Introduction

Student activism towards the latter part of the sixties has attracted many

historians to voice particular opinions concerning its effect on society. Student protest

in general has been well documented and therefore would not benefit from another

narrative. This however, cannot be deemed true of the student movement that took

place across UK universities, which can be considered to be under represented in

comparison to that of the US movements. Obviously it is not possible to present a

completely thorough documentation of student protest in what is a relatively short

essay, but it does allow the highlighting of particularly interesting aspects to a decade

considered by some to be revolutionary. The dissertation will assess the emergence of

a student movement in the UK and draw comparisons to the activism being displayed

by students in other countries. It will diverge to evaluate the effectiveness of protests

and will examine the changing society caused by a disgruntled generation.

Ronald Fraser’s 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt1 proved to be an

integral part of researching the dissertation. The book features a collection of

eyewitness accounts from students which are melded together with Fraser’s own

opinions. He states that ‘from Prague to Paris, London to Tokyo, San Francisco to

Peking, student revolts erupted with unforeseeable suddenness in the 1960s to

challenge the existing order of society — a challenge which in many places took them

to the brink of radically changing history itself.’2 He presents an overview of the year

that student protest reached its pinnacle but the insight into British protest itself is

provided solely by a relatively small chapter. Prior to the book’s publication in 1988,

1 R. Fraser, 1968: A Generation in Revolt (Chatto & Windus, 1988)2 R. Fraser, 1968: A Generation in Revolt, p. 1

1

works related to the student movements were often written by student activists

themselves thus ensuring an unbalanced account. This book however, shows more of

an historic account and unlike many of the subject’s predecessors was not trying to

exaggerate the spread of student protest. The interviews Fraser conducted were

between 1984 and 1985 and are based on the students’ memories. Therefore it is

fallible if this dissertation expects these interviews to reproduce exactly what

occurred. It does, however, allow for the students’ genuine feelings to be recorded

two decades on.

In understanding the revolutionary aspects of the late sixties, it is important to

pinpoint the figures that played an instrumental role in promoting activism. Tariq

Ali’s Street Fighting Years3 provides an extensive insight into this as it is an

autobiographical account of Britain’s leading student activist. Ali was notorious for

his anti-Vietnam War efforts and opens up much to the particular methods of protest

used to degrade the establishment. The most important element from Street Fighting

Years, in aiding the dissertation, is that it gives descriptions of the people involved in

leading a revolution. These names have thus become more recognisable when they

appear up in other literary works.

The magnitude in which the student movement affected the UK has often been

debated as there seems to be a lack of detailed research. In answering the question set,

it is important to delve deeper into the differing articles that have led to much

speculation. A problem that emerges from the studying this particular topic is that

much primary information stems from students themselves, thus creating a biased

3 T. Ali, Street Fighting Years: An Autobiography of the Sixties (Verso, 2005)

2

view. Student Power4 edited by Alexander Cockburn and Robin Blackburn compiles

an assortment of eyewitness accounts written by leading student activists. Though this

introduces many personal experiences it does not display them in a historic context.

This is due to its publication in 1970 when for all they knew, student activism in the

UK could still augment. They argued that the ‘students have erupted into the world of

politics with a suddenness no one could have foretold. They are today a new social

force of incalculable significance.’5 The debate that Nick Thomas provokes in his

journal, Challenging the Myths of the Sixties: The Case of Student Protest in Britain6,

is that the events registered in books such as Student Power or Street Fighting Years

reflect the experiences of glamorous leaders, and not those of the majority. Indeed,

some have argued that student protest in Britain was a parochial and small-scale

activity in comparison with events in other countries.7 Acknowledgment of the little

facts and figures available is therefore essential and Nick Thomas does manage to

find information concerning political allegiances. The National Union of Students

(NUS) had been complaining about student apathy since its foundation in the 1920s,

and it was still a problem in the 1960s, the high point of student activity. A survey

that was conducted at Warwick University found that only seven per cent of students

were active in politics, while a survey at Leeds University discovered in January 1969

that only 15.5 per cent of students there were politically active. These statistics found

in contemporary student newspapers such as Campus (Warwick University), Union

News (Leeds University), and Redbrick8 (Birmingham University) suggest that

although there was undoubtedly an escalation in student protest in the late sixties,

4 ed. A. Cockburn & R. Blackburn, Student Power / Problems, Diagnosis, Action, (Penguin Books, 1969)5 ed. A. Cockburn & R. Blackburn, Student Power, p. 25 66 N. Thomas, ‘Challenging the Myths of the 1960s: The Case of Student Protest in Britain’, Twentieth Century British History, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002, pp. 277-297.7 N. Thomas, Challenging the Myths of the Sixties: The Case of Student Protest in Britain , p. 58 Campus was the student newspaper at Warwick University, Union News was the student newspaper at Leeds University and Redbrick was the student newspaper at Birmingham University

3

there was not a halcyon revolutionary fervour among the majority of students.9 These

student newspapers are located in the special collection departments at the

universities. Nick Thomas’ journal enhanced the ideas behind the dissertation as it

unearthed figures that contradicted the mass alignment of books claiming a student

revolution. This dissertation will also find that more often than not, a small minority

of politically extreme students corrupted the majority into protesting particular issues.

This argument is also enforced by articles found in newspapers at the time which were

often dismissive of the students’ ‘successes.’

It is essential that comparisons are drawn between the British student

movement and those in other countries. The US led the way in student revolts partly

due to the controversial policies run by the American government. With the ongoing

debacle in Vietnam and Civil Rights dominating the front pages of the newspapers,

protest became rife. Tessa Blackstone and Roger Hadley compiled a study entitled

Student Protest in a British University; some comparisons with American research.10

The authors begin by pointing out that very little information has been published on

student protest in the UK and throughout the report refer back to the US, where a

great deal has been researched. The report concentrates on the boycott and sit-in at

L.S.E. in 1967 and how the authors conducted a survey of 3,000 full time students

eight weeks after the event. The survey provides an informative insight into the

student mentalities and displays some conflicting attitudes that are dismissed by the

various authors in Student Power. The survey reveals that student protesters, both in

Britain and the US, were usually high academic achievers and in spite of popular

belief that students shun their parents beliefs; more frequently came from families 9 N. Thomas, Challenging the Myths of the Sixties: The Case of Student Protest in Britain , p. 610 T. Blackstone & R. Hadley, ‘Student protest in a British University: Some Comparisons with American Research’, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 15, No. 1. (Feb, 1971), pp. 1-19.

4

with left wing views.11 Ronald Fraser in 1968 looks at the rebellion in six of the

West’s industrialised countries: the United States, West Germany, France, Italy,

Britain and Northern Ireland. For it was in these parliamentary democracies that the

revolt came as the greatest shock.12 It does cover the May movements that occurred in

France in 1968, but not in as much detail as displayed in Alain Touraine’s The May

Movement: Revolt and Reform.13 The importance of the French May movements is

undeniable to the progress of the dissertation as it triggered student risings throughout

the world. The Guardian went as far to suggest that Britain was mimicking the

examples set by students in other countries and described it as ‘me-tooism.’14

Methods of protest are again well documented by many historians but this

does not undermine its importance in displaying a time of change. Sit-ins were made

infamous by students and it was America and France’s influence that provoked British

students to riot in the streets. It has been suggested that Tariq Ali’s aim for the anti-

Vietnam demonstration on 17 March 1968 was to in fact invade the American

Embassy.15 This led to the view that student protest and the revolutionary left were

synonymous. The methods of protest and their reasoning are detailed in Street

Fighting Years, Student Power, and 1968. The rise of the ‘sit-in’ is examined through

contemporary university newspapers and surveys carried out at the time. There was

nothing historically new about students protesting in these customs as the 1848

German revolutions saw students fighting alongside workers on the barricades. The

Argentinean university revolt of 1918 lead to many campus rights that students from

the West sought over five decades later. The Cordoba Manifesto of 1918, drafted in 11 T. Blackstone and R. Hadley, Student Protest in a British University; some comparisons with American research, p. 312 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 113 A. Touraine, The May Movement: Revolt and Reform: May 1968 – the student rebellion and workers’ strikes – the birth of a social movement (Random House, 1971)14 Guardian, 10 June 1968, p. 815 Sun, 19 March 1968, p. 16

5

Argentina, was the first declaration of student rights and demanded a student share in

university administration.16 The theme of greater student representation will be

thoroughly explored throughout this dissertation.

