SUMMARY

Chapter I: Protest and Politics

There are three critical points about protest and violence in America: -There has been relatively little violence accompanying contemporary demonstration and group protest.

It is often difficult to determine who was "responsible" for the violence when it does occur. The evidence in the Walker Report and other similar studies suggests that authorities often bear a major part of the responsibility. Mass protest, whether or not its outcome is violent, must be analyzed in relation to crises in American institutions.

For these reasons, serious analysis of the connections between protest and violence cannot focus solely on the character or culture of those who protest the current state of the American political and social order. Rather, our research finds that mass protest is an essentially political phenomenon engaged in by normal people; that demonstrations are increasingly being employed by a variety of groups, ranging from students and blacks to middle-class professionals, public employees, and policemen; that violence, when it occurs, is usually not planned, but arises out of an interaction between protesters and responding authorities; that violence has frequently accompanied the efforts of deprived groups to achieve status in American society; and that recommendations concerning the prevention of violence which do not address the issue of fundamental social and political change are fated to be largely irrelevant and frequently self-defeating.

Chapter II: Anti-War Protest

Reasons for the existence of a broadly based and durable Vietnam peace movement must be sought in the reassessment of Cold War attitudes; in the absence of a "Pearl Harbor" to mobilize patriotic unity; and in the gradual accumulation of public knowledge about the history of America's involvement in Vietnam. Other sustaining factors have been the "credibility gap," the frustrating progress of the war, reports of extraordinary brutality toward civilians, and reliance on an unpopular system of conscription. In particular, critics of the war have been most successful in pointing up the relation between the war and the American domestic crisis; the need to "reorder priorities" has been a repeated theme. Anti-war feelings have been sustained by criticism of administration policy from highly placed sources in this country and abroad.

The movement's main base of support has been among white professionals, students, and clergy. A segment of the movement has been drifting toward

"confrontationism." Physical injuries, however, have more often resulted from the actions of authorities and counter-demonstrators. The most meaningful grouping of protesters separates those for whom tactics are chiefly a moral question from those who see tactics chiefly as the means to political ends. Most of the latter, though not ethically committed to nonviolence, have repeatedly turned away from possible bloody encounters. Having no single ideology or clearly formulated goals beyond an end to the war, the movement is dependent on government policy for its survival, growth, and tactical evolution. Still, the political consequences of the war may be profound since, in its wake, there has been a continuing reassessment of American politics and institutions, especially among students at leading colleges and universities.

Chapter III: Student Protest

The current student generation is more morally and politically serious and better educated than the generation of the 1950's. Its participation in the civil rights movement, in the Peace Corps, and in university protest reflects an idealism expressed in direct action. The increasing disaffection of student activists, their pessimism over the possibility of genuine reform in the university and larger society, and their frequent resort to tactics of confrontation cannot be explained away by referring to personality problems or to youthful intransigence or delinquency. On the contrary, research indicates that activists have usually been good students with liberal ideals not unlike those of their parents. Stridency has increased with political frustration related to civil rights and the Vietnam war. Campuses have become the headquarters of anti-war protest. Not only have students challenged the war on its merits; they have also questioned whether a free society should force young men to fight a war they do not support, and whether school attendance and grades should be criteria for exemption from military service. They have been especially critical of the university's cooperation with the Selective Service System and of that system's policy of "channeling" students into careers and occupations deemed to be in the national interest by the director of Selective Service.

They have come to see the university as implicated in the industrial, military, and racial status quo. Disaffection has been intensified by the response of certain university administrations, which have been perceived as more susceptible to conservative pressures than to underlying issues. The introduction of police onto the campus, with its attendant violence, usually has reinforced these perceptions and aggravated campus conflict while decreasing support for the university outside the campus, and diverting attention from substantive issues.

Chapter IV: Black Militancy

Black militants today-including black college students, a group that only a few years ago was individualistic, assimilationist, and politically indifferentare repudiating conventional American culture and values. The theme of "independence" is stressed rather than "integration," and the concept of "nonviolence" is being replaced by a concept of "self-defense."

Four factors have influenced this transition. First, the failure of the civil rights movement to improve significantly the social, economic, and political position of most Negro Americans has led to doubts about the possibility of meaningful progress through law. Second, urban riots in the 1960's, which symbolized this frustration, have been met with armed force, which in turn has mobilized militant sentiment within black communities. Third, the worldwide revolution against colonialism has induced a new sense of racial consciousness, pride, and affirmative identity. Fourth, the war in Vietnam has diverted resources away from pressing urban needs and reinforced the prevailing skepticism about white America's capacity or interest in addressing itself to the social, economic, and political requirements of black communities.

As a result, there has been increasing dissatisfaction with the United States and its institutions, and increasing identification with non-white peoples who have achieved independence from colonial powers. In response to the challenge of black militancy, Negroes of all occupations and ages are becoming increasingly unwilling to accept the assumptions of white culture, white values, and white power. The thrust toward militancy is especially pronounced among black youth, who tend to view the more militant leadership as heroic figures. As college students, these youth provide a fertile base for campus militancy.

Chapter V: The Racial Attitudes of White Americans

Recent studies indicate a long-term decrease in anti-Negro prejudice since the 1940's. While the social roots of prejudice are complex, it is especially characteristic of the less educated, older, rural segments of the population. Major trends in contemporary society, including urbanization and increasing educational opportunity, have undermined the roots of prejudice and may be expected to have a continuing effect in the future.

