[Editor’s note: this article is the fourth and final part of a primary source, historical deep-dive into the San Francisco State University student strike, the longest campus strike in the history of the United States. Read here for part 1, here for part 2, and here for part 3.]
End of the Tape
So, we’ve reached the end of our tape. We’ve played it forwards. Returning to our original question: why is the creation of the ESD central to these events? Why not the Vietnam protests, the AFT strike, the free speech rallies, or perhaps most importantly, the violence? To return to our pattern, the narrative of this event plays out like much any text of American history: an issue which was extant but of questionable prominence is solved by a conflict. The conflict is then retroactively justified by the outcome. Such is the pattern.
What we see now is a series of concessions from the admiration and the Board of Trustees. The powers that be addressed grievances, listened carefully, and praised their righteousness. The students responded with escalating strikes, riots, and violence. Let’s not forget that before the violence even began the Black Studies Department (the eventual ESD) was in the works, the special admissions program was allowing unqualified ethnic students to attend and the Tutorial Programs were education the “underprivileged.” Even Hayakawa was ready and willing to concede many of the demands, if only the violence would end. The conflict unfolded under the now classic pattern of the powers that be bending over backwards to assuage the riots.
In every conflict, the students created a narrative which appealed to the average person, while still aiming for radical demands. Between the Vietnam War, free speech, student rights, various petty complaints, school governance, teacher’s compensation student put constant pressure on the school. Of the dozens of issues which students and faculty protested over, the BSU’s went down in history. A small minority of a minority became the center of history and the countless protests over still more countless issues suddenly became a side show to a handful of students. Why?
If the causes of the strike have become even more confused, you’re not alone. Out of the 228 contemporary articles listed in the strike collection, only 18 mentioned the BSU or race, as opposed to the 35 articles that mentioned generic students.[i] Titles like “AFT professors battle Reagan: strike cripples San Francisco State” don’t scream: “give the BSU its Ethnic Studies Department”. The AFT may have fooled the San Francisco Labor Council, but it didn’t fool everyone.[ii] While the BSU was prominent, it was by far the defining issue to the outsider. This was complicated by the necessities of the BSU’s and TWLF’s allies. The SDS and AFT both had to maintain separate identities and purposes, the AFT for legal reasons and the SDS for ideological ones. Both organizations goals were to support the BSU, but neither could admit that. The canard of the Vietnam War and raises for the faculty were excuses (important issues none-the-less but not the primary motivation). These excuses served to muddle the slogans, protests, and narrative.
The students see themselves as noble people fighting battles to uplift the nonwhite races and promote reforms or revolution that will produce a better way of life. Officials who slow down or interfere with this process are branded enemies of the people.[iii]
Keep in mind, a majority of the people eventually arrested and indeed the majority of those that participated were white. This strike would not have had the manpower or impact if not for the moderates and non-ethnics. There were many times when the protests were almost entirely white.[iv] This lead to quite the cognitive dissonance for all the parties involved. From the SDS to the AFT to the BSU, the participants stressed many times that on no uncertain terms the minorities were in charge. Even as the professors advised and spoke out for the BSU, they emphasized their subordinate role. This emphasis, while valiant, seemed to fall flat, as the BSU’s issue de jour of racism became just one slogan among the tide of signs.
There was evidence of a shifting spectrum of support among unorganized whites, with many of those interviewed indicating that either they supported some of the demands, although they continued to go to classes, or that they occasionally helped out on a picket line.
