The Port Huron Statement (SDS): The Student Anti-War Movement

The student anti-war movement began in the early 1960s and was initially identified as the ‘Student League for Industrial democracy (SLID). It was later changed to ‘Students for a democratic society’ this was due to the phrase being too narrow and labour orientated, making it difficult to recruit students. The SDS' founding manifesto, the Port Huron Statement (PHS) is the product of several months’ worth of discussion, writing, and revising by the SDS’ founders. The SDS was the largest -war protests and was very much dominated by the student movement. SDS flourished in the student’s anti-war group at the time and in the mid to late 1960’s it was known for its activism against the Vietnam War. As the war escalated huge numbers of Americans
were required as well as renewed draft recruitment. Acknowledging this, the SDS immediately increased its activity. By 1966 the protests where far more pronounced and far reaching.
The University of Berkeley in California saw the most militant protests. The government did what it could to cease Student protests. The FBI were brought in under the direction of J Edgar Hoover, the FBI’s approach was to defend national security in the face of dangerous radical groups. The SDS was referred to as the ‘new left’ the FBI’s wanted to terminate the activity of the students. A counter intelligence programme was set up called COINTELPRO- its aim was to infiltrate local SDS branches and to encourage factionalism and defections, reporting back to headquarters on any relevant information. The method favoured by the FBI was later rejected as this belief intercepted the idea of ‘freedom of speech’ and the ‘rights of association.’ Senator Frank Church writing in the Final Report of Senate church committee 1976 commented on the behaviour displayed by the programme ‘The Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of first Amendment rights of speech association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence’. The FBI used their position of authority in the wrong
way.
In 1967 the University of Wisconsin situated in Madison was met with a military recruitment team from Bow chemicals.
This immediately triggered SDS activity. Violence amongst the SDS broke out from a campaign that initially followed non-violent tactics. The strike was suppressed a few days later by further police action. Nationwide retaliation was to occur 100,000 students marched on the Pentagon in Washington; the national headquarters of the US armed forces. A source by Mitchell K Hall in 2008 adds to the increasing activity of the SDS and the idea of the ‘new left’ which had emerged. Membership in the organisation disintegrated as a result of the violent techniques. ‘The leadership went so far that abandoned most of its local membership which remained predominantly reformist.’
A reference by The Washington post in 2007 is significantly relevant when gaining insight on both ends of the political spectrum. The extract is moderately critical of both sides, advocating a just unbiased approach. ‘ soldiers manning the line in front of the Pentagon Mall entrance were taunted with vicious slurs and pelted with garbage and fish, some defenceless protesters sitting peacefully were clubbed and hauled
off.’
The student’s philosophy remained unpatriotic towards military efforts in Vietnam. Chants were common amongst protesters and the most frequently used was ‘’hey hey, LBJ how many kids did you kill today?’’ Other elements that were also unpatriotic include the waving of the North Vietnamese flag. In 1968 SDS preformed there to what was to be there last strike in April that year. This did attract much press coverage and mass numbers of peoples support. Never the less, in 1969 the ninth national SDS convention was held in Chicago. The SDS soon collapsed as a result of the divisions and in-fighting within the organisation. As mentioned above it is clear that the SDS had developed through the years as first it predominately was to be a liberal reform organisation and as the war progressed the students became increasingly radical using violent methods to put forward there strong opposition as regards to the Vietnam war. By 1965 Hugh Brogan points out that some critics saw the SDS as unsophisticated image the students were portraying ‘some regard the whole thing as an excuse for non-stop pot parties.’ This indeed added to their negative image.