It Runs in the Family

In theory, the most embarrassed Americans these days are the parents of student activists. Their own children -- leaders in campus rebellions across the country -- have been denounced by public officials who range from state legislators right up to the President of the U.S. Campus disorder is topic Among businessmen, at cocktail parties, on editorial pages -- and the tone is 99% disapproving. But are the parents really unhappy?

Yes -- to the extent that publicity hurts their families. When the press names student leaders, for example, some fathers receive hate mail, lose business orders or feel subtle disapproval by employers. Some fathers are also public officials, an extra burden. The presence of the son of Air Force Secretary Robert C. Seamans Jr., at the recent Harvard sit-in, for instance, was widely noted in press accounts. Like other prominent men in this situation, Seamans refuses to discuss the matter. Equally upset are the parents of some first-generation college students, including poor Negroes, who are baffled when their children seem to reject the grail -- a middle-class education.

Help from Home. Even so, a surprisingly large number of parents contacted by TIME reporters are far from angry at the rebels. Of those willing to talk, a majority approved their children's goals but opposed the use of violence, partly because they favor peaceful campus reform and partly because they worry greatly about their children's safety. Contrary to much theory about the activists' psychological motives, there seems to be little or no generational conflict within such families. Most are very close. In fact, many of the rebels first acquired their liberal ideals from their parents, and have simply taken those ideals a step farther--in some cases, quite a few steps farther.

Many studies have shown that the majority of student activists come from upper-middle-class families of liberal stripe. In a survey of 50 student activists at the University of Chicago last year, Sociologist Richard Flacks found that their parents tended to be highly permissive, intellectual and well-educated; 45% were Jewish (TIME, May 3, 1968). According to Bernice Neugarten, another Chicago sociologist, many activists "seem to be carrying out the family value system [of liberalism] in ways that reflect the 1960s instead of the 1940s." She calls them "new chips off the old block."

"Really Delighted." Not only do most campus rebels get implicit support from their parents in the form of money for college costs, but some also receive explicit endorsement for their activism. "I'm quite certain that if I were 23 or 24, I'd be out there with the students," says Novelist Laura Z. Hobson (Gentleman's Agreement), whose son was among the 42 rebels expelled after last winter's sit-in at the University of Chicago. Using newspaper advertisements, Mrs. Hobson is helping to conduct a parental protest campaign against the expulsions, which she denounces as "overkill" in reaction to a nonviolent dissent.

Paul Moore Jr., suffragan Episcopal Bishop of Washington and member of the Yale Corporation, says that he is "really delighted" over the part his son is playing in "his generation's social movement." The younger Moore signed a list of student demands presented to Yale President Kingman Brewster and was among those who ostentatiously walked out of the Yale senior-class dinner last month, when McGeorge Bundy, who on most campuses is considered an architect of the Viet Nam war, began to speak. Bishop Moore's son also criticized ROTC at an open meeting of the Yale Corporation, while his father listened. "ROTC really shouldn't have been on the campus in the first place," says the bishop.

One of Harvard's black student leaders, Leslie F. ("Skip") Griffin Jr., gets tactical advice from his father, the Rev. Leslie F. Griffin, who has led the 18-year fight to integrate public schools in Virginia's Prince Edward County. Griffin is "pleased and proud" that his son is a campus militant. "I've always tried to teach my children the nonviolent way, but never to give up if the struggle is right and just." During the Harvard disturbances, his son telephoned to discuss how far the students should go in pressing their demands, and whether they should "attempt to close the institution, or stop short of it." In this instance, Griffin counseled moderation. Other Negro parents of activist leaders concur. Says the father of a black militant at Radcliffe: "I believe they should push, but that bloodshed isn't necessary. They shouldn't get themselves expelled."

Means v. Ends. Such parents often seem to project their own youthful idealism into what their children are doing, which may explain why so many approve. A typical example is Saul Rabkin, board chairman of Acme Missiles & Construction Corp. on Long Island, who admires his son's activism at Brandeis. "I'm proud of Nick's involvement," says Rabkin. "Perhaps he's doing what I didn't have the guts to do." Critic Alfred Kazin, father of one of Harvard's most flamboyant S.D.S. leaders, told the Wall Street Journal: "I don't always agree with Mike, but I admire him very, very much. I think he has the good of society at heart, which is better than thinking of money all your life or killing Vietnamese people. I just think he's a great guy--he's one of those Americans who's not thinking about himself. He's an idealist."

All the same, Mike Kazin, a top student, is also an angry young man who, among other things, affixed a list of demands to Harvard President Nathan Pusey's front door. Such hard-line methods have increasingly disturbed even the most admiring parents. Says Edmund W. Pugh Jr., a Weyerhaeuser Co. executive whose son was suspended from Stanford after a sit-in: "We have a great feeling of compassion toward David as his idealism clashes with organized society. But I don't approve of their tactics. There is a proper way to express dissent: through the spoken and written word." Dr. Maurice Osborne Jr., past president of the American College Health Association, is perfectly prepared to view the peaceful occupation of a building as "an honest confrontation with intellectual honesty and moral force." But Dr. Osborne, a Tufts administrator whose son was among 174 students arrested at Harvard, says that "nonnegotiable demands are absurd. When the administration doesn't capitulate, the students think that they can do anything they want, including sacking the files." No small group, he says, "has the right to be coercive and deny access to jobs or classes." Even while defending her son, Laura Hobson says: "Means shape ends. If you have guns and violence, you are going to end up with even more totalitarianism."

Unfortunately, the evidence so far is that while activist students have fully absorbed their parents' social concern, they have not inherited their tactical moderation. In the long run, the result could be very disillusioning for the parents.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.