Issues also tended to shift somewhat in the midst of confrontations, with considerable numbers of moderate whites apparently willing to risk arrest to watch, or object to, police in action on the campus at the same time they were attending class and not observing the picket lines.[v]
What we can say is that a minority of the participants had drawn in hundreds if not thousands of moderates to unwittingly assist the BSU and TWLF in their demands. Despite their best efforts, the BSU and TWLF needed the SDS, and the SDS needed their mass of useful idiots. Take this selection from a strike booklet:
Too many scabs have given lip service to the support of the 15 demands but still go to class. . . . What you are really saying is that you support the right of Third World people to better their conditions, but you don’t support their efforts to achieve that better condition. . . . Friend, that is a pretty racist attitude . . . the selfish individualist attitude of you scabs . . . can no longer be tolerated. . . .[vi]
Enter the struggle session. If the New Left and SDS had sought to obfuscate their reasons for striking, they had succeeding in convincing the press and therefore the public. So why, then, was the historical focus on the BSU? I’ll let New Left radical Professors, Eric Solomon, describe his own feelings towards the BSU:
I happened to be rather close to the people in Ethnic Studies because I was vice-chair of the Senate when Nathan Hare came to the campus. I was one of the few people who had been a close friend of Juan Martinez, the man who had preceded him as head of the Ethnic Studies operation. It wasn’t a school of anything at that time. And I befriended Nathan. Maybe not the wisest move of my life, but I found him charming and charismatic, and also I was obviously in a form of shall we say “blackophilia,” as we all were. They were colorful people and we felt that, gee, they like us though we’re white, so that must mean that we’re really good. You know, I went through all that. We’ve all been there.[vii]
One word can sum up the redefining of this conflict: “blackophilia”. The surety of the true believers in their righteousness was their defense of the oppressed. While there were many actors who subconsciously believed and acted upon this cause, they were by far minority. Even the administrators seemed to accept the frame of the need for change:
The administrators of San Francisco State College do not, of course, view themselves as enemies of the people. Nor do they consider themselves reactionary gatekeepers of the Establishment. Quite the contrary. They point out (accurately) that the college has been in the forefront of change.[viii]
If I can stress one point, it is that all parties saw the grievances of the BSU and the students at large as to one degree or another righteous. Whatever their feelings on the violence or anarchy, whatever their tactics, the actors with power from the beginning ceded moral high ground to the radical elements of the New Left. Once the moral high ground is ceded, history writes itself. This is why the BSU and its fight have been canonized by San Francisco State University.
“Blackophilia” served as the retroactive justification for months of violence and anarchy. To the historians of SFSC, the experts in ethnic studies, it was worth it because the strike brought about the Ethnic Studies Department. The march of progress knows its own, and the end justifies the means (whatever ends the means actually pursued).
Kenneth Monteiro, dean of San Francisco State’s College of Ethnic Studies, said the strike is taught in the campus’ courses on history, organizing and social justice. He said the strike was a key flash point among similar movements around the world.
“When you say Kent State, I think of anti-war protests. When you say free speech, I think of UC Berkeley. If you say multi-ethnic struggles, it is San Francisco State,” Monteiro said. “This was one of the watershed events, that blast that opened the doors. It wasn’t that the other struggles weren’t important, but this was the Normandy.””[ix]
If we are to explain the reason why the BSU was not merely content to accept the state of the BSD, we will have to dig a little into the theories. After all, the vast majority of the demands were already granted, in process when the strike began, or granted during the strike. The BSU, however, insisted all or nothing, until it couldn’t, that is.
Let’s delve into the exoteric theory and revealed preferences behind the strike. What is clear is that the BSU understood the role of education in the circle of power. Further, it knew that any check on the authority of the ESD could have hampered its ability to shape minds. What the BSU wanted was a sovereign institution with the funding and power to shape the minds of their co-ethnics. Further, by hiring full-time staff, the BSU could maintain a staff of luminaries to develop ideology full-time.
The BSU had quite the rational distrust of any attempts at compromise. There was always the danger that its demands would only be met to the letter and that regulatory and administrative oversight could neuter the movement. Department heads could approve or disapprove of the curriculum of any course under their purview.
Despite a flood of good words, they say, white America- the group in power-has proved by its actions that it will do as little as it can get away with. Therefore, they argue, the issue has become one of seizing power: Power that minority groups need to deal with their long-neglected problems themselves, and power to show white America that it can no longer get away with doing as little as has been done in the past.[x]
What was so important to teach that the BSU must control it? “Relevancy” was the word de jour. The BSU correctly identified that the education system was built for the elites (specifically the white elites).
Violence is teaching black people that all cultures are the same, which means that all cultures are white. . . . [xi]
If the BSU was to control the minds of the future, or more pleasantly put, be relevant to its constituents, the BSU had to create a curriculum. The BSU thought that from the power of educating students would flow political, social, and economic power. If the education system could perpetuate myths that served the power structure, then couldn’t the BSU use the system to serve its interests? From there, the BSU could control its destiny. Half-measures would not do.
If a structure is decadent, you must destroy it before you can build. The role of black people is to build…Our objectives are to contrive to define and refine the expressions of our community and to contrive to explore ways of integrating the community into our activities.[xii]
The word “autonomous” means being able to fund itself, but the school is funded by the taxpayer. The Board controls the purse. The only way to control the purse is to control the government. To rail against the subordinates of the government was to demand what could not be given.
