Cornell '69: Liberalism and the Crisis of the American University

by Donald Alexander Downs

In April 1969, one of America's premier universities was celebrating parents' weekend-and the student union was an armed camp, occupied by over eighty defiant members of the campus's Afro-American Society. Marching out Sunday night, the protesters brandished rifles, their maxim: "If we die, you are going to die." Cornell '69 is an electrifying account of that weekend which probes the origins of the drama and describes how it was played out not only at Cornell but on campuses across the nation during the heyday of American liberalism.Donald Alexander Downs tells the story of how Cornell University became the battleground for the clashing forces of racial justice, intellectual freedom, and the rule of law.

Eyewitness accounts and retrospective interviews depict the explosive events of the day and bring the key participants into sharp focus: the Afro-American Society, outraged at a cross-burning incident on campus and demanding amnesty for its members implicated in other protests; University President James A. Perkins, long committed to addressing the legacies of racism, seeing his policies backfire and his career collapse; the faculty, indignant at the university's surrender, rejecting the administration's concessions, then reversing itself as the crisis wore on. The weekend's traumatic turn of events is shown by Downs to be a harbinger of the debates raging today over the meaning of the university in American society. He explores the fundamental questions it posed, questions Americans on and off campus are still struggling to answer: What is the relationship between racial justice and intellectual freedom? What are the limits in teaching identity politics? And what is the proper meaning of the university in a democratic polity?

Genres: Education

384 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 25, 1999

Reviews

[Christina · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic book about Cornell's near-death 1969 experience, for which it turned out to be quite unprepared. Dense, well-researched, and well-written, the book presents all the actors with sympathy and understanding and gives both the big picture and the close-up details. Intentions were good all around, so how did this happen? The author was an undergraduate at the time (along with my brother) and now teaches political science, law, and journalism at the University of Wisconsin.

[Rolland · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the most thought-provoking and harrowing books I have ever read. While the title of this book is misleadingly narrow, and risks attracting mainly readers with an interest in Cornell, there is truly so much going on in this book that is important, relevant, and ongoing in higher education - and our American culture today - that I hope more people take the time to read it. (Disclosure: I myself never attended Cornell, nor know any people who were there at that time. I discovered the book on a family member's bookshelf.) Perhaps the subtitle gives a better sense of the book's sweeping dimensions: "Liberalism and the Crisis of the American University," but that too fails to fully convey the gripping human drama inside.

Focusing on the events leading up to the black student takeover of Cornell University's Willard Straight Hall and the apex of militant activism on campus, this book tells the story of an entire community's sudden and surprising descent into darkness, paranoia, and imminent threat of violence. Afro-American Society members who occupied "the Straight," perhaps fearing attacks from white fraternities or authorities, armed themselves, and violent revolutionary statements ensued, including veiled threats on individual faculty members. They - along with significant white student support - demanded amnesty and nullification of prior judicial punishments, and the creation of a new African Studies program. The faculty voted, under pressure and fear of violence, to accept the armed students' demands in what many interpreted as capitulation. Following the crisis, senior faculty would leave, the president would resign, and there was a feeling that Cornell would never be the same again. The events that spring of 1969 shaped an entire cohort of Cornell alum, including the author who was a student at the time.

This is a well-researched book, filled with personal accounts, and I found the progress of events riveting, especially as they clearly took on a momentum and life of their own. No one actor was in control and the unfolding drama gave me a strange sense of the Curtain being pulled back, revealing the fates and gods at work among men. As the author hints, what transpired had many elements of Greek tragedy or Shakespeare, with pride, honor, overthrow of authority, and lust for power all themes.

The author, political science professor Donald Downs, flushes out many primary characters in great detail - key faculty, administrators, and student leaders - and provides a chronological unfolding of events, while framing those events as a "watershed in terms of the tension between the pursuit of social justice and academic freedom." Cornell during this period experienced a major clash of academic cultures, claims the author, and he shows his sense that that those who prioritized equality and social justice over academic freedom - including Cornell president James Perkins - ran the risk of harming the very principles that give the university its meaning. In fact, Mr. Downs believes that is exactly the dynamic in 1969 that led to a faculty exodus.

I credit Mr. Downs with providing a detailed portrayal of events, and being able to clearly articulate the many (and changing) viewpoints of students, faculty, and administrators - plus those of the outside police and press. Never do his framing and conclusions come across as reductionist, heavy-handed or as personal agenda. He preserves the humanity of the people portrayed, and expresses a sympathetic understanding of the pressures and difficulties of leadership in that moment.

Nonetheless, Mr. Downs does contend that the basis of liberalism was under siege, and that there was insufficient will and effort to support the principles of liberal education when they were under attack. And so it's worth being specific. The "principles of liberal education" at risk were freedom of thought and inquiry; intellectual honesty; a commitment to reason; tolerance of dissenting viewpoints; a focus on fundamental virtues and universal questions; and adherence to the law and the processes of justice (primarily to protect freedom of thought in the midst of coercion, threats, and violence).

The most aggrieved students did not embrace these principles as inviolable. Especially in the wake of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination, they viewed the world through a lens of dominance and oppression, and embraced power and strength as the path to securing justice. With increasing force, several asserted that Cornell was an instrument of corruption and injustice, guilty of reinforcing the oppressive structures of power, and should be overturned and recast, through violence if needed. This vocal minority of the black student community managed to intimidate and silence dissenters within their own ranks and present a strong message of uncompromising power and fearlessness to the administration. Other student groups, drawn by a sense of justice and opposition to authority, joined this opposition. The introduction of guns escalated the message and the stakes.

A violent confrontation seemed imminent, and the potential loss of life real. Under these circumstances, outside law enforcement was primed to reassert order over the campus, and president Perkins prioritized working with the students and averting violence. While the author views the outcome as failure to protect core academic principles, its worth pointing out that violence was averted. There was no loss of life. At what point do principles become worth fighting for, even if that could mean lives damaged or lost? The answers to that question varied tremendously among campus leaders.

That said, it is clear that the administration lost control of the situation, and the author clearly shows that it was not campus leadership that prevented a violent confrontation anyway, but rather the last-minute appeal of a sympathetic professor to a student horde of thousands, followed by a student leader's creative reframing of the moment. The gathered masses, poised to transform into an outraged mob, instead settled into a largely peaceful sit-in. And the extremists, who wanted and needed the support of the student masses, did not end up pursuing the confrontation.

The events at Cornell appear relevant to today, where a militant strain of populism has framed the U.S. government as irreparably corrupt and aggrieved white Christians have embraced power as the sole means for correcting what they perceive as injustice and subjugation of rights. Donald Trump has catalyzed this and the logic is one of confrontation and suppression. Mr. Downs asks the question: how should a university respond when its core principles are being threatened by extremists? But the question today could just as easily be: how should a country respond when its core principles are are being threatened by extremists?

In the end, the author concludes that the faculty and administration failed to gain sway over the student moderates and forcefully persuade them of the importance of core, inviolable principles. He suggests it was a loss of message, a failure of preparedness and will, and it came close to costing human lives and destroying a revered institution. In an attempt to accommodate, Cornell misread the student opposition who wanted revolutionary change, were willing to sacrifice for it, and would never be appeased with small concessions.

There is a message for today: a failure of message, preparedness, and willingness to sacrifice may again give rise to catastrophic confrontation where violence is the only perceived option. Preventing those moments in history means laying the groundwork ahead of time and actively promoting central principles that underpin a community's identity. And when the moderates lose touch with those principles, great and terrifying dramas can unfold.