Cover Image

The Free Speech Movement

Reflections on Berkeley in the 1960s

Robert Cohen (Editor), Reginald E. Zelnik (Editor)

Available worldwide

Paperback, 638 pages
ISBN: 9780520233546
October 2002
$30.95, £24.00
Other Formats Available:
This is the authoritative and long-awaited volume on Berkeley's celebrated Free Speech Movement (FSM) of 1964. Drawing from the experiences of many movement veterans, this collection of scholarly articles and personal memoirs illuminates in fresh ways one of the most important events in the recent history of American higher education. The contributors—whose perspectives range from that of FSM leader Mario Savio to University of California president Clark Kerr—-shed new light on such issues as the origins of the FSM in the civil rights movement, the political tensions within the FSM, the day-to-day dynamics of the protest movement, the role of the Berkeley faculty and its various factions, the 1965 trial of the arrested students, and the virtually unknown "little Free Speech Movement of 1966."

Permissions and Credits
Preface, by Leon F. Litwack
List of Abbreviations

The Many Meanings of the FSM
Robert Cohen

Part I. Roots
Thirty Years Later: Reflections on the Free Speech Movement
Mario Savio
From Freedom Now! to Free Speech: The FSM’s Roots in the Bay Area Civil Rights Movement
Jo Freeman
Holding One Another: Mario Savio and the Freedom Struggle in Mississippi and Berkeley
Waldo Martin

Part II. Experience: Fall 1964
War Is Declared!
Jackie Goldberg
My Life in the FSM: Memories of a Freshman
Margot Adler
Gender Politics and the FSM: A Meditation on Women and Freedom of Speech
Bettina Aptheker
Recollections of the FSM
Martin Roysher
A View from the South: The Idea of a State University
Henry Mayer
Endgame: How the Berkeley Grads Organized to Win
Steven Weissman
A View from the Margins
David Hollinger
Dressing for the Revolution
Kate Coleman
The "Rossman Report": A Memoir of Making History
Michael Rossman
The FSM and the Vision of a New Left
Jeff Lustig
This Was Their Fight and They Had to Fight It: The FSM’s Nonradical Rank and File
Robert Cohen

Faculty and Clergy
On the Side of the Angels: The Berkeley Faculty and the FSM
Reginald E. Zelnik
From the Big Apple to Berkeley: Perspectives of a Junior Faculty Member
Lawrence W. Levine
When the FSM Disturbed the Faculty Peace
Leon Wofsy
The Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the Campus Ministry
Keith Chamberlain

Fall of 1964 at Berkeley: Confrontation Yields to Reconciliation
Clark Kerr

Part III. Legal and Constitutional Issues
Constitutionally Interpreting the FSM Controversy
Robert Post
December 1964: Some Reflections and Recollections
Robert H. Cole
The FSM: A Movement Lawyer’s Perspective
Malcolm Burnstein

Part IV. Aftermath
Mario Savio and Berkeley’s "Little Free Speech Movement" of 1966
Robert Cohen
The Limits of Freedom: Student Activists and Educational Reform at Berkeley in the 1960s
Julie A. Reuben
The FSM, Berkeley Politics, and Ronald Reagan
W. J. Rorabaugh
Mario Savio’s Second Act: The 1990s
Jonah Raskin
Part V. Thoughts about Mario Savio
Mario Savio and the Politics of Authenticity
Doug Rossinow
Remembering Mario
Lynne Hollander Savio
Mario, Personal and Political
Suzanne Goldberg
Elegy for Mario Salvio
Wendy Lesser
On Mario Savio
Greil Marcus
Mario Savio: The Avatar of Free Speech
Reginald E. Zelnik

Selected Bibliography
Robert Cohen is Associate Professor of Education at New York University and has an associated appointment in the NYU History Department. He is the author of When the Old Left Was Young: Student Radicals and America's First Mass Student Movement, 1929-1941 (1993), and editor of Dear Mrs. Roosevelt: Letters from Children of the Great Depression (2002). Reginald E. Zelnik is Professor of History at the University of California, Berkeley. Among his recent publications are Law and Disorder on the Narova River: The Kreenholm Strike of 1872 (California, 1995) and Workers and Intelligentsia in Late Imperial Russia: Realities, Representations, Reflections (1999).
“This compilation of essays is an outstanding contribution to our understanding of the dawn of the modern student movement...A superb set of essays that shed new light on the significance of the Free Speech Movement.”—Jospeh Palermo H-Net Reviews In Humanities & Social Sciences
“This book betters our understanding of both the history of the movement. . . an invaluable resource.”—Charles Dorn History Of Education Qtly
"This is a superb book. We are well-launched into a new generation of '60s scholarship, and The Free Speech Movement will be at the center of it. The analysis and personal recollection mix well, arguing persuasively for the never-to-be-underestimated place of contingency in history."—Todd Gitlin, author of Media Unlimited and The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage

"This powerful book not only will be the classic work on the Free Speech Movement but also will be combed as a basis for hypotheses and new research on the movements of the '60s. It's absolutely thrilling, full of large implications for history, social movements, and character. The book contributed to my self-knowledge (personal, political, and professional) and will do the same for others. It combines humor and a firsthand, I-was-there flavor with provocative analyses. As a serious, original work of scholarship, this gives edited volumes back their good name."—Jesse Lemisch, Professor of History Emeritus, John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York, and author of The American Revolution Seen from the Bottom Up

"This book gets the Free Speech Movement and its significance exactly right-from the civil rights origins to refusing to idealize the moment at the expense of what came later. And no two better editors could be doing it."—Michael Rogin, author of Ronald Reagan, The Movie, And Other Episodes in Political Demonology

"As a journalist, I was in Berkeley's Sproul Plaza to witness the mass arrests of the Free Speech Movement demonstrators in December 1964. As a citizen, I've always known that this was one of the pivotal moments in the great political and moral awakening of the 1960s. As a reader, I found much to feast on in this splendid and thoughtful collection of essays, about a movement whose effects and inspiration are with us still."—Adam Hochschild, author of King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa

"The Free Speech Movement was a pivotal moment in the evolution of student rights and university responsibilities. These splendid essays memorialize this period and offer competing perspectives on its meaning. Though differing widely in conclusions, collectively and individually they stand testament to the conviction that 'the price of freedom is eternal vigilance' and that 'the critical test of freedom of expression is the right of others to speak out on behalf of what we believe to be wrong.'"—Geoffrey R. Stone, author of Eternally Vigilant: Freedom of Speech in the Modern Era

"This rich and entertaining set of essays offers remarkable insight into the genesis, development, and consequences of the Free Speech Movement. Written largely by participants and close observers, these essays offer both personal and analytical assessments of the roles of students, faculty, and administrators. Above all, the chapters on Mario Savio demonstrate his unusual capacity for leadership-charismatic without being dogmatic, committed to the cause while retaining a capacity to think and deal openly with dissent. This book should be read by anyone interested in understanding university and national politics in the '60s."—Chancellor Robert M. Berdahl, University of California, Berkeley

List of Contributors

MARGOT ADLER is a correspondent for National Public Radio, and has been reporting for NPR since 1978. Before then she reported news and public affairs for Pacifica and hosted free form radio shows on WBAI-FM. She is the author of Drawing Down the Moon and Heretic's Heart: a Journey through Spirit and Revolution. She graduated from UC Berkeley in 1968, after which she received her MA from the Columbia School of Journalism. In 1982 she was a Nieman Fellow at Harvard.