The economic boom in the post-war era provided students a foundation in

which to protest from. It accounted for a financial stability that permitted the young

generation to focus on their education and enhance their influence on society. This

dissertation will analyse the incredible rise of the young generation and which

propelled them into the limelight. Mark Kurlansky’s 1968: The Year that Rocked the

World17 features the radical cultures developed in the 1960s such as rock music, films

and the emergence of the counter-culture. Rock music and in particular the counter-

culture, were closely entwined with student campuses. Bill Graham, the rock concert

producer, frequently gave benefit concerts for protesting students in the US. College

students accounted for seventy per cent of concert activity and also represented a

large share of record sales.18 The development of a counter-culture in itself was a

method of protest and the dissertation will access the impact it had on campuses

across the UK. All Dressed Up19 by Jonathan Green focuses on the development of a

counter-culture in the UK. Indeed he states that ‘if a single sub-group of young people

could be seen as the prime movers in any form of revolution, whether political or

counter-cultural, then the group was the students.’20 In embracing the counter-culture,

it was deemed to be a form of rebellion. Ronald Regan defined a member of the

counter-culture or hippie as someone who ‘dresses like Tarzan, has hair like Jane, and

smells like a cheetah.’21 Listening to the Rolling Stones, using psychedelic drugs and 16 ed. A. Cockburn & R. Blackburn, Student Power, pp. 287-917 M. Kurlansky, 1968: The Year that Rocked the World (Jonathan Cape, 2004)18 M. Kurlansky, 1968: The Year that Rocked the World, p. 18119 J. Green, All Dressed Up: The Sixties and the Counterculture (Pimlico, 1999)20 J. Green, All Dressed Up: The Sixties and the Counterculture, p. 24821 M.Kurlansky, 1968: The Year That Rocked the World, p. 184

6

having sex were the way adolescents could rebel against society and in most cases,

their parents. These were the views held my many of the subject’s historians.

This dissertation focuses primarily on identifying whether on not the student

rebellion in Britain can be considered a revolution. With a revolution being a radical

change or sudden upheaval of a government, the changes that occurred must be

monitored. This dissertation will also discover that student representation was the

prime motive behind British protest unlike in the US where the student movement

was accelerated due to issues such as the Vietnam War and Civil Rights. Despite there

perhaps not being a student revolution, there are definitely reasons to believe that

great changes did occur. For example, there was a rise in student representatives

involved in university affairs and by October 1968, there was a genuine feeling that

revolution would occur. Therefore this dissertation will gauge how close the students

came to achieving a complete upheaval of 1960s British society. This dissertation has

enlisted the help of Richard Dixon who was the student president at the Regent Street

Polytechnic (now Westminster University) in 1969. Regent Street Polytechnic was a

source of student activism of only slightly lesser intensity than that of L.S.E. The

interview with Mr. Dixon proved to be insightful although he is remembering events

that took place nearly forty years ago. He was a student activist who participated in

campaigning for greater student representation and was present at the demonstrations

in London between 1967 and 1969. He was also involved in an interview conducted

by the BBC in 1970 concerning the rise of student power.

In conclusion, a successful dissertation on student protest must achieve a

number of objectives. The dissertation must present the subject from a different angle

7

than its predecessors as much work has been done on the student movement of the

sixties. As, however, the dissertation is focusing on activism across UK Universities,

information is far less accessible unless research is conducted at the archives and

libraries of various universities. Of these universities, L.S.E., Leeds and Birmingham,

were best suited for dissertational purposes as their location and relevance are ideal.

L.S.E. was considered to be the ‘hot-bed’ of student activism in the late 1960s and

was renowned for specialising in the study of the social sciences, a subject that this

dissertation will consider. With the collection of statistics from surveys such as the

Gallup Poll22 and primary articles taken from their student newspapers, an unbiased

account can be melded. Although the collections of primary sources found in Student

Power and Street Fighting Years provide an important insight into student activism,

they alone cannot build the basis for primary information. As earlier stated, much of

the effects of the student movement have been vastly exaggerated by these authors

because they were leaders of the movement, but nonetheless the changes that occurred

did pave the way for a more disputable society.

Chapter one: The rise of the young generation

‘The teenage youth in the suburbs, was a new phenomenon. They had

everything they needed, the world was now wide open to them. Their parents had

22 Gallup Poll, Student Demonstrations, May 1968

8

worked their nuts or their tits off to provide for them in a fashion unique in modern-

day history. If they hadn’t existed, there wouldn’t have been people who could just

get up in the morning and say, fuck it!’23 This was according to the counter-culture

leader, John Sinclair, who firmly believed that the new breed of revolutionaries could

confront the ruling classes. The rise of the young generation, and in particular the

adolescent, owes much to the post-war economic and demographic boom that

changed the landscape for years to come. This chapter will examine the changing

position of young people in society and explain how, through this, the students were

able to challenge authority in a way never before witnessed in Britain.

Through the economic boom, young people ceased to be financially reliant

upon their parents. The dependence had been evident for many years and had been

experienced by previous generations. Fraser claimed that ‘a hitherto prosperity which,

if still unevenly distributed, was more widely spread than at any time in the twentieth

century, was accompanied by near full employment, availability of consumer goods

that previously had been confined to the well-to-do and, for the young, access to

money.’24 This corresponds with Francis Wheen’s claims that ‘there is a prevalent

belief that the start of the youth revolution coincided with the economic boom of the

late fifties and early sixties – the time when people had never had it so good.’25 The

immense demographic boom that occurred as a product of post-war conditions

became coined as the ‘baby boom.’ In Britain and France between 1946 and 1950 the

birth rate increased by about 30 per cent compared to the last five pre-war years; in

both these countries there were over 800,000 more teenagers in the population in 1963

23 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 7524 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 7525 F. Wheen, The Sixties (Century Publishing, 1982), p. 14

9

than there had been ten years earlier.26 Through the rise of adolescents, the demand

for a growth in the education system escalated. Between 1950 and 1964, Britain

increased their university student numbers by 60 per cent. Although this figure was

not as dramatic as the results found in France, who trebled the number of students

attending university, Britain was undoubtedly witnessing the rise in number of

students, some of whom would later emerge as a prominent faction of outspoken

radicals.

The economic boom caused consumer spending to augment from £7 billion

per annum in 1946 to £30 billion per annum in 1970, with teenagers alone accounting

for £850 per annum by 1960.27 Despite this being only 5 per cent of the overall

national spend, the young generation now symbolised a potent consumer interest

group, and products were marketed with the intention of engrossing them. The

products which were targeted specifically at the teenagers were found in forms of

entertainment and clothing. The adolescents purchased more than 40 per cent of

record-players and 30 per cent of cosmetics and toiletries.28 Mary Quant, the

pioneering fashion designer of the sixties, declared that ‘I had always wanted young

people to have a fashion of their own.’29 This clarifies that the young generation were

now cementing their position in society and were stepping away from the customs of

being younger replicas of their parents. Elisabeth Tailor, a teenager in the sixties,

remembered that ‘suddenly there were whole shops catering for teenagers – clothes

and record shops especially – and make up and cosmetics designed just for young

people. At last we were being recognised.’30 Emphasis should be placed on ‘being

26 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 7627 N. Thomas, Challenging the Myths of the Sixties: The Case of Student Protest in Britain , p. 1728 J. Green, All Dressed Up: The Sixties and the Counterculture, p. 329 F. Wheen, The Sixties, p. 1430 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 76

10

recognised’ as later in the decade, students endeavoured to gain a more creditable

status within society. This theme will run to a large extent throughout this

dissertation.

The creation of a new culture named appropriately the ‘counter-culture’

marked the beginning of teenage rebellion in the 1960s. This young culture, with its

expression of music, clothes and drugs caused uproar on a global scale. Richard

Dixon stated that, ‘the generation before ours had been wholly conscripted to

contribute to fight a total war. They had emerged scared and scarred, susceptible to

authority and authoritarian themselves. The fifties and the first half of the sixties saw

a recuperation of spirit and the post war generation initiated an anti-authoritarian step

change.’31 This anti-authoritarian stance was best illustrated with the invention of the

counter-culture. Music played a significant role in creating the counter-culture and

also in mobilising the disgruntled youth against the establishment. Its importance is

emphasised by the protester, Jeremy Brecher, ‘It was a way that people who were

isolated in their areas culturally, who didn’t have people like them around them, could

be in a social milieu where there were a lot of other people like them. It was really

exciting, had that sense of overcoming isolation.’ The Rolling Stones became the

embodiment of rebellion as their long hair and the way they dressed were extremely

audacious for its time. Such was the hostility contained in Mick Jagger’s (the lead

singer of the Rolling Stones) voice, that lyrics to Street Fighting Man were published

in the radical paper Black Dwarf under the editorship of Tariq Ali.

The use of sex, rock music and alcohol could occasionally be expressed as a

form of rebellion in order to challenge middle-class norms. ‘As a sixteen-year-old, my 31 The interview with Richard Dixon was conducted by the author. 20 November 2006

11

parents forbade me to go out alone with a boy, to ride on the back of a motor scooter,

to drink, to go to a club where the Rolling Stones played,’ recalled Elisabeth Tailor.

