No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
In 1960, on the edge of a new decade, Norman Mailer thought he might have seen a superman coming to the supermarket. The supermarket was the U.S. presidential election; the possible superman, disguised as an orthodox candidate of a mainstream political party, was John F. Kennedy. Despite the conventionality of his politics, Kennedy had “the eyes of a mountaineer” and the “cool grace” of a hipster. Ever since a Japanese destroyer rammed his PT boat and left him swimming for life on the vast Pacific, Kennedy had “the remote and private air of a man who has traversed some lonely terrain of experience, of loss and gain, of nearness to death, which leaves him isolated from the mass of others.”
1 Mailer, , “Superman Comes to the Supermarket,” reprinted in The Presidential Papers (New York: Berkeley Windhover, 1976), 33–68.Google Scholar
2 Otten, C. Michael, University Authority and the Student: The Berkeley Experience (Berkeley: UC Press, 1970), 79, 152–53.Google Scholar
3 Stadtman, Verne A., The University of California: 1868–1968 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), 435–36Google Scholar; Heirich, Max, The Spiral of Conflict: Berkeley 1964 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), 75–79.Google Scholar
4 Daniel Kirchner, “Student Political History – UC 1957–64,” undated, unpaginated TS, folder 3:11 (box 3, folder 11), FSM Archives (the Free Speech Movement Archives and Papers, collected by Marston Schultz, consist of four boxes of materials at the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley); Stadtman, 436; Horowitz, David, Student (New York: Ballantine, 1962), 37.Google Scholar
5 Margaret Rowntree, Appendix on ASUC, 3, in Michael Rossman and Lynne Hollander “Administrative Pressures and Student Political Activity,” TS, 1964, folder 3:23.
6 Kirchner, “Student Political History.”
7 Rowntree, Appendix on ASUC, 1.
8 Larry Marks, Appendix on Daily Cal, 4–11, in Rossman and Hollander; Horowitz, 109.
9 Horowitz, 66.
10 Kerr, , “Students in Three Decades,” a speech given in 1961 but published in the UC Statewide Bulletin, 06 1963, n.p.Google Scholar
11 Sherwood Parker to Clark Kerr, 17 Nov. 1964, folder 2:7, FSM Archives.
12 California Monthly, June–July 1956, i; Stadtman, 432–33.
13 The Scranton Report: Text of the Findings of the President's Commission on Campus Unrest, 5–6, in Student Life Collection, Bancroft Library. Reprinted from Chronicle of Higher Education, 5 Oct. 1970.
14 Horowitz, 18–19. Later Moore became a leader of draft resistance, for which he was sent to a federal penitentiary.
15 Colin, Miller, “The Press and the Student Revolt,” in Miller, Michael V. and Susan, Gilmore, eds., Revolution at Berkeley (New York: Dial, 1965), 325Google Scholar; biographical sketch of Hutchin in folder 1:18, FSM Archives.
16 Handbills and newsletters in CORE Berkeley and Campus CORE-lator folders, Social Protest Project (SPP), Bancroft Library.
17 Anker, and Friedman, , “Sit-In at Cecil Poole's Office,” Campus CORE-lator (Berkeley), 09. 1964, 3–6.Google Scholar
18 Kerr, “Students in Three Decades,” n.p.
19 UC Statewide Bulletin, June 1963, n.p.
20 Rafferty, , “The Passing of the Patriot,” 1961Google Scholar, reprinted by America's Future, Inc., Rafferty folder, SPP.
21 Heirich, , Spiral, 94.Google Scholar
22 Hal, Draper, Berkeley: The Student Revolt (New York: Grove, 1965), 27.Google Scholar
23 , 24–26; Heirich, 92–99.
