many letters, of  attempts of African American leaders and organizers to invite the administration to a roundtable, if you will, to discuss proposed changes to the university that would prove to be more conducive for the learning, social, and overall education experience of African American students, faculty, and staff.  Confrontation and closed fist rhetoric are appropriate labels for the civil rights movement of the university as we consider the peaceful, yet unsuccessful events and demands.  President Fawcett’s avoidance of action on behalf of the entire administration made invitational rhetoric a failure.  In order for the events of the Spring of Dissent to be successful, both parties would’ve had to be willing to offer dialogue, suggestions, and proposed changes.  It is through the downfall of student invitation, that the ladder rhetorical technique, confrontation, become the only effective means of communication.  In the end, communication proved to be the most relevant factor and explantation for the events that characterized these unfortunate records in Ohio State and university histories.

Not only did the papers paradoxically highlight the student’s efforts to make progress within the movement, but also identified the administration’s (not so useful) use of political rhetoric to make progress with students. Instead of providing timely, honest, and open communication, Fawcett provided “token” responses and threats of serious reprisal.  At a time when the black students and their supporters were invitational and open fisted, the administration used tactics that instantly attacked the students leading to the events that encapsulated the Spring of Dissent.   The president’s papers provided another aspect of the civil rights movement in 1970 at OSU that wasn’t otherwise discussed in Our Choking Times or The Lantern, for strategic political reasons. However, these documents reinforce the importance of integrity, honesty, and transparency with the public discourse, even in the light of membership in the private sphere. Fawcett needed to meet them where they were and build up a new Buckeye Nation from there.

Eventually, the pressure on the university from civil rights activist groups combined with several other activist movements on campus became so great that on May 7, 1970 fearing a similar outbreak of violence like the one that occurred at Kent State, university officials decided to close the entire campus to students and all but the most essential of faculty for a period of almost two weeks, to this day the longest period of campus closure in the history of the Ohio State University.

When looking at highly biased sources such as Our Choking times along side the President’s papers it is interesting to also look at what is arguably a much less biased source; the student-led newspaper, The Lantern.

Although the articles in the Lantern are neither making a clear argument for or against increased civil liberties, nor are they ‘choosing sides’ between the President and the majority of the student body, the representation of imagery associated with different groups gives the reader an idea of what the students may have been feeling and focusing on at the time. Imagery from earlier civil rights protests from the late 1960s tend to show images that are less favorable to student African American student groups. Such as the image on the right of a student climbing in through a window. This image symbolizes the idea that the civil rights movement on campus had not gained enough momentum yet to be successful. Later images nearly always show students in groups, protesting as a student body, rather than a lone student or lone student group.

Later images also include what the students were up against, like the picture below from the Spring of Dissent.  

The imagery associated with the different time periods illuminates for the readers looking back what is likely the biggest reason that the civil rights movement was able to achieve some successes during the Spring of Dissent: majority opinion was on the side of civil rights.

 

What is “Public”? WHat is “Counter”?

by

        The idea of “public” discourse is that it is applicable to the masses.  It can be found in media, and with interaction and everyday exchange of ideas between people.  These ideas are part of an open-network, and are accessible to everyone.  They are inherently part of our everyday life and discourse, and are ideas that we live out without questioning.    On the opposing side of this idea of “public” spheres, there are also those ideas and concepts which circulate within their own “private” spheres.  The private sphere has a limited audience.  It may even be helpful to think about this audience as part of an inner circle.  Those whom are creators of these inner circles are typically minority groups.  The transfer of ideas within the private sphere is trusted because it has an impact on the interior. 

        When there are common ideas that have over time become widely accepted within their group- whether it is private or public- a “counter” public is created. The counterpublic may address an alternative view or idea that might be controversial. Counterpublics provide an avenue for change. Social Movements such Breast Cancer Awareness starts as a counterpublic. The idea of breast cancer was once taboo and not often talked about or part of the public sphere.  Through the avenue of the counterpublic, breast cancer became a commonly known entity and is now supported by the public sphere. The work of a movement is to impose a change of accepted beliefs. 

