Steering Committee to Reform the University, “Nine Demands to Dr. Walker” (February 17, 1969)

Photo: Antiwar demonstrations break out on Old Main lawn, amidst ‘Walkertown,’ in March of 1969.

View the Artifacts

Artifacts – Dr. Walker’s Response to the Steering Committee-1e9brfv

About the Artifacts

Amid a culture of uproar during the grueling Vietnam War, patterns of violent protests on college campuses broke out including at Penn State University. In their 1969 letter to Dr. Eric Walker, the Steering Committee to Reform the University expressed nine demands to be met by the leadership of Penn State University. There were differences between student’s demands and the University’s ideals stemming from the leadership. They were not complimentary with the student-run Douglass Association, advocating for minority student’s rights. Often, students seemed to present lists of demands to University Administration across the nation these included the elimination of ROTC, the admission of more minority students, and even the creation of an African American Studies department.¹ These demands were often met with resistance by the Penn State University administration, which caused outbreaks on campus, including a sit-in at Old Main during the spring of 1969 and the development of “Walkertown,” which became an innovative way in which the Penn State Students for a Democratic Society and the Steering Committee left their mark on the University’s history and culture, with the intentions of creating a better campus for all.²

Dr. Eric Walker responded to these nine demands presented by the student Steering Committee in a 1969 letter to parents of all undergraduate students. He wanted to not only make them aware of what was happening on campus but also ensure them that safety and education were the two primary concerns of the University’s administration. As Walker wrote, “I am confident that The Pennsylvania State University, through our joint efforts of responsible students, faculty, administrators, parents, and other interested and concerned parties, will continue to meet its education responsibilities to your sons and daughters.”³

The Steering Committee to Reform the University employed the collective “we” to serve as the voice to which Dr. Walker would respond. The collective voice representing all of the students became a powerful character for Dr. Walker to combat. Especially, when this voice represented women students, students of color, students affected by the draft, in addition to those students whose voices were more commonly heard. The Committee utilized the concept of kairos, or the opportune moment to speak up and respond to the shift in public opinion. Students wanted things to be done about the culture of the campus and the timeliness of the Vietnam War offered the opportune moment to protest the draft, but also the many other social and cultural problems prevalent on Penn State’s campus. In responding to the Committee after a contentious sit-in of  Old Main’s lobby, Dr. Walker shared an in loco parentis tone in communicating to parents of Penn State students.⁴

Educational activism became a process at Penn State University. These sweeping changes were not made overnight, but in fact, took quite some time to implement. Students wished one aspect, but authoritative figures wished for something else as they were constrained by external stakeholders. External stakeholders included donors, alumni, governmental officials, and more, but also included the parents of the students attending Penn State.⁵ Because of this, students at Penn State questioned the administrator’s role as in loco parentis and regarding relaying information to parents, as varying viewpoints were shared during the turning point of the 1960s. Both of these artifacts demonstrate the tension between the hegemonic authoritarian system at Penn State and the student’s voice, while also exhibiting the nature of the in loco parentis tone University administrators took on in the late 1960s at Penn State and nationwide.

References