‘So one night I deliberately broke every one of their norms. I went on the back of my

boyfriend’s scooter to the club, listened to the Stones and got drunk, and I fucked him

in his house before going home. It wasn’t just adolescent rebellion against being

controlled, though that was part of it. There was something keener, fresher in the air.

A sense that we were going to do things our way, and that there were a lot of us who

rejected not just our individual parents but what their values represented socially.’32

This raises the issue of sexual repression that existed in society. According to the

student activist, Fred Halliday, ‘One of the most fundamental ways in which an

authoritarian society controls its members and its young is by sexual repression. This

repression begins from the first years of a child’s life and is effected by instilling false

fears, by cultivating taboos, by denying adolescents the facilities (rooms,

contraception) for sex, and by parents and educators keeping the young under

constant surveillance.’33 Although it was not made available to unmarried women

until 1969, the pill could be obtained from university medical centres from the mid-

sixties. This represented a real liberation for women who wanted to be in control of

their bodies. Taboos were being broken as sexual freedom was becoming a vital part

of the counter-culture. Music and films were playing their part too, as songs included

lyrics crammed with sexual innuendos.34 The controversial poet, Philip Larkin, even

went as far as to suggest that, ‘Sexual intercourse began in 1963.’35 The rise of the

counter-culture is important to the dissertation as it was this emergence that paved the

32 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 8133 ed. A. Cockburn & R. Blackburn, Student Power, p. 31834 ‘I am the Walrus’ by the Beatles includes the lyrics ‘you’ve been a naughty girl, you let your knickers down.’35 F. Wheen, The Sixties, p. 90

12

way for students to actively defy their government and seek more than the position in

which they were confined to.

The economic rise allowed young persons the right to express themselves, an

entitlement to air their own opinions, and to embrace a cultural expression that echoed

their own particular tastes. In previous generations, their mannerisms and the clothes

they wore were imitations of their parents. The economic rise meant they no longer

had to replicate their parents and could instead choose to participate in a new youth

culture that was fresh and pioneering. According to Nick Thomas it was therefore

‘difficult to maintain that young people should know their place in reference to those

in authority, and student protest was a reflection of this change in the expectations of

young people, as well as forming yet another example of a common cohort experience

in which the young demanded that democratic institutions live up to their democratic

rhetoric via a process of reform rather than revolution.’36 This dissertation finds that

the vast economic growth experienced in post-war Britain acted as the fundamental

catalyst in triggering desires for social change. With financial stability combined with

a demographic boom, more students than ever were attending university. It was

through being able to focus on the enhancement of their education rather than align

themselves with means of making immediate capital that students evolved into

radicals. This is confirmed by the historian Ronald Fraser who claimed that ‘the

formidable growth in student numbers marked the end of the university as the training

ground of a small and privileged elite and the beginning of the era of mass higher

education.’37 The financial stability permitted the young generation the discretion to

36 N. Thomas, Challenging the Myths of the Sixties: The Case of Student Protest in Britain , p. 1837 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 87

13

choose what they desired to do. For example it allowed them to step up to challenge

authorities with regards to the cultural normalities that society had come to expect and

without this, the young people would not have gained the platform that proved

integral to possible revolution.

The rise in the economy in the post-war era affected all of the protesting

countries in the West. This economic boom is inextricably linked to the rise of student

power as it changed the young generation’s perceptions with regards to authority.

Nick Thomas claimed that, ‘France, Germany, Italy and the US, all of the student

protest movements in these countries were characterised by a desire for the young to

play a new role in the government of universities, and to have a new influence upon

national governmental policy.’38 This was due to conditions changing for young

people concerning attitudes and acceptable social behaviour. It is supported by a

student who declared that ‘no such thing could possibly have occurred twenty years

ago because we would have regarded such behaviour as a breach of hospitality and

because we were disposed to be courteous to our elders, even when we despised

them.’39 Without the financial instability that affected previous generations, the young

people were allowed to hope for more from their education. This is in agreement with

Fraser’s views that, ‘Many of the new radicals were amongst the brightest, most

dedicated students who demanded that higher education be more than this. The

irrelevance to the problems they saw around them of much that was taught, the forms

of teaching, the rules and regulations that treated them as non-adult, the over-crowded

conditions, and ultimately the university’s role in society became the focus of

38 N. Thomas, Challenging the Myths of the Sixties: The Case of Student Protest in Britain , p. 1939 Spectator, 19 April 1968, p. 7

14

demands for radical change.’40 Taking this into account, the dramatic rise in the

economy and the demographic boom undoubtedly stimulated the student insurgency

which was first witnessed in Britain at L.S.E. in 1966.

Chapter two: Student protest across UK universities

In the late 1960s, while the streets of Paris and numerous other cities in

America and Europe were occupied by rioting students and were littered with burning 40 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 88

15

cars, students were also protesting in Britain.41 Although contemporaries have debated

greatly the extent of American protest, student activism in British universities has

been somewhat neglected. In assessing the wave of sit-ins that hit British universities

in the latter part of the decade, this chapter will be able to determine whether or not

the country underwent a time of radical political and ideological change. The London

School of Economics (L.S.E.), The University of Birmingham and The University of

Leeds provide evidence in order to deduce whether or not this period can be truly

deemed revolutionary. In addition to this, the chapter will concentrate on the

demonstrations in London organised by the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign (VSC), and

the establishment’s efforts to thwart a growing consensus amongst the young

generation that they could challenge the decisions of the authorities.

With events across the world being increasingly broadcast, Britain received a

new impetus following the French May Movements of 1968. This undoubtedly acted

as a catalyst in encouraging student militancy which had been active since 1966

amidst growing disaffection with governmental decisions and attitudes. On hearing

the news from Paris, Pete Gowan, a student leader at Birmingham University believed

that ‘students represented the rebirth of the revolutionary movement in Britain.’42

1968 was the year in which sit-ins reached their pinnacle and Essex University set the

ball rolling at the height of the May events. Originating in protests over racism and

Vietnam, the twin issues that most rapidly mobilised students in Britain, the Essex

occupation was sparked off by an American-style factor: war-related recruitment on

campus by a scientist from the Government’s germ warfare establishment.43 The idea

was that the scientist would attempt to enlighten those attending, but instead he was

41 N. Thomas, Challenging the Myths of the 1960s: The Case of Student Protest in Britain, p. 142 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 27343 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 273

16

challenged by the student union’s executive, David Triesman, who continually

demanded response to compromising questions. In the aftermath of the fracas that

broke out in which the police appeared, Triesman was banned from university

sparking a sit-in consisting of some 1,200 people including a large amount of staff.

Triesman opted to study sociology and economics at Essex University and at the age

of 22, was one of many mature students involved in the movement. Essex University,

like Sussex University, was relatively new and because it encouraged the study of the

social sciences, encompassed many of the radical student political thinkers. Triesman

believed that ‘Essex produced an atmosphere in which radical progressive thinking

spilled over into all sorts of other things: the film and the theatre societies, for

example, became socialist societies that happened to show films and put on plays.’44

Although these universities played their part in student occupations, it was the L.S.E.

that proved to the most active of the universities across Britain. It was here where the

first indications of student militancy surfaced in 1966.

The L.S.E. was founded by Fabian socialists in 1895 for the study and

encouragement of Economics or Political Economy, Political Science, Sociology,

History, and any other subject cognate to any of these. It had long established itself as

one of Britain’s most important educational institutions, and with its large input of

foreign students, came to influence a world that extended far beyond its own London

boundaries.45 In mid-1966 news reached the students that Dr Walter Adams was to be

inaugurated as the School’s new director. He would be succeeding the then Director,

Sir Sydney Caine and would begin his administration at the start of 1967-68 academic

year. The students, as was customary, had not been consulted, but when Private Eye

44 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 27545 J. Green, All Dressed Up: The Sixties and the Counterculture, p. 249

17

ran a piece attacking the appointment, and linking Adams with Ian Smith’s breakaway

white supremacist Rhodesian government, protests inevitably followed.46 Tariq Ali,

an influential student activist believed that ‘the L.S.E. decision to appoint Adams was

a mindless provocation.’47 At the beginning of the Michaelmas term, 1966, the L.S.E.