24 Draper, Berkeley, is partisan (pro-FSM), cogent, and vivid – the most readable book on the subject. The chronology first published in the California Monthly (alumni magazine) and reprinted in Seymour, Martin Lipset and Sheldon, Wolin, eds., The Berkeley Student Revolt: Facts and Interpretations (New York: Anchor, 1965), 99–199Google Scholar, contains important documents and useful information and reflects a bias that is the opposite of Draper's. Heirich, Spiral, adds a wealth of data and ideas but focusses on poor communication as a cause of FSM, rather than on more substantive issues and fundamental motives. Probably the best brief analysis is Richard, Abrams, “The Student Rebellion at Berkeley – An Interpretation,” Massachusetts Review, 6, 2 (Winter–Spring 1965), 353–65.Google Scholar
25 Abrams, 361–62.
26 Terry F. Lunsford, “Student Protest in Today's University,” paper delivered before the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Seattle, 28 June 1966, 9, Student Life Collection, Bancroft Library.
27 Address before the American Council on Education, San Francisco, 2 Oct. 1964, 2, folder 3:3, FSM Archives.
28 Daily Californian, 1 Dec. 1964, 8.Google Scholar
29 Daily Californian, 16 Oct. 1964, 1Google Scholar. For discussion of allegations of communism in FSM, see Miller, , “The Press and the Student Revolt,” 320–26, 347–48.Google Scholar
30 Petersen, “What Is Left at Berkeley,” in Lipset and Wolin, 368, 382–83.
31 Lipset, and Seabury, , “The Lesson of Berkeley,” The Reporter, 28 01. 1965, 38–39.Google Scholar
32 Feuer, , “Pornopolitics and the University,” New Leader, 12 04 1965, 14.Google Scholar
33 Kerr, press release of 3 Dec. 1964, folder 3:3, FSM Archives.
34 Draper, 47; unidentified carbon TS, 9, folder 2:44, FSM Archives.
35 Carr, Statement to the Academic Senate, 24 Nov. 1964, folder 3:19, FSM Archives.
36 Heirich, 285.
37 Mulford statement of 25 Jan. 1965, 6–7, folder 3:20, FSM Archives.
39 Heirich, 176.
38 Minutes of ASUC Senate, 2 Nov. 1964, 3–6, folder 3:7, FSM Archives. The student government had recently been reorganized, and the name of the legislative body had been changed from the “Executive Committee” to the “Senate.”
40 Undated handbill by the University Students for Law and Order, folder 2:52, FSM Archives.
41 Landauer to Executive Committee, 17 Oct. 1964, folder 2:13, FSM Archives.
42 Heirich, 130.
43 Kerr, address at Greek Theatre, 7 Dec. 1964, 4, folder 3:3, FSM Archives.
44 Heirich, 257–58.
45 Minutes of Executive Committee, 23 Nov. 1964, folder 1:6, FSM Archives.
46 Chronology in Lipset, and Wolin, , Berkeley Student Revolt, 108.Google Scholar
47 Hurwitt, , “Present at the Birth,” East Bay Express, 28 09. 1984, 18.Google Scholar
48 Aptheker, , “Free Speech Revolt on Berkeley Campus,” Political Affairs, 44, 1 (01. 1965), 58.Google Scholar
49 “Put My Name Down” © 1964 by Lee Felsenstein, in Free Speech Songbook, folder 2:44, FSM Archives.
50 San, Francisco Examiner, 11 12 1984, A4.Google Scholar
51 Heirich, 143–74.
52 , 182–83Google ScholarIbid.; letter from David C. Piper, n.d., folder 2:23, FSM Archives.
53 Statement by Smith, 10 Dec. 1964, folder 3:19, FSM Archives.
54 Aptheker, , “Free Speech Revolt,” 54.Google Scholar
55 Chronology in Lipset and Wolin, 118.
56 Heirich, 276.
57 Ward, Tabler, “Lessons for Berkeley,” Humanist, 25, 2 (03/04 1965), 52.Google Scholar
58 Draper, , Berkeley, 107.Google Scholar
59 Miller, , “Press and Student Revolt,” 319.Google Scholar
60 Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Conduct, 13 Nov. 1964, in Lipset and Wolin, 568.
