February 20, 2025
By Kimberlee Josephson
In fall of 2024, the Constructive Dialogue Institute published a report to assist university leaders with navigating campus protests “in an era of polarized activism.” The report was a response to the spring semester uprising whereas students, predominantly at elite universities, tested the boundaries of incivility by means of blocking building access with makeshift barricades, establishing unlawful encampments, engaging in hate speech, and even inflicting damage and destruction to school property. Some students not only continued their activist antics into the fall term, but even ramped up their efforts. For example, Cornell’s first day of classes were disrupted by anti-Israel demonstrations, University of Michigan’s student government promoted plans for blocking funds for student clubs until divestment demands for Israel were met, and Columbia set up an exhibit this past November demonstrating an alarming level of hatred.
Now, at the start of 2025, spring semester classes have been disrupted once again on Columbia’s campus and other institutions may witness a swell in student emotions in response to the surge in Executive Orders coming shortly after Trump’s inauguration. This past week, a group of students at Stanford implored their administration to “pushback against Trump’s restriction of federal funds, repeal of DEI initiatives and crackdown on immigration.” And it is likely Stanford will not be standing alone regarding these concerns as Trump’s EO’s are rolled out.
Motivations and Co-Optation
When student demonstrations first erupted in 2024, journalists and media outlets were quick to equate them with the anti-war protests of the 1960s, and while some of the activities seemed reminiscent of that time, and even replicated some of the actions employed, present-day protests are different and the distinction is important to note.
To begin with, unlike the anti-war protests of the 1960s, the mobilization of campus unrest that occurred across the country last year didn’t seem to be stirring from within universities, but rather was instigated from outside of them. Campus demonstrations being “co-opted or orchestrated” by external activists was a disturbing discovery and New York City Police Department Chief of Patrol John Chell asked the questions on many Americans’ minds: “Who is funding this? What is happening? There is an unknown entity who is radicalizing our vulnerable students.”
Another major difference between the protests of yesteryear and today is the context. What was at stake for students decades ago differed greatly from what students face today. Anti-war advocates of the 1960s banded together to have a voice in a matter on which they felt they had no say—upon turning 18, young men could be drafted to serve in the military and ultimately go to war, yet they could not take part in the electoral process (the 26th Amendment lowering the voting age to 18 would not be ratified until 1971). It was natural for students to feel a great sense of personal risk as their own lives were literally at stake.
Present day student protesters lack the level of direct personal investment that their predecessors had, although some might argue that has changed now that Trump is in office, and time has proven their outbursts to be largely self-defeating rather than aiming for self-preservation. Students disrupted their own graduation celebrations, deterred some future employers from recruiting recent grads, and some activists faced lawsuits as well as arrests.
Another area of difference between students of the 1960s and students today concerns outlets for expression. Today’s students can take part in voting as well as leverage social media and communication networks for letting their voice be heard. Universities also tend to accommodate student concerns and allow for, or even encourage and organize, sessions where students can interact with upper levels of administration.
Indeed, there are stark differences between today’s students and those of yesteryear, particularly when it comes to the stakes involved. Students of the 1960s sought out a greater understanding of the complexities involved while some of today’s activists not only lack the historical roots and self-interested rationale for their outbursts, but even lack a basic understanding of what they are advocating for or are chanting about. (And the same can be said for some professors). Present day anti-war riots should not be romanticized as being one and the same as those of previous generations. And while it seems that last year’s protests have subsided, it is still worth reviewing the history of student activism within the U.S. to educate today’s young adults about what has transpired in the past.
Foundation and Formation
Throughout the 1930s, colleges and universities shared a common ground with government: Both believed that advancing education was a key element in advancing the nation economically and politically. The government was able to prosper from research and access to specialized levels of expertise, while universities were supplied with public resources and subsidies. Initially, the coordination between academia and government seemed like an ideal match. As a result, government-sponsored universities grew substantially over time and, by the late 1960s, 73% of expenditures for university research within the U.S. came from the federal government.
