The Myth of Student Protest

Student radicals turning out in droves to protest for Palestine seem to expect that their organized mass demonstrations will foment revolutionary change. They are inspired by the example of the 1960s, and the civil rights marchers and Vietnam War protesters...

The post The Myth of Student Protest appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Student radicals turning out in droves to protest for Palestine seem to expect that their organized mass demonstrations will foment revolutionary change. They are inspired by the example of the 1960s, and the civil rights marchers and Vietnam War protesters are their muses. These were the heroes who put their bodies on the line facing fire hoses and club-wielding cops to bend the arc of history toward good.

At least that’s the myth they’ve been taught, sometimes by aged protesters themselves, or by student activists who morphed into professors and never left campus for the real world.

The ’60s myth was written by the generation that took part in these demonstrations, so it’s no wonder that they exaggerated their impact. However, then as now, protesters were never particularly popular, and there is little evidence that the 1960s demonstrations had the impact that liberal historians later claimed they had.

Protesters regard the civil rights movement as the gold standard of civic activism, but opinion at the time was mixed. Polling after the 1963 March on Washington showed 60 percent disapproved of the event, many saying it would “cause violence and would not accomplish anything.” A 1964 poll showed Martin Luther King toward the bottom of the list of most respected Americans, while now-reviled FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was at the top by a wide margin. In fact, MLK became less popular over time, until his tragic assassination in 1968.

History has been kind to King’s efforts largely because the civil rights movement was at its core aspirational, a call to national self-betterment that could appeal to all citizens. The movement sought to unite people behind a righteous American cause. The Selma marchers carried the American flag and sang the “Star Spangled Banner.” This is a far cry from today’s angry protesters who vandalize George Washington’s statue, burn the flag, and chant, “Death to America.”

Then there is the widespread belief that massive student protests helped end the Vietnam War. This idea is an unquestioned part of the narrative of those times. But there is no empirical evidence to suggest this is true, and much to show it was false.

A central aspect of the myth is that young people were almost universally opposed to the war effort. Not so. A May 1967 Gallup poll showed pro-war Hawks outnumbered Doves on college campuses by 49 percent to 35 percent, and among draft-aged young men, the Hawks had a 26-point edge. A July 1967 poll — conducted during the much-hyped Summer of Love — showed that 67 percent of young people wanted the military to finish the job in Vietnam, compared to 28 percent who wanted to “get out soonest.” In fact, young people were more hawkish than the national average.

Antiwar radicals skillfully dominated media coverage with their outlandish stunts — would Yippies really levitate the Pentagon? But such antiwar antics did nothing actually to alter Vietnam War policy. For example, Nov. 15, 1969, saw the Washington, D.C., “Moratorium March,” part of a series of what were the largest antiwar demonstrations in history to that time. However, the White House was unmoved. “As far as this kind of activity is concerned, we expect it,” President Richard Nixon said of the student uprisings. “However, under no circumstances will I be affected whatever by it.” Nixon had no need to take notice of the marchers, since a Gallup poll showed 77 percent support for his Vietnam War policies. 

The public, then as now, has little tolerance for radical excesses and supported the authorities when they restored order. A new Morning Consult poll shows 76 percent support for colleges “ask[ing] the police to protect campuses from violence.” Back in 1968, after Chicago police used brutal methods to deal with demonstrators outside the Democratic National Convention, a Gallup survey showed that 56 percent approved of the crackdown. Current Democratic leaders may well be expecting a replay of 1968-style protests at this year’s Chicago democratic convention, but without a Mayor Richard J. Daley keeping order.

Even after the fatal Kent State shootings on May 4, 1970, polling showed that 58 percent of Americans held the student demonstrators chiefly responsible for the tragedy, while only 11 percent blamed the Ohio national guardsmen who pulled the triggers. “Four dead in Ohio” remains an enduring refrain for the antiwar crowd, but Neil Young was no barometer of public opinion.

Today the country is facing a new series of well-organized, coordinated campus uprisings in support of — at least judging by the endless chanting — freeing Palestine, having an intifada, supporting Hamas, destroying Israel, and backing a broad menu of progressive social causes. None of these issues enjoy broad public support, and campus tantrums won’t change that. There is no compelling reason for the public to be swayed by self-important young people throwing a fit. When you see African American law enforcement officers joyfully raising an American flag after having contemptuously disposed of a Palestinian banner erected by privileged white radicals, you know the activists have lost the narrative.

So what good are the protests? They won’t lead to a ceasefire in Gaza or a Palestinian state or make Israel vanish. But the radicals can claim some victories. At Northwestern, Brown, and Rutgers, weak-willed administrators caved to student demands, virtually ensuring further protests in the future. And the protests themselves — with cult-like chanting, programmed rituals, masks, costumes, and endless self-righteousness — give impressionable students a sense of belonging. It provides meaning to their lives, grafting them to a cause greater than themselves. And the terrorist training materials and indoctrination sessions at the encampments will keep this dynamic rolling.

So the main targets of the protests are the protesters themselves. Campus rallies are a form of mobilization, indoctrination, and radicalization. The experience can induce long-lasting psychological effects, and once these impressionable kids are hooked on extremism, it will be hard to get them back. The organizers, funders, and outside agitators involved with this movement understand this dynamic very well. It is the reason they are doing it. We are watching them in real-time mint the next generation of true believers to keep the myth and the revolution alive.

James S. Robbins is Dean of Academics at the Institute of World Politics in Washington DC and author of This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive.

The post The Myth of Student Protest appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.