Impossible is the word that comes to mind. The BSU, the students, the teachers felt something was being withheld from them. They shared the quality of many movements of asking for something that cannot be given. They saw the power to shape minds, and they wanted it. They wanted the institutions, the money, and the minds that went with it. Those things cannot be given, not even at the barrel of the gun. They must be taken or built from scratch. Behind the wild dreams of the student radicals were a cohort of professors and presidents, who despite the limitations of their power, pushed and worked to make those dreams come true.
In truth, there was nothing forcing the administration or Board of Trustees to accept the demands. If they had wished, this series of events could have played out without the creation of the ESD or any other change. It would be a stretch to say the riots were necessary but insufficient for the creation of the ESD. In truth, the riot was nothing but an absurd biting of the hand that feeds. The bite changed little, but made for quite the drama.
So, how did that work out? By 1969, the BSU had its ESD, its professors, and its courses. One of those professors lucky enough to be repeated target of student harassment (at the behest of the radical professors) took the time to go back 24 years later and report on the state of the ESD. Visiting classes and speaking with professors, John H. Bunzel summarized the ESD’s views as such:
Yet the black-studies faculty members reviewed here share a common orientation that may be described as black-separatist multiculturalism, with individual variations in emphasis seen in one professor’s feminism or another’s pan-Africanism.[xiii]
While not all the professors necessarily agreed, the general consensus was an opposition to the adoption of “white” culture and thinking. As such, they adopted many heterodox theories about history:
Some scholars claim that Moses, Jesus, and Socrates were all initiates of the African “mystery system,” McGee told the class. That system took 40 years of training and “predated what we would now call the fraternal orders,” such as the Masons and the Shriners. Moreover, he declared, “the current university as we now know it” is derived from the Egyptian mystery system.[xiv]
The faculty often subscribe to various conspiracy theories concerning Western history, such as the “stolen legacy” claim of George James and others that the Greeks “stole” the achievement of a black Egypt and the notion of Frances Cress Welsing that whites have oppressed blacks throughout history because of envy of their superior melanin endowment. [xv]
Looking at San Francisco State University, it is hard to say the BSU or its ideological descendants are in power. Besides the hagiographies celebrated yearly, it is hard to see how the ESD has become anything but a side show. The ESU commands no armies, no influence, and has no power. If the ESD had never existed, it is hard to argue that the course of history in the city would have changed much. In everything, the ESD has seemingly become the junior power. Can one seriously argue that in and of themselves these factions and their theories have gained power? If they occupy space in minds, what minds? Are these the theories and sentiments of the elite? One could hardly say so. Have they carved out a space for autarchy? No, if anything they have only become more embroiled in the system. For all its analysis and goals, the BSU accomplished little more than securing sinecure for its ideologues to shout their pieties into the void. That is certainly a fine goal, but it sounds an awful lot like getting away with doing as little as possible.
I’ve addressed the question of why the BSU rejected offers to negotiate. Given the results, perhaps the most important question was why the powers that be attempted to negotiate in the first place. The answer is that the most actors to one extent or another adhered to the unnatural theory of conflict. Any objective reflection on the chain of events would demonstrate that the unnatural response did not end the riots. Neither President Summerskill, nor President Smith made a dent in the resolve of the students to riot. Was this the lesson learned, though? Did our politicians, professors, and presidents learn their lesson?
If the experience of a campus in anarchy had taught the participants a lesson, what was it? Our first back-bender has a few regrets as to things he could have done better. Former President Robert Smith reflected that he might have established “interracial group to investigate racism.” He reconsidered opening the campus. Smith desired to make the campus take responsibility and stop blaming the “group of administrators who are suspect already.” He stood by his desire to use as few police as possible.[xvi]
I look at this problem from the perspective of a social liberal. Certain styles of action are alien and outside my view of the institution. I agree with the needs but I disagree that it is necessary to revolutionize the entire institution. We need a large amount of autonomy to do what is needed.[xvii]
If Robert Smith desired more autonomy to act, then we can assume he intended to continue the methodology he chose. In the absence of interference of the Board of Trustees, it seems Smith would have continued to attempt to address grievances. Watching the campus burn had not convinced him otherwise.