BETTINA APTHEKER is professor and chair of Women's Studies at UC Santa Cruz. She was on the FSM Steering Committee and was later active in the movement against the Vietnam War and the movement to free Angela Davis. Her books include: The Morning Breaks: The Trial of Angela DavisWoman's Legacy: Essays on Race, Sex, and Class in American History;  and Tapestries of Life: Women's Work, Women's Consciousness and the Meaning of Daily Experience. She is at work on a memoir, "Brooklyn Tracks."

MALCOLM BURNSTEIN is a prominent Bay Area movement lawyer. He has been active in that capacity since the late 1950s. In the 1960s he used his legal training in behalf of such causes as the Free Speech Movement, including the legal defense of the students arrested in Sproul Hall on December 3, 1964. He retired from his practice in 2001.

KEITH CHAMBERLAIN, a retired Presbyterian Minister, has lived and worked in Germany since 1971.  In addition to campus ministry positions in Berkeley, Berlin and Frankfurt, he has been a parish minister and chaplain at the Frankfurt Airport, where he was involved with the problems of refugees. He was acting University Pastor at Westminster House, the Presbyterian campus center, at the time of the FSM.

ROBERT COHEN is director of New York University's Social Studies Program and Associate Professor in NYU's Department of Teaching and Learning, with an affilated appointment in the History Department. He received his PhD at Berkeley 1987. He is author of When the Old Left Was Young: Student Radicals and America's First Mass Student Movement, 1929-1941, and editor of Dear Mrs. Roosevelt: Letters from Children of the Great Depression. He is preparing an edited volume of Mario Savio's speeches and writings.

ROBERT COLE is Professor of Law Emeritus at Boalt Hall, the law school of UC Berkeley. His main fields are constitutional law, torts, and professional ethics. He received his LL.B from Harvard, where he was book review editor of the Harvard Law Review, and later served as a law clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court. Shortly after the FSM, he served a term as faculty consultant to the new Berkeley Chancellor, Roger Heyns.

KATE COLEMAN, a veteran Bay Area journalist, has written for numerous publications, including  Ramparts,  New West,  Ms, Women Sports, the LA Times Magazine,  LA WeeklySan Francisco, and Salon. She has written extensively on the Black Panther Party as well as on such cultural figures as Miss America, Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas, and Zsa Zsa Gabor. She is currently writing a biography of Earth First activist Judi Bari.

JO FREEMAN received her BA from UC Berkeley in 1965, her PhD in Political Science from the University of Chicago in 1973, and her JD from New York University School of Law in 1982. She is the author of three books, including A Room at a Time: How Women Entered Party Politics, and numerous articles, and is editor or co-editor of seven volumes, most recently the co-edited Waves of Protest: Social Movements Since the Sixties.

JACKIE GOLDBERG is currently a California State Assembly Member. She previously served as a member and President of the Los Angeles Board of Education and as a member of the Los Angeles City Council. She was a member of the FSM Steering Committee in the fall of 1964.

SUZANNE GOLDBERG is a practicing psychotherapist and an artist. During the Free Speech Movement she was a delegate of the Graduate Coordinating Committee to the FSM Steering Committee and was a frequent public speaker in behalf of the FSM.

DAVID A. HOLLINGER, who received his PhD from the UC Berkeley History Department in 1970, is now the Preston Hotchkis Professor of American History in that department. His most recent books are Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism and Science, Jews, and Secular Culture.

CLARK KERR is Professor Emeritus of Economics and Business Administration, UC Berkeley and President Emeritus, University of California. He served as the Berkeley Chancellor in 1952-58 and as President of the University in 1958-67. His publications include The Uses of the University and The Gold and the Blue: A Personal Memoir of the University of California, 1949-1967, Vol 1: Academic Triumphs; Vol. 2: Political Turmoil.

WENDY LESSER is the editor of The Threepenny Review. She was educated at Harvard, Cambridge, and UC Berkeley. The author of six books and editor of one, she has received fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, the NEH, the ACLS, the Columbia Journalism School, and elsewhere. She lives in Berkeley with her husband and their son.

LAWRENCE W. LEVINE taught for thirty-two years in the UC Berkeley History Department; since 1994 he has been on the faculty at George Mason University. His books include Black Culture and Black Consciousness; Highbrow/Lowbrow; The Opening of the American Mind; and (with Cornelia Levine) The People and the President: America's Conversation with FDR.

LEON LITWACK is Alexander F. and May T. Morrison Professor of American History at UC Berkeley, where he received both his BA and PhD degrees. His 1980 book, Been in the Storm So Long: The Aftermath of Slavery, received the Pulitzer Prize in History. His most recent books are Trouble in Mind: Black Southerners in the Age of Jim Crow and (as co-author) Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America. He is co-editor of The Harvard Guide to African American History.

JEFF LUSTIG, who received his PhD at UC Berkeley, is Professor of Government at the State University of California, Sacramento and the current Secretary of the California Faculty Association. He is the author of Corporate Liberalism: The Origins of Modern American Political Theory as well as numerous articles and reports.

GREIL MARCUS attended UC Berkeley as an undergraduate in 1963-67 and as a graduate student in Political Science in 1967-72. He taught the American Studies seminar "Prophecy and the American Voice" at both Berkeley and Princeton in 2000. He is the author of Lipstick Traces, The Old, Weird America, and The Dustbin of History, among other books. He lives in Berkeley.

WALDO MARTIN is Professor of History at UC Berkeley, where he received his PhD in 1980. He specializes in African American political, social, and cultural history. He is the author of The Mind of Frederick Douglass and Brown v. Board of Education: A Brief History With Documents , and co-editor of Civil Rights in the United States: An Encyclopedia.

