and force the deans to add more names to those of the "infamous seven" up for suspension. The question is not one of liberalism vs. moderation. It is a question of whether democracy can survive on a campus dominated by one faction victorious only through physical coercion. Be there.... Can democracy survive at Columbia University? Will Mark Rudd be our next dean? Be there on the 23d-prepared. STUDENTS FOR A FREE CAMPUS
That Monday night, April 22, the SDS called an emergency meeting in Fayerweather Hall. According to Robert Stulberg, a Spectator reporter who apparently was there but did not report about the meeting until the May 10 issue of his paper. "A sense of urgency seemed to pervade the meeting room." Said Stulberg: "During the course of the meeting the body passed a broad outline of future plans entitled, 'Proposal for a Spring Offensive Against Columbia Racism.' The outline, which was intended 'for internal circulation' only, was passed almost whimsically by a unanimous vote of the general assembly. Most SDS members at the meeting laughed when Steve Komm '70 read off a list of militant actions planned for April and May. The biggest laugh came, however, when Komm announced that on May 7 SDS will 'occupy and blockade' Low Library 'until the University capitulates on our demands.' " Tuesday, April 23, was a cool but sunny day. There was a usual amount of milling around on campus by students late that morning. Acting Dean Coleman of the College had asked dozens of faculty members to be present at the SDS Sundial Rally that noon to help prevent violence, so some of the instructors without an 11:00 a.m. class had arrived early and were talking outdoors with students on College "Valk. Among the students there was debate about the sudden abandonment of the source readings and the use of original documents in the famous required Contemporary Civilization at the College. The change to the use of paperback secondary sources next year had been announced the day before. There was talk also of the new course in AfroAmerican history that was to begin next fall, and argument about whether it was acceptable to have a white, Eric Foner '63, teach it. Also discussed were such topics as SPRING, 1968
"The question is not one of liberalism vs. moderation. It is a question of whether democracy can survwe on a campus dominated b~y one faction victorious only through physical . " coercwn. STUDENTS FOR A FREE CAMPUS
the new "black power" mood of the Negroes; the shift of the Citizenship Council's leaders into the business of encouraging racial violence, especially against Columbia's proposed gymnasium, and aiding the SDS's "spring offensive"; the pros and cons of Spectator, the student paper, siding for the most part with the student radicals (''I'm glad they're committed," "No, they should be objective."); the size and composition of the opposition to SDS, especially the rejuvenated Students for a Free Campus; and the degree of ineptitude of the Administration and the unconcern of Columbia's professors. The mood was expectant but relatively light, even mocking. One College senior quipped, "You are about to watch the real sexual revolution. Instead of attacking Barnard girls in a panty raid, the students will attack their father images in a new kind of raid." Another, alluding to the scheduled luncheon-talk sponsored by the Menorah and Jewish Graduate Societies on "The Alienation of the Jewish Intellectual" that very same noon hour in Earl Hall, said, "I guess the meeting will be shifted to the Sundial." ( early all the leaders and many of the members of Columbia's SDS chapter are of Jewish faith. ) But most of the conversation was, of course, about SDS, and the possible violent showdown that early afternoon.
The Students for a Free Campus had issued another flyer called "Cool It for Victory." It said, "We will have as many students as possible on Low Plaza and the steps," in an attempt to halt the SDS invasion of Low Library by having a protective picket line in front of the building. It continued, "We are going to be on TV and in the national press, but instead of a blurry film of flying fists, we are going to give them a real show. SDS will have to wade through our picket line to break the rules, to trample our rights; and Am~r足 ica will watch them. So cool it. This time we are going to win by making SDS look like dirt." The SDS radicals had published their rationale for the noon hour rally in that Tuesday morning's Spectator. "The two questions at issue are: shall the University continue to support materially the U.S. Government's imperialist policies at home and abroad? Shall the University repress political activity against it? Join us today in demanding: 1) An end to Columbia's ties with IDA. 2) That no one will be punished for opposing Columbia's unjust policies, 3) That all accused [the six who were put on probation for the Low demonstration] be granted their rights to open public hearings before students and faculty with full rights of due process." Surprisingly and conspicuously missing was any reference to Columbia's new gymnasium in the three demands. Hence, when the lanky, 20-year-old Mark Rudd stepped up on the Sundial podium at 10 minutes past noon on Tuesday, April 23, the crowd of 300 listeners, two-thirds of them curious onlookers, grew quiet to hear his words. Rudd began rather matter-of-bctIy. Behind him, on the long mall from the base of the Sundial to the entrance of Butler Library, was a brilliant blaze of tulips of various colors in full bloom. South Field was bright green from the early spring rains and the care of the University's gifted horticulturist, James Beckley, and his staff. Directly behind Rudd, on the podium with him, were several of the aides. One held a large poster saying: "Open hearings for the IDA Six. End University Racism. End University ties with IDA." Another held up a white cardboard on a stick reading "Kirk is illegitimate." Rudd spoke facing toward Low Library. Up on the Low steps, behind the 15