To what extent were the student protests at Columbia University by the
Students for a Democratic Society successful?
IB History of the Americas
March 2015
Word Count: 1,966
A. Scope
To what extent were the protests at Columbia University by the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)
successful? The Port Huron Statement, which established the goals of the SDS will be investigated along
with the demonstrations at Columbia in 1968, specifically the student strike and occupation of buildings
at Columbia, will be considered, as well as events that followed the protests. Primary documents and
events will be analyzed in order to determine the aims and methods of the SDS, as well as results of the
protests in order to determine success.
WORD COUNT: 91
The research question is clearly stated and specific. Both scope of the investigation and
method are fully developed, and closely focused on the research question.
3 Marks
B. Summary of Evidence
The Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, was founded in 1959 as a branch of the League
for Industrial Democracy. 1 The Port Huron Statement, written in 1962 in Port Huron, Michigan, outlined
the values and goals of the SDS.2 The Statement discussed the dissatisfaction of many of the students
with the policies of the United States, from racism to the gap between rich and poor to the United
States’ participation in the Cold War. The document also proposed the establishment of a “participatory
democracy,” which was intended to increase citizen involvement in comparison to a representative
democracy, in the United States. 3 Mark Rudd, leader of the student protests at Columbia University,
stated “Our goal was a much more fundamental change, not just ending the war but ending the
capitalist system that had caused the war.”4
At Columbia University, students were frustrated by the University’s affiliation with the Institute
for Defense Analysis, or IDA, which did research on weapons to be used in the Vietnam War. 5 Students
also took issue with the University’s decision to build a gym in a neighborhood of mostly minorities6 plus
the inflexibility of President Grayson Kirk and the rest of the faculty; despite prior student protests, no
changes were made.7 The Dean of Columbia University said “A University is definitely not a democratic
1
Terry H Anderson, The Movement and the Sixties: Protest in America from Greensboro to Wounded Knee (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 61.
2
“Students for a Democratic Society (SDS),” PBS.org,
http://www.pbs.org/opb/thesixties/topics/politics/newsmakers_1.html, (accessed October 5, 2014).
3
Tom Hayden, “The Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society,”
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.html, (accessed October 5, 2014).
4
Mark Rudd, Underground: My Life with SDS and the Weathermen (New York: HarperCollins, 2009) 43.
5
Ibid, 47.
6
Anderson, The Movement, 194-195.
7
Ibid, 196.
institution. When decisions begin to be made democratically around here, I will not be here any longer.
Whether students vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on an issue is like telling me they like strawberries.”8
Students forcefully “liberated” buildings and occupied them. Kirk called in the police, who
violently stormed the buildings occupied by the peaceful student protestors. One hundred students
were injured, and seven hundred were arrested. Anger about the actions of the police led to a general
strike of students and teachers. The school was basically shut down.9
The specific goals of the occupations and strike at Columbia were as follows: 10






The construction of the gymnasium by stopped.
The university cut all connections to IDA.
The ban in indoor demonstrations be rescinded.
Criminal charges arising out of protests at the gym site be dropped.
Probation for the IDA 6 be rescinded.
Amnesty be granted for the present protest.
The issues, especially surrounding race, also influenced the black students at Columbia, represented
by the Student Afro-American Society.11 At the beginning of the protest the SDS and SAS formed a
coalition, but the coalition quickly fell apart and the SDS students were asked to occupy a different
building. 12
The media coverage of the protests was varied. Most national news outlets, such as The New York
Times and Fortune were critical of the students. However, student newspapers were generally
supportive of the protests. 13
The next fall semester, President Kirk and the Vice President resigned. Criminal charges were
dismissed, the ban on indoor demonstrations was dropped, work on the gym was indefinitely stopped,
the school ended its affiliation with the IDA, and students were given more of a voice. 14 The students
were given a voice through the establishment of the University Senate, which discusses issues in the
8
James Simon Kunen, The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary, (West Sussex: John Wiley &
Sons Ltd, 1995).
9
Anderson, The Movement, 196-199.
10
Rudd, Underground, 66.
11
Ibid, 65.
12
Ibid, 68.