        What is important about realizing how these divisions in spheres work from “public” to “counterpublic” is that nothing is static.  In effort to conceptualize what a public might look like, we have put forward ideas of drawings that include circles within bigger circles, squares of different sizes, and even a picture of a spider web.  One can even think of it in terms of a scale, with the counterpublic constantly trying to balance out with the public. While these pictures do help in sorting our directional patterns, they only provide a snapshot of how ideas circulate.  The public sphere is fluid, and always changing on its own. Pezullo explores “How one group of people and related institutions challenge the way another group of people and related institutions have dominated public discourse.”   The exchanges of ideas are not always binary, but are rather part of a grand system of networks.  In Response to Habermas, Calhoun claims, “It seems to me a loss simply to say that there are many public spheres… It might be productive rather to think to the public sphere as involving a field of discursive connections…a network.”  In terms of a web, there is movement towards and from the center, and also horizontally. An example of this intersection between two counterpublics is the collaboration of health and environmental movements. According to Chavez, “Coalition-building often involves more behind the scenes work than public rhetorical displays.” Chavez shows how  “rhetoric functions to facilitate coalition-building between a queer rights and a migrant rights organization by demonstrating how activists interpret rhetoric.”  This complex transfer of ideas is virtuously impossible to track because of how quickly ideas transform during their journey from sphere to sphere.

Women’s Movement- OSU 1970s

by

123

In the spring of 1970 the tone of university and college settings across America began to change.  Social movements became more publicized as students took action.  This was particularly true at The Ohio State University.  Student activists demonstrated their rights by taking over administration buildings, staging protests, and refusing to compromise.  While women did pay a key role in the Spring of Decent that actual women’s movement is tracked to be much longer.  Through a search in the archives we have analyzed the women’s movement at OSU through three lenses; catalytic events, invitational rhetoric, and closed vs. open first rhetoric.  This will lead to the conclusion that the OSU women’s movement was not a series of rallies, demonstrations, or events, but rather a vision set out by the female students in the 1970s.

James Darsey identifies a catalytic event as “moments in the life of a movement that provide the appropriate conditions for discourse” and “meaningful divisions that aid the critical task” (46).  The Spring of Dissent served as an overarching catalytic moment for many social movements.  This was due to the outcry for change and progress by many students.  However, the women’s movement at OSU falls short of having a specific catalytic moment.  One formal example was the Women’s Equity Action League official charge against the University for sex discrimination.  The charge cited that the faculty staff ratio of male and female individuals was extremely disproportional.  This charge was filed in 1972.  This event can be coded as unity and determination.  However, this was the only striking movement that occurred during this timeframe for women.  This suggests that the women’s movement was not a series of catalytic events, but rather a drawn out argument or discussion.article wo

Invitational Rhetoric is a means of communicating one’s beliefs to another using inclusion and reciprocation. In their article Foss & Griffin lay out invitational rhetoric as an invitation for others to understand. The goal of invitational rhetoric is to create a relationship rooted in equality, immanent value, and self-determination. In their article, Foss & Griffin illustrate invitational rhetoric using the example of Adrienne Rich’s acceptance of the National Book Awards Prize for Poetry. In her speech Rich said, “We believe we can enrich ourselves more in supporting and giving to each other than by competing against each other.” In her speech, Rich didn’t present arguments in favor of her beliefs or argue against the opposition, she simply offered her vision.

The invitational form of rhetoric can be seen in divergent ways on campus at Ohio State. On the one hand there were beliefs similar to those of Phyllis Chesler, an women’s lib author and university professor who hosted an event during Women’s Week at OSU in April of 1975. In Chesler’s opinion the political environment of the 1970’s was antagonist toward women’s rights advocates. Chesler then claims that this antagonistic attitude results in passivism and a fear of men among women, which hinders the women’s liberation movement. Chesler’s analysis would suggest that the environment isn’t ripe for the incorporation of the invitational rhetorical form. Because invitational rhetoric demands reciprocity and mutual respect, Chesler’s analysis that “women are powerless because they are taught to be ignorant of what is in their self-interest” suggests that women are not able or encouraged to voice their opinions in the first place.pic

On the other hand, various other events suggest that invitational forms of rhetoric were being used. The Women’s Week Events pamphlet featured informational sessions specifically geared toward men to help them understand the importance of women’s empowerment. There were also other events focused specifically on women’s education as a means of empowerment without specific motives for persuasion.