61 Heirich, 125, 273.
62 Photocopy of undated letter to James R. Nolfi, folder 2:36, FSM Archives. The writer of the letter is not named.
63 Statement by Jacobson in Lipset and Wolin, 252.
64 Miller, 330.
65 Quoted in Draper, 108.
66 , 114.Google ScholarIbid.
67 Statement by Smith, 3.
68 Betty, Hoffman Hannah, “Coeds in Rebellion,” Ladies Home Journal, 82 (10. 1965), 170.Google Scholar
69 Aptheker, , “The FSM: An Historical Narrative,” in FSM, 18.Google Scholar
70 Daily Californian, 4 Oct. 1984, 8.Google Scholar
71 San, Francisco Examiner, 13 12 1984, A–10.Google Scholar
72 Heirich, , Spiral, 251–52.Google Scholar
73 Feuer, , “Pornopolitics,” 15.Google Scholar
74 Scranton Report, 17. Calvin, Trillin, “Letter from Berkeley,” New Yorker, 13 03 1965, 64Google Scholar, reported that most Berkeley faculty, including those who approved the goals of FSM, agreed that the movement's leaders tended to be rude, inflexible, and excessively quick to use drastic tactics which they considered “necessary.”
75 When I spoke with her on 3 Oct. 1984, she requested that I not publish her name.
76 Sol Stern, “A Deeper Disenchantment,” in Miller, and Gilmore, , Revolution, 227Google Scholar; Draper, , Berkeley, 15–16, 22–23.Google Scholar
77 Report by an unidentified FSM worker on his talks with Bob Dassault, Frank Rossi, and Don Hubbs, folder 2:44, FSM Archives.
78 Undated form letter from Charles R. Powell, folder 2:22, FSM Archives.
79 Charles Sellers, “The Berkeley Faculty and Student Political Activity,” TS, folder 2:8, FSM Archives; John Searle, “The Faculty Resolution,” in Miller, and Gilmore, , Revolution, 93.Google Scholar
80 Trillin, , “Letter from Berkeley,” 90.Google Scholar
81 Levine, “The Berkeley Free Speech Controversy,” Students for a Democratic Society pamphlet, ca. Jan. 1965, 21, in Alienated Youth Culture – Pamphlets folder, Jefferson Poland Collection, Bancroft Library.
82 Lerner, “The Times, They Are A-Changing,” TS, folder 3:29, FSM Archives.
83 Weinberg, , “The Free Speech Movement and Civil Rights,” in Draper, 188.Google Scholar
84 Daily Californian, 23 April 1965, 11.Google Scholar
85 Campus CORE-lator, Sept. 1964, 30–31.Google Scholar
86 Draper, 82–83, 141; Marston Schultz's notes on Executive Committee meeting Ca. 10 Nov. 1964, folder 2:48, FSM Archives.
87 Draper, 156–57.
88 Daily Californian, 2 Oct. 1984, 5.Google Scholar
89 Just for the record: in fall, 1964, women constituted about 37 percent of the Berkeley student body, 35 percent of the persons signing statements of complicity, 39 percent of those arrested at Sproul, 28 percent of the FSM Executive Committee, and 24 percent of the Steering Committee. Cf. Stadtman, Verne A., ed., Centennial Record of the University of California (Berkeley: UC Press, 1968), 224Google Scholar; and lists of names in folders 4:70, 1:16 and 1:6, FSM Archives.
90 Goodman, “Berkeley in February,” in Miller, and Gilmore, , Revolution, 286.Google Scholar
91 Dave Genesen, “Free Speech Demonstration Talking Blues,” FSM's Sounds and Songs, undated booklet, Politics 1972 folder, Jefferson Poland Collection.
92 New York Review of Books, 25 April 1985, 33.Google Scholar