The Harvard Crimson - Volume CL, No. 15: 50th Reunion

THE HARVARD CRIMSON THE UNIVERSITY DAILY, EST. 1873

| VOLUME CL, NO. 15

NEWS

PROFILE

Grad Students Strike Over New Financial Aid Plan

Benazir Bhutto ’73 Remembered for her Bravery, Friendship

PAGE 6

| CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

|

PAGE 7

FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 2023

CLASS OF 1973

‘This Political Revolution’: Nixon and the Vietnam War ON RIOTS AND RESPONSIBILITY. Even within Harvard’s gates, the Class of 1973 acutely felt the political turmoil sweeping across nation and the globe. In interviews with The Crimson, several alumni from the Class of 1973 reflected on the tumultuous political atmosphere of the era and its impact on the trajectory of their lives half a century later. SEE PAGE 4

COURTESY OF PETER A. SOUTHWICK

Radcliffe Graduates Look Back on Graduating in the Aftermat of Roe v. Wade 50 Years of Co-Ed Living

BY JADE LOZADA AND CLAIRE YUAN CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

During the first few reunions of the Class of 1973, some alumnae posed for two class photos: one for Harvard College and another for Radcliffe College. But at every Radcliffe photo opportunity, Margaret V. Sachs ’73 declined.

“I would never join the Radcliffe picture,” Sachs said. “It was unthinkable for me that I would join such a picture.”

The women of the Class of 1973 stand at a turning point in the University’s history.

“We were all admitted to Radcliffe, but graduated from Harvard,” Deborah N. Hendler ’73 said. “Right there, we encapsulate the tension and the question.”

Though it wasn’t until 1999 that Radcliffe officially merged with Harvard — with the former becoming the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study — the decades that preceded the official merger saw a series of hardfought wins for female students at the University.

In 1946, Harvard’s classes became co-ed. Nearly two decades later, in 1963, Harvard began awarding Radcliffe students di-

plomas for the first time. In 1975, Harvard and Radcliffe merged their admissions, which then went “sex-blind” two years later.

In an unofficial merger move, the Class of 1973 saw co-ed living introduced during the spring of their first year. The decision resulted in an exchange — some male students moved up to inhabit Radcliffe housing, today known as the Quad — while some female students moved down to the river Houses.

During her first year, Cleora J. D’Arcy ’73 lived in Holmes Hall, a portion of Pforzheimer House.

D’Arcy said the eight men who moved in became a “very integral part of Holmes Hall.”

“They knew everybody and they were a very positive influence,” she said. “For me, it was like having a bunch of brothers that moved in.”

As D’Arcy and others recalled, the men who moved to the Radcliffe Quadrangle were surprised by the dormitory rules, including bell hours. Students rotated shifts sitting in the front office of the residence hall, where they called residents upstairs to announce visitors.

D’Arcy, who served as bell captain, remembered dealing with one reluctant student.

“My now-husband, the first words he ever said to me were ‘Why do guys have to do bells?’”

D’Arcy said, laughing. “And I said, ‘Because you’re living in this dorm now.’”

In addition to bell hours, residents of Radcliffe Quad had parietal rules. Men could not enter women’s rooms after a certain hour, and the women themselves had curfews of 11 p.m.

“There was a pretty paternalistic system in place with a lot of rules,” Laurel P. Northup ’73 said.

But in the fall of Northup’s freshman year, her residence hall decided to end these restrictions during a dorm meeting.

“At the very first one we elected a governing body and we voted collectively to abolish the parietal rules,” Northup said.

Even with these steps and the unofficial merger the following spring, life for female students on campus was not without its challenges. Women were not allowed to eat or use the libraries in the river Houses, though men were welcome in their dining halls and libraries.

“We either had to go back to Radcliffe to eat, or they began packing us lunches and we

SEE PAGE 5

BY MICHELLE N. AMPONSAH CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

­ n Jan. 22, 1973, the Supreme O Court issued its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, guaranteeing the right to an abortion nationwide and reversing all state laws — including in Massachusetts — that completely banned the procedure.

The decision was both a watershed moment for women’s rights and a catalyst for the conservative legal movement, which scored a major victory last summer when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade by a 5-4 vote in its decision in Dobbs v.

Jackson — rolling back a constitutional right that had been guaranteed for almost 50 years.

Though the decision did not stand on its 50th anniversary, graduates of the Class of 1973 — the first class to embark on their careers in the context of legalized abortion — said Roe v. Wade was met with relief and celebration on Harvard’s campus.

“We understood it changed our lives in terms of our possibility of making choices,” Andrea Kirsh ’73 said.

“When the decision came down, I just felt relief,” said Steph-

anie L. Rich ’73, who studied Biology at Radcliffe before attending Harvard Law School. “I said, thank goodness that’s over.”

Alumni said support for abortion was widespread at Harvard around the time of Roe. None of the six graduates of the Class of 1973 interviewed by The Crimson recalled campus demonstrations held by opponents of abortion.

“I don’t know anybody that was against it,” Lee Browning Allen ’73 said of abortion.

Harvard Law School graduate Daniel L. Feldman said support for legal abortion was “overwhelming” at the school.

Despite widespread support for abortion access, alumni said the decision in Roe did not jolt Harvard’s campus.

“It’s not something I ‘debated’ with my friends, including those involved in the women’s movement — it was more like a celebration,” Therese F. Steiner ’73 said.

Some alumni said other hot button political issues at the time, including the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal, overshadowed discussion of Roe v. Wade and abortion rights at the College.

“The decision was not an explosion on campus,” Allen said.

“There were too many other things going on, I think.”

Steiner also said topics that typically weigh heavily on the minds of seniors — such as post-college plans and writing a senior thesis — were “more of a focus” in the months following Roe v. Wade.

When Roe was decided, abortion became legal in Massachusetts for the first time. But for three years prior to the decision, students had been able to travel to New York, which legalized the procedure in 1970, to obtain healthcare.

Because New York had already decriminalized abortion, the possibility of legal abortion in the country “was not a giant shock” to Harvard students, according to Feldman.

“It wasn’t earth-shattering that the court would say people should have this right,” Feldman said.

Kirsh said that for those who had gotten pregnant and were seeking an abortion, New York was the obvious option due to its proximity to Massachusetts.

“That’s where one went if one needed an abortion,” Kirsh said.

“And how that information circulated I can’t even tell you.”

“It was just sort of the known

SEE PAGE 6

CAMPUS CONSTRUCTION

PROFILE

EDITORIAL

The Debut of Harvard’s Science Center

From Quincy House to the Supreme Court

Choose Life — Vote for McGovern Over Nixon

PAGE 5. The building — designed by Josep Lluís Sert, then-dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Design — initially faced criticism from multiple sides. The Science Center finally opened in 1973.

PAGE 8. In October 2022, nearly 50 years after his graduation from Harvard, Seth P. Waxman ’73 defended his alma mater and the future of affirmative action before the Supreme Court.

PAGE 9. It would be difficult to imagine a figure less qualified than Richard Nixon to deal with a question of morality. But George McGovern is a decent man — a sober and honest representative.

2

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

1973

CLASS OF 1973 REUNION

1972-73 in Headlines OCT. 21, 1972

NOV. 9, 1972

Controversy Opens Over Coop Pensions, ‘Intimidation’ of Union

Harvard, Radcliffe Admissions Offices to Share Building

COOP CONTROVERSY. A dispute broke out over changes in the Harvard Cooperative Society’s pension plan and union organizers revealed a federal probe into alleged Coop “intimidation.”

