A stone marker in Columbia’s Peace Park, placed in memory of Kent State University students killed by Ohio National Guard troops who fired on protesters on May 4, 1970 (Jason Hancock/Missouri Independent).
This column is a suggestion for both student protesters and higher education officials to find a better approach to the pro-Palestinian student protests.
These protests and university responses are so different from the 1970 student demonstrations on the campus of the University of Missouri in Columbia to protest the Vietnam War and the deaths of four Kent State University students who were shot by the National Guard of Ohio and were called upon to address an anti-campus campaign. -war protest.
In Missouri, thousands of students gathered at MU’s Francis Quadrangle in 1970 to protest the deaths.
The emotions on both sides were as deep as today. And yes, there were a few isolated acts of violence in Missouri, including reports of a few firebombs being thrown against an ROTC building on campus, although I don’t recall any serious damage – unlike the extensive damage caused by a similar attack at a higher educational institution. ROTC facility in St. Louis
The MU protesters called on the university to acknowledge the student deaths at Kent State by canceling classes and also take a stand against the Vietnam War.
One evening, MU’s chancellor, John Schwada, invited some protesters to the patio of his campus house next to the quad to explain his decision not to cancel classes.
As I remember, he tried to calm the situation. He did not criticize the protesters’ views. Instead, he talked about how canceling classes would disrupt the educational process for students.
I have since learned that MU Student Association Vice President Chip Casteel had discussed with the chancellor how to de-escalate tensions after Chip encountered armed military-style weapons behind the main entrance to the administration building where Schwada’s office was located.
The goal was to prevent protesters from storming the building. It was that serious.
I wonder how the protests at other universities this year would have been different if the student demonstrators had been peaceful and they had had a university leader like Schwada to engage in conversations with students and reporters instead of an armed response from law enforcement.
However, I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge that some Schwada employees took a different approach.
One of Schwada’s top officials tried to confiscate the video of that patio conversation, taken by a journalism student.
Additionally, I was warned that the university would expel me if my audio of Schwada’s comments were broadcast.
Those reactions were absurd.
There was no invasion of privacy. Schwada had invited demonstrators on the quad to his terrace. My TV colleague’s camera was clearly visible, as was the microphone I held up for Schwada to record his conversation.
I even remember Schwada making room for me to move my microphone closer. The chancellor knew I was a reporter because of my regular coverage of him.
Although my radio stories were broadcast, I was not expelled from school. I’ve always wondered if Schwada blocked that attempt to throw me out of MU. Or maybe the idea died on its own.
In addition to Schwada, CBS correspondent Harry Reasoner helped show students the value of civil conversation when faced with deep political or ideological disagreements.
Reasoner was in Columbia to receive the Journalism School Honor Medal. But he was drawn to the huge crowds of protesters.
As a reporter covering conflicting viewpoints, I found his presentation enlightening. Essentially, he turned it into a teaching moment for the student protesters.
The lessons I learned from those 1970 demonstrations should be something that students and university administrators alike should take into account.
For administrators, student campus protests can be an opportunity for educational opportunity, as demonstrated by Reasoner and Schwada.
There is another part of the 1970 Columbia protest that other universities should consider. It is intended to make up for the crackdown on students after the protests ended.
Bill Wikersham was involved in one of those actions. As the founder and director of the university’s Peace Study Institute, he was described as a faculty leader of the 1970 protests.
Although he emphasized peace, he was arrested and suspended from MU faculty for participating in the campus protests.
Nevertheless, he was subsequently reinstated as an adjunct professor of peace studies.
A physical example of restoring peace is a peace symbol made from rocks that student protesters had put together. It remains on the MU campus to this day, not far from the center of the protests.
The post Capitol Perspectives: The Value of Tolerance for College Protests appeared first on Missouri Independent.
