Bibliography: Anti-war (page 5 of 5)

Morse, Stanley J.; Peele, Stanton (1971). A Study of Participants in Anti-Vietnam War Demonstration, Journal of Social Issues. Study sought to identify those attitudinal and cognitive factors which prompt an individual to participate in protests designed to change government policy Descriptors: Behavioral Science Research, Cognitive Processes, College Students, Demonstrations (Civil)

Freedman, David (1996). Teaching Anti-militarism during War, Theory into Practice. Article discusses various issues of a situated pedagogical practice by examining one teacher's experiences teaching during the U.S.-Iraq war. His course highlighted ways that cultural constructions of oppressive discourses enabled a plunge into war, looking at how and why context-specific interventions against oppression were considered and taught. Descriptors: Activism, College Faculty, Context Effect, Higher Education

Brown, Clyde; Brown, Gayle K. Pluta (1995). Moo U and the Cambodia Invasion: Anti-Vietnam War Protest at Iowa State University, May 1970. A detailed examination of the Vietnam war demonstrations on the Iowa State University campus and in Ames (Iowa) in May 1970, utilizing local and student newspaper accounts and interviews contained in an oral history archive, show how words of protest along with critically reasoned behavior led to purposeful student contributions. Through the period in question, student leaders and their most ardent followers as well as university officials were committed to a policy of nonviolence. Many of those who exposed themselves to arrest explained their actions in terms of heightened personal commitment, moral and political, to ending the war. Having spoken out repeatedly about the war in Vietnam, student protesters stepped up their activities after the extraordinary events of the Cambodian invasion and the Kent State-Jackson State killings. They felt the situation required a heightened level of commitment from them. They moved from legal protest to civil disobedience. Meanwhile, university administrators eschewed a heavy-handed approach for strategic reasons as well. They believed that an unnecessary confrontation with students was the surest way to polarize the campus and radicalize the student body. Retrospectively, administrators agreed that they had been right not to order the arrest of students occupying the armory the night of May 5-6 or even subject the armory occupiers to disciplinary actions. (Includes 12 notes; contains 38 references and a 32-item selected bibliography.) Descriptors: Activism, Administrator Behavior, College Administration, College Students

Leave a Reply