In regards to Corbett, we examined closed and open fist rhetoric specifically within the context of the 1970 Spring of Dissent at the Ohio State University. Throughout our findings at the archives, we discovered much of what defined an organization or proposal lied with their linguistic usage. Furthermore, despite a few photos, we were left to examine the rhetoric of these movements almost completely based on written artifacts rather than visual aids. Language proved to be rather interesting in the archival research. For example, in a ‘proposal’ for a daycare center, the OSU women’s liberation movement ‘feels’ (or, felt, I suppose) that a daycare would free both of the sexes to ‘pursue their educational and occupational activities’ and that they ‘recommend’ an investigation of a potential building to utilize for said center. This is comparable to the strong closed-fisted rhetoric behind the OSU Women’s Liberation Demands, which, far from a proposal, requests an ‘end’ to restrictive admission quotas and ‘immediate abolishment’ of degrading disciplinary practices. The proposal for a campus location Planned Parenthood was interesting as well, using much of it’s rhetoric in regards to population control. Population control is vague enough an issue that it can seek out attention from either side of the pro choice/pro life debate, as well as create an undeniable truth for pro-lifers to face- the truth that perpetual growth is simply a recipe for disaster. Furthermore, rather than addressing the controversial abortion debate, these activists shift focus to an argument that would be difficult to incite dispute over.ww

The archival data gathered about the women’s movement was limited.  We extended our research to common themes going on around the United States.  While this is not the purpose of our post, it is interesting to make connections between the overall movement and the movement within OSU.  The United State’s women’s movement focused more on closed fist rhetoric, including several large demonstrations and protests.  In contrast administration and archives at OSU were centered on the anti-war and civil rights movements. Therefore, it can be concluded that the women’s movement at Ohio State was not a series of catalytic events, but rather displayed invitational rhetoric with open-handed techniques.

Jocelyn Browning, Holly Haynes, and Traci Tatum

Works Cited

“1970 OSU Student Demonstrations.” 1970 OSU Student Demonstrations. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Mar. 2014. <http://library.osu.edu/projects/spring-of-dissent/>.

Corbett, Edward P J. “The Rhetoric of the Open Hand and the Rhetoric of the Closed Fist.” College Composition and Communication 20.5 (1969): 288-296. Print.
Communication Studies 42.1 (1991): 43-66. Print.

“Fast Facts.” Fast Facts. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2014. <http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=93>.

Foss, Sonja K., and Cindy L. Griffin. “Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal For An Invitational Rhetoric.” Communication Monographs 62.1 (1995): 2-18. Print.

“Timeline: Woman’s Rights and Feminism (U.S.).” Ohio State Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Feb. 2014. <http://backtohistory.osu.edu/resources/events/Suffrage%20and%20Feminism%20Timeline.pdf>.

Spring of Dissent: Anti-War Conclusion

by

Protest

 

In 1966 the Vietnam War was underway with about 400,000 troops sent to fight in Vietnam. Tensions were high, many people disapproved of the war, and the government was keeping the events and massacres in Vietnam quiet. In November 1969 Nixon ordered a secret bombing of Cambodia and the incidences of the Mai Lai massacre were revealed. These details led to widespread disruption, unrest, and rioting. The areas under most of the anti-war demonstrations were college campus, and on May 4, 1970 4 students were shot dead at a Kent State University demonstration.

 After the Kent State incident many college campuses feared a second “Kent State.” Students continued anti-war demonstrations; these demonstrations became increasingly violent and confrontational.  Many personal accounts from the protesters state, “we (the students/protesters) ended the war,” but much of the administrative documents and faculty accounts present the demonstrations as disruptive, violent, and unhelpful.

 The most common places on campus for performed demonstrations were on the Oval, on the edges of campus, and near the ROTC facility.  Many protesters felt the need to voice their opinion not only on the war and the soldiers in combat, but also the ROTC students still on campus.  Many of the ROTC students were called “baby killers” and other horrible names despite not even being involved in the war.