Although surveys show continuing rejection by many whites of the means by which blacks attempt to redress their grievances, most whites express support of the goal of increased opportunity for black Americans. Not surprisingly, blacks express less satisfaction with the quality of their lives, and are less optimistic about their opportunities, than are whites. Correspondingly, whites feel the need for change less urgently than do blacks. Nevertheless, recent studies show that a clear majority of whites would support federal programs to tear down the ghettos and to realize the goals of full employment, better education, and better housing for blacks, even if they would have to pay more taxes to support such programs.

Chapter VI: White Militancy

The most violent single force in American history outside of war has been a minority of militant whites, defending home, family, or country from forces considered alien or threatening.

Historically, a tradition of direct vigilante action has joined with racist and nativist cultural themes to create intermittent reigns of terror against racial and ethnic minorities and against those considered "un-American." It is difficult to exaggerate the extent to which violence, often aided by community support and encouragement from political leaders, is embedded in our history.

Although most white Americans repudiate violence and support the goals of increased opportunity for blacks, there has been a resurgence of militant white protest, largely directed against the gains of the black communities.

The roots of such protest lie in the political and economic sources of white marginality and insecurity. In this sense, white militancy-like student, antiwar, and black protest-reflects a fundamental crisis of American political and social institutions. White protest is not simply the work of "extremists" whose behavior is peripheral to the main currents of American society. Similarly, capitulation to the rhetoric of white militancy, through simplistic demands for "law and order," cannot substitute adequately for concrete programs aimed at the roots of white discontent.

Chapter VII: The Police in Protest

The policeman in America is overworked, undertrained, underpaid, and undereducated. His job, moreover, is increasingly difficult, forcing him into the almost impossible position of repressing deeply-felt demands for social and political change. In this role, he is unappreciated and at times despised. His difficulties are compounded by a view of protest that gives little consideration to the effects of such social factors as poverty and discrimination and virtually ignores the possibility of legitimate social discontent. Typically, it attributes mass protest instead to a conspiracy promulgated by agitators, often Communists, who mislead otherwise contented people. This view leaves the police ill-equipped to understand or deal with dissident groups.

Given their social role and their ideology, the police have become increasingly frustrated, alienated, and angry. These emotions are being expressed in a growing militancy and political activism.

The police are protesting. Police slowdowns and other forms of strike activity, usually of questionable legality, have been to gain greater material benefits or changes in governmental policy (such as the "unleashing of the police"). Direct police challenges to departmental and civic authority have followed recent urban disorders, and criticisms of the judiciary have escalated to "court-watching" by police.

These developments are a part of a larger phenomenon the emergence of the police as a self-conscious, independent political power. In many cities and states the police lobby rivals even duly elected officials in influence. Yet courts and police are expected to be neutral and nonpolitical, for even the perception of a lack of impartiality impairs public confidence in and reliance upon the legal system.

Police response to mass protest has often resulted in an escalation of conflict, hostility, and violence. The police violence during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago was not a unique phenomenon. We have found numerous other instances where violence has been initiated or exacerbated by police actions and attitudes, although violence also has been avoided by judicious planning and supervision.

Police violence is the antithesis of both law and order. It leads only to increased hostility, polarization, and violence-both in the immediate situation and in the future. Certainly it is clear today that effective policing ultimately depends upon the cooperation and goodwill of the policed, and these resources are quickly being exhausted by present attitudes and practices.

The actions of the judicial system in times of civil crisis are an important test of a society's capacity to uphold democratic values and protect civil liberties. Our analysis finds as the Kerner Commission found, that during recent urban riots defendants were deprived of adequate representation, subjected to the abuses of overcrowded facilities, and held in custody by the imposition of high bail amounting to preventive detention and the suspension of due process. This was done under a “feedback to riot” theory that both lacks evidence and is implausible.

The inability of the courts to cope with civil emergencies encourages a further decline in respect for legal authority. Black, student, and anti-war protesters have come to share a common view that legal institutions serve power and are incapable of remedying social and political grievances.

The crisis in the courts is explained by three considerations. First, the quality of justice in the lower criminal courts during routine operations is quite low; one would not expect more during emergencies. Second, in response to community and political pressures for immediate restoration of order, the courts tend to adopt a police perspective on "riot control," becoming in effect an instrument of social control, relatively unrestrained by considerations of legality. Finally, the courts are not suited to the task of resolving the political conflicts which occasion civil crisis and mass arrests.

Thus, reforms in the operations of the courts during crisis are only a temporary palliative, leaving untouched the political crisis. We nevertheless urge such reform to protect the constitutional rights of defendants and to increase the dignity and influence of the courts. We are especially concerned that the present trend toward devising "emergency measures" not become routinized as the main social response to crises that go deeper than the need to restore order.

Chapter IX: Social Response to Collective Behavior

Governmental responses to civil disorder have historically combined longrun recommendations for social change with short-run calls for better strategy and technology to contain disruption. We offer the following reasons for questioning such a two-pronged approach to the question of violence:

1. American society urgently requires fundamental social and political change, not more firepower in official hands. As the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders stated, "This nation will deserve neither safety nor progress unless it can demonstrate the wisdom and the will to undertake decisive action against the root causes of racial disorder."

2. We must set realistic priorities. Historical experience suggests that firepower measures-so seemingly simple, practicable, and programmatic-will receive favorable consideration over reform measures. We believe that the law must be enforced fairly: and that the machinery of law enforcement needs upgrading; but we must carefully distinguish between increased firepower and enlightened law enforcement.

3. Police, soldiers, and other agents of social control have been implicated in triggering and intensifying violence in riots and other forms of protest.