Thanks to the National Defense Education Act, created in 1958 to provide low interest loans for those desiring to pursue higher education, universities came to serve a greater portion of the population and the surge in enrollments coincided with the modernization of postsecondary institutions. And Clark Kerr, former President of the University of California (1958-67), believed higher education was being recognized for its usage concerning economic growth and for political, social, and cultural development—a viewpoint that many still hold today.
Students were being positioned as a source for national achievement and the emphasis on higher education was prominently featured as part of President John F. Kennedy’s ‘New Frontier’ and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s ‘Communist Construction’. Over time, however, the combination of the school and state came to be perceived as hampering academic freedom since certain programs and research projects were given top priority.
Defense related research became a standard practice at elite universities and for those on campus who advocated for disarmament, this was an alarming matter. By the mid-to-late 1960s the country’s relatively stable political consensus of the prior two decades was breaking down as concerns about international conflict, in addition to racial and social strife, were creating an increasingly tense national mood. It’s not surprising then that students began to chafe under the constraints of the relationship between government and universities. Although they were being supported academically, students, unable to vote or generally participate in national debates, felt politically isolated in a quickly changing world. However, students soon discovered that their own universities were places at which their voices could be heard.
College campuses provided an environment where actions seemed like they carried political weight. The university was, after all, positioned as a crucial component of modern-day society. Prominent activist Richard Flacks—later a professor of sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara—suggests that the university offered a new base for political discourse. According to Flacks, the gathering of young people within institutions of higher education turned out to be ideal for fostering “mass politicization and radicalism.”
It is also worth noting that given the dramatic rise in birthrates, the Baby Boomer generation realized they had profound demographic power as the sixties had more people aged 25 and under than any previous decade. Overall, the campus provided a captive audience of students who were keen on connecting with others and were intrigued about opportunities for having a broader impact in a world that felt like it was caving in on them.
Alienation and Mobilization
With the Cold War heating up, students were becoming more organized and involved. They wanted clarity regarding what their country was doing and demanded proof of credibility from their government. The looming threat of nuclear warfare prompted some to organize the Washington Action Project (later becoming the Student Peace Union) to protest atmospheric nuclear testing. And, as it turns out, the grassroots organization was rather successful in attracting members. In 1964, the Washington Action Project hosted one of the largest rallies in Washington, D.C., up to that point in time, with 8,000 participants.
Students of the ’60s sensed a need for urgency and, in 1962, an activist organization that came to be known as Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) issued the Port Huron Statement. Tom Hayden, another well-known student activist during this period, played a significant part drafting the statement and he would later go on to serve for 18 years in the California State Assembly and Senate. The Port Huron Statement served as the student movement manifesto and claimed that the group’s work was guided by the sense that “we may be the last generation in the experiment with living.” Such an assertion clearly depicts the loneliness, estrangement and isolation felt by many students at that time.
The core areas of concerns for which SDS was seeking redress included what they saw as high defense spending, economic and social inequality, dangerous technological advancement, party politics, the ideological divide, an apathetic citizenry and the prospect of armed conflict. Matters such as these continue to be prominent on college campuses and protests on such topics have ebbed and flowed throughout time.
To be sure, student activism has had a consistent presence within higher ed, but what motivated the SDS were two overriding concerns: the growing awareness of and support for the civil rights movement to end racial discrimination and the prospect of being drafted to fight overseas.
SDS advocated for strengthening foreign relations politically rather than militarily and, in 1963, a state of détente between the U.S. and Soviet Union seemed to be emerging with the signing of the landmark Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Yet any optimism that arose that year ended in November when, at the beginning of the month, South Vietnam’s leader, President Ngo Dinh Diem, was assassinated and just three weeks later, President Kennedy was killed in Dallas.
Ramifications and Renunciation
JFK’s assassination shook the nation but Lyndon B. Johnson quickly vowed to follow his predecessor’s ambitions and declared his intentions to see things through in Vietnam. LBJ was soon tested on his promise; in August of 1964, it was reported that American ships located in the Gulf of Tonkin had been attacked by the North Vietnamese. Days after the attack, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, granting the President the right “to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent any further aggression.” LBJ commenced air strikes against North Vietnam and as U.S. involvement in Vietnam increased, so too did SDS’s efforts to attract new recruits and provide support for draft resisters.