 Demonstrations involved rock throwing, tear gas, confrontations between students and national guards, and many arrests. Once the demonstrations quickly turned violent and the Kent State shootings happened, Ohio State decided to close it’s campus for 2 weeks.  From May 7- May 19 campus was closed off; students and faculty were not allowed anywhere on campus grounds.  The closing seemed to work in the administrative favor because once Ohio State reopened the demonstrations were fewer and more peaceful.  The demonstrations against the Vietnam War held a lasting effect on The Ohio State University; these lasting effects initiated by aggression and dissatisfaction towards the ROTC, where we leap into first.

We begin with the ROTC side of the dispute. According to the ROTC members and supporters, they are the victims of the protesters’ actions; and to the protestors, the ROTC are the aggressors and antagonizers. However, why were the ROTC viewed as the aggressors during the Spring of Dissent? Did the ROTC personally engage with the protesters before the demonstrations to fuel a fire large enough to consume the entire campus? No, the ROTC did not. The ROTC are a federal organization who were doing what the federal government ordered; that was to recruit soldiers for the Vietnam War.

The way in which the demonstrators voiced their opinions and dislikes of the ROTC program were considered closed fisted rhetoric, or more confrontational. They (protesters) resorted to the destruction of the ROTC grounds and the disruptive marching during several ROTC events. The response by the ROTC? Nothing. They went about their normal activities as if only a small hiccup occurred.

We see that the coercive/closed fisted tactics of the student demonstrators, compared to the cooperative/open handed response by the ROTC, were a total failure. Not only did the demands of the demonstrators not be met or heard due to their actions overpowering their rational voices, their members were arrested and charged with breaking several laws. For the ROTC, attendance rose to become the highest ROTC recruitment average in the nation.

The rhetoric we see implemented during this conflict gave thumbs up for one tactic and thumbs down for another. However, we cannot gauge rhetoric from one event because as we all know, each social movement is a unique organism that functions specifically to sustain life and meaning for itself. As in the Spring of Dissent, it seems that the symbiotic tendencies of the ROTC outlived the parasitical tendencies of the demonstrators. Now that the ROTC side of the conflict has been examined, it’s time now to shift our focus to the opposing side of the Spring of Dissent: the demonstrators.

The anti-war movement at The Ohio State University during the Spring of Dissent was a defining factor of progress at the University.  The use of melodramatic rhetoric morally polarized people, forcing them to have difficult conversations that challenged personal opinions about the war. The use of open fisted rhetoric by the anti-war movement demonstrate the students’ passion to get their voice heard.  These students were not interested in putting down the opinions of others, but rather, challenged others to see the facets of the war that were present at The Ohio State University, like war research and the ROTC program.  Out of frustration, the movement took more of a closed-fist approach.  Other political factors, like the United States invasion of Cambodia, as well as the Kent State University shootings served as catalysts for the abrupt change in rhetorical style.  Student and faculty participating in the anti-war movement challenged their peers to look at the Vietnam War through a different lens by bringing to light the war research that was happening at OSU.  Some felt that the war research at OSU was fine. On the other hand, some felt that the war research was hindering student’s education.  Other students were uncomfortable getting an education from a University so involved in a war that they did not particularly agree with.  Instead of accepting government official’s decisions entirely, the anti-war movement questioned the decisions of authority, consequently sparking intelligent conversation amongst faculty and students.  These types of conversation helped people compartmentalize the chaos around them.

The anti-war movement is unique because of all of the conversations it started.  As a result of the chaos during the Spring of Dissent, teachers held classes in their homes and had open dialogue about the war.  Had these discussions not taken place, the course of our University’s history would have been changed.  For starters, the sense of unity, as a result of the movement, would have not been present.  Students would not feel unity because they would not have felt they had a role in ending the war.  Finally, had this movement not happened, some students would not even be aware of the role OSU administration had in the war.  The anti-war movement is an irreplaceable part of The Ohio State University’s history because of the progress in unity and awareness the University made in a time of overwhelming chaos.