HENRY MAYER is the author of All On Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery, which won the J. Anthony Lukas Book Prize and was nominated for the National Book Award, and A Son of Thunder: Patrick Henry and the American Republic. During the FSM he was a History delegate to the Graduate Coordinating Committee. In 1967 he was co-chair (with Caleb Foote) of Berkeley's Study Commission on University Governance, and he was co-author of its published report, The Culture Of The University: Governance and Education. His death in July 2000 was a terrible loss to his friends, his loved ones, and American letters.

ROBERT POST is the Alexander F. and May T. Morrison Professor of Law at Boalt Hall, the law school of UC Berkeley. He is the author of Constitutional Domains: Democracy, Community, Management and the editor of Censorship and Silencing: Practices of Cultural Regulation.

JONAH RASKIN is the chair of the Communication Studies Department at Sonoma State University. He is the author of For the Hell of It: The Life and Times of Abbie Hoffman and Out of the Whale: Growing up in the American Left.

JULIE A. REUBEN is Professor of Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. She is the author of Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality. She is currently completing a book tentatively titled "Campus Revolts: Politics and American Higher Education in the 1960s."

W. J. RORABAUGH received his PhD from UC Berkeley in 1976. His publications include Berkeley at War: The 1960s and Kennedy and the Promise of the Sixties. He is Professor of History at the University of Washington in Seattle.

DOUG ROSSINOW is Associate Professor of History and Chair of the Department of History, Religious and Women's Studies at Metropolitan State University in Minneapolis. He is the author of The Politics of Authenticity: Liberals, Christians, and the New Left in America. His current book project is called "The Vital Margin: Interpreting "Progressive" Politics in Modern America."

MICHAEL ROSSMAN is a writer and mathematics teacher. He is currently the president of FSM-A, an organization dedicated to the gathering, preservation, and dissemination of materials related to the FSM, and editor of the FSM-A Newsletter. He is the author of The Wedding Within the War and New Age Blues, and co-author of The Rossman Report (the subject of his essay in the present volume).

MARTIN ROYSHER was a member of the FSM Steering Committee. He received both his BA degree (History) and his PhD degree (Sociology) at UC Berkeley. In 1967 he was a member of the Study Commission on University Governance. A specialist in the fields of urban politics and society and public health, he has held a variety of positions in both the public and the private sectors.

LYNNE HOLLANDER SAVIO, who studied at Bryn Mawr College and graduated from UC Berkeley, was an active participant in the FSM and one of the co-authors of The Rossman Report. She now lives in Sonoma County, where she works as a public school librarian. She is the widow of Mario Savio and heads the Board of Directors of the Mario Savio Memorial Lecture and Young Activist Award.

MARIO SAVIO, a veteran of the Bay Area and Southern Civil Rights movements, was the FSM'S most influential orator and its most famous organizer. Educated at Manhattan College, Queens College, UC Berkeley, and San Francisco State University, he received his BS (summa cum laude, with designation as "outstanding science student") and MS degrees in Physics from the last named school. He taught mathematics, logic, and interdisciplinary courses in science and literature at Sonoma State University. In addition to his political and social writings, he published "AE (Aristotle-Euler) Diagrams: an Alternative Complete Method for the Categorical Syllogism," Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic (Fall 1998). Many aspects of his rich and often complicated life are treated in the present volume. Mario died in 1996 at the age of 53. This book is dedicated to his memory.

STEVE WEISSMAN has been an editor of Ramparts and a television producer for the BBC. His films appeared on PBS. He has written for newspapers and magazines throughout the world and co-authored The Islamic Bomb. Now living in France, he is working on a book called Phantoms of Lost Liberty: Free Speech and the Terrorists. In 1964 he was a member of the FSM Steering Committee and a leader of the Graduate Coordinating Committee

LEON WOFSY is Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology/Immunology at UC Berkeley. He joined the Berkeley faculty in 1964, just before the birth of the FSM. From 1949 to 1955 he was National Chairman of the Labor Youth League, a Marxist youth organization. He is the author of many scientific papers and articles on social issues and of a memoir, Looking for the Future. He is editor of a book on the Cold War, Before the Point of No Return.

REGINALD E. ZELNIK, who received his PhD from Stanford, is Professor of History at UC Berkeley and former Chair of that department. He was a new Acting Assistant Professor at Berkeley at the time of the FSM. In 1967 he was a member of the Study Commission on University Governance. His most recent books are Law and Disorder on the Narova River: The Kreenholm Strike of 1872 and the edited volume, Workers and Intelligentsia in Late Imperial Russia: Realities, Representations, Reflections.

Part One: Roots

Thirty Years Later: Reflections on the FSM

Mario Savio

  On November 15, 1995, at the invitation of historian Barbara Epstein, Mario Savio gave a talk on the FSM to the History of Consciousness Department colloquium at UC Santa Cruz. Mario did not have a prepared text for this talk, but—as was his usual practice—worked from notes and spoke in an extemporaneous fashion. Capturing on paper Savio's uniquely dialogic style of speaking is like trying to cover the concert of a jazz musician or singer by transcribing the notes they hit. What follows is not a full verbatim account of the speech but a somewhat abridged version that faithfully relays its central ideas and, we hope, a good deal of its texture.

. . .

I'd like to share with you some ideas about how my consciousness, my piece of collective consciousness and that of my friends, developed. We had our beginnings in the 1940s and 1950s. [I was born in] 1942. I was a war baby. But spiritually speaking, [our consciousness formed largely] in reaction to the 1950s. It was in reaction to the 1950s that we did the kinds of things that we did.

[The television sit-com] Roseanne recently had a program where [Roseanne Barr] did Roseanne of the 1950s. It's really quite remarkable because Roseanne's caricatured version of the 1950s is in some ways the pretend world that we were reacting to. Now it had some darker things in it too, and they didn't make their way into the Roseanne episode, but I thought [overall her rendering of the 1950s] was really wonderful. Here on the tube, this major [source] of information is disseminating stereotypes of the left. It's interesting because most of the media that disseminate stereotypes disseminate stereotypes of the right. And now, it would be nice if we could get beyond the stereotypes, but at least we should have some of ours up there, not always theirs. So I loved it. It was really marvelously done.

The fact that Roseanne could do that and that it would be very popular, canned laughter and all, means that it is no longer possible to be, to unself-consciously accept being, "normal." You see the fifties were "normal." The fifties are bizarre, but they were the last normal decade, [when] everything was still just in place the way it ought to be. The man thought he was in charge, the woman let him think that while making certain decisions in the house (she took care of the kids, made sure they were all washed and went to school, everything went just right), and the only black man they knew was the one who came around collecting money for charity. And that was what happened in the episode. It was tremendous.

