They Marched Into Sunlight

Home > Other > They Marched Into Sunlight > Page 54
They Marched Into Sunlight Page 54

by David Maraniss


  Manning, picking up on Johnson’s comments about the press’s not listening to “those who have been there,” said his magazine planned to look at “what happens to veterans who come back after being in Vietnam.”

  Even that comment took Johnson down a pessimist’s road. He recalled talking to a university administrator who told him that his school “had 21 Marines, 20 of whom were sound men and one was a sorehead. The sorehead got all the attention.”

  THAT THURSDAY WAS Norman Lenburg’s second-to-last day of work as a photographer at the Wisconsin State Journal. He planned to move from Madison on Saturday to run his father-in-law’s camera shop in Milwaukee. The pictures he had taken of the riot at the Commerce Building would be his last on the job. Two were displayed on the front page of the morning paper: a five-column shot, above the fold, of Madison police officers wading into the crowd on the Commerce plaza, nightsticks held high; and a four-column shot on the bottom left corner that ran with the caption: “Several Students Carry One of Their Injured from Scene of Clash with Police.” Still, Lenburg was “very disappointed” about the play that morning. When he had returned to the office Wednesday night to develop his pictures, he had told the editors the story of being up on the northwest balcony of Bascom Hall late in the day and seeing a young man climb to the roof and cut down the American flag. It was quite a story, Lenburg thought, and he knew he was the only photographer who got the picture.

  Now where was it? Not on the front page, nor on page six, where there was almost a full page of pictures. Instead it was back in Section Four, the Madison and Suburban section, displayed in a narrow format. The cutline read: “‘So Proudly It Falls’—An unidentified protester runs from the flagpole atop Bascom Hall Wednesday after cutting down the American flag during the height of the demonstration at the nearby Commerce building on the University campus.” In truth, despite Lenburg’s immediate disappointment about the photo’s position, it mattered little where the picture ran; it was going to be noticed. It was not a great picture by artistic standards; dozens of others more vividly captured the trauma of the confrontation between police and students, but none of those pictures published in the State Journal, Capital Times, and Daily Cardinal was more noticed than the little two-column shot of the unidentified flag cutter. Soon enough that morning the flood of calls would start pouring in from outraged readers, and the growing fervor would leave Lenburg almost wishing that he had never taken the shot.

  At least one reader of the morning paper could identify the flag cutter, of course. Jonathan Stielstra that morning had gone over to Connections headquarters at 22 North Henry Street, an old house near campus that had become the epicenter of the New Left in Madison. Someone at the alternative newspaper showed him the picture. Until then he had had no idea that a photographer had caught him in the act. He had assumed that the danger had passed when he had melted into the crowd on the Commerce plaza after that frantic chase down four flights of stairs in Bascom Hall. Now he realized there was a permanent and indisputable record of what he had done. Was he recognizable? Probably. Although the shot was taken from some distance, his face was pointed almost directly at the camera, and his black tennis shoes, mid-length coat, and long blond hair were distinguishing characteristics. You gotta cut your hair! someone in the Connections office quickly advised him. Vicki Gabriner—the whiteface Miss Sifting and Winnowing and wife of Connections editor Bob Gabriner—found a pair of scissors and gave Stielstra a trim. He did not know if the police were looking for him, but in case they were, the haircut might confuse them. He also had a natural ruse. The authorities eventually might determine that the flag cutter was a student named Stielstra, but how would they prove which Stielstra—Jonathan or his identical twin brother, Phil?