NON-MERGER MERGER. The Harvard and Radcliffe Admissions and Financial Aid offices announced they would move into the same building as early as Sept. 1973.

NOV.15, 1972

NOV. 29, 1972

Guinier Blasts Reviewers Of Afro as ‘Nincompoops’

Popkin Released From Jail; Steiner’s Action ‘Significant’

AFRO-AMERICAN STUDIES. After the release of a Afro-American Review Committee report, department chair Ewart Guinier ‘33 accused Harvard of trying “to handcuff” his department.

PENTAGON PAPERS. Government lecturer Samuel L. Popkin was freed from prison after the U.S. government disbanded the Boston grand jury investigating the Pentagon Papers case.

DEC. 9, 1972

JAN. 11, 1972

Ec Department Says ‘No’ to Marxist’s Tenure Bid

FAS Dean John T. Dunlop Resigns to Take Nixon Post

TENURE DENIED. Associate Professor of Economics Samuel S. Bowles — a Marxist economist specializing in studies of education— was firmly denied tenure by the department.

DEAN TO DIRECTOR. John T. Dunlop announced that he would resign as dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences to become director of the Cost of Living Council in the Nixon Administration.

FEB. 6, 1973

MARCH 20, 1973

Government Dept. Terminates Kissinger’s Extended Leave

Grad Union Goes on Strike; Class Attendance Drops 30%

CUTTING TIES. The Government Department voted to stop reserving a professorship for presidential adviser Henry A. Kissinger ‘50, severing the last formal link tying Kissinger to the school.

OPEN-ENDED STRIKE. Class attendance dropped 30 percent on day one of the Graduate Student and Teaching Fellow Union’s strike, but Harvard did not move on any of the union’s demands.

MAY 7, 1973

MAY 18, 1973

Women Endorse Coeducation of Yard

Professor Archibald Cox Named Watergate Prosecutor

COED QUARTERS. According to the Dean of Students Office, only 3 out of 200 women residing in the Yard had indicated Radcliffe as their first choice of residence.

WASHINGTON WOES. Archibald Cox ‘34, Williston Professor of Law, is annouced as the Justice Department’s special Watergate prosecutor.

Stay Up to Date with our Newsletter Right in Your Inbox.

THE HARVARD CRIMSON Cara J. Chang ’24 President

STAFF FOR THIS ISSUE Brandon L. Kingdollar ’24

Cynthia V. Lu ’24

Managing Editor

Business Manager

Magazine Chairs Io Y. Gilman ’25 Amber H. Levis ’25

Design Chairs Sophia Salamanca ’25 Sami E. Turner ’25

Eleanor V. Wikstrom ’24 Christina M. Xiao ’24

Blog Chairs Tina Chen ’24 Hana Rehman ’25

Multimedia Chairs Joey Huang ’24 Julian J. Giordano ’25

Arts Chairs Anya L. Henry ’24 Alisa S. Regassa ’24

Sports Chairs Mairead B. Baker ’24 Aaron B. Schuchman ’25

Technology Chairs Kevin Luo ’24 Justin Y. Ye ’24

Associate Managing Editors Leah J. Teichholtz ’24 Meimei Xu ’24 Editorial Chairs

Associate Business Manager Derek S. Chang ’24 Copyright 2023, The Harvard Crimson (USPS 236-560). No articles, editorials, cartoons or any part thereof appearing in The Crimson may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of the President. The Associated Press holds the right to reprint any materials published in The Crimson. The Crimson is a non-profit, independent corporation, founded in 1873 and incorporated in 1967. Second-class postage paid in Boston, Massachusetts. Published Monday through Friday except holidays and during vacations, three times weekly during reading and exam periods by The Harvard Crimson Inc., 14 Plympton St., Cambridge, Mass. 02138

Night Editors Cara J. Chang ’24 Ariel H. Kim ’24 Vivi E. Lu ’24 Andy Z. Wang ’23-24 Eric Yan ’24 Assistant Night Editors Sami E. Turner ’25 Story Editors Brandon L. Kingdollar ’24 Vivi E. Lu ’24 Leah J. Teichholtz ’24 Meimei X­­­­­u ’24 Eric Yan ’24

Design Editors Julian J. Giordano ’25

Sophia Salamanca ’25 Sami E. Turner ’25

Photo Editors Julian J. Giordano ’25 Editorial Editor Cara J. Chang ’24 Sports Editors

Mairead B. Baker ’24 Aaron B. Schuchman ’25

CORRECTIONS The Harvard Crimson is committed to accuracy in its reporting. Factual errors are corrected promptly on this page. Readers with information about errors are asked to e-mail the managing editor at managingeditor@thecrimson.com.

1973

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

CLASS OF 1973 REUNION

1972-1973 Year in Review Timeline HARVARD’S CAMPUS

IN THE REAL WORLD

Sept. 30, 1972 HIRING HEADWINDS? The United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare gives limited approval to Harvard’s Affirmative Action Plan, although it criticizes the lack of specific hiring goals.

Nov. 7, 1972 NIXON’S REELECTION. Republican incumbent Richard Nixon defeats Democratic Senator George McGovern in a landslide. Nixon wins in 49 states with more than 60 of the popular vote.

Nov. 29, 1972 POPKIN SILENT. Associate Professor of Government Samuel L. Popkin refuses to testify before a Boston grand jury in the Pentagon Papers case and briefly goes to jail until the jury is disbanded.

Dec. 14, 1972 APOLLO 17. Eugene Cernan is the 11th and last person to walk on the Moon, after he and Harrison Schmitt complete the third and final extra-vehicular activity of Apollo 17.

Jan. 24, 1973 CRIMSON CENTENNIAL. The Harvard Crimson celebrates its 100th anniversary. Days before the official anniversary, hundreds of Crimson alumni gathered to celebrate the newspaper.

Jan. 27, 1973 PEACE IN VIETNAM. U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War ends with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. The U.S. military draft is also effectively abolished on this same day.

March 19, 1973 UNION STRIKES. Approximately 700 members of The Graduate Students Union strike in protest of the Kraus plan, which reduced financial aid for some graduate students.

March 29, 1973 LAST SOLDIER. The last American combat soldier, Master Sergeant Max Beilke, leaves Vietnam, completing the American military withdrawal. Still, Vietnam remains embroiled in combat.

April 11, 1973 DISCLOSURE & DIVESTMENT. Under pressure from activists, Harvard says that Caterpillar Tractor Company and General Electric must disclose their activities in South Africa and votes to have the Phillips Petroleum Company withdraw from Namibia.

May 18, 1973 WATERGATE. Mere weeks after White House counsel John Dean is fired and three top Nixon officials resign over the scandal, the Senate Watergate committee begins its nationally televised hearings.

May 18, 1973 PROFESSOR TO PROSECUTOR. Attorney General-designate Elliot L. Richardson ‘41 announces Archibald Cox ‘34, Williston Professor of Law, will be the Justice Department’s special Watergate prosecutor.

Oct. 20, 1973 SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE. Nixon fires Cox, and Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus resign. Pressure for impeachment mounts in Congress.

3

4

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

COVER STORY

CLASS OF 1973 REUNION

Reflecting on Opposition to Nixon, the Vietnam War An anti-Vietnam war demonstrator is carried away by police during a protest in Boston, May 8, 1972. COURTESY OF PETER A. SOUTHWICK

April 4, 1968 Martin Luther King Jr. is assassinated in Memphis, TN.

