On the evening of May 4, 1970, after a controversial speech by Senator Jacob Javits of New York, a mass meeting on the Green was held to vote on a university-wide strike, with 1,895 in favor and 884 against. Students’ adamant demand for a strike stemmed from the US government’s involvement in the Vietnam War and the shooting of four students by National Guardsmen during a demonstration at Kent State University. The next day a rally of 1,500 students in Meehan Auditorium demanded that the University take a stand against the action in Cambodia. On the same day, the faculty sent a resolution to the Rhode Island congressmen and President Nixon, urging an end to the war. Even with all of the unrest on campus, Brown remained open and provided academic arrangements for students.
Brown served as the “strike center” for all of the colleges in New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, and Rhode Island. Brown’s position in this regional strike was due to the unique aspect of the strike; the faculty and students at Brown were in alliance in demanding change and accountability of the US government’s involvement in the war and the University’s passive nature towards student activism. George Morgan, university professor, recognized and argued that “students would suffer a great deal more if their activities are not adequately supported by the faculty.” At a faculty meeting in Sayles Hall 217 of the 270 faculty present passed a compromise proposal that allowed students to either attend class, participate in anti-war movement, or both; exams were optional. Richard Schmitt, associate professor of philosophy, eloquently proclaimed at the meeting that, “We are now on strike. The strike is not a vacation; it is the beginning of a reorganization of the university.” At the faculty meeting 21 faculty members were elected to the Strike Steering Committee, a joint committee of students and faculty members.
Not only were faculty members standing in solidarity with the students, but interim Brown President Merton P. Stoltz asserted his frustrations with the Vietnam War. According to the Brown Daily Herald, after the faculty meeting, Stoltz declared that, “It is impossible for me to imagine any foreign policy gains that could compensate for the deep, perhaps irreparable divisions that the President’s war policy has caused in society.” Even Donald F. Hornig, incoming President at the time, endorsed Stoltz’s response and “sent a letter to President Nixon protesting the escalating war in Southeast Asia.” Although students received support and comradery from the administration and faculty, many parents and alumni were angry with the idea of a strike, especially one supported by the university. Many parents and alumni wrote angry letters to the university and began to withdraw their financial support from the college. One alumni from the class of 1941 said, “I have been disappointed in Brown for the position the University took when it came under pressure from the young vocal protesters when physical protest was popular. I felt the University showed little backbone in maintaining a controlled atmosphere.…Most of all I was upset that the University abandoned their meeting in the face of pressure and acceded to these demands.” One parent stated, “This letter is a sob of disappointment at an institution held in high esteem, which failed in its central purpose of providing positive direction and instead turned out the light with ensuing darkness and confusion.”
Students recognized that their voices and dissent were essential to reshaping the atmosphere at Brown. In addition to holding meetings, students used various other social platforms (art, poetry, photography) to raise awareness on campus and in their community. The Brown Daily Herald printed a daily “Strike Activities” schedule, listing the day’s workshops and teach-ins. The introduction of open discussion workshops during the reunion weekend would become an ongoing tradition at Commencement Forums.
“Pedagogy and scholarship must be maintained, but the war must end now.”
—Doug Hurle ’71