That was the last normal decade. Those were the last normal people. [Today] there are hardly any normal people left. And I think that's really significant. Bill Clinton is not normal because after all he is married to Hillary and Hillary is not normal, right? That is, she's not part of that normal world, thank goodness. And Newt Gingrich is not normal. He's less normal but certainly not normal. It's now the case that even people in positions of power are clearly [not normal]. Here's a president playing the saxophone. There's something really abnormal about it. All of us who grew up in normal times know that that's so. That's really quite significant. It's no longer possible to be unself-consciously normal. We are in a very strange period of transition. In periods that are not periods of transition, everybody's normal, right? Now, hardly anybody is.

How did such a strange state of affairs begin? You could imagine back, say, in the time of the Reformation: you want your own church? Abnormal, right? You see, that kind of a revolutionary situation is where the abnormal, the crazy people, people who want their own church, get to have one. And I can just imagine, coming out of the church that I came out of, how it must have made the cardinals really go ballistic that any of [these reformers, who] previously would [have been dismissed as] kooks , would be in charge of a kingdom or a principality. You know, this crazy person nails these theses to the door of the church, and soon there were people saying, "That's great! Go for it Luther!"

But we are in that kind of strange situation now. That is one of the reasons that the right is so "strong" now. They're not strong because they are actually strong. They're strong because the world is not any longer the normal world that they're trying to preserve. That's why we call them "reactionaries." They're trying to go [back] into the nineteenth century. But we're much closer to the twenty-first. They seem stronger than they are because they recognize [that they are losing ground]. Why, for example, are they so gung ho for family values? Because most of the families aren't like those families of the fifties. Even the ones that are as close as possible are not really like that. I think it's important to keep that in the back of one's mind when we feel really oppressed by how strong they are, just think how weak they actually are. And one clear example of that to bear in mind is the following: Colin Powell is going to run as a Republican. . . . I was gearing up to decide whether I would vote for the first time for a Republican . . . because the country could use a black male president. I mean it's fantastic. Fortunately I didn't have to make that decision. But look, all of these right-wing Republicans up on a stage, a whole phalanx of them, denouncing this Republican. Denouncing him. That's not a sign of strength. That is a sign of terrible weakness. Why would they have to do such a thing? They were afraid. Why? They are trying to pull us back from what they imagine is sort of a pit, [a loss of their own institutions]. Trying to pull us back, and here they think, "We've got it, we've got the Republican Party," and they realize they can lose it just like that. They're very scared. So the situation may not be quite what it seems to be. How did it get this way?

Well, I'll tell you how it got this way for me. I grew up as a Catholic. I was an altar boy. I was going to be a priest. Now obviously the eldest son in an Italian Catholic family, a person who would become a priest if anyone was going to be—and I was going to be that person. My two aunts are nuns. I came into it from liberation theology. I read things that probably most people in this room have not read. I read [Jacques] Maritain, I read [Emmanuel] Mounier, I read things put out by Catholic Worker people; I was very much immersed in that sort of thing. And that was how I came at it. By virtue of my Catholicism and the particular character it was taking, for me a major decision was whether to be a priest. Therefore I was not a careerist. I couldn't be a careerist. I had something more important to do. I was trying to save my soul. And I made pacts with myself repeatedly. "If you can just believe these things, then you will have to apply to become a Jesuit." That was the image I had—a romantic image. But the point is, I certainly could not become a careerist.

Now it turns out that from various other paths, many people I met at Berkeley were in the same situation. Not all Catholics—mostly not. But they, for one reason or another, were in some kind of peripheral relationship to the society, not really able to put career first but rather to put ideas first. There were a remarkable number of people there at that time of that kind. And not just at Berkeley. Some of them were from Jewish families, some from Protestant families even, which is really remarkable to me because I don't think of there being that many Protestants in America because where I grew up [Queens, New York] there were only Catholics and Jews. But in any case, I understand there are a lot of Protestants in America and we, in fact, encountered some. And in any case, whichever background they came from, they were not set on being careerists. The ideas actually mattered. For me it was because of the reasons I've described, but for others with different backgrounds it would have been for other reasons. That was a significant part of that time. And maybe one of the reasons it was possible was because they were prosperous times. It's harder to eschew an excessive concern with career when you want to make sure you have one, right? We knew, no problem, you can get student digs for thirty-five dollars. Astonishing. So one didn't worry about the material world. One could afford to be above the material world, and a lot of people at that time really were, and I think fortunately.

We also were the first generation to grow up under the threat of the bomb. That actually was special. We were the first generation to do that. They exploded them on the [TV] tube. See, they hadn't yet put them [under] the ground. Periodically there would be an explosion of the hydrogen bomb or the latest device there, chow, boom! Right on the news. And I remember even as a little child they had us ["take cover"] under desks. There were periodically drills in the schools as I was growing up in the fifties and you would go under desks. Now, I ultimately took degrees in physics, so even then I asked myself questions like "Will it actually do the job?" And I made up these stories. Maybe it's the flash, so maybe the desk could keep me from going blind. You try to think, "What could this wooden desk [do to protect me in a nuclear attack]?" So I would actually try to think, what would it do? and I never raised the issue with the teacher. I mean, one could, right? One could say, "You know, I don't want to make a big thing about this, but will it really work? Could you maybe explain it to me?" But I did think about it, you see. Lots of people did. One of the reasons they put [fallout shelters] underground was because people were super scared. People were more scared of the bombs than of the Commies. [Even people] like me, coming from a background where, [for] Catholics of a certain kind, J. Edgar Hoover was a person to take seriously as an intellectual almost, from a sort of a Catholic point of view. So, in other words, the Commies, I knew, were bad. I later met some and discovered they were very warm human beings, but it took me a while. But the bomb, you knew that was bad, right? So that was part of the background.