Socialist Society issued a pamphlet strongly critical of Adam’s record. The student

union and their president, David Adelstein, preceded to dispute with the School

authorities for the duration of the term the rights for the students to interfere in the

appointment of a new Director.48 These disputes consisted of refusal to attend lectures

along with demonstrators in the street brandishing banners promising ‘Berkeley 1964:

LSE 1966: We’ll bring this School to a halt too.’49 The ongoing saga was re-opened

at the start of 1967 when a ‘Stop Adams’ meeting was held on 31 January. The

meeting erupted into a sequence of skirmishes that resulted in the unfortunate death of

night porter, Edward Poole, who was caught in the mêlée and suffered a fatal heart

attack. These events obviously had serious repercussions as the Board of Discipline

clamped down on the guilty parties. David Adelstein and Marshall Bloom (the

American President of the Graduate Student Association) were considered responsible

for the disturbance and were suspended for the remainder of the academic year

causing controversy throughout the Student Union. On 13 March upwards of two

hundred students, with the support of some staff including Ralph Miliband, embarked

on a sit-in that would last nine days and result in the reinstatement of the student

leaders. The publicity these demonstrations generated was vast therefore in order to

downgrade the students’ efforts Sir Sydney Caine blamed the sit-in on, ‘a small group

of about 50 left-wing students who had enticed at most 200 of the school’s total of

46 J. Green, All Dressed Up: The Sixties and the Counterculture, p. 24947 T. Ali, Street Fighting Years: An Autobiography of the Sixties, p. 18548 T. Blackstone and R. Hadley, Student Protest in a British University; some comparisons with American research, p. 249 J. Green, All Dressed Up: The Sixties and the Counterculture, p. 249

18

3,500 students to join them.’50 The Guardian ran an article on 15 March 1967

dismissing protest as the efforts of an extremist revolutionary minority defying the

student body and corrupting the ideas of the majority of students.51 Although

statistically these opinions are correct, the sit-in ended up achieving the desired result

and sent shockwaves throughout Britain thus creating a trend in which other

universities would follow.

In the aftermath of the L.S.E. occupation, a contemporary survey polled

around 80 per cent of the School’s three thousand students. Of these students 56 per

cent had refused to attend lectures, 39 per cent had actively participated in the nine-

day sit-in (only 1 per cent stayed the full course). The survey tallied even the briefest

of involvement with the sit-in which affects the authenticity of the results. The

remaining percentage had taken no part. As for the students’ desires: 69 per cent

wanted greater student involvement in the management of the School library, 54 per

cent in questions of discipline and 43 per cent in teaching arrangements; only 28 per

cent actually wanted to determine their own courses. The most surprising result was,

however, a mere 13 per cent were actively disgruntled with Adam’s appointment

which ostensibly caused the whole episode.52 These results suggest that Sir Sydney

Caine’s opinions were accurate but nonetheless the L.S.E. continued to contribute to

the British student movement. On 24 January 1969, of L.S.E.’s 3,000 student, 500

voted by a small majority to demolish the gates that had been erected to prevent

occupations. As students attacked the gates wielding sledgehammers the police were

called and the School was shut down. Rachel Dyne, a Marxist student, remembered ‘It

was a euphoric feeling, I felt a great sense of power. We were doing something

50 Guardian, 15 March 1967, p. 151 Guardian, 15 March 1967, p. 152 J. Green, All Dressed Up: The Sixties and the Counterculture, pp. 250-251

19

authentic, we resented the gates, felt they were transforming the place more or less

into a prison. Taking them down was a way of challenging authority.’53 When the

School reopened it was minus its sociology lecturer Robin Blackburn who had been

made redundant for siding with the students.

The student occupation at Leeds University in June 1968 is a well-rounded

example displaying the development of sit-ins and is supported by useful survey

findings conducted at the time. The root of the Leeds disturbances began with the visit

of right-wing Conservative MP Patrick Wall to Leeds University on 3 May 1968. His

lecture was the focus for around 400 protestors who were angered by the politician’s

backing for the white regime in Rhodesia and support for the Vietnam War. The

demonstration descended into violence with press reports claiming that the MP was

spat on and that Mrs. Wall had suffered a seemingly fictitious attack.54 After the

demonstration the university created a disciplinary committee in order to reprimand

students who participated in the violence.55 As customary in 1960s British

universities, students were often not included in the committee and therefore were

given an unfair trial. One of the main motives for protest according to Val Remy, an

unradicalised student, was that ‘students wanted to prove that they could run the

college without bureaucratic administration.’56 Richard Dixon, the student president at

Regent Street Polytechnic in 1969, remarks that ‘at that moment, students were

frustrated because they couldn’t contribute and representation was one of the ways of

alleviating that sense of frustration.’57 Leeds University, however, anticipated a

backlash to this and included six students and six staff members in their disciplinary

53R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 28254 Times, 4 May 1968, p. 155 Union News, 21 June 1968, p.1. This was the student newspaper at Leeds University56 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 27657 The interview with Richard Dixon was conducted by the author. 20 November 2006

20

committee with the deciding vote given to the Vice-Chancellor Sir Roger Stevens. At

the same time radical students had established a 3rd May Committee. The group said

the selection of the student members of the disciplinary committee was undemocratic

because they were unelected. It also alleged that there had been politically motivated

investigations by the university’s security service.58 On 19 June the 3rd May

Committee called for the dismissal of the heads of the security service, the abolition

of security files, and the abolition of the unrepresentative disciplinary committee. The

3rd May Committee also demanded the resignation of Sir Roger Stevens if these points

were refused and they threatened to stage a sit-in if their requirements were

disregarded.59 By 25 June the Vice-Chancellor was yet to reply to these demands so

members of the Students’ Union voted by 386 to 48 to occupy the Parkinson

Building, then the administrative heart of the University. They demanded a public

inquiry into the actions of the University’s security staff, and put up a notice which

read: ‘The Vice-Chancellor’s office, the Registrar’s office and the Bursar’s office are

closed indefinitely. By order of LUU Action Committee.’60 It was estimated that 400

students moved into the Parkinson Building, with the support of their then Student

President Jack Straw (became the Foreign Secretary), where they stayed until the sit-

in’s conclusion on the evening of 28 June. At the time, Maurice Kirk was a Social

Studies lecturer and a member of Senate. He describes the atmosphere: ‘I clearly

recall in the Parkinson Building there were groups of serious-minded students trying

to run their own tutorials and seminars, in what was a noisy marketplace atmosphere.

The other thing that stuck in my mind was seeing a girl walking up Woodhouse Lane

carrying the black and red banner of the Sorbonne anarchists, because the Leeds

58 N. Thomas, Challenging the Myths of the 1960s: The Case of Student Protest in Britain, p. 959 N. Thomas, Challenging the Myths of the 1960s: The Case of Student Protest in Britain, p. 960 Leeds University website, www.leeds.ac.uk/reporter/may68/protest.htm

21

students were very taken up with the troubles on the streets of Paris in May 1968.’61

Although none of the demands were met, later that year a committee was set up to

consider the possibility of greater student involvement in university government.

Six months after the sit-in the Leeds University newspaper Union News

conducted a survey of 546 of its students and the results reaffirmed the opinions of Sir

Sydney Caine. Of these 546 students, only 15.5 per cent claimed to be politically

active and 86 per cent found union politics to be monotonous. Concerning the

demonstration against MP Patrick Wall, 63 per cent disagreed with it as opposed to

the 22 per cent who had backed it. Perhaps the most alarming result was that only 3.5

per cent identified themselves with the left.62 Although this survey makes important

findings, it is important to remember that only 546 students participated in the survey

at what is a large university. The theme of a small group of radicalised students being

able to corrupt and command a majority of generally apathetic students is very much

evident in the case of Leeds University 1968. Although sit-ins may well be attributed

to small militant groups, it is clear that many students were protesting for their own

amusement. As a student of politically moderate views, Val Remy declared that ‘it

was absolutely exhilarating, liberating. There was a sudden and new-found sense of

solidarity. You really felt you loved people, they were no longer just fellow students,

but comrades-in-arms.’63

It seemed all the major redbrick universities were keen to emulate the events

at L.S.E. and the University of Birmingham was no different. In October 1967, Stuart

Hall, the former editor of New Left Review, was the guest speaker at the Freshers’ tea

61 Leeds University website, www.leeds.ac.uk/reporter/may68/protest.htm62 Union News, 24 January 1969, p. 163 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 277

22

held in Priestly Hall. It was here that the Birmingham Socialist Union was first urged

to ‘do something’ and as an example Hall suggested that they should do more work

for ‘student control in the university.’64 A year later the Guild of students created the

‘student role.’ Student role was a document ‘setting out in detail the minimum amount

of representation necessary for beginning student participation and democratising the

university.’65 Motion four of the document demanded that a university commission be

formed to scrutinize the university structure. This commission would consist of

representatives from the University Council and the University Senate. The Guild of

undergraduates should comprise 50 per cent of the commission and the Guild

president should operate in alliance with the Vice-Chancellor as co-Chairmen. On 29

October 1968, the Guild of students held a meeting where they issued an ultimatum to

the university authorities concerning student role. Sue Jackson, the vice-president of

the Guild, proposed the amendment to motion four urging ‘executive to direct action

if student role is not accepted by the University Council by November 27th.’ When

asked precisely what she meant by ‘direct action,’ she replied, ‘I mean strike, I mean

blow this place up…’ at which point the meeting erupted in applause and stamping.

