Protest Culture at Centre College

By Mireille Bitangacha

There is a long history of  youth activism in the United States. From Alice Paul, John Lewis, and the students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who led March for Our Lives in 2018, students have made themselves visible by garnering support from peers to denounce and protest the government. Protests and student engagement have gone hand in hand, especially between the 1950’s-1970’s. The Anti-Vietnam War, Civil Rights issues, or the Kent State Massacre attracted large student populations to participate in protest. Often demonstrations made national headlines. Conversely, Centre College seems to be more calm. Protests did not occur but students did voice their opinions in classrooms, the student newspaper, and student congress. For example, Centre students disliked mandatory convocations. In 1950, the Centre Cento stated “this article is written in an effort to slow the tempers and speed up the minds of all those concerned in order that a happy settlement might be made before the trouble gets out of hand.” Essentially, this was the campus culture at Centre. How Centre students attained this way of engaging with conflict between students and those in authority will be explored through observing the behavior of other campuses and comparing it to Centre’s environment. Therefore, Centre did not see lively protests due to the gender culture, encouraged dialogue among students and faculty, and the lack of diversity.

The 1960’s were a time of nationwide protest. Compared to student bodies on other campuses, Centre students did not protest as often or intensely during the years 1950-1970. Instead, they were encouraged to engage in dialogue about political issues often in classrooms and other formal settings. Meanwhile the 1960’s were roaring with direct political engagements led by students. For example, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee gave a voice to young black people in the Civil Rights movement.  The Women’s Movement, Anti-Vietnam War, and Gay Rights movement were also popular and being actively fought for. The civil rights era produced fruitful results such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. In 1963, the Equal Pay Act was passed by congress, in 1965 the Supreme Court passed a law that gave married couples the right to use contraception, and in 1968 President Lyndon B. Johnson signed an executive order prohibiting sex discrimination. Student led activism increased political participation and support from an important demographic. These protests and often considered “riots” expanded the civil liberties we enjoy today. Post the 1960’s, the Corbin Times published that many students were “turning from protest.” In 1973, 50 colleges and universities added peace studies as a major. Three hundred campuses started including peace studies material. The culture around protests and its effectiveness were being questioned by students nationwide. A quote by Joe Fathey, an acting director of Manhattan College’s Peace Studies Institute sums up the attitudes of students across campuses including Centre’s. “I realized that the problem of war was deeper than the Vietnam war and protests were not to stop it.” This shift in attitude depicts why the 1970’s did not have as many protests as the 60’s.

Men dominated the influential and impactful movements of the 1960s. Tom Hayden, the founder of Students for a Democractic Society, led thousands of students nationwide to anti-Vietnam protests. John Lewis, the chairman of SNCC was a prominent voice in the civil rights movement. Women played influential roles during the civil rights movement but have been overshadowed by their male counterparts. Fannie Lou Hammer, Anne Moody, and Ella Baker are a few names that many have not heard of but were civil and human rights activists. Social changes were occurring but within the realm of a patriarchal society. Women have been participating in these political spheres for decades but often their stories are hidden. Men continue to control the political narrative, only highlighting stories and ideas of other men. Unlike men,  women don't have the privilege to focus on issues because of respectability politics and often garnering respect is more laborious. For example, the accusations of sleeping your way to the top, the way you dress, and how much makeup you wear are all tactics used to discredit women in politics. Although the 60’s called for an increase in political engagement, women who did participate did not receive the same amount of public validation as their male counterparts.

In the early 1970’s “disturbances” across campus universities were high. Numerous campus demonstrations were in result of President Nixon’s decision to invade Cambodia further extending the Vietnam war. Oftentimes, at the larger universities, thousands of national guard members were sent to campus. Tensions were high and tear gas was often used to disperse crowds. Black and White students worked together to propel the student movements. This alliance applied more pressure to the government than if it was to be segregated. It was the Kent State Massacre that had students not only protesting the war, but fighting for their generation. Strikes occured at 278 colleges. Nixon’s response to the Kent State Massacre was telling about the attitudes towards this “disobedience” and civil unrest by the younger generation. Nixon referred to the students as “bums” who pursue violence. “When dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy.” The lack of sympathy by Nixon led to major backlash. Students were clearly not supported by the government even when violence occured. From a president who emphasized “law and order” protests were not respected and publicly discouraged. 