  The Connections office was humming that day. Half the staff had been inside Commerce when the police arrived, and most of the rest had been outside watching. As with all political issues, the reaction to Dow provoked heated debates within the Connections crowd. Some supported the strike and saw it as a way to radicalize the student body, but a larger number thought the strike was an ill-conceived and emotional reaction that distracted from the larger issues of the war and the power structure and that it only further separated the campus from the rest of society, where the real battle had to be waged. On one matter the young radicals were unified—their growing anger, edging into hatred, for their liberal elders. The fiercest anger was directed not at LBJ types, domestic liberals who were foreign policy hawks, but at the liberals closer to home, most of whom were against the war themselves, the group represented by Sewell, Harrington, and Kauffman at the university and by the editors of the city’s old progressive paper, the Capital Times. These liberals tended to rile the New Left even more than cops with nightsticks or conservative state legislators harrumphing that student demonstrators should be shot. “We were just intolerant of the liberals as they sought to deal with Dow and the war,” Bob Gabriner said later. “They were the enemy. We didn’t spend any time at all on the right wing in Wisconsin. It was the liberals.”

  Liberal university administrators, as Gabriner and other Connections radicals saw it, were timid and defensive, and their response to the Dow protest was motivated by their need to preserve their own status and power. They were said to be afraid of the legislature, afraid of state industrialists, afraid of wealthy alumni, and were accused of using the notion of academic neutrality to avoid making a moral judgment on the war. “Sifting and winnowing” was nothing more than a hollow phrase that allowed the university to give equal weight to right and wrong. Sewell and Kauffman and liberal faculty members might be against the war, according to a Connections editorial, “but they were not ready to resist, and they think they have less to lose by discrediting the antiwar movement itself.” The Capital Times was the other target for the radicals. “The Capital Times prides itself on being one of the last of the great progressive fearless newspapers in the nation. This is bullshit,” Gabriner wrote in an essay about the press in Madison. Instead, he argued, the paper had become “venomous and confused” by the events of the sixties.

  It was all part of what Gabriner portrayed as the liberal fallacy of Madison. “The city of Madison prides itself on its liberality, tolerance and cleanliness. To those middle-aged liberals living in beleaguered little communities surrounded by reaction, Madison appears to be a utopia. Madisonians and the Capital Times uphold this image. They like it here. They enjoy battling the forces of the evil right. They can’t do without them, because it reinforces their image of themselves. They are cosmopolitan, moral, and open-minded. The University of Wisconsin is the cornerstone upon which the progressive image was built.” But with the university in crisis because of the Dow events, Gabriner wrote, the Capital Times felt “threatened and insecure” and unable to grasp the situation, because “to understand would be to admit that the progressive image is hollow and irrelevant to the crisis which we are confronting.”

  It was not a pretty fight, this side struggle between radicals and liberals, and it had many unfortunate reverberations for years and decades to come. But it was not one that Miles McMillin, the fifty-four-year-old editor and chief editorial writer of the Capital Times, was afraid to confront. Mac, as he was known, part native American from the Menominee tribe, grew up in Green Bay. He was partial to gentlemanly dress, seersucker suits and bowties, yet had a striking presence, bulldog and Hemingwayesque, his shock of graying hair brushed back from a huge forehead, his massive jaws obliterating an ever-present crackling wad of gum, his eyes ablaze, his face set in a scowling smile. He was not a defensive liberal but a fearless one, his positions honed by decades of arguments with critics from left and right. When he arrived in Madison to attend law school in the thirties, after graduating from St. Norbert in DePere, he found himself debating radical organizers on campus and taking his stand with anticommunist progressives. As a reporter and editorial writer in the late forties and early fifties, he led the Capital Times’s fight against the red-baitin
g Wisconsin senator, Joe McCarthy. Long before McCarthy had emerged as a national figure, McMillin had pegged him as a political charlatan, breaking a story that he had failed to pay taxes on stock income he had earned during World War II.

  The hypocrisy of self-righteous ideologues was McMillin’s favorite target. He hated the dogma of received wisdom, whether it came from McCarthy or Stalin or his Catholic church. It was through that historical lens that he filtered the recent events on campus. As Gabriner and the Connections writers prepared their next round of antiliberal salvos that day after the Dow protest, McMillin was banging out an editorial that would appear on the top left front of the afternoon paper’s October 19 three-star edition. Appropriating a favorite word of the New Left for his own use, he titled his editorial “The Spectacle of Violence.” His brief was not primarily a lament about police brutality, nor about the Dow Chemical Company, but focused instead on the rights of individuals and groups and the rule of law in a democratic society. It was a classic expression of the liberal dilemma of that era. “The horrible spectacle of violence and brutality on the campus of the University yesterday is the continuing price this country is paying for the reckless deception by which we were thrust into the war in Vietnam,” it began.