The amendment was carried by 47 votes to 17.66 Predictably, the university authorities

did not accept the document and on Wednesday 27th November, direct action

commenced when up to a thousand students gathered in the Great Hall. One Redbrick

journalist wrote, ‘when the official occupation began, no formal system of

organisation existed. There were just over a thousand students sitting in, as one giant

body of protest, unified by a common belief in certain principles. Yet within twenty-

four hours, this mass body had organised itself into a recognisably and structured

community, employing some of the formal regulative mechanisms of the society

64 Redbrick, 11 October 1967, p. 5. Redbrick was the student newspaper of Birmingham University65 Redbrick, 29 October 1968, p. 266 Redbrick, 30 October 1968, p. 1

23

outside the Great Hall.’67 It is apparent that most students used protest in order to

eliminate the disenfranchised conditions imposed on them and also to prove they

could function formally despite their place in society. Students viewed protest as a

form of earning a position in the system of government, as opposed to myths that they

wanted to depose the government. ‘Student role’ is a clear indication that students

were desperate for greater student representation.

As with the L.S.E. case, the media again created a false image of the students

as ‘long-haired layabouts’ and ‘bearded militants.’68 This produced a rift between

students and the public which would take months to bridge as pressure to finish the

sit-in augmented. On 3 December, ‘seventy-one members of Birmingham University

students’ Guild Council ignored the wishes expressed by more than 2,340 students

and determined by votes that the sit-in should continue indefinitely.’69 The general

meeting of 4,000 students revealed that the majority wished to finish the occupation,

and with the original thousand students sitting in having subsided to 200 by 4

December, a familiar theme was yet again emerging. Were the university authorities

able to starve out the students all too effortlessly? Again, Caine’s opinion seems to

echo throughout all the occupation cases in British universities, a small extremist

group had corrupted the majority that were just following a trend.

Although occupations were the preferred method of protest at universities,

demonstrations towards the latter part of the decade increasingly encompassed

students. This is best illustrated by the Vietnamese Solidarity Campaign’s (or VSC)

organisation of demonstrations in London between 1967 and 1969. The VSC was

67 Redbrick, 4 December 1968, p. 268 Redbrick, 29 October 1968, p. 169 Birmingham Post, 4 December 1968, p. 1

24

‘committed to the victory of the Vietnamese people against the war of aggression and

atrocity waged by the United States.’70 The campaign itself epitomised the power that

the events in Vietnam had in mobilising the students. The campaign received much

public exposure due to the new radical paper Black Dwarf which, under the guidance

of Tariq Ali, concentrated on the anti-imperialist struggle and in particular Vietnam.

The paper had been a year in the making but due to the events in Paris in May 1968, it

was rapidly transformed in order ‘to capture the embodiment of student revolution.’71

Britain, unlike the United States, was not shackled by the effects of conscription so

protest was not as fierce. Despite this, the demonstrations often descended into

violence. The VSC demonstration in London on 2 July 1967 attracted 5,000 protesters

and resulted in thirty-one arrests after clashes with the authorities.72 By the 17 March

demonstration outside the American Embassy in Grosvenor Square, the VSC were

enticing 10-20,000 demonstrators with some estimates suggesting there were as many

as three hundred arrests. With the increase of violence and Tariq Ali’s intentions to

invade the American Embassy ‘for as long as the Vietcong held the American

Embassy in Saigon,’73 condemnation for the campaign was widely publicised by the

press. Newspapers were declaring that ‘this kind of thing has to be stopped’74 and The

Times redistributed their crime reporters to maximise coverage for the 27 October

1968 demonstration taking place in London. The establishment used a hysterical

media campaign focusing on the threat of bloodshed and revolution to combat the

escalating support for demonstrations. According to Tariq Ali, however, ‘never at any

stage did anyone seriously involved in VSC imagine that the October demonstrations

would be anything more than a show of the anti-imperialist left’s strength. But the

70 ‘What is the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign?’, recruitment flyer71 T. Ali, Street Fighting Years: An Autobiography of the Sixties, p. 27472 VSC Bulletin, July-August 1967, no. 6, p.173 Sun, 19 March 1968, p. 1674 Daily Mail, 19 March 1968, p. 6

25

establishment embarked on a campaign of black propaganda and disinformation. They

did it for two reasons: to isolate the march from the bulk of the population by raising

the fear of violence, and because they over-reacted, panicked after May (Paris 1968).

France shook the ruling classes throughout Europe, and the British decided to take no

chances that the disease would spread. Hence their ferocious attacks on VSC and on

me personally.’75 The demonstration attracted 100,000 demonstrators in what turned

out to be a relatively peaceful affair. L.S.E. students utilised their School as a base for

the demonstration, Students also accounted for half of the marchers that day again

proving to be integral in trying to radicalise Britain. ‘None of us knew what might

happen,’ recalled John Rose at L.S.E. ‘But we thought the revolution was going to

start then – The Times was even predicting the possibility. We would have welcomed

a major confrontation which would have raised the stakes and drawn the workers into

the struggle. Had there been fighting, with serious injuries, possibly even a killing,

I’m quite sure a major student rising across the country would have taken place, and

the thing would have exploded.’76 However, a Redbrick journalist claimed that, ‘I do

not think that October 27th achieved very much, other than to create further

antagonism towards students.’77 This statement was reaffirmed when enthusiasm for

protest diminished from 1968 onwards with the London demonstration on 16 March

1969 only managing to attract 4,000 protesters.

With this dissertation focusing on discovering whether there was in fact a

student revolution, it is important to emphasise that many students still seemed to

remain politically apathetic. As already stated, in January 1969, only 15.5 per cent of

75 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 27976 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 28077 Redbrick, 30 October 1968, p. 2

26

Leeds University students considered themselves to be active in politics.78 This is

supported by a survey conducted at Warwick University that found a mere seven per

cent were politically active.79 In terms of protest participation, a Gallup Poll survey

conducted at Sussex University in May 1968, found integral results to this paper.80 Of

the 270 students interviewed, 60 per cent believed in protesting for greater student

representation in university academic affairs as opposed to 16 percent who were

opposed to it. 67 per cent believed demonstrations and occupations were a useful

purpose while only 8 per cent viewed them as harmful. The Gallup Poll survey found,

however, that despite these statistics supporting protests, the majority of students did

not participate in demonstrations regularly. The results supported the idea that most

students were following a path that had been glamorised by a small militant group of

left-wing extremists. The important issue to consider is the alarming rate in which

student protest augmented in 1968. This may be considered a ripple affect from the

events in Paris, but it is evident that at the time, desires for revolution were rife.

Although statistics clarify that most students were politically apathetic, the hysterical

media campaign initiated by the government indicates that there were growing fears

that the students could mount a serious challenge. Contrary to the myth that students

desired to overthrow the government, it seemed they were instead intent on attaining a

more creditable and official position in a government system by claiming greater

representation in university matters.

78 Union News, 24 January 1969, p. 179 Campus, 25 June 1968, p. 6. This was the student newspaper at Warwick University80 Gallup Poll, Student Demonstrations, May 1968

27

Chapter three: A comparison with other countries

When social historians discuss the decade of the 1960s, student revolution is

often considered one of its most distinguishing characteristics. By 1968, Students had

now made their impact in every part of the world — Asia, Africa, Latin America,

Europe and the USA.81 In order to fully comprehend the extent in which student

activism effected Britain, it is essential to juxtapose the research found at British

universities with the events that took place in other countries. Again L.S.E. proved 81 ed. A. Cockburn & R. Blackburn, Student Power, p. 25

28

integral in providing a case study in which to compare to American findings. This

chapter will also focus on the events in Paris in May 1968 which arguably acted as the

main catalyst in prompting student risings throughout Britain. With students uniting

around the world, it is also significant to assess the student rebellion in an

international context in order to decipher whether or not the British student movement

can be coined ‘revolutionary.’