And then, part of the background for me and, I think, for others was the Holocaust. I'm not Jewish but I saw those pictures. And those pictures were astonishing. Heaps of bodies. Mounds of bodies. Nothing affected my consciousness more than those pictures. And those pictures had on me the following impact, which other people maybe came to in a different way. They meant to me that everything needed to be questioned. Reality itself. Because this was like opening up your father's drawer and finding pictures of child pornography, with adults molesting children. It's like a dark, grotesque secret that people had that at some time in the recent past people were being incinerated and piled up in piles. I saw those pictures. I couldn't believe them. And I thought as a [high school] kid looking at those pictures: "If this really happened, then everything must have changed." Germany must absolutely have been a transformed government—from sinners to saints. They must actually have rooted out the possibility of such a thing happening—totally rooted it out—[and] have totally transformed society where even the least possibility that anyone could do anything bad again is prevented just from the fear of what once happened. Otherwise this couldn't be real. It must be a fake. I mean how could it possibly [be]? But I knew it was real. And this affected me more than any other single thing. I started to get the idea that people weren't really coming completely clean about things. In other words, that there was almost a conspiracy not to tell the truth to oneself, even on a mass scale. Because I knew that if the kind of transformation that would have to have happened in Germany, reflective of taking these pictures seriously, [actually happened,] we'd know about it. You'd hear about it on the news: "German chancellor just nominated for sainthood," or something like that. Some sort of absolutely astonishing things would be happening in Germany if there were any human response to these heaps. So it's clear that that hadn't happened, and that's [the] point. And that was the thing that started me questioning everything about reality. It was really those pictures. And I'll bet you that those pictures had such an effect on thousands and thousands of people, whether they were Jewish or not. This is not the good that comes out of the bad—à la Saint Augustine—that justifies the Holocaust. But this is the good that comes out of the bad because we've got to get on into our next millennium or something. Those pictures had an impact on people's lives. I know they had an impact on mine, something not as strong but akin to a "never again" feeling which Jews certainly have had. But non-Jews had that kind of feeling, too.

In the midst of all this, the Civil Rights Movement exploded. To me that was very important at that moment because I had had this confrontation with the ideas of the Holocaust. I was not a careerist. I was someone who took good and evil exceptionally seriously. I had two aunts who were nuns. I could have been a priest. And, suddenly, there's the Civil Rights Movement. And since I'm breaking away from the Church, I see the Civil Rights Movement in religious terms. [In the] Civil Rights Movement there were all those ministers; it was just absolutely rife with ministers, bristling with ministers. And so, to me, this was an example of God working in the world. Allying myself in whatever way I could with that movement was an alternative to the Church because I couldn't actually believe those [biblical] stories. Not that things couldn't have happened that way, but there seemed to be lots of reasons to think maybe they hadn't happened that way. I couldn't bring myself to believe the religion I was born into on a factual basis. But the spirit of "do good" and "resist evil" was an important part of my religious upbringing. I saw [that] present in the Civil Rights Movement—and I wanted to ally myself with that. I believe that thousands of people from different religious points of view who no longer believed in their religions literally still kept with them that germ of truth, part of which is do good and resist evil. And for them the Civil Rights Movement was the thing they were waiting for—a real counterbalance to the evil that they had seen or imagined, to the bombs exploding and [telling people], "This is just normal; we have to protect ourselves from the Communists and so we create a weapon that could destroy the world." And everyone knows it. And they said it. Here finally was, in counterpoint to palpable evil, something that was palpably good and that was an example of resisting evil and doing good.

I was drawn to it in that way, and I think lots of other people were, for these kinds of very positive, ethical reasons. What makes it possible to be drawn to something for ethical reasons? You've got to be in a position of relative prosperity. If you're not in a position of relative prosperity, then economic concerns do assert themselves and become more overtly determinative of your behavior. But the sixties was a period of comparative prosperity and so lots of kids, especially from middle-class families or, in my case, upper working-class families, could orient a large segment of their lives along a moral axis because they could afford to do so.

I then went to Berkeley. I was a philosophy student, and this was the case of "philosophy student goes South." I'd been studying physics. I then realized that I had to take a little sojourn into philosophy because I had to finally make the decision—am I a Catholic or not? So I decided to do it in this very systematic way. I became a philosophy student. That was interesting, and I am now toying with the idea of finally getting a Ph.D. in philosophy because I might as well actually complete this and make some kind of late career move which I wasn't able to do at all [in the 1960s]. And let me say something about the spirit of philosophy at Berkeley in those days. There were two main branches to philosophy at Berkeley in [the sixties]. There was the analytic tradition out of British empiricism and as developed by the philosophies of ordinary language—especially J. L. Austin, whom I was very taken by, actually moved by. And then versus that was a very strong countertrend which was based at least in the early [sixties] on existentialism, only later [in that decade] on Marxism. And so, at the very beginning, in the early sixties, the two trends in philosophy at Berkeley were analytic philosophy and existentialism. Existentialism had the coffeehouses and analytic philosophy had the lecture halls. But they were both present, and people who were interested in those things could get both and did. I remember that the term just before the FSM broke, Jean Wahl from the Sorbonne was [in Berkeley] giving a lecture on philosophy of existence, a series of lectures. I took those lectures, and then I wrote a paper based on a comparison of Gabriel Marcel to G. E. Moore. It was mostly about Moore, and the person who read the paper said, "This isn't about existentialism." It's an interesting little sidelight. I was more drawn to the analytical side because I was always more in favor of giving precise answers to small questions [than] excessively imprecise ones to big questions—although I was aware that the questions were small. Other people not only liked the precise answers but also thought those were the only questions. That's another story. I was never suckered into that.

So, it was in this environment. And what was the environment then? It was back to basics intellectually, trying to get precise about the kinds of questions that the existentialists were asking. Among the students a serious contender for sainthood at that time was Albert Camus. [He was] Everyman's saint. Much later in life I went to Provence and put some flowers at his grave. The combination of analyzing everything to the root and the [notion that the] really important things are the decisions you make and the life you choose—that was the spirit of existential philosophy, combined with the Civil Rights Movement going on outside the campus.

People on the Berkeley campus got very involved in the Civil Rights Movement. And there was a local branch of it. The Bay Area civil rights movement was tremendously attractive to students and a minority of [them] took part. There were demonstrations all over the Bay Area, often the same faces, and they're faces now that I see elsewhere at demonstrations, same people, a little grayer. And, here's what's interesting: they were successful demonstrations, militant demonstrations that brought results. And that was very energizing to people, the fact that you could compel a store to hire people [of color] they weren't previously hiring. And there were consequences if they didn't do that. That's, by the way, how affirmative action got started. Affirmative action got started in the streets in the sixties. We called it in those days a response to "de facto" discrimination. De facto discrimination means, you didn't have to prove the [employer] actually hated people of a certain kind; just that he didn't have any of them working for him was enough. And now, they're trying to do away with that idea. It's a very important idea, we felt. We put the burden effectively on the business. You either hire these people or you show us why you shouldn't hire them, and they couldn't [justify their discriminatory practices]. In which case they get closed down. When people say that affirmative action is counter to democracy, they better recognize that filling in boxes with your particular kind of ethnicity and so forth, if that isn't liberal democracy, I don't know [what is]. It really is quite a liberal democratic alternative to fill in boxes with your ethnicity, right? It's very orderly. The alternative is back to the streets. That's where it came from, in those days.