  It is not easy for students, who are aware of the promises made to this country in the 1964 campaign, to honor the regulations of the University regarding their very natural and laudatory protests at what is going on in Vietnam.

  Chancellor Sewell, who deplores the tragic venture in Vietnam as much as any of the protesting students, has outlined this situation as well as it can be done and has warned that the unrest will continue as long as the war does.

  But he has also made clear what the University must do to keep operating. The lines for legitimate protest have been carefully delineated. While those lines were observed during the protest on Tuesday there was no serious trouble. The trouble came yesterday when the protesters disrupted the functioning of the University and interfered with the right of the overwhelming majority of the students to pursue their education.

  There was no acceptable alternative for the University to the course it took in ordering the disruptive students cleared from the building.

  If it had acceded to the demands of this small minority, it would have faced continuing disruption. If Dow can be stopped from interviewing on the campus, Procter and Gamble can because it makes soap for the armed forces.

  Could students who object to Negroes or Jews being allowed in the University be permitted to interfere with the functioning of the University to gain their ends?

  In a democratic society there are rules—written and unwritten—which must be followed if the free institutions of that society are to endure. They include the right to protest—even against the freedoms which allow those protests. But they do not include the right to interfere with the rights of others without due process of law.

  The story of man is the story of the continuing struggle to establish that principle of freedom. It was only recently that the world was engulfed in war to end the challenge of the Nazis to that principle. They believed they had the ultimate truth and could use whatever means available to those ends. The Communists believe that Marx’ holy scripture gives them the same license.

  When the principle that the end justifies the means prevails freedom is destroyed.

  When it is attempted, as it was by a handful of students yesterday, it results in the kind of violence we all deplore.

  When this kind of extremism is resorted to the only winner can be the opposite extremists. The anti-white bigots in the black power movement only strengthen the anti-black bigots in the white power movement. The Antiwar extremists only strengthen the pro-war extremists. If there is any doubt about it, observe the strutting self-righteousness of Sen. Roseleip and his breed since the events of yesterday.

  The University has no alternative but to follow the course it has taken if the protesting students do not stay within the rules designed to protect the rights of all.

  If there are those either in the student body or faculty who cannot live with those rules, they are free to leave, of course, and seek their education and livelihood elsewhere.

  But above all, the University administration must be held accountable to the people of this state to keep the University functioning for the great majority who are here for an education. This requires order. Order should be maintained, whether it is in downtown Madison with the American Legion creating chaos or students on the campus protesting the war.

  If it takes the National Guard to do it, let it be the National Guard.

  Next to the front-page portion of the editorial was a five-column picture of two riot-helmeted police officers pulling on the arms of Bob Gabriner’s wife, Miss Sifting and Winnowing, as they began dragging her to the paddy wagon.

  WHEN THE SPECIAL MEETING of the University of Wisconsin faculty began at three thirty that afternoon, the Memorial Union theater was filled to the highest row of the balcony. Professors who could not find seats spilled onto the stage and into a nearby reading room and lobby, where the proceedings were piped over a loudspeaker. According to the minutes, 1,350 of the 1,800 faculty members were present at the start, about the maximum for any meeting where attendance was not mandatory. The lobby and hallway and outside terrace were bubbling with hundreds of students inflamed by the events inside Commerce the day before and the administration’s later announcement that it was suspending thirteen leaders of the Dow demonstration.