‘POLITICAL REVOLUTION.’ Alumni reflect on the tumultuous political atmosphere of the era.

June 5, 1968

BY ELIAS J. SCHISGALL

Robert F. Kennedy ’48 is assassinated in Los Angeles

CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Nov. 5, 1968 Richard Nixon is elected President of the United States. He succeeds the incumbent president Lyndon B. Johnson, who chose not to run amid protests over the war in Vietnam.

April 9-10, 1969 Hundreds of Harvard students occupy University Hall, protesting the Vietnam War and calling for Harvard to shut down the Reserve Officers Training Corps program.

Fall 1969 Students from the class of 1973 arrive on campus as freshmen.

April 15, 1970 Thousands of demonstrators march from Boston to Harvard Square, where a riot breaks out. Police spray tear gas in the crowd.

April 30, 1970 Nixon announces that American troops have invaded Cambodia.

May 3, 1970 Harvard affiliates vote to hold a University-wide strike.

May 4, 1970 The Ohio National Guard kill four college students at Kent State University while cracking down on student protests.

May 7, 1970 Harvard faculty vote to allow students to skip final exams and take classes on a pass-fail basis.

AND JENNIFER Y. SONG

A

s freshmen stepped onto Harvard’s campus in the fall of 1969, they were surrounded by political tension: the preceding year had witnessed the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy ’48. And after President Lyndon B. Johnson chose not to seek reelection, Richard Nixon assumed his position, inheriting responsibility for a war that seemed senseless to many.

In opposition to the Vietnam War, student protests and demonstrations erupted across the country. In the spring of 1969, protestors occupied University Hall, condemning the war and demanding Harvard shut down the Reserve Officers Training Corps program. Hundreds were arrested following the demonstration.

“We showed up, and it was just sort of like this political revolution that was happening,” recalled Thomas J. Schneider ’73.

In interviews with The Crimson, several alumni from the Class of 1973 reflected on the tumultuous political atmosphere of the era and its impact on the trajectory of their lives half a century later.

Spring Riots in the Square For many alumni who spoke to The Crimson about their recollections, the riot that occurred in Harvard Square on March 15, 1970 stood out as a crystallization of the political strife of the era. That day, thousands of demonstrators marched from Boston Common to Harvard Square, where some protesters began setting fires and throwing bricks and rocks into nearby windows.

In an email, Robert W. Shoemaker III ’73 remembered watching the riot from his “front row seat” in Lionel Hall, describing the scene as a “bad movie.”

“It was the only time in my life that I ever experienced tear gas, which seeped in through the windows even when we closed them,” Shoemaker wrote.

Evan W. Thomas III ’73, a former Crimson editor who later authored a biography of Nixon, said

he was standing on Massachusetts Avenue across from Widener Library when he was startled by a protester throwing a rock, which shattered a pane of glass in a bank nearby.

His first instinct was to pull out a notebook and start reporting.

“My memory is running around in the streets, going to The Crimson to sort of figure out, how do you help yourself with tear gas? We would put damp clothes over our mouths,” Thomas said. “We were just going around watching it, watching the cops chase the kids, being chased ourselves.”

“It was kind of weirdly fun and dramatic, and also awful at the same time,” he said. “Thrilling, and kind of scary all at once.”

Thomas A. Mesereau Jr. ’73 recalled one particular protest that resembled a scene from a science-fiction movie.

“I threw water on my face, got dressed, went outside. And I felt like I landed on another planet,” he said. “On one side were all these students — protesters.

In front of them were a number of trash cans on fire. And on the other side, facing them, were police officers from different cities around Boston, so they all had slightly different uniforms on.”

“All of a sudden, all hell broke loose. Tear gas started flying in Harvard Square and over the wall to Harvard Yard,” Mesereau continued. “Students were coming out well-dressed and they thought they’d landed on the moon.”

On April 30, 1970, Nixon shocked the world with his announcement that the U.S. would invade Cambodia. In response, more than four million students staged walkouts across the nation, with one such protest taking place at Kent State University.

This demonstration spiraled into chaos when the National Guard opened fire, killing four students and injuring 11, sparking outrage and further fueling the nationwide movement.

In the aftermath of Kent State, Harvard students joined the nationwide student strike, while faculty stood in solidarity by administering optional final exams and offering classes on a pass-fail basis. The semester was effectively over.

Nixon’s Reelection Nixon’s landslide reelection in 1972 over then-Senator George McGovern came as a bitter defeat on campus, some alumni said.

“We, of course, all despised Nixon,” Ronald A. Dieckmann ’73 said. “He was the perpetrator of the war in our eyes, at that time.”

Thomas, who covered Nixon’s victory as a Crimson reporter, said some students were almost “snobbish” in their distaste for the incumbent president.

“People were kind of reflexively critical of Nixon as a bad guy,” Thomas said.

Still, he noted, Nixon also used Harvard as a political punching bag during his campaign, playing into the trope of the “Kremlin on the Charles.” He recounted an anecdote from his book, “Being Nixon: A Man Divided” where Nixon learned then-Harvard president Derek C. Bok was in the White House and demanded he be removed from the premises.

At this point, though early reports about the Watergate breakin were becoming publicized, it had not yet evolved into a fullblown scandal that implicated Nixon personally. It would not be until the summer 1973 Senate hearings into the break-in — following graduation — that the scandal would balloon into the defining, career-ending event of Nixon’s presidency.

Thomas said he felt students were subject to a degree of political exhaustion and were “barely aware” of the early reports of the Watergate break-in.

“The early days of Watergate, the country, even the college kids weren’t paying attention,” he said.

“We, Harvard students, were already mostly against Nixon.”

Schneider said Nixon’s victory contributed to some students’ partial withdrawal from politics.

“It deflated the balloon,” Schneider said. “People at that point in time, you could stay politically active and things of that sort, but you really had to be focusing on, what am I going to do with my own life?”

The Impact of the Draft Many alumni said the possibility of being drafted weighed over male students throughout their time at Harvard and influenced their activism.

“We were actually now designated as potential future soldiers in a war that none of us believed in,” Dieckmann said. “Every one of us remembers what our draft number was today.”

In January 1973 — just months before graduation — Nixon passed an executive order ending the draft that would have other-

wise expired in summer.

Thomas said the political fervor that had peaked in 1970 had, to an extent, worn away by then.

“That took the pressure off,” he said. “It was the draft that really, really fomented students’ dissent and upset and anger. It was the fear of being sent off to Vietnam to get killed that had a lot of Harvard students riled up.”

Marion Dry ’73 said the ending of the draft was a “great relief.”

“So many guys were about to graduate and there was this sense that there was a future,” she said.

Inspiration Out of Turmoil For Roger B. Myerson ’73, a 2007 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureate, the emerging fear of nuclear war in the 1950s first sparked his interest in economics. His tumultuous college years solidified the decision to contribute to the frameworks of game theory.

“We were studying, like every generation, but we felt terribly conflicted about what our country was doing. And in some ways, I’m an example of somebody who has devoted his life to trying to understand social, political theory better in order to maybe avoid such mistakes in the future,” Myerson said, in reference to the Vietnam war.

Dry said the ethic of social activism that defined their college experience influenced her and some classmates to found ClassACT HR73, an organization of hundreds of alumni from the Class of 1973 that works to promote social change.