The most comprehensive study in the United States concerning student protest

is the survey conducted by Richard E. Peterson of 85 per cent of four-year colleges.82

His salient results focused on issues of national politics and whether or not they could

be classified with the same importance as internal university affairs with regards to

mobilising students. In Britain there is a scarcity of studies attributed to the causes of

protest in which to compare to Peterson’s findings. It would, however, transpire that

about one third of demonstrations in 1967 and 1968 were concerned with student

demands for participation within campus government. The remainder were equally

split between matters of curriculum reform, student discipline and guest speakers.83

The L.S.E. debacle, as already noted in the previous chapter, was accredited to student

discontent with the disciplining of David Adelstein. Tessa Blackstone and Roger

Hadley conducted a survey of 80 per cent of L.S.E.’s 3,000 students just eight weeks

after the sit-in of 1967 and found that in ‘comparing the L.S.E. and subsequent

protests in Britain to those in the United States, the major differences would seem to

be the extent to which non-educational issues were involved. In Britain internal

university or college issues seem to have been more important than national or

international political issues.’84 Peterson’s findings in the United States, however,

82 R. E. Peterson, The Scope of Organized Protest in 1964-5 (Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1966) Ditto in 1967-883 T. Blackstone and R. Hadley, Student Protest in a British University: Some Comparisons with American Research, p. 384 T. Blackstone and R. Hadley, Student Protest in a British University: Some Comparisons with American Research, p. 3

29

reveal that issues such as Vietnam and racism were more important in rapidly

mobilising students. These results again illustrate the theme running throughout this

dissertation that the British student’s main incentive for protesting was to obtain

greater participation in university affairs. At L.S.E., in terms of disciplinary issues, 88

per cent of the extreme supporters desired at least equal student representation on the

committee. Taking into account all the students that aided with the survey, 83 per cent

wished for some degree of representation on the disciplinary committee. Furthermore,

69 per cent of the students wanted to have at least some student representatives on the

committee dealing with course content.85 These statistics again clarify the students’

main reasoning behind protest was to gain greater representation.

One of the main differences between British universities and their US

counterparts was the sheer size of the colleges. L.S.E.’s 3,000 students were vastly

inferior to the 27,000 students attending the University of California at Berkeley,

where student protest originally exploded into the American limelight. Roger Hadley

and Tessa Blackstone argued that ‘size is important in that there must be enough

protest-prone students to form a group which is big enough to promote action, to

provide leaders, and to run the demonstrations once they have begun.’86 However,

despite a considerable smaller amount of students attending, L.S.E. was still vigorous

in airing their views about student representation. This was due to L.S.E. specialising

in the study of the social sciences, a subject that attracted many radical political

thinkers.

Table 1.87 Degree of support for the sit-in at L.S.E. in March 1967 by field of study

85 T. Blackstone and R. Hadley, Student Protest in a British University: Some Comparisons with American Research, table 4, p. 1186 T. Blackstone and R. Hadley, Student Protest in a British University: Some Comparisons with American Research, p. 487 T. Blackstone and R. Hadley, Student Protest in a British University: Some Comparisons with American Research, table 5, p. 12

30

This table reinforces the idea that social scientists and in particular

sociologists were more prone to protest. It reveals a higher percentage of students who

studied subjects such as sociology supported the sit-in compared to the percentage of

students concentrating on other subjects. Conversely, there were also a large amount

of students studying the social sciences that were hostile or apathetic towards student

revolt. For example the statisticians and accountants contribute 20 per cent of the

extreme opposition. Therefore, whatever their political allegiance, supported by

research found in the US, the social sciences attracted the more outspoken student

who was prepared to voice his or her strong opinions.

In 1967, L.S.E. consisted of 40 per cent student graduates. According to

Roger Hadley there were several explanations why students at this juncture in their

university careers were more prone to protest participation. ‘They suffer the

insecurities of an uncertain status position, wedged between the undergraduate mass

and the faculty elite. Lacking the relative homogeneity of the undergraduate groups,

and their regular contacts with members of staff, they are likely to be more vulnerable

to feelings of social isolation and powerlessness. Yet they have more experience than

31

the undergraduates and almost certainly include a larger proportion of exceptionally

able students; two factors which probably explain why they provide a high proportion

of the leaders in many revolts.’88 This is highlighted by student graduates such as

Marshall Bloom at L.S.E. who became a leading student activist. This was similar to

the set-up in the US where graduates, along with teaching assistants, played a pivotal

role in protest. Teaching assistants were also plagued by the same insecurities that the

graduates suffered concerning their status position. Whilst being overworked and

underpaid, they were neither officially part of the academic staff nor part of the

student body. Under these conditions, it is plausible that they would use their

extensive class time to declare their disgruntlement to students capable of protest.

This is elucidated with the case of Robin Blackburn who was formerly the assistant

lecturer in sociology at L.S.E. until he was made redundant after siding with

protesting students.

In the aftermath of the L.S.E. sit-in and boycott of spring 1967, results found

that 44 per cent of the students believed the sit-in was wholly justified, and 44 per

cent also believed the boycott was wholly justified; 34 per cent believed that both

were wholly justified and 58 per cent that both were partly or wholly justified. There

were as many as 79 per cent who believed that at least the sit-in or the boycott was

wholly or partly justified.89 In terms of participation, of L.S.E.’s three thousand

students, 56 per cent boycotted, 39 per cent had played some part in the nine-day sit-

in with only 1 per cent staying its entire duration.90 In the US, there is some evidence

that suggests that the extent of students involved in protest was much smaller than at

L.S.E. This evidence is found in Peterson’s survey in 1967-8 which revealed that on

88 T. Blackstone and R. Hadley, Student Protest in a British University: Some Comparisons with American Research, p. 589 T. Blackstone and R. Hadley, Student Protest in a British University: Some Comparisons with American Research, p. 690 J. Green, All Dressed Up: The Sixties and the Counterculture, pp. 250-251

32

average only 9 per cent of the student body were involved.91 At Berkeley only 3 per

cent of the students were devoted enough to the Free Speech Movement to risk

arrest.92 These figures must be utilised with some degree of caution as it is likely that

the number of students involved were misjudged by the Dean of Students. These

findings, nonetheless, suggest that L.S.E. was more concentrated in terms of student

protest than universities found in the US.

This dissertation has the view that former student protesters from both Britain

and the US have exhibited shared characteristics of the ‘protester’ into later life and

largely they have carried their expectations and hopes into adulthood only to be

disappointed. Shunning the more traditional political parties and ever looking for

alternative political offerings to combat the shared issues of today’s world. Both

countries also experienced the rapid augmentation of the protesters’ preferred subject,

the social sciences, which influence radical political thought. Despite these

similarities, Richard Dixon believed that British students placed more emphasis on

student representation than the Americans. ‘When I say that UK students may well

have been better placed to put more emphasis on student representation it is because I

do know that the British Government (first Conservative and then Labour) had

‘exploded’ the higher education population with polytechnics and new universities - I

was part of the ‘bulge.’ Thus in the UK the issue was not ‘a denial’ of higher

education opportunities - more what to ‘do’ with the franchise (turned out to be about

consolidation - representation and academic involvement) and to clarify; what the

new mass opportunities meant and whether it was worthwhile.’93 Britain were

undoubtedly active in terms of protest concerning Vietnam and other issues stemming

91 R. E. Peterson, The Scope of Organized Protest in 1967-8, table 6, p. 3292 T. Blackstone and R. Hadley, Student Protest in a British University: Some Comparisons with American Research, p. 793 The interview with Richard Dixon was conducted by the author. 20 November 2006

33

from across the Atlantic, but in comparison to the efforts in the US, Britain may well

have been viewed as following a sweeping trend that had become globally

glamorised. It is also important to remember that Britain was not shackled by the

effects of conscription that engulfed so many of America’s young generation,

therefore they would not have protested as enthusiastically as their US allies.

It is important to utilise the May events of France 1968 as a case study as it

proved integral in initiating a student revolt in Britain. Ronald Fraser claimed that ‘the

May events in France, watched with awe and fascination on both sides of the Atlantic,

were the apogee of the student 1968 and all it represented. Here was a student

movement that had barely existed in force six months before, taking on and shaking a

seemingly secure and authoritarian regime. Here were students catalysing the largest

general strike in French history at a time when, even on the left, it was widely held

that the working classes were so firmly integrated into capitalist society that no

sudden cataclysm could occur. Here was a challenge to the social order which fitted

no preconceived pattern and that burst on the world without warning.’94 Tariq Ali

believed the reasoning behind this was that ‘ten years of Gaullism had choked French

society.’95 The French May movements were undoubtedly the student movement at its

most penetrative.