I was at one of those demonstrations [against discriminatory employment practices in San Francisco]. I got [recruited] to the demonstration by being handed a leaflet on the Berkeley campus, at this strip of land [at Bancroft and Telegraph]. They gave me this leaflet. I said, "Oh. Demonstration, okay." These demonstrations had the moral cachet of the campus. Absolutely. They had won out over football games, no question about it. And so, I believed in all this, and, in addition, there was this girl I wanted to impress, so I didn't become a football star, I went to this demonstration. It's true. I can say it now right because what's the big deal? But I think it was actually a healthy thing. We were creating an alternative society, and in the alternative society, you impress people you want to go out with by doing things that are alternative, right? And so, that's how that happened. Well, so I took this leaflet. I read it. I knew I had to go there. I went to the demonstration, got arrested for the first time, and I remember we were all holding hands, locking arms and stuff like that. There was this lady [a guest at the hotel]; she was looking down, "You go back to Russia!"

"I don't come from Russia."

"Well, just go back to where you belong, go back to Russia. You're a Communist."

"My parents are from Italy." This actually happened.

I was, as a result of getting that leaflet, arrested. I'm in the holding pen when someone named John King, whom I've never met, says, "Oh, are you going to Mississippi?" Well, that summer was going to be Mississippi Freedom Summer. This, if the good guys win, is the seminal event of the twentieth century. When you get past the Second World War, this is it. This is what determines the rest of the history of the country in this century. This particular event, the Mississippi Freedom Summer. That created the cadre [of student activists] for the whole country. Fantastic event. That doesn't mean that you had to be there. You just had to know somebody who was there. It was electric. So if I'm nominating people for sainthood, Bob Moses wins hands down. I was, on this trip, then [a philosophy student suspecting that] nothing is [real], [wondering] what is real. They tell you [one thing while] they pile bodies. I was really on a "doubt all things" trip, in part fed by analytic philosophy. I tended in the worst moments to believe it's all sense data that's just a patch of purple, and so I was [on] a super-Human trip combined with this tremendous ethical drive. It's a terrible combination actually to be faced with, and so I wanted to come into contact with some reality. I had to go to Mississippi. That was obviously the proof. Okay, you had to go to Mississippi.

So I went and I had my touch with reality. And my touch with reality was one particular moment that summer. All that effort to get one particular moment. I brought somebody to register to vote. You weren't supposed to say a word. This guy comes. The guy was about sixty, seventy years old. There's the sheriff's wife behind the counter. 'Doffs his hat and he just stands there. Silent. She goes about her business. Finally, finally, she comes over: "What do you want, boy?" Head down. "Wanna reddish." "Boy, what do you want?" "Wanna reddish." "Reddish, what's that boy?" Here—he's obviously older than she is. He's worked all his life—such silence, such dignity, such composure. And meanwhile I cannot say anything. We're not allowed to say a word—going to watch that's all. And this went on for a long time. "What do you want, boy?" "Wanna reddish, ma'am." They all said "reddish." The word register became a two-syllable word in Mississippi and that's what they said: "Wanna reddish. Wanna reddish." Finally she throws the thing at him, and now he has to interpret a section of the Mississippi constitution in order to qualify as a registered voter. And that was my moment of reality. And you don't need that many. I only needed that one.

I endangered people by bringing them down to register. I was into chutzpah, okay? I made up a line. How did I get this guy to register? I would go round to the houses. We'd go in teams of two, and I talked oftentimes. Knock, knock—person comes to the door: "What do you want, sir?" It's always "sir." So, "May I speak to the head of the family?" And there always was one, it was always either the father or the grandfather. "What do you want?" [I'd] explain we're here to organize people to go down to the courthouse to vote. "I don't wanna vote." They were afraid, obviously. Didn't want to lose his job or worse. And I got to say the following line. I couldn't believe it; I'd say, "Did your father vote?"

"No sir."

"Did your grandfather vote?"

"No sir."

"Do you want your children to vote?"

That's all. I don't know where I got the nerve to say such a thing. And always then, when I came to the third question, they were ready to register and that was it. Change was in the air and they wanted to be on that freedom train. And I do not know how I got . . . I mean it was almost an effrontery to ask those questions. But I asked them. Nobody told me to.

Obviously I endangered people. When I went back to Berkeley, back to California, nice, sunny California—home of none of that, right? [And] lots of other people were in the same boat. I was then the incoming president of University Friends of SNCC, and when we came back to California, the [campus] administration sent out letters to all these various organizations saying "that strip of land," the very place where I'd gotten the first leaflet, "we have now discovered that this is University property," and so we're not allowed to have advocacy of anything on University property and therefore there will no longer be these card tables to distribute literature. No more distribution of leaflets, no more collecting of money, no more doing all of the things that had gotten me to go to the demonstration where I was first arrested and ultimately to Mississippi to endanger these people. And to me it was a very clear question, "Am I a Judas?" I'm going to betray the people whom I endangered now that I'm back home? Forget all about that. Was that reality? Or is it just a fantasy? A little childish game? I did my little childish game in Mississippi, and now I'm back to the serious stuff of becoming whatever I was going to become (I had no idea what that was anyway)? And all the other students seemed to feel the same way: the ones who could do something about it, all the people who received the letter, all the people [opposed the ban], including the Republicans for God's sake, and not for civil rights reasons, for strictly libertarian reasons.

The letter said, "Please come and we'll explain; if you want to have this explained to you, what this policy change means, we'll be glad to explain." And this [letter] was [from] Dean Katherine Towle, a lovely person, really, and so we went. We didn't go one by one. We went together, en masse. We did that from the beginning, and we never did it any other way. It was always together. So here we are together [with] the dean. "How do we change this?" That's all we wanted to know. [She says,] "This is University policy. You can't change that." And I remember asking questions like this at that very meeting. I said, "Okay, I'd at least like to know something." (My training was in philosophy.) "Does the law require the University to forbid these tables here? Show that to us. Or does the law simply grant the University the right to forbid these tables here? Is this discretionary?" I made it quite clear what I was asking. She said, "Oh, it's discretionary. But that's our policy."

I say, "Oh, so in other words, this is a matter of discretion and you've adopted this as a matter of policy. What's the justification for it? [We are] willing to listen. You need a reason. If you exercise discretion, you need a reason and we insist on getting a reason."

"We're not required to give a reason, the law doesn't require it."

"Oh yes, but we require it. This is discretionary and therefore you made a decision to do this. You're not obliged to make that decision. You have to have a reason. I mean, you surely didn't make it in an arbitrary fashion. You must have had a reason. What was the reason?"