“All of the turmoil that we experienced, not just the Vietnam War, marked our psyches,” she said. “And as a result, when we got to a certain age, we decided we were going to do something that would take us back to working together in a way that was not dissimilar to the sense of, ‘we’re in this together,’ back when we were in college.”

Dieckmann said his college experience influenced his decision to found a nonprofit working to alleviate health care inequities in low-income countries including Vietnam.

“Vietnam didn’t have a choice in this. We invaded them,” he said. “And it was so unfair to me that I feel in some ways like I’ve almost spent my entire life trying to right that wrong.” elias.schisgall@thecrimson.com jennifer.song@thecrimson.com

Feb. 10, 1971 Thousands of students from Harvard, Northeastern, and Boston University march to Boston Common in a protest against the war.

April 24, 1971 Hundreds of thousands of protestors march in Washington D.C. to protest the war.

June 13, 1971 The New York Times publishes the Pentagon Papers, which revealed the nature of the U.S.’s military involvement in Vietnam. The papers are leaked to the Times

by Daniel Ellsberg ’52, a former Crimson editor.

April 19, 1972 Another anti-war riot occurs in Harvard Square.

April 1972 Harvard students participate in a five-day strike against the war.

June 17, 1972 Five men are arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Convention Headquarters in the Watergate Office Building.

Nov. 7, 1972 Richard Nixon is reelected as the President of the United States, defeating Senator George McGovern.

Dec. 1972 Nixon begins bombing densely-populated areas of Hanoi and Haiphong.

Jan. 27, 1973 Nixon ends the draft by executive order.

Jan. 27, 1973 Nixon signs the Paris Peace Accords, officially ending the Vietnam War.

May, 1973 The class of 1973 graduates from Harvard.

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

NEWS

CLASS OF 1973 REUNION

5

JULIAN J. GIORDANO — CRIMSON DESIGNER

SCIENCE CENTER

The Debut of Harvard’s Science Center CAMPUS CHANGE. The Science Center faced criticism from multiple sides when it first broke ground.

BY NEIL H. SHAH CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

­T

oday, having a class in the Science Center is a staple of the Harvard College experience. But when the Class of 1973 arrived at Harvard, construction had not even begun on what is now an iconic feature of the University.

The sprawling building, which lies just outside the north gates of Harvard Yard, is home to facilities used by eight academic departments at the University.

First recommended in the 1950s by a faculty committee organized by then-Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean McGeorge Bundy, the project was finally adopted in 1968 after Polaroid Corporation co-founder Edwin H. Land, who attended Harvard for

one year but did not complete his degree, donated $12.5 million dollars for its construction. The building was designed by Josep Lluís Sert, then-dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Design, and opened in 1973.

The Science Center was built on the former site of Lawrence Hall, a Harvard building dating back to 1847. In 1970, after Harvard designated Lawrence Hall for demolition to make room for the Science Center, a group of graduate students occupied Lawrence Hall as part of a movement they dubbed the Free University.

The Free University’s goal was to provide Cantabrigians with an alternative, more progressive education. As David Holmstrom — a former Social Studies and Government tutor who had the building’s sole key at the time — told The Crimson in 2019, the Free University “just wanted the building.”

But on May 8, 1970, Lawrence Hall burned down in a fire at 4 a.m., marking the end of the

Free University and paving the way for Harvard’s Science Center plans.

After construction broke ground on the Science Center, the building was initially unpopular among many faculty members

design itself.

“We wouldn’t know how to give [Nat Sci 5] three blocks away,” said former Harvard Biology professor George Wald to The Crimson at the time. “The undergraduates would be get-

“

The building has got good bones — it’s a great framework. It is capable of change and evolution and I think it has a long life ahead of it

Andrea Leers Lead Architect of the Science Center’s 2002 expansion

and students. Some common criticisms of the project included protests from members of the Biology department regarding moving undergraduate instruction away from the department’s main quarters and the building’s

ting a hell of a lot poorer instruction than now.”

According to Peter Shapiro ’74, many student criticisms of the building stemmed from a dislike of the brutalist style the building was designed in — the same

technique used for the also-controversial Boston City Hall, completed in 1968.

“There was tremendous amount of sentiment thinking that the building was ugly and didn’t fit in,” Shapiro, a former Crimson managing editor, said in an interview. “It was the case that, in general, all modern architecture was thought of as not fitting in and the Science Center was particularly large and looming and brutalist in its style.”

Proponents of the Science Center contended that creating a central hub for undergraduate science instruction would improve the experience of Harvard College’s science students.

After its initial construction, the building has undergone several renovations, including an expansion that took place in 2002.

“There were a number of departments that were growing rapidly. History of Science, computational science, and Statistics were all growing very rapidly and needed more space,” said An-

drea Leers, lead architect of the building’s 2002 expansion. “At that point, we were asked to look at how much new space could be captured in vertical additions almost independently of what they needed — they were looking for as much space as possible to enlarge.”

The project’s architects tried to “enter into the mindset of that building” to preserve its distinctive look and feel while ensuring it “wasn’t going to be more of the same,” she said.

Leers said she has been asked to work on the building in projects after the 2002 expansion, including renovating the second floor of the Cabot Science Library and “some laboratory renovations on the first and second floors,” adding that the building has the capacity to adapt over time.

“The building has got good bones — it’s a great framework.

It is capable of change and evolution and I think it has a long life ahead of it,” she said. neil.shah@thecrimson.com

RADCLIFFE FROM PAGE 1

Decades Later, Radcliffe Graduates Reflect on Co-Ed Living

The Knafel Center was formerly known as the Radcliffe Gymnasium. SOUMYAA MAZUMDER— CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

still had to find a place to eat them,” Helen “Holly” Weeks ’73 said.

Like they did for meals, women squeezed in bike rides to the Radcliffe Quad between classes to use the restroom, as there were no women’s restrooms in the Yard.

“There was so much not factored in,,” Weeks said. “I would not have said that then. This is hindsight saying, ‘Yeah, they never really took us as human beings into account.’”

Looking back on her college experience, Sachs also recognized the challenges of living in Radcliffe and said she had “no nostalgia” for Radcliffe, calling it a “hindrance” that only served to “siphon us off from the mainstream of the College experience.”

“Radcliffe held us back,” she said. “Radcliffe accomplished nothing. It was there only because institutions exist to perpetuate themselves.”

“I take a very dim view of women’s auxiliary, and it seems to me that’s what Radcliffe was

— and remains, to the extent that any vestige of it remains,” she added.

Despite the slow merger of the two colleges, Marian B. Schwartz ’73 proudly owned her status as a Radcliffe student. When she met other women who graduated from the College in the ’90s, she recalled, they had “zero Radcliffe identity.”

“I thought it was sort of a loss,” Schwartz said.

D’Arcy echoed Schwartz’s feelings about Radcliffe’s reputation. “It’s more of a feather in your cap to say that you went to Radcliffe, because it was harder to get into,” she said, laughing.

Fifty years after graduation, Weeks emphasized the role women played in fighting for their place at Harvard.

“It hasn’t always been the way it is,” Weeks said. “The women’s contribution and getting to where we are is underestimated. It’s taken out of context — and that’s the context.” jade.lozada@thecrimson.com claire.yuan@thecrimson.com

6

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

NEWS

CLASS OF 1973 REUNION

“For aid and education”: Graduate students and teaching fellows went on strike in March of 1973 over cuts to financial aid. MARC N. BASKIN — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

GRADUATE STUDENT STRIKE

Grad Students Strike Over Financial Aid FOUR DAYS. Hundreds of union members went on strike for four days — but Harvard didn’t budge.