However, it was not only larger state schools that witnessed protest. In 1970, St. Olaf college in Minnesota, another small private liberal art school, held a demonstration by 40-60 students. This was a collaboration with Carleton College and Macalester. The sit-in protest did not have a single leader. The anonymity shows that this was probably a collective effort between men and women. Students demanded that they have a vote in the companies the college had investments in. A poll down shows that Macalester faculty and administration were against this. Additionally students wanted to get rid of the ROTC program. They occupied the upper level where college officials’ offices were. The goal was to “exert the maximum influence through civil disobedience.” The President of St. Olaf considered this form of “civil disobedience” trespassing. The administration did not  support student concerns which fostered the right environment for protests. St. Olaf students used protests as a way for them to be seen. At the end of the day, students won their stance on ROTC. The more students feel alienated on topics they find important, whether politically or on their campus, more grandiose forms of public dissent will be taken to resolve the issues. 

While nationally many campuses were in uproar, Centre College is seeing the opposite. The promotion of distinct gender roles throughout the history of the college can help understand why the campus culture was not the right environment for protests. Gender expectations are vividly seen within the digitized yearbooks, the Centre Cento, and oral history interviews with women alum. Between 1950-1970’s, dramatic changes took place. In the 1950’s and 60’s women had to dress formally for dinner every evening. In the early Centre yearbooks, women were applauded for their beauty and sociableness. They were unable to wear shorts or jeans till the 1970’s. Centre was very much a patriarchal society with a heteronormative agenda. As referenced by an interviewee who attended Centre in the late 50’s early 60’s, women were “protected.” They had a curfew that locked them out of the dormitories with an in and out log that recorded who was leaving and with whom. Dances remained important throughout these decades and yearbooks revealed how men chose women for homecoming queen. Men and women followed a dress code that emphasized a clean and neat look. This was especially important for women. In a published dress code for the Gardenia dance, women were to dress formally while it was optional for men. Not only were there dress expectations, but character building was essential to the women’s curriculum. For instance, Kentucky’s College for Women emphasized Christian life and character development. Women were trained to be a lady and groomed to be partners for a male (gentlemen) counterpart. Students performed the appropriate gender roles enforced by the school. Gentlemen and ladylike culture created “right” and “wrong” ways in expressing dissent. The proper way was quiet, more “civil”, and formal.

Centre students were aware of social issues but chose to engage with them differently. Convocations are foundational to Centre’s history. Weekly convocations fostered conversations on social issues and students joined congress and judiciary committees to initiate change. During the time of Watergate, the political scandal that linked President Nixon to the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, an interviewee states that Centre students were not extremist. The lack of extremism in part can be due to the absence of visible diverse identities. Identity plays a role in how radical one might engage with a social issue. Hence why politicians use identity politics to rally support from certain demographics. Centre was a homogenous campus and not many students were directly affected by the world around them. This homogeneity led to conformity. For example,  A “Slave Sale” that auctioned freshman girls to men to raise money for the Gardenia Dance was published. It’s clear that this would not be able to occur without public disapproval today. However, in another interview, a woman said that people “knew their place.” This hierarchical understanding makes everyone complacent whether willingly or reluctantly. In a published Cento about residence life, the student congress states, “every effort should be made to protect the rights of minorities, but tyranny of the minority must be avoided.” This fear in status quo disruptions supports the idea that Centre was very much a “know your place” system. If this was the case, then men who are usually encouraged to be outspoken and dominate did not feel the need to express it through protest. Therefore the outrage needed just wasn’t there on campus. 