To the dismay of many, young men who were originally able to avoid the draft by being enrolled at a university found themselves listed as eligible for service. Fear of the draft stirred the emotions of young adults across the nation, and, in defiance, some refused to register and burned their Selective Service cards.
In the spring of 1965, a student peace march in Washington, D.C., attracted roughly 20,000 participants. This rally was a concerted effort and aimed to not only attract the attention of political elites, but also to further encourage a national movement. Peace marchers were pleased with the publicity they received, but protesters quickly learned that whenever disruption or violence transpired, even more media coverage would occur. Today’s college students are similarly aware of this fact: provocations get publicity.
As the number of bombs the U.S. dropped on Vietnam rose to the number used at the height of World War II, skepticism about the war’s conduct proliferated. Anti-war advocates hosted teach-ins and all-night study sessions on college campuses to educate the populace about what was going on and, by the time of the start of the Tet Offensive in early 1968, SDS claimed to have over 100,000 active members.
1968 became a time etched in history when the student movement gained an international audience as a mass phenomenon—it was also an election year. And, as we know, passions and party politics can be a dangerous mix for college campuses.
Abnegation and Assassinations
With young people looking to voice their frustrations and anger, conventional politics received an influx of student attention at this time and activists backed the anti-war presidential candidate, Senator Eugene McCarthy. McCarthy's youth following became known as the “children crusade,” and student involvement helped McCarthy garner almost half of the popular vote in the New Hampshire primary against Johnson, eventually forcing the incumbent president from the race.
In turn, some politicians began to see student activists as a group that could be leveraged, and the success of McCarthy's anti-war campaign motivated Robert Kennedy to join the presidential race. Despite the voting age still being set at 21, Kennedy appeared sympathetic to the student movement and scheduled campus stops during his campaign to speak directly to young adults about his policies and agenda. Any sense of hope students obtained at this time for a more peaceful future, however, was quickly crushed with Kennedy’s assassination in June 1968—followed just a few months later by the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Campus unrest erupted across the country, with destruction occurring at San Francisco State, Berkeley, Cornell and other major campuses. Protesters actively sought to redirect “troops to occupy American campuses” to prevent them from being deployed on foreign soil and the SDS organized what came to be known as the “Days of Rage” during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. These efforts turned violent, creating a political backlash that increased the appeal for the Republican nominee, Richard Nixon.
Today’s students should be mindful of what happened in Chicago: Activist antics and bad behavior can generate an electorate that is less empathetic and tolerant and more interested in a law-and-order agenda.
In fact, over time, Middle America became largely unsupportive of the disturbances being caused by student dissent, and opinion polls later showed that student unrest generated the desire for a strong president. Nixon, in his campaigning, understood the dynamics of public opinion and he made strong efforts to rally support from the “silent majority” regarding security policy. In stating that “North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that,” Nixon successfully berated the student movement and bolstered his political position. It is also perhaps worth noting that those most agitated by anti-war behavior were from working-class families, since troops mainly consisted of young men from working and lower middle-class backgrounds and activists tended to come from higher-income households—much like the way things are today.
Escalation and Fragmentation
In 1969, the newly elected Nixon commenced the bombing of Cambodia, which sparked another wave of student strikes that spilled over into the following year. One demonstration that caught a great deal of attention, and rightly so, occurred in May 1970 at Kent State University. While demonstrations and protests were prohibited on campus, instances of vandalism and destruction were occurring in downtown Kent, Ohio. In response, the mayor declared a state of emergency and the Ohio National Guard was called in to maintain order with officers being distributed around Kent State’s campus.
Despite the Guard’s presence, students still assembled on May 4 for a planned demonstration and, for reasons that are still contested, the National Guard opened fire on demonstrators, killing four students. On May 15, two more students were killed at Jackson State University in Mississippi under similar circumstances.