If I have harped on this pattern, it is because it is a pervasive and pernicious dogma. This dogma seems to be a shared assumption of the actors surrounding this event. Take Berkeley City Councilman Ron Dellums, for example:
“Some people got hung up on the tactics, and I say that is a bad bag for us as community people to get into. … I am not sure that the black students are throwing the rocks through the windows . . . but even if they were, even if I could become the tribal chief of all black students across the country and raise my hand and stop all the window breaking, you know damned well you would not respond to this. So let’s quit . . . that issue and start dealing with the basic issues. . . .” [xviii]
Out of the mouths of supposedly distinct persons with no discernible connections we hear the same sentiments. The kids just won’t listen. They’re just going to be violent. I guess we have to listen to them. If this doesn’t hint at the power of coordinated ideology, I don’t know what does. These people didn’t ALL know each other. They didn’t go to the same schools, and they certainly weren’t getting their opinions from the newspapers (at least opinions of this variety). Yet, they all came to a similar conclusion, using similar language. Mayor Alioto offers no reprieve from this folly:
Mayor Alioto sees the violence as an indication that society needs to define some new areas of rights for teachers and for students. [xix]
If there is smoke, there must be fire. Where there is violence, there are legitimate grievances. So says the former mayor.
At the same time, the mayor says one must recognize that the great majority of students and the teachers are concerned with the real educational issues that are being raised. [xx]
We must respect the majority and its reasonable demands. I know not of this majority or its demands, but we must be assured that they exist. They have little to do with the bombings or riots or the radicals; they are just mere moderates asking nicely for change.
Mayor Alioto argues that the use of militia and talk about education being a privilege only serve to radicalize those students and teachers who are legitimately concerned. [xxi]
Violence is futile. Violence breeds more violence, breeds more “radicals.” It is your fault, Hayakawa and Reagan, that the situation turned violent: “You can’t just talk tough.”[xxii] Mayor Alioto continued:
Public officials can only afford to be tough if they are willing at the same time to work with the militants for the constructive solution of legitimate demands. There are, he argues, some very militant people who are still willing to work within the system. For example, he was able to get some young blacks he regards as quite militant to work with him by going out to the San Francisco State campus to try to cool off the situation. [xxiii]
If it seems like the back-benders consider the need for compromise as inevitable, you wouldn’t be far off. The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence after careful analysis of the whole affair came to the conclusion that Summerskill and Smith were indeed right. After carefully weighing the violence and listening first hand to the convictions of the BSU, the Commission came to the conclusion that its ideology needed no adjustments. Funny the lessons one learns. Providence is inevitable; the righteous will have their day. The president has been advised.
“The push to utilize the campus as a staging ground for social reform can be debated but probably cannot be deterred.” [xxiv]
Some would beg to differ.
Let’s take a look at what some of our liberal professors have said about these student radicals. If they have seemed intransigent, perhaps we have missed something. Commenting on the student unrest in general (though specifically mentioning SFSC), Dr. Walter P. Metzger compared the “fire and fury of the student revolt to the fervor of the Protestant Reformation.”[xxv]
Dr. Metzger said asceticism and hatred of rules is not peculiar to modern day “heretics. Student radical meetings reminded him of a “convocation of Anabaptists,”…The only difference he said is that where the Anabaptists condemned “links between monarchy and hierarchy,” today’s student rebels condemned links between the military-industrial complex and the universities…“Students, like nuns, are becoming rapidly decloistered. [xxvi]
Comparisons to revolutionary religious fanatics do not lend themselves to suggestions of flexibility. It is hard to imagine that conceptions of no salvation from works lend themselves to compromise or forgiveness. Perhaps Dr. Metzger was a lone crank and we won’t be able to find another voice echoing his rhetoric. Paul Goodman taught at the Experimental College at SFSC, as well as touring the country. Maybe he has a better take:
“Suddenly I realized that they did not believe there was a nature of things. Or they were not sure of that. There was no knowledge but only the sociology of knowledge. They had learned so well that physical and sociological research is subsidized and conducted for the benefit of the ruling class that they were doubtful that there was such a thing as simple truth, for instance that the table was made of wood—maybe it was plastic imitation. To be required to know something was a trap by which the young were being put down and co-opted. Then I knew my guests I could not get through to them. I had imagined that the worldwide student protest had to do with changing political and moral institutions, and I was sympathetic to this. But I now saw that we had to do with a religious crisis. Not only all institutions but all learning had been corrupted by the Whore of Babylon, and there was no longer any salvation to be got from Works.”[xxvii]
Well, not all zealots are violently intransigent. Perhaps our friends at the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence have some good news? They did conclude that we these grievances must be addressed; I assume that means they thought that these radicals could be reasoned with.