In conclusion, the late 1960’s and early 1970’s were characterized by a highly active, engaged body of students who protested various injustices, or perceived injustices, of the time. It was a time of great unrest — pacifists protested the Vietnam war, people of all ethnicity fought racial inequality, and women spoke out against their oppression. Such injustices, in various forms, persist even today, so we must consider the motivations and environment that contributed to the conglomeration of social movements that intertwined into the Spring of Dissent. To examine the causes, we will discuss the overall theme of injustice that pervaded the time period and the infectious nature of social movements.

Protests, sit-ins, marches: they all linked back to the idea of injustice. It was unjust that American men were overseas, “killing babies” for a cause that an overwhelming majority of Americans did not believe in. It was unjust that women received unequal pay and were less liberated men. It was unjust that black Americans were forced to use separate, often inferior facilities than white Americans as a result of segregation. Finally, in the late 1960’s, these injustices came to a head. Many Americans opposed the draft, and rejected the notion of fighting for a cause that inherently violated their values. However, this rang especially true for young black men, who were subject to die the same death as young white men to fight for rights that they themselves were not granted. Although the following clip may not be 100% historically accurate and is likely dramatized for cinematic effect, it depicts the fusion of two movements into what some would consider one larger movement against inequality as a whole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnpnYAId6dU

These movements built off one another for more than just similar goals. College campuses are hubs for bonding capital, or significant connections made between individuals on a basis of close interaction. Social capital, in turn, leads to increased civic engagement (Zukin et. al). Additionally, it allows for the transfer of ideas during normal discourse, and provides easy opportunity for students to engage in passionate conversations about such heavy topics as these injustices. Finally, those who are involved in social networks spawned by bonding capital face the chance of being left out if they don’t attach to the norms, essentially a more mature form of peer pressure. As Anthony Libby, then English Professor put it:

Although most students participating in the protest were politically motivated, there was an element of ‘play’ to the rallies.  Some young people were just excited to be a part of the huge crowds of people that gathered around campus. (Lantern Archives)

The swelling sentiment against gross injustices combined with the intellectually and culturally stimulating environment of college campuses in the 1960’s and 1970’s resulted in the Spring of Dissent. College students across the nation used the platforms created by the frenzied atmosphere in efforts to affect change, and many believe they truly did.

*For people who witnessed the events of the Spring of Dissent, if you would like to share your experiences, you can follow this link and answer a few questions regarding the demonstrations and how you perceived them:  https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dFVCZVJ5eS1WMjNpWU5MeUxBRklVQ3c6MQ

 

Zukin, Cliff, Scott Keeter, Molly W. Andolina, Krista Jenkins, and Michael X. Delli Carpini. A New Engagement? : Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen. I ed. Vol.

 

Speaker’s Rule Controversy

by

LukeR.jpeg

The Speaker’s Rule at Ohio State (1961-1965) eventually came to give the President of OSU the power to regulate public speakers on campus. This rule was prominent during the time of the Red Scare, when there was a circulating fear of the potential rise of communism or radical left-ism. In March 1963, students for liberal action filed a lawsuit saying that the speakers rule was unconstitutional an a direct violation of free speech. This lawsuit started a spiral of student and faculty protests. According to Darcey, “Events belong in a period because of their similarity. When events change drastically, usually the historian perceives that a new period different from the older period is created.” We were able to establish that there was a new period started within the speaker’s rule upon the increase of student involvement. We were able to make this subsequent claim based on the rhetorical progression cause by this catalytic event of student involvement. The language of the movement changed from “responsibility” to “control” and shifted the overall question from- “Is the speakers rule unconstitutional” to “what kind of education are we getting at OSU”.  The second catalytic event that we were able to identify within this movement was the free speech movement in Berkeley, California, in 1964. This movement influenced the change of rhetorical action taken by students at Ohio State and was largely responsible for the end of the speakers rule protest. The students in 1962 were angry and frustrated with this issue. The students in 1965, after seeing the harsh measures that Berkeley students took to see almost instant change on their campus, became forceful and confident.