In 1868, a century before Paris would erupt in the greatest student uprising it

has even known, in which students violently clashed with police in an attempt to

topple Charles de Gaulle’s government, Louis-Auguste Blanqui wrote and distributed

a manual for students engaging in urban warfare against the state. Thus, when the

94 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 20395 T. Ali, Street Fighting Years: An Autobiography of the Sixties, p. 268

34

May riots of 1968 broke out, they did so in a cultural context that included historical

precedents encouraging French student guerrilla tactics against police, fashionably

theorised by the most prominent French student radical of the previous century.96 In

January 1968 a student faction at the University of Paris, Nanterre, appropriately

named Les Enragés, generated a series of disturbances on campus. They were led by

Daniel Cohn-Bendit and endeavoured to create an urban revolution concerning itself

with anti-Vietnam War protest, militarism, and Western imperialism. The events

commenced on 2 May when a right-wing extremist assaulted a student union office at

the Sorbonne in Paris. This was nothing new as for months right and left-wing

students had waged a war of words that had also led to the circulation of a leaflet

intending the extermination of left-wingers at Nanterre. The left-wing students,

feeling threatened, enlisted the aid of trained street fighting militants and on 3 May

they took up their position. Robert Linhart remembers; ‘we put down oil so that

enemy vehicles would skid, broke down the barbed wire fence that separated the

university from the shanty town so that immigrant workers could come to help us in

case of battle, organised students in self-defence groups — but no fascist dared show

his face that day.’97 Needless to say the administration closed Nanterre and announced

that there would be disciplinary hearings for some of the leading student activists. The

Nanterre activists requested a meeting be held the same day at the Sorbonne to discuss

a plan of action. Soon after the meeting, however, the police arrived causing immense

controversy. This was an astonishing action on the part of the police who rarely

ventured into the Sorbonne as it was considered student territory. Skirmishes broke

out as police vans bundled students into the back of their vans. The police, having

been provoked, attacked the students with batons and immediately the Sorbonne

96 M. Edelman Boren, Student Resistance: A History of the Unruly Subject (Routledge, 2001), p. 3597 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 204

35

exploded into a full-scale riot in which hundreds of students were injured and many

vans were seriously vandalised. It was a grave error by the government and the

consequences sparked a ‘domino effect’ series of protests.

On 6 May, The Union Nationale des Etudiants de France (UNEF) supported

the student leaders to protest in order to liberate the Sorbonne and free the four

students sentenced to prison following the riots against the police. That day more than

20,000 students and teachers alike marched towards the Sorbonne to be greeted by the

Compagnie Républicaine de Sécurité (CRS), who were a police force specialising in

riot control. As riots raged until 10 p.m., police reports speculated that there had been

as many as 487 casualties from their department. The amount of injuries sustained by

the protesters was unknown as many refused to check in to hospitals in order to

maintain anonymity. Although the students did not manage to reclaim the Sorbonne,

their bravery had gained them a political triumph. Fraser believed that ‘the brutality

displayed by the police served to isolate the Gaullist regime in the eyes of a large

proportion of the population. In this, 6 May showed both how exceptional the battle

had been and how exceptional France under de Gaulle was. Large and militant as the

movements had become in the US, they had not mobilised so large a proportion of the

population into rejecting the regime itself.’98 According to an opinion poll taken on 8

May, four-fifths of the city’s dwellers supported the students. Parisian students were

captivating a global audience.

On 10 May the whole world witnessed a savage battle between protesters and

the CRS as it was broadcast live on radio. The radio reporter described the events:

‘Now the CRS are charging, they’re storming the barricade – oh, my God! There’s a 98 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 207

36

battle raging. The students are counter-attacking, you can hear the noise – the CRS are

retreating… Now they’re re-grouping, getting ready to charge again. The inhabitants

are throwing things from their window at the CRS – Oh! The police are retaliating,

shooting grenades into the windows of apartments…’ At this point the radio station,

which had been telling the commentator over the air not to dramatise events,

interrupted him. ‘This can’t be true, the CRS don’t do things like that!’ ‘I’m telling

you what I’m seeing…’99 His voice was then cut off the air. These atrocities served to

fuel a nation on the brink of revolution. Such was the courage displayed by the

students in the face of such adversary even The Times reporter spoke of their ‘great

bravery’ and ‘fearless heroism.’100

The pinnacle demonstration took place on 13 May, ironically on the tenth

anniversary of de Gaulle’s regime. It was a monumental demonstration with reports

claiming up to a million protesters present. It resulted in the four youths being

released from police custody and the CRS withdrawing from the Sorbonne. Through

this the students believed they could actually topple de Gaulle. By May 27, de

Gaulle’s government demise appeared forthcoming and the president unexpectedly

left Paris at the end of May, stunning the population. This event proved to be the

zenith of the French May movements as by the third week of June, the Gaullist regime

gained an immense victory in the elections. Using his control of television, the

Gaullist regime played blatantly on the alleged threat of a ‘Communist seizure of

power’ during the recent events to frighten voters into the realisation of where their

actions might have led.101 Also many of the radicals were under the voting age of

twenty-one thus excluding many of the people disenchanted with de Gaulle’s regime.

99 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 214100 ed. A. Cockburn & R. Blackburn, Student Power, p. 320101 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 229

37

Mark Edelman Boren believed that ‘the students and workers generated enough

power to threaten de Gaulle’s regime but they were unable to focus it effectively and

decisively.’102

France, like Britain, experienced a ‘baby boom’ and rise in the economy in the

years following the war. Prior to the Second World War, France had only 60,000

students in a population of 42 million. In 1958, when de Gaulle had seized power and

disbanded the fourth republic, their numbers had increased to 175,000. In 1968,

France had grown to fifty million and the number of students had risen dramatically to

600,000.103 The university authorities had to cope with contentious issues such as

insufficient building standards and amenities. This was detrimental to the quality of

education as it deteriorated rapidly. Disillusioned, the students emerged with new

motives to test the resolve of the authorities. Like Britain, France waged a constant

struggle against discipline. The disciplinary rules were repressive and archaic:

political meetings and propaganda were forbidden and men were not allowed into

women’s lodgings.104 This was similar to the set up in British universities until Keele

University set the ball rolling by staging a three day sit-in demonstrating for the right

to have halls of residence with mixed sexes. Despite some similarities, the French

May movements were the closest students came to causing a revolution within their

country.

The relevance of the May movements to this dissertation should not be

underestimated as many have disputed that Britain was following a growing trend set

by their French peers. It has been identified that May ’68 acted as the main catalyst in

102 M. Edelman Boren, Student Resistance: A History of the Unruly Subject, p. 154103 T. Ali, Street Fighting Years: An Autobiography of the Sixties, p. 268104 ed. A. Cockburn & R. Blackburn, Student Power, p. 318

38

promoting student revolts to ripple throughout Britain. The Guardian, however,

claimed that it was a case of ‘me-tooism,’105 and that British students were merely

imitating the examples made in countries such as France. This idea was evidently

condemnatory towards the students but also raised the fact that broadsheets often

patronised the students involved by degrading the student movement without basing it

upon research. The idea of ‘me-tooism’ was raised in most of the protesting nations,

therefore if students copying their foreign peers were to blame, how did they initially

begin? There is, however, no denying that whilst students heard news on the radio

from Paris, the student movement in Britain received a new impetus as they

threatened to challenge the ruling class.

It is significant to recognise that student protest had been evident long before

the rebellions that occurred in the sixties. Campus rights had undergone a substantial

change in Latin America after the protests that arose in Argentina. The Cordoba

Manifesto of 1918 was the earliest assertion for student rights and it denounced the

old administration in which there was no reform of rules, for fear that someone might

lose his job because of the changes, and it declared: ‘We want to eradicate from

university organisation the archaic and barbarous concept of authority which in the

university is a bulwark of absurd tyranny.’ The manifesto also declared its complete

confidence in the ability of the students to run their own affairs.106 A series of

demonstrations were concluded when President Irigoyen permitted student reforms.

This inspired universities across Latin America to protest issues such as student

representation and is best illustrated by the victory for Peruvian students that allowed

them to dismiss a professor if it is by majority vote. These events were fundamental in

105 Guardian, 10 June 1968, p. 8106 ed. A. Cockburn & R. Blackburn, Student Power, pp. 288-9

39

a historical context as these were the demands that British students mainly strove for

in the 1960s.

The student success in Argentina occurred rapidly and was radical regarding

changes to university infrastructure. In terms of France, the ruling class was entirely

shaken yet the rebels did not seize power. Nelly Finkielsztejn maintained that ‘to

achieve reforms you have sometimes to try to make the revolution. Much has changed

in French society since 1968, even if things are by no means perfect. Authority in

schools is less strong than it was, women’s place and role in society is no longer what

it was, contraception and abortion have been legalised, the death penalty abolished.

