statue of Alma Mater, about 200 students had formed a moving, narrow oval of picketeers with signs also. Theirs read: "Is the Rule Book a Joke Book?" "It's Our Campus Too!" "Persuasion, Si, Coercion, No." "Send Rudd Back to Cuba" and "SDS Must Go." Rudd glanced up at them occasionally but his eyes were directed most of the time at the members of the crowd around him, particularly his 100 or so supporters in the front rows. He told the crowd that President Kirk and the Trustees, "who run this school completely," are part of the small ruling group, with connections in business, the military, and the government, that runs America and oppresses the people, especially the young, the poor, and the Negroes. Through agencies like IDA, Rudd alleged, Dr. Kirk also helped the forces of imperialism. Rudd hammered away at IDA and Vietnam, special grievances of his. He also denounced "Kirk's ban" on indoor demonstrations and Associate Dean Platt's decision to put the SDS leaders on probation as a "reprisal," "a ruthless attempt to suppress dissent," a naked move to "get us." His audience grew, as additional onlookers and SDS sympathizers swelled the crowd to nearly 600. There was surprisingly little applause for Rudd's remarks, but almost no heckling either. Some in the crowd seemed to think that Rudd and SDS were being melodramatic and peevish. Student comments like "This rally is silly," "Both sides are idiots," and "Rudd's push for no punishment for himself and his buddies is blatantly self-serving," were frequen t. One faculty member at the crowd's edge said, "Real middle-class stuff. They want their rowdy brawls, but they also want to go scot-free so they can make it into law school or medical school." At one point the crowd broke into laughter, to the annoyance of another SDS speaker, when a student with an angelic grin waded through the listeners with a placard "Warmth Picnic, Sunday 1 P.M." Few of the faculty members seemed to take Rudd's rhetoric very seriously, After two or three other speakers had harangued, Rudd mounted the podium again. He held high a letter he had received from "that son of a bitch Dave Truman" a few hours earlier. He read it aloud. In it, Dr. Truman had offered 16
to meet with the SDS leaders and any others in Mc~Iillin Theater "immediately" to discuss any and all University matters they wanted to challenge. After he finished reading, Rudd asked his constituency around him what they fe!t SDS should do. Should they meet with Truman? There followed four minutes of "participatory democracy." The technique is a fascinating one, and one used regularly by the New Left. At any juncture in a course of action where a decision is required, the leader consults his followers by presenting what he regards as the choices open. (The participation is thus restricted narrowly to the matter at hand.) Individuals among the group offer ideas and tactics, some wild, some shrewd, some cautionary, some comical. Other individuals often offer objections to the previous suggestions. Occasionally, the leader inserts a suggestion of his own. This usually happens fairly fast; the consultations generally take from three to twenty minutes, depending on the importance of the decision. As the suggestions dwindle, the leader sums up what he senses is the majority opinion. If he senses no prevailing view, he usually picks the two or three best tactics as he sees it and asks for opinions. The group indicates whether the leader has grasped the majority view correctly, or decides upon the best of the two or three tactics noted, and a decision is reached. All this is normally done by voice, although on rare occasions a hand vote is taken. The device is a form of consensus politics for the small group. During the next few weeks at Columbia, the SDS leaders and their colleagues used the quick democratic consultation several thousand times. It is imperative to understand this "participatory democracy" device. It presupposes several things and makes difficult the carrying out of certain oldtime revolutionary sb'ategies. Participatory democratic decision-making in the midst of important actions assumes a remarkable degree of equality among the radical participants. Anyone in the group may determine the next piece of action if he or she convinces the group quickly of its worth. It assumes, too, a high degree of inventiveness and intelligence among the group. And, it presupposes virtual unanimity among the group about goals and a fair amount of openness about tactics. Lastly, it as-
sumes that all actions should have the assent of most of the participants, The "participatory democracy" device of constant stock-taking means that somewhat reasoned discussions take place at all turning points in left-Wing action. The discussions, however, are frequently grounded in rumor and surmis.c; their hurried nature precludes fact-gathering of an accurate sort. Mob psychology is often present, even though the groups are relatively small, and stampeding by forceful zealots is a problem. The position of the leader is a vague one. If he is strong-willed, witty, and clever, he can manipulate the group in its discussions; but if he is truly democratic and wide open, the leader may be little more than a frontrunner and discussion leader. What m:1l1Y old.cr persons fail to grasp is that the central business of frequent caucuses gives ew Left youth movements three special ingredients. One is an improvisational quality, which adults label erraticism, emotionalism, or confusion. Another is the local nature of decision-making and leadership. Adults like J. Edgar Hoover or the editors of the New York Daily News may still talk about outside Communist direction and control, but the idea is laughable to the constantly caucusing radicals. (The young egalitarian radicals, though, often fail to understand the extent to which their aims and behavior coincide unwittingly with outside Marxist strategies, or the degree to which they can surreptitiously be led along certain courses of action by Progressive Labor Party (Maoist) or other outside party adherents who infiltrate the voung radical groups and throw out ideas for "spontaneous" courses of action at the caucus with a camouRaged cunning and pattern behind them.) Third, contradictions and lack of clarity about goals and tactics are evident freJquently in radical actions. This is particularly the case in coalition movements of some size, since there are numerous loci of direction from the several different groups, each improvising as it goes along. Coordination and coherency is a huge headache br radical movements once they rise above small-scale, brief attacks. The Jew Left encourages each special group, and even individuals, to do "their own thing;" yet they also seek "solidarity," both in purpose and maneuvers, COLUMBIA COLLEGE TODAY