BY MAKANAKA NYANDORO AND JENNIFER Y. SONG CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

­I

n March 1973, about 700 members of Harvard’s Graduate Students and Teaching Fellow Union braved four days of sub-zero temperatures to protest the newly introduced Kraus Plan, which ultimately reduced financial aid for graduate students.

“Down by the stadium was a big rallying point,” recalled Francis M. Davis ’73, who observed the strike as an undergraduate.

“It starts out as being a kind of peaceful demonstration. And the cops show up, and they start

beating on their shields and stuff, and so the wild ones in the crowd start getting nasty and start throwing stuff.”

By evening a full-on riot had erupted, according to Davis.

The Kraus Plan stipulated that departments in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences could choose to underfund students by $1,000 of their calculated financial need. That funding would go toward “merit scholarships,” offered at the discretion of department heads. GSAS also had to reduce the size of its incoming class by at least 50 students.

The plan came in the wake of dramatic federal budget cuts, which left the University with a sudden $700,000 decrease in funding — equivalent to almost $4.8 million today. In principle, the plan aimed to redistribute Harvard’s reduced funds to those who needed it most, but it met

widespread backlash from the student body.

On the day of the strike, undergraduate attendance plum-

ate grades until the University responded, but ultimately did not.

“I remember the teaching fellows union effort well (‘You can’t

“

Taking part in civil action, like supporting the 1973 graduate student strike, seemed like just another necessary personal action to help change some little part of the world.

Deane Wang‘73

meted by 30 percent in an act of solidarity with the protesters.

Teaching fellows also considered withholding undergradu-

eat prestige’) and was strongly supportive,” E.J. Dionne ’73, a columnist for The Washington Post and a former Crimson edi-

tor, wrote in an email. “I grew up in a union town and that shaped my view of unions, then and now.”

Protesters argued that including parental income and teaching salary in financial aid calculations particularly harmed middle-class students and those seeking positions as teaching fellows.

No other Ivy League institution had implemented similar changes despite experiencing equivalent federal cutbacks.

Though it took a 20-member steering committee three weeks to plan the union and the strike, Harvard administration ultimately refused to revise its financial aid plan.

For some students, the strike was just one more event in the series of upheavals that characterized the turbulent 1970s. Amid civil rights movements, the Vietnam War, and economic insta-

bility, several alumni recalled political tension and uncertainty during their college years but had little to no recollection of the graduate student protests.

For others, however, the graduate strike provided a way for students to participate in the political upheaval of the decade.

“So much debate and discussion filled the dorms and hallways about the state of the country, and its policies around war, and our treatment of people of color in other nations,” Deane Wang ’73 wrote in an emailed statement.

“Taking part in civil action, like supporting the 1973 graduate student strike, seemed like just another necessary personal action to help change some little part of the world,” Wang added. makanaka.nyandoro@thecrimson.com jennifer.song@thecrimson.com

ROE V. WADE FROM PAGE 1

Class of 1973 Reflects on Roe v. Wade in a Post-Dobbs World thing,” she added.

Alumni said Harvard University Health Services also provided birth control and emergency contraceptives, which were legalized for unmarried women in Massachusetts in 1972, at the time of the decision.

Linda Corman ’73 said after the legalization of birth control in Massachusetts, students could obtain emergency contraception from HUHS with “pretty much no questions asked.”

cess into state law and lowering the age at which an individual can obtain an abortion without parental consent from 18 to 16.

Nationwide, however, the legal status of abortion following Roe’s overturning has shifted dramatically. Since the Dobbs decision last June, 14 states have enacted bans on most abortions, and lengthy legal battles regarding abortion are playing out in many more.

For some alumni, the overturning of Roe marked a painful

“

We can’t believe that everything we marched for and fought for in our own ways and believed in, and gave those values to our kids, is just being turned around.

Theresa F. Steiner ‘73

Steiner said there was greater access to birth control pills around her freshman year.

“There was more discussion about that,” Steiner said.

Kirsh said her generation was one of the earliest to have contraception “readily available.”

“We expected it to work,” she added. “But we also realized it didn’t work perfectly.”

Today, an abortion in Massachusetts may be performed until the 24th week of pregnancy, with an exception for cases involving “physical or mental health” or “fetal anomalies.”

In December 2020, the Massachusetts State Senate and House of Representatives passed the ROE Act, codifying abortion ac-

setback for movements they had participated in while attending college.

“We really marched for very important things when we were in college — for us, it was the women’s movement, anti-war,” Steiner said. “We were thinking we were going to make real progress and make a real difference on a lot of things.”

“And what’s happening now is, like, how much have we really made?” Steiner added. “We can’t believe that everything we marched for and fought for in our own ways and believed in, and gave those values to our kids, is just being turned around.” michelle.amponshah@thecrimson.com

The Supreme Court issued its landmark decision on Roe v. Wade on Jan. 22, 1973, gauranteeing the right to an abortion nationwide. This decision was overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson in 2022. JULIAN J. GIORDANO — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

NEWS

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

CLASS OF 1973 REUNION

Benazir Bhutto ’73 became the first deomcratically elected woman of a Muslim nation when she was elected as the Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1988. COURTESY OF GERALD B. JOHNSON

PROFILE

The Making of a Prime Minister REMEMBER ‘PINKIE.’ Benazir Bhutto ’73 is remembered for her bravery, passion, and friendship.

BY THOMAS J. METE CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

­B

efore Benazir Bhutto ’73 broke the “glass ceiling” as the first democratically elected woman of a Muslim nation, she was a shy girl from Eliot House known to all as “Pinkie.”

“It probably wasn’t until [her] Commencement Day that I knew her name was Benazir,” said then-Eliot House Faculty Dean Alan E. Heimert ’49.

Bhutto would go on to become a household name in international politics, serving as the Prime

tration in Government, Bhutto wrote a thesis on the origins of Pakistan and graduated cum laude, said her friend Anne Fadiman ’74.

“Something got galvanized in her while she was at Harvard,” she said. “The longer she spent away, the stronger her focus on Pakistan became.”

Bhutto’s housemates recall her being “very pro-Pakistan,” and having “great political skill,” never hesitating to confront those who criticized her father’s actions during Pakistan’s civil war.

“She had very strong opinions — what she reminded me of at the time was Julie Nixon, who defended her father in the midst of Watergate,” said her roommate Yolanda K. Kodrzycki ’74.

Two of Bhutto’s longtime friends — former U.S. Ambassa-

“

She is a woman who took enormous risks— she could have led a very leisrely life or followed a very pedestrain career. Instead she chose a very difficult path, in a very difficult time, in a very difficult country.

Mahnaz Z. Ispahani Former Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Minister of Pakistan twice and crediting Harvard as “the very basis of my belief in democracy,” according to a 1998 Crimson interview.

But in 1969, Bhutto arrived in Harvard Yard as a 16-year-old “normal undergraduate,” grabbing sweatshirts from the Coop, feeling homesick, and attending basketball and hockey games.

The former Eliot House resident, who originally lived in Cabot House, was an aspiring Psychology concentrator who had no intent to concentrate in politics or government. But Bhutto’s passion for Pakistan, where her father was Prime Minister, grew during her time at the College and she became “a great messenger for the country,” according to professor emerita Annemarie Schimmel.