We’ve finally escaped from the leaden weight of Gaullism which stifled life and

freedom. And all that, I believe, is a result of May ’68.’107 This, however, can be

considered the gradual effects of the May movements as all this did not occur in a

short time span. Such were the aspirations of the French students that the May

movements focused on toppling a government whereas the British students, in truth,

never came close to an upheaval of the government. Instead they concentrated on

gaining an admirable position in society and revolutionising the universities in a

similar vain to the Argentinean students’ achievements forty years earlier. Jonathan

Green states that, ‘Inevitably, when one compares the role of students in the various

countries, Britain’s representatives could hardly be compared with their American

counterparts, whose commitment lasted longer and who faced opposition far more

vicious in intensity, or to those in France, who perhaps more than any other group

came nearest to creating an actual revolution, but the thought was certainly there, and

in various contexts, so too was the deed.’108 In comparing Britain to the US and

107 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 362108 J. Green, All Dressed Up: The Sixties and the Counterculture, p. 248

40

France, it is inescapable that the British student movement will appear humble. In the

aftermath of the May movements, Paris bookshops were immediately filled with

hastily compiled studies claiming a student revolution. One journalist stated that ‘the

French and American contributors were responding to a situation quite unlike

anything that has been seen in this country (Britain), or is likely to be seen.’109 The

British students did, however, concentrate their efforts towards creating a university

in which they could administrate their own affairs. Something the US did not devote

nearly as much attention towards.

Conclusions

For many of the generation in revolt, the student revolution meant an

organised attempt by a small minority of radicals to destroy the universities as they

existed.110 If this is the case, the sixties undeniably have cause for being coined

revolutionary. The magnitude and frequency in which student protest took place in the

1960s has never been equalled and this could be due to several factors. Firstly, the

universities gradually buckled to the students’ demands and reformed, thus including

students within their governmental structures. Secondly, according to Jack Straw (the

then Foreign Secretary speaking in 1985), ‘The ideas developed in the student

movement have fed their way into challenges towards the established structures of the

Labour party. An awful lot of people involved in the party over the last decade or so

were active in student politics.’111 This clarifies that increasingly the ideas of student

109 Redbrick, 30 November 1968, p. 2110 Redbrick, 30 November 1968, p. 2111 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 364

41

activists were forcing their way into parliamentary government. Thirdly, after 1968,

troops were withdrawn from Vietnam, meaning that the war ceased to provide an

incentive for many people to unite and demonstrate. Instead they broke up

into smaller factions protesting issues such as environmentalism

and feminism, which on their own could not mobilise such a vast

amount of demonstrators. These reasons certainly contributed to

protest diminishing after it reached its peak in 1968. The successes

of the student movement are highlighted by Richard Dixon, who

claimed that, ‘In my years, students became allowed to vote when they were studying.

Suddenly some MPs had as many student voters as non-student. Student

representation in college governance had made a start and extending this to school

students was being debated.’112 On 1 January 1970, the voting age was lowered from

21 to 18 thus confirming young people’s status change.

‘In trying to keep student representatives off committees, the universities are

attempting to deny us any real influence in the way we are educated and the way in

which we live.’113 This statement was made by a student journalist and as this

dissertation has emphasised, the students’ principle motivation behind protesting was

to gain greater student representation and the right to determine their own lives. This

is confirmed statistically by the surveys taken at L.S.E. and the Gallup Poll conducted

at Sussex University. The idea introduced by Sir Sydney Caine that a small group of

extremists were corrupting the majority of students into actively participating in

protest is also statistically true as results from contemporary surveys reveal that most

112 The interview with Richard Dixon was conducted by the author. 20 November 2006113 Redbrick, 30 November 1968, p. 6

42

of the students were apathetic. In accordance with Richard Dixon’s views, British

student protest tended to be more persistent in achieving greater control of university

governance, whereas in the US, students were engrossed in issues of a larger scale,

such as the Vietnam War.

This dissertation has stressed the importance the economic

boom had in catalysing rebellion as it enabled a financial stability

not experienced in previous generations. As a result of this rise in

the economy, more students than ever recorded were attending

university. This meant greater pressure was played on institutions to

deliver better education and to adapt to the growing expectations of

higher education. Consequently this led to student radicals

becoming very much part of society as they thrived on challenging

the government. According to Ronald Fraser, ‘Although it was unable to

mount a challenge to the established order, the British movement had mobilised more

people than ever before. But, like the French movement, it had not found a way to

translate this new-found strength into a political force. Anti-authoritarian revolt no

longer seemed sufficient against an established order which, sooner or later, was

prepared to launch a counter-offensive.’114 This is supported by the Independent on

Sunday that claimed that despite the leaders of the student movement transforming

what they controlled; ‘their mistake was a hopeless underestimate of capitalism’s

power to adapt.’115 This dissertation finds that the British Government, in the face of

such student activism, was never realistically in serious jeopardy of being overthrown

114 R. Fraser, 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt, p. 284115 Independent on Sunday, 19 May 1996, p. 7

43

by the students. There was, however, an element of fear as illustrated by the hysterical

media campaign set-up in order to thwart the student’s efforts.

The French May events contributed greatly to the British student movement as

it set the radicals new aspirations of emulating their French peers in bringing the

country to the brink of revolution. This, however, did not materialise as after the

October 1968 demonstration, protest gradually diminished. John Lennon suggested

that nothing had changed. ‘The class system and the whole bullshit bourgeois scene is

exactly the same. The same bastards are in control, the same people are running

everything, it’s exactly the same. They hyped the kids and the generation.’116 This

dissertation does not agree with this statement as the movement did enjoy some

significant changes in terms of university infrastructure. The students achieved greater

student representation over a longer time span than would suggest a revolutionary

epoch. It appears that the student movement across Britain in the 1960s was more a

case of evolution rather than revolution as the changes were gradual but are evident in

today’s society.

116 J. Green, All Dressed Up: The Sixties and the Counterculture, p. 256

44

Bibliography

Primary sources

Birmingham Post, 4 December 1968

Blackstone, T & Hadley, R. ‘Student protest in a British University: Some

Comparisons with American Research’, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 15, No.

1. (Feb, 1971), pp. 1-19.

Campus, 25 June 1968

ed. Cockburn, A & Blackburn, R. Student Power/ Problems, Diagnosis, Action

(Aylesbury, Bucks: Penguin Books, 1969).

Daily Mail, 19 March 1968

Gallup Poll, Student Demonstrations, May 1968

45

Guardian, 15 March 1967

Guardian, 10 June 1968

Independent on Sunday, 19 May 1996

Neville Brown, L. ‘Student Protest in England’, The American Journal of

Comparative Law, Vol. 17, No. 3. (Summer, 1969), pp. 395-402.

Peterson, R. The Scope of Organized Protest in 1964-5 (Princeton: Educational

Testing Service, 1966) Ditto in 1967-8.

Redbrick, 11 October 1967

Redbrick, 29 October 1968

Redbrick, 30 October 1968

Redbrick, 30 November 1968

Redbrick, 4 December 1968

Spectator, 19 April 1968

Sun, 19 March 1968

Times, 4 May 1968

Union News, 21 June 1968

Union News, 24 January 1969

VSC Bulletin, July-August 1967, no. 6.

‘What is the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign?’ recruitment flyer.

An interview with Richard Dixon was conducted by the author. 20 November 2006.

Secondary sources

Ali, T. Street Fighting Years: An Autobiography of the Sixties (London, Verso, 2005).

Ali, T. 1968 and After (London, 1978).

46

Bogdanor, V & Skidelsky, R. The Age of Affluence 1951-64 (London, Macmillan,

1970).

Camus, A. The Rebel (London, Penguin Books, 1962).

Caute, D. Sixty Eight: The Year of the Barricades (London, Hamish Hamilton, 1988).

Edelman Boren, M. Student Resistance: A History of the Unruly Subject (New York,

Routledge, 2001).

Fraser, R. 1968: A Student Generation in Revolt (London, Chatto & Windus, 1988).

Green, J. All Dressed Up: The Sixties and the Counterculture (London, Pimlico,

1999).

Kurlansky, M. 1968: The Year that Rocked the World (London, Jonathan Cape,

2004).

Leary, T. The Politics of Ecstasy (London, Paladin, 1970).

Leary, T. The Psychedelic Experience (New York, Citadel Press, 1995).

Peck, A. Uncovering the Sixties: The Life and Times of the Underground Press (New

York, Carol Publishing Group, Citadel Press, 1991).

Thomas, N. ‘Challenging the Myths of the 1960s: The Case of Student Protest in

Britain’, Twentieth Century British History, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002, pp. 277-297.

Touraine, A. The May movement; revolt and reform: May 1968--the student rebellion

and workers' strikes – the birth of a social movement (Random House, 1971).

Vague, T. Anarchy in the UK: The Angry Brigade (Edinburgh, AK Press, 1997).

Wheen, F. The Sixties (London, Century Publishers, 1982).

Internet

Leeds University website, www.leeds.ac.uk/reporter/may68/protest.htm

47

48