Well, there wasn't any reason that could really stand muster there. They'd been pressured by the Oakland Tribune, by these sort of right-wingers who were peripheral then and are now making a bid for national power. That was their reason. But that reason they couldn't put forward. I guess if she knew what was coming, she would never have agreed to the first premise that this was discretionary. But, of course, it was and everyone knew it. So here's how the FSM [arose] in the simplest [terms]: We insisted on a reason. They said the only reason is that this is University property. But, as I and others pointed out in the very first meeting, "That's not a reason. That's a fact."

Now that was, that was really decisive. They got spiked right there: "That's not a reason. That's a fact." How'd they get spiked? See this was the "end of ideology" era. And we just had turned the tables on them. They were attacking people who were taking moral action on the basis of "well, you're just emoting, just making value judgments." As if this were not a normal human thing to do. That the only real solid things were facts. So when you tell me that the reason you're doing this is because it's University property, then I'm at perfect liberty to say, "Choup! That's a fact. That's not a reason." And of course that's exactly right, it was just a fact. What made it just a fact? The fact that they had discretion. That is, we had learned our end-of-ideology lessons very well. And in learning the lessons, we had honed a very, very sharp knife. And that knife was now turned at them. I hope this point is really clear because it is extremely important. Why is this business about end of ideology important here and relevant to this? What was this end of ideology about? It was about destroying socialism. Because what were the alternatives? The alternative was a perfectly "natural" commercial society in which everything happened according to the laws of nature's god, or whatever. There it is. You couldn't tamper with that. The alternative was tampering with the market, maybe even elements of a command economy. All of that was against nature, and based upon an ideology. We here, in the land of nature's god, we have no ideology. It's just according to the facts. This is the natural way to do things, right? Buying and selling is natural. The market price, that's the natural price. It's only you wicked people over here who tamper with the laws of nature's god, and you have ideologies behind you. Okay. Very well. But then if you say that you have a policy, and you have discretion to develop that policy in this particular way, then, and you have no reason for that, and you offer as your reason that it's University property, I have learned very well what answer you need. "That's not a reason. That's just a fact. And facts can't be argued into reasons. No way." And we told them those things. It's quite remarkable to realize now. Now we're past those debates; they're in the past. But it was super powerful at that time. We talked their language but not to their purpose.

I'd like to say how I was drawn into the FSM personally. You may say, "Haven't you said enough about that?" No. Everyone needs his own personal hook. We had a meeting early in the movement, and we had to choose a name. We were "name tripping." Anybody who's chosen names knows you can go crazy choosing names. There were various revolutionary organizations then with letters, and so someone finally said "Free University." No. "Free Speech Movement" and "FSM"—okay, and that sounded almost like some Latin American revolutionary [organization]. I think Jack Weinberg proposed that name, and I asked him years later, "Why did you like it?" "Oh, it sounded like some Latin American revolutionary organization." But that's not why it appealed to me. I personally had a tremendous stammer all through high school. I couldn't speak. And that name, as soon as he said it, I said "Aw!" It's a pun. For me it was really a tremendous pun, which meant a lot to me [as it signified the free movement of my own speech]. And I must say that free speech meant a lot to me and means a lot to me. There's this wonderful saying of Diogenes the Cynic. "Cynic" meant something different in those days—it was where he came from. Anyway, Diogenes, who supposedly had the lantern during the daytime to see if there were any honest people around, said, "the most beautiful thing in the world is the freedom of speech," and I really feel that. And we weren't going to let go of it. I wasn't going to let go of it.

We almost lost. This is important to understand. To people today [the FSM seems] successful. [But] we were almost unsuccessful. We worked our little hearts out—our little tushes—for a whole term. We worked like crazy to mobilize the students and to educate the faculty. Above all we had to educate the faculty. Students come and go. Faculty had position there, they had jobs, they had tenure in many cases. And if we could educate them, we could win. There was no hope of educating the Regents, okay? And that's why there's a problem today. The faculties are in favor of affirmative action but the Regents aren't. So this is a serious problem. [We] wanted to educate the faculty. And we worked so hard at it. The FSM had almost run its course. It was toward the end. Things were still very touch and go. There was this meeting at the Greek Theatre. Clark Kerr had decided on the solution. He had his plan. His plan had nothing in it about free speech. No correspondence at all between his plan for solving the "campus chaos," which was all he was concerned about, [and the FSM's free speech position]. Nothing at all in his plan that was responsive to any of the things that we had said. So the Greek Theatre. Very, very, very nice. The symbolism was beautiful. They had this stage, they had these baronial chairs and sitting on them were the department heads. The chairs on the chairs and there they were like the barons. And so he made a speech. The speech was over. They turned off the microphone. I walked to the center of the stage to tell people, to announce simply that we're going to have a meeting down in [Sproul] Plaza. That was my intention. To discuss these issues. We were afraid of losing it at that very moment. And we could have. And fortunately, they had ready their cops, and they came and they pulled me down. Astonishing!

We lucked out time after time, and that was our final luck out. We had argued it all beautifully; we presented all of the facts, the arguments, the reasons and theories. We talked to everybody, and yet at the very last moment we could have lost the whole thing. But they saved us in that way just as earlier they had saved [us]; luck had saved us. During the original gathering, they [had] put a police car on the campus to arrest one of our people. You've really got to be bereft of all sense to do that! We could not anticipate that they would do such a thing, that they would arrest a former student on the campus with a police car, that they [would] drive right in the middle of the Plaza, kaplunk! That'd be bereft of all sense. They do this. Okay, great, that's a plus. Just falls into our laps. Here it is. Then what happens? The next day is "Parents Visiting the Campus Day." We were around that car for thirty-two hours, for God's sake. We could have been around that car for another seventy, and that would have really been very upsetting to the trustees and the people who contribute money, the rich alumni; the whole little ball of wax would have just melted, just like that. What were they going to do? They had police ringing the campus. They threatened to come in bludgeoning people. Well, there would have been blood on the pavement, and they wouldn't have gotten the blood off the pavement so easily. That was luck, sheer luck. We knew how to take advantage of luck, but it was luck. And then likewise at the very end. They come [to the Greek Theatre]; I go up to make an announcement, whew! [The] police [drag me] down. I'm in a different place. I'm talking to one of the cops in Italian at this point, true. So I'm really just now in a different world. That's what won it for us.