After shifting to a concen-

dor to Croatia Peter W. Galbraith ’73 and Seattle lawyer Bruce E.H. Johnson ’72 — remember her growing role in Pakistani politics.

During breaks, Bhutto traveled with her father to the United Nations to debate Pakistan’s civil war before the Security Council and accompanied the late Prime Minister on official state trips to India and China, meeting Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Chairman of the People’s Republic of China Mao Zedong, according to Johnson.

“Her father regarded Benazir as his natural successor all along,” Galbraith said. “She was a very sophisticated and intelligent undergraduate, and she has always shown great political skill.”

All those who crossed paths with Bhutto recalled her deep interest in Pakistan’s political landscape and saw her as a rising po-

litical “star even back then,” said Oxford classmate Nicholas T. Mitropoulos. But her close friends’ fondest memories were of her as Pinkie, a “great cake baker,” rather than as the daughter of Pakistan’s ruling elite.

“If any of our friends had a birthday she was there, having baked the cake,” Johnson said.

“We would be in the small dining room just off the main dining at Eliot House.”

“I can remember her playing a lot of Carly Simon,” Henderson said.

After her time at Harvard, Bhutto’s political career began, but her path to becoming prime minister at 35 was plagued with obstacles. Upon her return to Pakistan, the military seized control, imprisoning and killing her father and arresting Bhutto multiple times, leading her to flee the country.

When free elections returned in 1988 following the sudden death of president Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, she emerged victorious through a campaign focused on restoring democracy and human rights, all while pregnant.

“She is a woman who took enormous risks — she could have led a very leisurely life or followed a very pedestrian career,” said Mahnaz Z. Ispahani, a former fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

“Instead she chose a very difficult path, in a very difficult time, in a very difficult country.”

During her second term as prime minister, Bhutto was dismissed on charges of corruption and self-exiled from Pakistan. In 2007, she returned to the country in an attempt to win a third term as prime minister but was assassinated, spurring riots and political unrest across Pakistan.

“Benazir was certainly not a perfect political leader, but she sure was a brave one,” Fadiman said.

Fifty years after her graduation from Harvard, and 16 years following her death, her longtime friend Johnson still hopes Bhutto will one day be recognized by Eliot House for her achievements.

“I don’t know what kind of portraits that are on the walls of Eliot House these days. But if they are adding people of color, they ought to add Pinkie,” Johnson said. thomas.mete@thecrimson.com

You don’t need a Harvard degree to know your website isn’t performing.

OVC, INC. specializes in website development and marketing for law firms of all sizes. Whether you're a big, small, or mid-sized firm, we have you covered.

Give us a call at 630-635-8000 or scan the QR code to schedule a consultation and discover how you can unlock your law firm’s full potential.

7

8

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

NEWS

CLASS OF 1973 REUNION

PROFILE

From Quincy House to the Supreme Court CLASS TO COURTROOM. Seth P. Waxman has gone from a Harvard student to his alma mater’s lawyer.

BY YUSUF S. MIAN CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

­I

n October 2022, nearly 50 years after his graduation from Harvard, Seth P. Waxman ’73 defended his alma mater before the Supreme Court.

Wa x m a n , who now serves as a partner at law firm WilmerHale, is no stranger to high profile litigation.

His illustri-

o u s legal career includes a stint as United States solicitor general from 1997 to 2001 and more than 80 cases in front of the Supreme Court.

Waxman, who Seth P. Waxman ’73 walks down the steps of the Supreme Court. Waxman serves as Harvard’s defense in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit over affirmative action. JULIAN J. GIORDANO — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

promised to see the litigation through its end, has been a part of Harvard’s defense since the University was first sued over its admissions practices more than eight years ago.

The lawsuit, originally brought by anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions in 2014, alleges that Harvard College’s race-conscious admissions processes discriminate against Asian American applicants. Harvard has denied all claims of discrimination.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case last fall. Though two lower courts previously sided with Harvard, legal experts believe the Court’s strong conservative majority will rule against Harvard and its admissions policies, with a decision expected this summer.

Still, Waxman recalled being “excited” when he was first asked to represent Harvard by then-University President Drew G. Faust and General Counsel Robert W. Iuliano ’83.

“This was going to be a very important piece of litigation — not just for Harvard, but for the country,” he said. “I felt particularly honored to be asked by Harvard to do it for the institution and for higher ed generally.”

“It’s been a broadening experience for me,” he added.

Waxman said that his Harvard education was formative in “shaping [his] outlook about the world.”

As an undergraduate, Waxman said he maintained a “very, very, very busy schedule.”

“I was attempting to put myself through school, while also, I was very seriously involved in musical performance, photography, and research,” he said.

A resident of Quincy House, Waxman was also highly engaged in house life, where he worked at the house’s grille, ran its darkroom, and taught classes in photography.

But unbeknownst to him at the time, the connections he made at Harvard played a pivotal role in his career path as a public servant.

After rising to managing partner of law firm Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, Waxman

“

Although I graduated 50 years ago, I sort of feel like my engagement with Harvard has never really ended Seth P. Waxman ‘73 Lawyer

recalled being “quite happy” in his regular and pro bono practices.

In 1994, Jamie S. Gorelick ’72, who was a friend of Waxman’s and a fellow resident of Quincy, was appointed deputy attorney general.

Gorelick reached out to Waxman and another undergraduate friend of theirs — now Attorney General Merrick B. Garland ’74 — with an offer to work at the Department of Justice.

“Both Merrick and I said yes, and it became sort of a little triumvirate of Harvard friends who had the experience together,” Waxman said.

Waxman’s involvement at Harvard in his five decades since graduation spans far more than the ongoing Supreme Court case.

He served on the Board of Overseers — Harvard’s second-highest governing body — from 2005 to 2012, including a stint as its president from 2010 to 2011.

After leaving government service, Waxman also served as a visiting fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, where he taught an undergraduate course.

“Although I graduated 50 years ago, I sort of feel like my engagement with Harvard has never really ended,” he said. yusuf.mian@thecrimson.com

THC Read more at THECRIMSON.COM

Robert W. Decherd’73: Titan in Texas Journalism

BY SALLY E. EDWARDS CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

Fifty years ago, as Robert W. Decherd ’73 stood with his fellow editors at The Crimson’s centennial celebration, he said that the event “has meant more in an institutional way than any Harvard Reunion or office party ever could.”

Now, as Decherd returns to Harvard for his 50th reunion, he remains convinced.

“Our 50th reunion may mean more to me and my fellow Crimeds because we had the privilege of presiding over the paper’s Centennial celebration,” Decherd wrote in an email to The Crimson.

“So being back for the 150th Celebration, followed closely this week by our 50th reunion, reinforces the respect we have for one another.”

As an undergraduate, Decherd worked as a reporter for The Crimson, later serving as the paper’s first president from the state of Texas. Decherd’s time at the paper was characterized by protests over the Vietnam War, student occupations of University and Massachusetts halls, and rioting in Harvard Square. Despite the tense circumstances, Decherd wrote that he was proud to cover this dramatic piece of the University’s history at The Crimson.

“I think we were successful in navigating the many, often conflicting forces present at Harvard then by listening to both sides engaged in every issue and trying to present differing views in an even-handed fashion,” he wrote.

“This was a distinguishing characteristic of our Guard and the one thing I am most proud of.”