 

Professors at Ohio State were limited in their ability to present certain ideas in the classroom, and this most directly affected their ability to invite outside speakers into their classroom. The question, which must be asked, then, becomes “Is Freedom Academic?” During this time period, the answer was never clear, but it appeared to be “Not Necessarily.” Professors were given the responsibility of presenting controversial information without promulgating it. The guest speakers who did make it onto campus were heavily monitored; they could not be activists or “rabble-rousers.”

However, because academic freedom only applied to actions directly on campus, professors would often invite speakers to community centers and churches across High Street as a loophole. Additionally, they hosted the speakers in their own homes and backyards in defiance of the Speaker’s Rule. These faculty members were outspoken against Ohio State’s administration, and maintained what Corbett and Cathcart would call a closed-fisted and confrontational rhetoric.

Professor Kettler, who was involved in the movement, wrote about the advent of the spring of dissent at OSU after the fact:

“In any institution as a complex as a modern university, there will be countless instances of resistance, both “inertial” and “reactive.” But we are interested here in some patterns of reactive resistance; i.e., resistance ‘specifically oriented to political authority;” (Blaine/Kettler, 26).

Kettler illustrates the presence of this “resistant” rhetoric when he explains Three Levels of Force at play at OSU during the Free Speech Movement:

Challenge →  protest, demonstration, rebuke

Disobedience → obstruction, refusal, retaliation

Withdrawal of support/Attack on authority → Rebellion (Blaine/Kettler 26).

 

In the early stages of the movement, students had little involvement. The issue of academic freedom was one that primarily affected the ability of Professors to teach. However, students began to become concerned when the actions of their professors were called into question. Students such as Mike Stinziano organized debates in order to learn about the Speaker’s Rule, and its impact on the student body. In our research, we were able to reach Mike Stinziano, and ask him about his participation in the movement — specifically, “What (besides the resolution) did you and other students do to circumvent and fight the Speaker’s Rule?

“Students, and faculty, demonstrated, wrote letters to the editor of the Lantern, passed resolutions, and those sorts of things.  I believe, but am not sure, the faculty senate also opposed the Speakers Rule.”

Looking at student participation toward the beginning of the movement, we see a rhetoric that is open-handed and managerial (some might even say invitational). After the success of the movement and protests at UC Berkeley, however, the tone of students shifted, and became more closed-fisted. Some also considered more confrontational tactics.

111e1563f7eed5add48361d5baf5c430.jpeg Interestingly, the student’s side of the Speaker’s Rule movement was a slow process. Although Speaker’s Rule had been in effect for over three years, Ohio State University students did not form a group or movement against Speaker’s Rule until the Spring of 1965. The Free Speech Front (FSF) was finally organized against OSU after a student-favorite teacher, Charles Brauner, was fired. Even though students could host speakers across High St., there was still a larger issue. Students felt that the University wasn’t considering the student’s points of views on different matters. Yes, they were upset that they couldn’t listen to speeches, but “the bigger issue was about the role of the University altogether – whether it was going to be a lively place in which a marketplace of ideas and exchange of ideas could be promoted, even controversial ideas, whether students could be trusted to make up their own minds” (Jeff Schwartz). When one thinks of college and university-life, one also thinks of freedom and creativity. Unfortunately, like Schwartz says, the University failed at inspiring conversation; instead, they prohibited it.

After the confrontational protests at The Univeristy of California, Berkeley, students were inspired with ideas of sit-ins and protests. Yet, the vast majority of FSF ruled in favor a closed fist aspect. Instead of throwing bricks and starting fires, the FSF had two sit-ins. One intriguing aspect is that it was the administration side of OSU that kept the protests closed fist. If OSU had overreacted and reacted with force then the sit-ins would have probably turned into confrontational protests. But the University chose to react with patience, and they let the sit-ins occur without starting a big fight. Therefore, the FSF was closed fist, but there is a high possibility that it could have been confrontational. The two sit-ins in the Administration Building and the invitiation to have Herbert Aptheker, American Marxist historian and member of the American Communist Party, were all non-confrontational. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Vu_yoZ0kw Please follow the link and skip to 6:35 to see an example of a FSF protest.

The Speaker’s Rule finally ended at the beginning of the school year in 1965.