A couple of days later [December 8] there's the meeting of the Berkeley Academic Senate, and we have worked with these guys, trying to tell them about free speech. These are smart guys. To be on the Berkeley faculty you can't be that dumb. [Yet] it took us a very long time to explain to them the niceties of civil liberties issues where they could understand [them]. But we didn't know even then whether they would understand. And we had done our all. If we'd lost it at that point, it would have been gone. And they voted by about eight to one. In those days it wasn't a representative body [of delegates]; it was a one person-one vote senate and they had a real debate. We had opened up a space for the faculty to have a debate. And that's really a side of the FSM which isn't understood. We had to work like crazy, disrupting the University, taking over buildings, having sit-ins, marches, all this sort of thing to just open up a little space where people would have a real debate. That was America. This is a free country here, and [yet] you had to go crazy so we can have an actual, real debate that could really decide something. Astonishing! And they voted the right way. And we were outside. And [the faculty] came walking through, and I remember we were clapping and tears were just streaming down our faces because, if we had not won at that point, if they didn't get it at that point, I wouldn't be here right now.

It was that close right to the very end, and that gets me talking about where we are now. History works that way. Right—a very, very fine cut. It's not one million workers gathering together and three bosses in a room, you see—it ain't like that. It's usually a very, very fine cut. We had to work like maniacs. I was exhausted and so were the other people. I'm talking personally because I can remember my own experience, but all the people I worked with, Bettina [Aptheker], whom you know, I'm sure, Jack [Weinberg], whom I mentioned, and so many others, we were meeting around the clock. If we had lost it then, and we could have, it would have been all over. There would not have been free speech. The anti-free speech forces would have prevailed. The silence of the silent fifties would have prevailed. It might have, it would have, broken out some other way but not so cleanly and finely—and not so early on, as things go. That was 1964. It would have been a messier event, as many of the other campus movements were. The clear confrontation of the issues, the clear victory, was the product of a tremendous effort, and it almost missed. Have we had other experiences like that? There was a dictatorship in Germany, but there was also a dictatorship in Russia. I wouldn't want to have lived in either place. One was clearly worse than the other. At some point Stalin wasn't so sure which side he wanted to be on. There was bickering whether there should be a pact between the Russians and the Nazis and then maybe the West would sort of wipe itself out and then—very [close], too close. That's how history really is. There was a good side, there was a bad side, but they weren't like that [Savio shows a big distance with his hands]; they were like this [brings his hands close together]. It was a very, very fine cut. The Nazis were defeated. When you think of it in those terms, then you say, "Oh, gulp! Real history is usually a very, very fine cut, and if the right side wins, if you are on the ground, actually involved in the struggle, you are not sure that you are going to win."

We are involved in that situation today. Those people who lost in the South are now making a bid for national power; it's much the same people. I mean, where does Newt Gingrich come from? Where does Jesse Helms come from? Where does Phil Gramm come from? They don't come from Maine, okay? They lost in the South. We beat them in the sixties, actually. They're making a bid for national power. They are in an end-game situation. They, not us. If they don't win it now, they don't win it. Why? I'll tell you. The issues that we fought for and developed over the sixties and seventies, mostly the sixties, actually are the issues of today. The national agenda [today] is the agenda that we created. What is that agenda? The simple version is, it's antihierarchy. But what does it mean? Antihierarchy in race, antihierarchy in gender, antihierarchy in class, antihierarchy in the environment. It's not one species über alles. Antihierarchy in the empire [means] not one nation über alles. Those five [points] that Cornel West is happy to name: race, gender, class, environment, empire. That is the agenda that we began the creation of, and that is today's agenda.

Where do you learn to obey and that some people are worse than others? You learn it in the family; you don't learn it out of a book. You learn in the family that it's not what you do but what you are. If you have the wrong kind of genitalia, then you are in one class. And if you have the right kind, you are in another class. Later on, you can easily transfer that learning to other things, but it is a very important lesson learned in the home and very early. Because it's not going to take if you don't learn it early: that it's okay for whole classes of people to be above another on the basis of what they are, not what they do. If you have a woman physicist and a male national football hero, it's right to say that he's better—at football. That's correct. But it's not right to say that he's better because he is a better kind of person. He shouldn't have a higher status. If status breaks down in the home, they've lost it—absolutely lost it. It's very, very serious; this is an end-game situation, as I see it. Well, we began to break the whole idea of status down about everything. It was true about race. People who have dark skin in America were not regarded as normal. The norm was a white male. That's not true anymore. Everybody here knows that's not true. Roseanne knows it's not true, and all her viewers know it's not true. So this is very serious for them, and therefore, they are panicky. They're making a bid for power at the last moment. When Colin Powell said, "I want to be president. Maybe, I'm going to think about it," this whole phalanx of guys make these speeches denouncing him [and] his character. Why? Because he's not a Ward Connerly, he's not a me-too in the trustees. He has his own mind. Okay, his mind is not my mind or your mind. It's his own mind, though, and he's not allowed to do that. They were hysterical. They were afraid. It's because it's the last moment.

If you believe you've got to win by blueprinting a new kind of society and having everyone do that, you're not going to win. History doesn't work that way. We won in '64 very, very closely. The Russians defeated the Nazis at Stalingrad, but you wouldn't have wanted to live in either society. That's really true. What is a similar thing here? Last week I read in the [San Francisco] Chronicle a study of hierarchy in wealth and income in industrialized countries. There've been a million such studies. They compare wealth and income hierarchies in the industrial democracies of Europe, Japan, Canada, the U.S. The studies always come out the same. They compare various different scales, let's say income, of the poorest person in the top tenth and the richest person in the bottom tenth. That's the gap, that's the so-called income gap and wealth gap. The gap is always greatest in the U.S. In Finland it's right now lowest, [where] there's a 2.8-fold difference between that poorest rich guy and richest poor guy. In the U.S. it's around 15-fold. Tremendous, tremendous. What does that mean? Say, that's terrible, [and it can leave you] pessimistic. How could you bring [more equality to America]? [But it is possible to be] optimistic. We only need to shift resources very modestly. If the U.S. had a 5-fold income or wealth gap, that would start us down the right road. It's like this tremendous boat, an ocean liner. You only have your little tugboat. But if you only have to move it a few degrees to port—you see, just a bang! One bang will start [the boat] going the right way, and they're not going to be able to steer it back because this is the end of the line for them. This is their last generation, guys. We just have to give it one good, solid slam in the right direction and then watch and see where it goes. [But] that's going to be tremendously hard to do. Lots of people died so that Stalin could defeat the Nazis, so that the Russians could prevail at Stalingrad. Lots of people died. They died in Stalingrad. They died in the ovens. Lots of people died. It's an agony to make a very, very slight change, and we don't know how this is going to come out. But, what is hopeful is, we don't have to do a miracle. We only have to give the boat a very solid push in one direction and it will do the rest of the job.

Join UC Press

Members receive 20-40% discounts on book purchases. Find out more