Centre men expressed their disapproval of the Vietnam War in a subordinate way. Aspired “draft dodgers” tried to work within the system to get out of service by either going to graduate school or becoming a father earlier than planned. Wayne Barnette, a Centre College graduate, fled the country with his wife in 1969. He considered himself a “draft resister” and was opposed to killing and the Vietnam War. These methods of actions can tie into the fact that Centre was a strict school in the 1950’s and 60’s where dress, space, mobility were regulated. 

The government was an additional authority to the lives of Centre students. Students' objections to the government would follow the same tactics as the ones used on campus. Centre students supported the students from the University of Kentucky and petitioned the governor on how he handled their protest. By the 1970’s, Centre, to the student population, was not a school that needed protests because they realized they had more civil liberties than other campuses. The Centre bubble shielded campus from the solely issue oriented world surrounding them. An interviewee mentioned that the civil rights movement was nonviolent and unlike the “burning of buildings and cities today. However, it’s striking that the nonviolent movement was applauded, but yet did not stir the participation in allyship amongst the Centre community in the 70’s. An interview with a former black student who graduated in 1975, expressed that by the 70’s, Centre was not an activist campus and felt as if students did not care about civil rights. Centre students were privileged and had no sense obligation to engage in issues directly because it did not effect their daily lives. 

Shelia Burkes and Civil Rights advocacy on the campus, July 25, 2020

Evidently, Centre is unique in the way they handled the Kent State Massacre. While hundreds of campuses were demonstrating after the Kent State Massacre, Centre held a rally known as “A Day of Concern” which was “an expression of concern for the events of the last week.” This was a memorial planned for Kent students that involved students, faculty, and some citizens of Danville. It’s important to note that this was not a protest. This was not an act of civil disobedience but a day supported by Centre College and its administration. The president of Centre, Thomas Spragens, polled students on the question of suspending classes. The rally was followed by a teach-in and a parade through downtown Danville. This was a collaborative effort by students and faculty. Often when topics were hot, professors held classroom discussions or meetings. Although this open dialogue is healthy, it no longer allows the room for “disobedience” when the accepted resolution to problems is talking. The support that is distinctively seen at Centre College nevertheless suppressed “rioting” and “protesting.”

In 2018, Centre saw its first sit-in protest led by students. This protest was spearheaded by the black students on campus with support from other affinity groups. In the list of demands written by black students to Centre “WE” is bolded. Changes were called in the Athletic Department, Department of Public Safety, and the Title IX office to name a few. The list is extensive but some demands included the athletic department and DPS officers undergo racial sensitivity training on diversity and inclusion, Sodexo offering a wider variety of food options such as halal food, and a multicultural space. It received support from faculty and alumni who donated money for food. This sit-in, similar to the one at St. Olaf in 1970 was fruitful and demands were met. At the time Susie Roush, former president John Roush’s wife, stated that the students should have come to P. Roush’s house to discuss the issues they were having on campus. Unfortunately, she used the term “showboat” to describe the concerns of students. Susie Roush’s reaction showcases how indirect action was often promoted at Centre. The lack of extreme views created this safe peaceful place that many alumni have noted about the campus environment. Students decades later challenge a campus culture where the respected avenue was through quiet delegations. The more diverse Centre has become and the welcoming of students from all different backgrounds results in a more complex dynamic that creates a space for the demand of active, visible, spaces for identities that were not supported on campus. Dialogue is no longer enough when it directly affects the people who are involved. 

Centre College’s campus culture did not breed an environment for protests. There were not many universities, colleges, or politicians that were listening to college students. However, the Centre was. In addition to the relationship between students and faculty, gender roles have been rooted in Centre's history. These roles led to behavioral expectations that prohibited forms of protest deemed unsophisticated. Women were to be protected, uphold morality, and be ladylike. Centre had a system that was not yet ready to be disrupted head on until the 21st century. There are multiple effective ways to bring about change, but sometimes when it’s urgent, we have seen that direct action has been an important tool. The balance between direct civil unrest and mediation is one society is still figuring out but it’s important to have the two. Real change cannot happen with only one. Injustice should be attacked from all angles.