13
Anderson, The Movement, 199
14
Ibid, 203.
University. The seats are filled by faculty members and students, and all meetings are open to the
public. The Senate was established on May 29, 1969 and is still active at the University today.15
By 1968, there were more than 50,000 SDS members. However, the SDS convention in June 1969
degenerated into arguments between various factions. After this, the SDS split into many different
groups.16 Mark Rudd, who was a leader of the Columbia faction of the SDS, created the radical group the
Weathermen.17
WORD COUNT: 729
The factual information is all relevant to the investigation. It is well researched and organized based on
the scope of investigation. Everything is referenced correctly, using Chicago citation method. There are
a few points that could have more specific factual information, and there are a few points of analysis that
could be used in Section D.
5 Marks
C. Evaluation of Sources
The origin of the autobiography Underground: My Life with SDS and the Weathermen is author
Mark Rudd, published in 2009 by HarperCollins Publishers in New York. The purpose of the book is to
recount Rudd’s experiences as a leader of the Columbia demonstrations by the Students for a
Democratic Society. He intended to display the mistakes made by the SDS in order to inspire the
students of today to create successful mass demonstrations.
The book was written twenty-five years after the events at Columbia which provides a valuable
perspective. Rudd has a realistic view of the results of his actions, because the book was written long
after the events concluded. He is able to both defend and criticize the actions of the Students for a
Democratic Society; there was a thoughtful balance and facts and emotions that wasn’t present in other
sources. Rudd’s specific knowledge of the hierarchy and decision-making processes of the SDS is also
unique to the source.
The limitations of the source lie in the influence of emotions of the author. In the introduction,
Rudd specifically states that he regrets some of his actions. In many ways, the book was written in selfdefense. It was perhaps written to change popular opinion of him; it could also be considered an
apology for his actions.
15
“Defining Documents of the Senate,” Columbia University Senate, http://senate.columbia.edu/, (accessed
December 7, 2014).
16
“Students for a Democratic Society,” PBS.org.
17
Rudd, Underground, 153.
The origin of the source The Movement and the Sixties: Protest in America from Greensboro to
Wounded Knee is from Terry H. Anderson, published in 1995 by Oxford University Press in New York. The
purpose is to approach the highly controversial topic of the sixties in a new way; Anderson hoped to
approach the topic as a national study on a wide range of broad topics, focusing around the theme of
activism during the time period.
The values of the book lie in how extensive it is. The formation of the SDS, as well as detailed
information about demonstrations, were included. This book provided considerable background
information on the Columbia demonstrations that was necessary for understanding of the causes and
effects of the demonstrations. The book also discussed the cause-and-effect relationships between
specific events of the time period. Also, the book was published by Oxford University Press, an academic
source, so the information can be trusted.
The limitations of this book lie in how broad it is: while it did discuss the Columbia
demonstrations, the discussion was fairly disjointed because the book is organized chronologically, not
thematically. Thus, the information about the SDS was spread throughout the book and information was
not easy to find for the purposes of the investigation. Also, the author is biased in favor of the protestors
and members of “The Movement,” this may be because he was a Vietnam veteran.
WORD COUNT: 451
There is explicit reference to origins, purpose, values, and limitations for both sources. There
is some evaluation of the source material, but often times is more summative. Since these
are both books there needs to be more evaluation related to purpose, and more focus on
origins of the authors.
3 Marks
D. Analysis
The Columbia University protests of 1968 were disorganized and violent and inefficient, which
limited their overall success. However, ultimately the protests were successful because the student
protestors achieved their demands.
The Columbia protests were successful in achieving their stated short-term goals for the protest.
The criminal charges on the students were dismissed. Work on the gym was stopped and the University
cut their association with the Institute for Defense Analysis; these were some of the main causes the
protests originally, so it is significant that these goals were achieved. President Kirk and the Vice
President of the University resigned; this displayed the widespread influence of the protests because
they influenced the higher-up organization of Columbia University. The University Senate gave students
more of a voice in the affairs of the University, providing a civil place to discuss and resolve highly
controversial topics, in order to avoid future protests. The establishment of the University Senate is
significant because of its long-term impact on the school. Also, the establishment of the Senate shows
the power of the protests: the leadership of the school went from confrontational, with the “Strawberry
Statement,”18 to cooperative with the students of Columbia.