The fact is that the “New Left” openly espouses violence as a key tool in the drive to lock the academic community securely into the general struggle against the community at large. It indicts all higher learning as the uncritical servant of business and the military, rather than helping the poor and the uneducated to advance. It seeks, in extreme form, the destruction of higher education and its visible institutions as they are presently constituted. [xxviii]
Clearly, our back-benders have gone off the deep end, unless of course they share the goals of these radicals–then their opinions would be perfectly rational, if not duplicitous. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.
For two factions to negotiate, they must consider each other legitimate, or at least capable of negotiation. The rhetoric of the radicals does not indicate that they felt the institutions capable of reasoned compromise. Is it therefore surprising that only when on the edge of defeat were the students willing to compromise? Intransigence is a valid strategy for negotiation, after all.
If those who worked with the strike were unsalvageable, perhaps the brave “law and order” types will have wisdom to offer on how to deal with the radicals? Let’s take Hayakawa’s diagnosis of the issue:
“A militant minority of the faculty has hitchhiked onto the militant, violence-ridden student strike for a vicious power grab.” [xxix]
We have a good start so far. We now have a sense of proportion. This was a minority not a majority–that is inarguable, as both the Commission and even ardent supporters of the strike will attest to. Clearly, Alioto’s use of majority was at best too vague and at worst dishonest rhetoric. Returning to Hayakawa, what else does he have to offer?
S. I. Hayakawa. “I wish to comment,” he said, “on the intellectually slovenly habit, now popular among whites as well as blacks, of denouncing as racist those who oppose or are critical of any Negro tactic or demand.
If we are to call our college racist, then what term do we have left for the Government of Rhodesia? [xxx]
We’ve gone from sensible analysis to DR3 in a heartbeat. Contrary to Hayakawa’s detractors’ impressions, he was not actually hardline on the student demands. He was ready and willing to concede the spirit of every demand, if not exactly the letter. Hayakawa was ready to meet the violence of the riots with force, even if he felt that the demands were mostly righteous. If San Francisco State was looking for a man to stand athwart history, yelling “stop”, they would have to look elsewhere. Hayakawa had already drunk the KoolAid and accepted the enemies’ frame. [xxxi]
Perhaps the Chancellor of the Board of Trustees can help.
the chancellor and the trustees see the San Francisco State faculty as “a bunch of intractable rebels.” [xxxii]
Of the various observers of events, Reagan likely had the most realistic understanding of the conflict. Whereas others have attempted to hide the radicals under the amorphous umbrella of some general will, Reagan cuts at the joints:
The Governor [Reagan] does not believe that the violence is spontaneous although some of the participants in a crowd disturbance may act spontaneously in the highly charged emotional atmosphere of the moment, once a disturbance has started. He believes there is an element that wants a confrontation with the established structure, and that some of them must be described as anarchists. He sees radicals provoking confrontation as a tactic to secure a “cushion of support” among moderate students; this gives the radicals their power. Unfortunately, he says, many people in the academic community are confused by their own sympathy with some of the demands that are being made. “What they have failed to appreciate is the necessity of dealing with violent tactics.”…”The point is that the violence itself becomes the issue. You cannot give in to violent tactics. The question that must be asked, if you do, is: who will use force tomorrow?” Much of what has taken place at San Francisco State results from the earlier appeasement. At this point, the Governor contends, society must simply say, “No” that nothing will be done on the basis of threats and violence. [xxxiii]
Returning to our “tough” but confused President Hayakawa, we get another take on the psychology of the protesters:
Central to the problem of violence on campus is the existence of a large number of alienated young men and women [who] practically take pride in being outside the main stream of the culture, of being against the establishment, against authority, against the administration of the college, the administration of the State of California, the administration in Washington, whether it’s a Republican or Democratic administration. How did they get alienated? Well, besides the usual psychologically neurotic reasons for this alienation there is something else that’s going on. I think they are taught this alienation by professors. Especially in the Liberal Arts departments. The Humanities, English, Philosophy, sometimes in Social Sciences. There’s a kind of cult of alienation among intellectuals, among intellectuals in literary fashion such as you find in the New York Review of Books or the Partisan Review. They sneer at the world the way it’s run by politicians, businessmen, and generals. Knowing that they themselves are so much smarter than politicians, businessmen, or generals they feel there’s a dreadful world which they themselves ought to be running instead.[xxxiv]
Here, Hayakawa makes explicit the implicit assumptions of the BSU. If the BSU had perceived the importance of academic sovereignty, it had circumscribed the power of the “cult of alienation”. Naturally, given the BSU’s ideological predilections, this was interpreted as the “white power structure”. What the BSU got right and Hayakawa gets wrong was that the BSU perceived the age of this creature. Hayakawa succumbed to the age old sin of parochialism. He assumed that his problems were unique to his time period. Certainly, he could perceive them first hand, but like many of his successors, he confused an old beast in new clothes for a young upstart. Hayakawa got off the Whig bus and wondered why it didn’t stop there:
Now, professors tend, therefore, to give A’s in their courses to students that are alienated. And as the students get A’s they get appointed graduate assistants. Then they soon become professors themselves. And then they pass on this alienation to another generation of students, and college generations of students come fast, after all. And before you know it, you have whole departments which are basically sources of resistance to the culture as a whole.