Decherd has moved from the President’s chair at 14 Plympton St. to serving as the CEO of the A.H. Belo Corporation — a media company which operates newspapers and news stations around the nation. The corporation — which is the oldest continuously operating business in the state of Texas — most nota-

“

People need — and I think they yearn for — quality news and information and insights. And we have to find a way in an internetdriven world to deliver that Robert W. Decherd ‘73 CEO of A.H. Belo Corporation

bly publishes the Dallas Morning News, an outlet that has been owned by Decherd’s family for four generations. As an undergraduate, however, Decherd had no plans to join the family business and instead wanted to strike out on his own.

“Yes, I aspired to be a journalist and actually had a job at the Baltimore Sun as a reporter. And then the fall of my senior, my father died,” Decherd said in an interview. “It was not so much a choice as the reality that I needed to come back to Dallas and see

how this evolved.”

Since entering the Belo Corporation in 1973, Decherd has overseen both the evolution of the company and its journalistic landscape. Under his leadership, the company’s television presence expanded, with the number of company stations growing from two to 20. As the internet has pushed journalism out of the era of print media and into the social media age, Decherd says that this shift “has been incredibly disruptive” for local journalism.

“As much as the critics viewed what they described as the ‘monopoly of legacy journalism’ for really most of the 20th century, there were things about it that were really good,” he said. “There were hierarchies of how news and information was gathered and edited and curated before it ever was published.”

“And that’s in stark contrast to the instantaneity of the Internet, which has fundamentally changed the way all of journalism — specifically local journalism — is practiced,” he said.

In this liminal time of journalistic evolution, Decherd holds fast to the ideal he formed during his time as a Harvard student: “communities need high quality, reliable news and information — whether it’s delivered instantly or with some curation.”

“People need — and I think they yearn for — quality news and information and insights,” he added. “And we have to find a way in an internet-driven world to deliver that.” sally.edwards@thecrimson.com

Robert W. Decherd ’73 speaks at the Crimson’s 150th anniversary galla. JULIAN J. GIORDANO — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

EDITORIAL

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

CLASS OF 1973 REUNION

9

1972–73 OPINIONS A LOOK BACK AT THE OPINION PAGES, 50 YEARS LATER

JULIAN J. GIORDANO — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

OCTOBER 3, 1972

Abolish the CRR

BY THE CRIMSON EDITORIAL BOARD

­S

ome people just don’t listen.

The Faculty will meet today in special session to consider once again a revamping of the often-criticized Committee on Rights and Responsibilities. Instead of attempting to reform an institution whose claims to legitimacy in the University community have long since been dashed, the Faculty should move promptly to abolish the CRR. The CRR — which celebrates its third birthday this Fall — was established in the wake of the University Hall occupation to facilitate the political repression of student activists. After the 1969 upheaval, the Administration realized it could no longer discipline activists itself by using the Administrative Board, so it moved with the blessing of the Governing Boards to garner Faculty support. First the Committee of Fifteen, and then the CRR were established by the Faculty to implement a hastily written Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities.

To further legitimate its actions, the CRR ground rules called for undergraduates to select a student membership of four — from a total of 13 — to the Committee. Realizing that the Faculty had tossed them a stacked deck, students have three times in the last two years failed to sanction the CRR in University-wide referenda. This clear expression of refusal by the vast majority of the Harvard commu-

nity has prompted several feeble revisions in the CRR and the Resolution, none of which appreciably altered the distaste with which the Committee is viewed by radicals and moderates alike.

None of these student objections have shaken the resolve of the Faculty or the Administration.

The CRR has continued serenely to operate without student representation. Its rules governing hearings are a mockery of established judicial procedure. Almost two hundred students have been disciplined by a body that permits the admission of hearsay evidence, is immune from judicial review, and uses explicitly political questioning in secret hearings — a practice which is totally inconsistent with the University’s professed commitment to the values of free, rational discourse.

Each time the resolution or the CRR have been amended or altered, the resulting product has infringed still further on student rights. In April 1970, for example, the Resolution was amended to include “intense personal harassment of such a character as to amount to grave disrespect for the dignity of others” as a violation requiring punishment.

Just exactly what differentiates “intense harassment” from mere “harassment,” or what constitutes “grave disrespect,” is left to the CRR’s discretion.

And now the Faculty will once more attempt to reform this Star Chamber. A motion presented by two members of last year’s CRR will recommend

that it permit Bonnie Blustein ’72 to receive her diploma. Blustein — who had fulfilled all degree requirements — was not permitted to graduate in June because the CRR had convicted her of participating in an antiwar sit-in at the Littauer Center May 10. We urge the Faculty to accept this motion. Denying Blustein her diploma was an act of spite which makes no sense even to the faulty logic of the CRR. The Faculty will then move to consider a motion introduced by Professors Mendelsohn and Kafatos which recommends reforms in the CRR hearing process.

The resolution calls for: — a reflection of the full spectrum of Faculty opinion in the selection of Faculty members for the CRR; — a renewed attempt to obtain student representation on the Committee; — open CRR hearings, and; — an explanation from the complainant about the basis of selection in complaints where only a small fraction of the participants in a disruption are named.

These reforms are not satisfactory. Although they clear up some of the CRR’s worst excuses, they fail to deal with the basic issue — the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities the Committee was designed to implement. The Resolution is an ill-conceived document which considers political actions

out of context and is so vague that it gives its enforcing body virtually absolute discretion in deciding which actions will be punishable.

The Faculty would better spend its time in rewriting the Resolution to make it more explicit and then submitting the finished product to a University-wide referendum. To this end, students should write their own disciplinary rules and procedures, elect their own representatives and lobby the Faculty to accept their proposals. Students should also demand that every person already disciplined by the CRR be granted amnesty.

The CRR is so bankrupt that it can never be merely reformed. Its operation over the past three years has played a major part in undermining the atmosphere of trust in which any community is supposed to operate. The Faculty lost this trust by foisting the CRR on an unwilling student body. Only by completely abolishing this instrument of repression and working with students at all stages in the implementation of a new disciplinary procedure can the Faculty redeem itself.

–This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

OCTOBER 16, 1972

Choose Life

BY THE CRIMSON EDITORIAL BOARD

­I

t is possible that Nixon supporters exaggerate when they say that America is faced with the choice of a century. But it is certain that the immediate future of millions of Vietnamese will be decided by the upcoming American election.

Today, and every day, 4,000 tons of bombs are dropped on North Vietnam. Since Richard Nixon took office, almost 4 million tons of American bombs, rockets, and bullets have fallen from the skies of Indochina. By the end of this fiscal year, the Nixon Administration will have spent over $54.4 billion on its war. Two months ago, according to Congressional figures, the Nixon death toll totaled 19,898 Americans, 88,949 South Vietnamese and 441,955 “enemy soldiers” (an “enemy soldier,” in American parlance, is any Vietnamese person deliberately killed by United States or ARVN troops.)

Brutalized by a war they cannot comprehend, Americans skim over such numbers easily. An Administration with no respect for truth has lied so consistently to them that they still believe their country is fighting for the self-determination of the Vietnamese people. Nixon’s defenders recite isolated incidents of terrorism by the National Liberation Front but overlook the greater terrorism of ARVN troops and the infinitely more monstrous terror of indiscriminate American bombing. Bolstering an arrogant puppet regime against an uncontainable revolution, American bomber pilots are incinerating a land, a people and a culture.