According to historian Dominic Sandbrook, protests by the Students for a Democratic Society
were generally limited to educated students at universities.19 Because of this, the overarching goals of
the SDS, such as the takedown of the capitalist system and the establishment of a participatory
democracy, would have been nearly impossible to achieve because they were unable to reach the
majority of the youth in America. This was, however, an issue with the organization of the SDS itself,
and not specifically with the Columbia protests. It is unlikely that the students expected a change at
higher levels of organization through a single protest. Therefore, the protests can still be considered a
success because they achieved their immediate goals. Also, the statement by Sandbrook is not entirely
true: due to extensive media coverage of the protests, American youth from a variety of backgrounds
around the country would have been exposed in some way to the protests, although national media
coverage was mostly negative.
The lack of cooperation between the Student Afro-American Society and the Students for a
Democratic Society was detrimental to the Columbia protests. The two organizations initially entered
the protests as a united front, however, their cooperation quickly ended; this hurt the effectiveness of
the SDS protests, especially because the SDS was protesting the racism within the construction of the
gym. Because the student groups were not united, they posed less of a threat to the university and the
police force and therefore were not taken as seriously. Mark Rudd, the leader of the Columbia protests
by the SDS, states that he “suspect[s] that [the police] reasoned that we were no threat because we
didn’t have Harlem behind us”.20 Also, the lack of cooperation led to a split of the protests: there were
essentially two different protests being led by different organizations at the same time at the same
place about the same issues, which was inefficient.
The SDS split did occur shortly after the Columbia protests; however, this was more due to the
disorganization between individual factions and the lack of unification other than the Port Huron
Statement. Anderson says: “The movement raised issues, created activity, but because it was so diverse
18
Kunen, The Strawberry Statement.
Dominic Sandbrook, White Heat: A History of Britain in the Swinging Sixties (London: Little, Brown, 2006).
20
Rudd, Underground, 89.
19
by 1968 it could not arrive at a common denominator, an answer for the nation’s ills.”21 The protest
cannot be considered a cause for the split.
WORD COUNT: 611
E. Conclusion
Analysis is critical throughout the discussion and is based on the evidence presented in Section B.
References are provided and accurate. There is emphasis placed on the sources addressed in Section C,
and they further support the critical analysis that is present. Also there are appropriate points of differing
interpretation addressed within the section. One area that could have used more analysis and focus was
that of the Port Huron Statement as it was a main point addressed in the scope and evidence presented.
5 Marks
To what extent were the student protests at Columbia University by the Students for a
Democratic Society successful? Through the investigation of the Port Huron Statement, the
demonstrations at Columbia in 1968, specifically the student strike and occupation of buildings at
Columbia, and the results of these protests, one can determine that aside from the inability of the SDS
and the SAS to cooperate with the Columbia protests, the protests could be considered a success
because the SDS achieved all of their protest-specific goals.
WORD COUNT: 84
The conclusion is clearly stated and consistent with the evidence and analysis presented and it is clearly
demonstrated.
2 Marks
21
Anderson, The Movement, 203.
Bibliography
Anderson, Terry H. The Movement and the Sixties: Protest in America from Greensboro to Wounded
Knee. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
“Defining Documents of the Senate.” Columbia University Senate. http://senate.columbia.edu/.
(accessed December 7, 2014).
Hayden, Tom. “The Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society.”
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.html. (accessed October 5, 2014).
Kunen, James Simon. The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary. West Sussex: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1995.
Rudd, Mark. Underground: My Life with SDS and the Weathermen. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.
Sandbrook, Dominic. White Heat: A History of Britain in the Swinging Sixties. London: Little, Brown,
2006.
“Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).” PBS.org.
www.pbs.org/opb/thesixties/topics/politics/newsmakers_1.html. (accessed October 5, 2014).
Word Count is within the word limit, and clearly stated on the title page. Sources are cited using
Chicago Citation formatting and correctly formatted. Sources are appropriate to the topic of
study.
3 Marks