Although these events were a pivotal point for the student movement, campus activism began to subside by the early 1970s. Student activists were aging out of college life and taking on new responsibilities and SDS split into factions, notably the Revolutionary Youth Movement and the Progressive Labor Party. SDS members now differed dramatically in their priorities and tactics and it became clear that the ideological outlooks of those partaking in protests were largely jumbled. In the 1971 book The New Left, Ayn Rand asserted that students got so caught up in being anti that they never clearly defined what they were for. Even though students gained a voice in society, it was now viewed by most Americans to be of little use or substance.
Implications and Application
S. J. Makielski, Jr., an evaluator of American politics and a graduate student at Columbia during the 1960s, argues that a social movement's perceived status is an important factor to its “appearance of legitimacy, respectability, maturity and responsibility.” Makielski also notes that social movements are usually “dominated by a clique of insiders, made up of the activist cadre.” SDS fulfilled this position, and while their ambitions were attractive to many college students, their movement did not extend far beyond university-based communities. And, when SDS fell apart in 1969, so did the movement.
By the mid-1970s, new and incoming students had heard enough about America’s problems and were generally not shocked or motivated by them. Actually, students were becoming rather apathetic when it came to political issues, and those who did have an interest were now veering toward the right. The pendulum had swung, and the birth of the “New Right” came from the ashes of the “New Left.”
Around this time, the creation of pro-American student groups, such as Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), countered anti-war activists by hosting their own sit-ins and laminating their Selective Service cards in protest to those who burned them. Coincidentally, present-day campus chaos has also generated some interest for students to counteract distasteful or destructive demonstrations. According to polling data, May 2024, “A large majority (81%) of students support holding protesters accountable, agreeing with the notion that those who destroyed property or vandalized or illegally occupied buildings should be held responsible by their university.”
Socialization and Areas for Consideration
At the end of the day, there are stark distinctions to remember when comparing students today with past generations. Notably, activists of the ’60s were involved in grassroots campaigns that drew attention to areas of concern which directly related to them (conscription and civil rights). This is unlike the sponsored campaigns of today’s student body. Additionally, one could also argue that the channels for communication and deliberation were limited for previous generations, thereby justifying (to some extent) alternative means for attracting attention. This is certainly not the case for present-day student groups, which can play a part in the electoral process and are provided with greater networks and resources for making their concerns known.
Exercising one’s voice at academic institutions in the 1960s was also a radical and unique opportunity, and the anti-war efforts of student activists expanded and evolved over numerous years and took on various forms as situations and experiences changed. Today’s uprisings, however, are proving to be largely sporadic and semester-based, mimic past movements, and have the underpinnings of outside influence. Yet, while today’s youth dissent is not like that of the past, one thing is certain, student engagement in social action will live on. Academia and activism seems to go hand-in-hand and today’s universities should be better prepared in knowing such. Moreover, students entering college should be encouraged to evaluate their principles and the purpose of their education to pre-empt and prevent the attraction of joining any campus campaigns that may be emotionally charged.
Students searching for a cause or struggling to find meaning will cling to the campus communities that are most receptive to new recruits and promote opportunities for having a higher purpose. Social movements matter for those eager to feel a sense of belonging and partake in something bigger than themselves—and so is it any wonder then for young adults to be attracted to activist organizations, particularly when such groups tend to be overly accepting of anyone willing to take up the charge? Student groups that have a herd mentality can seem quite attractive to those who feel lost or alone.
It may sound counterintuitive, but mass mobilization promotes both self-affirmation as well as self-expansion. By taking part in activist efforts, young adults can balance the inherent need to ‘belong’ while allowing for self-identity through choosing what or who to support. And young adults have proven to be quite adept in quickly adopting group expectations and behaviors. Thus, a primary concern for university officials should be determining how and why student groups are formed, where support and funding are being derived from, and how student movements are being marketed on campus. University leaders should also take a hard look at their role in the matter.
Social movements can either aid in societal advancement or be self-defeating and destructive, which is why today’s student body should take care when partaking in activist efforts and learn from the outcomes (and not the antics) of the past.
Dr. Kimberlee Josephson is an associate professor of business at Lebanon Valley College, a research fellow with the Consumer Choice Center, and part of the Heterodox Academy’s Speakers Bureau. Follow her on X @dr_josephson