Photographs tell us that Indochina may never recover from the brute force of American violence. The imprint of the war on the American conscience is just as indelible. The war will end — if not this year, then four years from now. But after the fighting stops, Americans may finally be forced to grapple with the enormity of what they have done.

It would be difficult to imagine a figure less qualified than Richard Nixo to deal with a question of morality. One wonders if the greater immorality of the Vietnam War has blinded Americans to the glar-

ing corruption of this Administration. Shabby scandals have surfaced with alarming regularity. In the ITT-Dita Beard case, the Republicans overlooked a violation of antitrust law when ITT promised to underwrite the Party convention in San Diego. In a similar manner, Nixon changed his mind and permitted the artificially-supported price of milk to rise after sizable campaign contributions from the National Dairy Association. Small grain farmers did not profit from the U.S.-U.S.S.R. trade agreement because big grain dealers, informed of an impending contract by their close Department of Agriculture contracts, simply bought up wheat and waited for the Russian deal to raise prices. The greatest scandal of all, of course, is the Watergate farce, a thoroughly unprincipled try at political espionage. Recent newspaper accounts expose the efforts of Republican officials to sabotage the Muskie candidacy in New Hampshire by forging letters and subverting campaign schedules. The Muskie indicidents and the Watergate affair, which newspapers each day link more clearly to the President and his closest advisors, are reminders that for Richard Nixon, even the electoral process is no sacrosanct.

Nixon’s economic policies are merely the extension of his scandals: robbery on a more grandiose scale. The Old Nixon believed in capitalism for all.

The New Nixon believes in capitalism for the poor but socialism for the rich. When the President took office, the national rate of unemployment was 3.6 per cent.

During his administration, unemployment soared to over 6 per cent of the work force. Today, after all the ballyhoo of his New Economic Policy, the unemployment rate is 5.5 per cent. Although committed noisily to the work ethic, Nixon has done little to counteract the worst spell of unemployment in recent years.

The overwhelming proportion of his tax benefits go to big business. The rich profit greatly from investment credits and advanced depreciation. In the short run, unfortunately, while the rich become wealthier the unemployed remain jobless. Richard Nixon is the modern version of Robin Hood: he steals from the poor and gives to the rich.

Nixon has stolen more than money from the

American people. His Administration constantly chips away at their civil liberties. Under Nixon, reporters are jailed when they refuse to answer a grand jury’s questions on the grounds that a response would dry up their news sources. Under Nixon, an American newspaper was taken to court to prevent the publication of material that could in no way threaten the security of the United States. Under Nixon, wiretaps are employed with reckless abandon and defended as an acceptable form of social control. Nixon’s mediocre Supreme Court reinforces repression. Nixon’s Vice-President indulges in rhetoric which scorns civil liberties and vilifies a free press. Nixon transforms such words into official policy.

If Nixon’s opponent were another man of corrupted sensibilities, we would rightfully despair. But George McGovern is a decent man. Pitted against a President who spins lies and breaks lives with extravagance, McGovern, despite the claims of his opponent, emerges as a sober and honest representative of the American heartland.

McGovern’s Vietnam plan would end the war.

Withdrawal of American military support would end the destruction of Indochina and return American prisoners to their homes. Nixon has manipulated the prisoner issue to gain favor with the voters.

In fact, as McGovern has said, continued American bombing not only protracts the war, it also creates more prisoners. Since Nixon took office, 550 Americans have been reported captured or missing in action. No nation releases prisoners before the fighting stops. After the French left Vietnam, all their prisoners were returned. The real prisoner issue in Vietnam concerns not the captive Americans, but the political prisoners kept in South Vietnamese “tiger cages” and the NLF soldiers who are tortured and then killed.

Only when the Americans leave Vietnam can all of the prisoners still alive be free again.

The money that will be saved by ending this destruction can be ploughed back into the national economy. McGovern’s first priority is to create jobs for the unemployed by spending money on public works. He would cut $20 billion a year from the grossly padded defense budget, a budget which encourag-

es such financial disasters as the Lockheed debacle.

He would introduce tax reforms and make a small step toward equalizing the distribution of income in this country. Unlike the value-added tax which a second Nixon Administration would probably levy on the common man, the McGovern proposals would close up many tax inequities. McGovern would guarantee an annual income of $4000 to a family of four that lacks an able worker.

These are human policies, proposed by a humane man. They stand in sharp contrast to the cynical policies of the last four years. Yet many people who dislike Nixon are unimpressed by McGovern. They point to his reversal on the welfare proposals, his mishandling of the Eagleton candidacy, his vacillation on Pierre Salinger’s trip to Paris. Clearly these are all errors. But how can McGovern’s backsliding on his welfare and Eagleton positions compare to Nixon’s murderous determination to pound the Vietnamese into submission? How can McGovern’s cover-up for Salinger compare to Nixon’s grotesque involvement in a series of political scandals which nobody seems to mind? Would McGovern excoriate “permissive” judges knowing that his foreign allies were pumping into America the heroin that nurtures crime?

Would McGovern sabotage his own welfare plan?

Would McGovern manipulate false issues like American prisoners and busing until the country was tense with fear and hatred?

McGovern has made errors in judgment. But none of his mistakes can compare to the horrible and intentional errors of his opponent. The upcoming election presents clear moral alternatives. A vote for Richard Nixon will further the sweep of destruction outside and the creep of decay within. A vote for McGovern is a hope that tomorrow will be better than today.

dates; it must show that Nixon can exercise only as much control over civil liberties as citizens are willing to allow him.

Our role as students may be, if anything, a handicap for the kind of opposition that will best hold Nixon’s strongman tendencies in check. So long as our demonstrations can be brushed aside in citizen’s minds with the tag of “cynical student rebellion,” Nixon has little to worry about. Fortunately, his victory cannot destroy the work of public-interest lobbyists. Nor can it halt either the effects of grass-roots community organizing or the appeal of anti-administration campaigns focused on undisguisable conditions: inflation, racism, inequitable taxes, military overextension and waste, violations of civil liber-

ties, poor housing, corporation influence and government corruption. Working to change these conditions most effectively demonstrates the poverty of Nixon’s leadership. The best response to Nixon’s re-election is not mere opposition to his Presidency. It must include efforts to fulfill the needs of this country that Nixon has chosen to overlook.

–This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

NOVEMBER 8, 1972

After the Election

BY THE CRIMSON EDITORIAL BOARD

­P

resident Nixon’s victory yesterday leaves him in a stronger position than ever to do irreparable damage to this country.

Much of his strength lies in the difference between his words and his actions. He has been more successful at pacifying America than Vietnam, promising a falsely comfortable future; he’s wooed voters by playing on fears of the often-reckless anger of the antiwar movement, and the reluctance of Americans to look at essential change.

Conversely, George McGovern’s defeat is evidence enough that new ways have to be found to make the effects and implications of Nixon’s policies

clear to those who have heard only his platitudes.

If any group is to make real inroads against Nixon’s policies of American dominance in the world and dominance of the wealthy in America it will have to attract some of those voters who supported Nixon’s re-election.

It is important, in a time when Nixon’s popularity is at a peak, to demonstrate that considerate opposition to his policies still exists. But simple demonstration is not enough. The opposition must prove its validity by showing how community action works to the benefit of average citizens in small issues as well as large ones. It must show that there is much more power for the people of a democracy than the choice every few years between two front-running candi-

–This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.