All this upsets me very, very much. The universities and the colleges should be centers for the dissemination of the values of our culture, and the passing on of those values. But dammit, with enough half-assed Platos in our university departments, they are trying to make of them centers of sedition and destruction.[xxxv]
If we are to be fair to the BSU, we must also subject its opponents to the same treatment. We know that in many respects Hayakawa, the Board of Trustees, and Reagan accomplished their goals; they ended the violence on campus. What is less clear is whether this violent sub faction and its ideology, Hayakawa’s cult of alienation, gained or lost ground in the long run.
Students across the Nation are now agitating to convert their own institution into the kind of college that San Francisco State was, in large measure, between 1960 and 1966.” [xxxvi]
Oh dear. It seems that our problem is spreading. In the aftermath, what was SFSC but a roadblock for the cult of alienation? Surely, there must be some life left in those institutions to pass our values?
“The spin-off from San Francisco State,” said black Berkeley city councilman Ron Dellums, “will have implications for high schools, junior colleges, junior high schools, elementary schools as well as other colleges throughout the state and outside the state, if it is handled properly.”
These views are found over a wide spectrum of black and Third World people, but particularly among the young activists whose interests tend toward activities like community organizing. They can result in fights against urban redevelopment, individual politicians, community power groups, the police, the draft, or any other issue the activists see as threatening. [xxxvii]
Rather than slowing down, it seems as if the conception of the education system as a place for “social reform” was accelerating. Putting down the riots had not dissuaded the “cult of alienation” that academia was any less out of bounds as a political battle ground. There sat a whole slice of power ready for the taking, young minds ready for influence. The beast had built this machine, and a young crop of cultists were ready to carry it forward to an even greater conception of its glory.
At the same time, new political tactics were being developed, political not in the narrow sense of party and electoral politics white society normally thinks of, but in the sense that almost any action can be looked at as a political move in that it helps or hurts your movement toward some ultimate goal. In this sense, the student strike is a political weapon. [xxxviii]
If we can finally explain the canonizing of the BSU and its strike, it is this:
This recommendation [addressing grievances] held both for black riots in the inner cities, and for student riots on campus. And both, indeed, were largely successful in achieving the rioters’ objectives, at least any that a generous observer could describe as sane. Most Americans today don’t realize that the universities they send their children to today are the institutional products of this period of mob violence, or that the bizarre “ethnic studies” departments that feature so prominently in their curricula are essentially an occupying force devoted to maintaining this victory.[xxxix]
The battle was won, and the war is long lost.
[xiii] Bunzel, John H. and Grossman, Anita Susan, “Black Studies Revisited,” The Public Interest, 127 (Spring, 1997), 71-80.
[xiv] Bunzel, John H. and Grossman, Anita Susan, “Black Studies Revisited,” The Public Interest, 127 (Spring, 1997), 71-80.
[xv] Bunzel, John H. and Grossman, Anita Susan, “Black Studies Revisited,” The Public Interest, 127 (Spring, 1997), 71-80.
[xxv] The Kentucky Kernel, February 5th 1969
[xxvi] The Kentucky Kernel, February 5th 1969
[xxvii] New Reformation Notes of a Neolithic Conservative Paul Goodman page 25
[xxxi] Associated Press, via The Kentucky Kernel, February 4th 1969