  Sewell, reentering the fray after hours of isolation at his house, made his way through the unfriendly gauntlet toward the stage. He chose not to preside, giving that job to James Cleary, a vice chancellor, but first opened the meeting with his version of the events that brought them together. He reviewed the chronology of the first Dow protest the previous February, when Robben Fleming was chancellor. Students had blocked the entrance to a building and been arrested. After bailing them out of jail, Fleming had gone to the faculty and gotten a reaffirmation of Chapter 11.02 of the university rules and regulations, prohibiting student protesters from disrupting student functions. Fleming had then declared that the rules would be enforced thereafter even if it took the massive force of outside police. A few weeks later, Faculty Document 122 was approved, reaffirming the right of Dow or any other corporation to use the placement services of the university to interview students seeking jobs. Sewell had voted against that measure, but when he took over as chancellor, he felt obliged to enforce it. He believed above all in following the rules.

  Then came Dow II: students announced that they would obstruct, then followed through and obstructed. Sewell’s moment of decision, he said, was when Evan Stark and three protest marshals met with him in Bascom Hall as the sit-down protest was under way next door at Commerce and said that they would try to get the demonstrators to stop if the administration removed Dow from campus and promised in writing that the company would never return. Sewell would not be coerced. “I regret more than I can possibly tell you that it was necessary to bring in outside police,” he explained to the faculty. “At the time, I saw no alternative—other than to surrender. I was given an ultimatum to make a statement in writing. Even so, no assurance was given to me that the demonstrators would leave.”

  Everything that followed, Sewell said, filled him with deep remorse—the resistance by the students, the club swinging by the police, the injuries to both students and police, the blood and screaming and tear gas. “Things like this should never happen on this great campus where we have so long had freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful protest.” In his heart Sewell pounded on himself for letting things get out of hand. But in his head, by the logical reasoning of cause and effect, he blamed the protest leaders. “It is my firm conviction that the fault lies with those that refused to cease and desist,” he said, fingering in particular the thirteen students who were being informed that day of their suspensions, pending “full due process” before a university conduct committee. Alt
hough the identities of the thirteen had not been released, two names, the most prominent ones, had leaked already at the state capitol. Stark and Cohen were on the list.

  Sewell concluded his opening statement by saying that despite the difficulties of the job and his ambivalent feelings about leadership, he would not resign. “I did not seek this office,” he said. “I have no great desire for administrative roles nor for power. I love and respect students. My actions yesterday were taken reluctantly and only to preserve the integrity of the university which I love.”

  Eugene Cameron, a professor of geology and Sewell’s successor as chairman of the University Committee, was recognized next, in prearranged sequence, to present a defense of the chancellor. “During the past twenty-four hours we have reached a crisis that is shocking to us all,” Cameron began. “Yet this crisis is no chance, no isolated event. It is a crisis that we should all have expected out of the developments of the past two years. The University Committee has studied the progression toward this crisis, in its various manifestations, since the spring of 1966.” The statement he was about to read, Cameron said, was based on that study and had the unanimous support of his committee.

  It was the McMillin thesis, in essence, using some of the editor’s words. “Every human community must have its rules and regulations,” the statement began. The rules can change, slowly, over time, but they must be followed or chaos results. The rules on student obstruction were “not designed to infringe upon the rights of any member of our community, but rather to protect the freedoms of all members, and specifically to protect them from the actions of ruthless minorities who are unconcerned with the rights of others and who attempt to justify their violations of those rights by the specious argument that the end can somehow justify the means. This argument is as old as history, and in perspective history has judged it to be false.” The statement went on to argue that the organizers of the demonstration had to know that they were creating a situation that could turn violent, and because of that they “must bear the onus of the consequences.” These consequences included not only the physical injuries to students and policemen, but also a deeper injury to the dedicated effort of other students and faculty members who had been meeting for several months to work out new policies giving students more power and more meaningful roles in the life of the university. “At a time when these efforts are approaching their culmination, a carefully planned, willful flouting of accepted rules such as yesterday’s affair is a tragedy that is beyond our words.”

 

‹ Prev