Free Speech Advocates at Berkeley

Abstract

This study compares highly committed members of the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley with the student population at large on three sociopsychological foci: general biographical data, religious orientation, and rigidity-flexibility. Questionnaires were administered to 172 FSM members selected by chance from the ten to twelve hundred who entered and "sat-in" the Administration Building at the University of California on December 2, 1964. A comparative sample of 146 student respondents, selected randomly from the student directory, was obtained by mail. Results indicated that the sit-ins were younger and more homogeneous in age, had parents who were more academically elite (in terms of Ph.D. and M.A. degrees held), and comprised a larger proportion of females than that of the cross-sectional group. No differences were obtained in academic achievement (accumulative grade point average) or in birth order and number of siblings. It was found, as predicted, that the FSM members were less influenced by formalized religion than the cross-sectional group representing the student body and that they were also less rigid, as measured by a 27-item scale of rigidity-flexibility. This latter finding is of particular interest, considering the purported rigidity of the FSM in negotiations with the University administration, and suggests the necessity of distinguishing between a trait of rigidity as psychologically defined and commitment.

Generations and Ideological Change: Some Observations

“…Second, these generational effects were consistently overshadowed by the effects of our measure of "activism," which seemed to reflect more directly the liberalizing influence of a politically supportive family milieu and of selective association with like-minded peers than any configurations of historical memories and experiences. The latter observation is consistent with the literature that describes the typical activist as less of a rebel against a conservative background than as the progeny of parents who are politically liberal and generally supportive, if not always overtly encouraging, of their offspring's militant involvement in various causes (Demerath et al, 1971;Solomon and Fishman, 1964;Keniston, 1968;Flacks, 1967Flacks, , 1970Watts and Whittaker, 1966).…”

Powerlessness, Social‐Political Action, Social‐Political Views: Their Interrelation among College Students1

“…In many recent studies of student activism, individual differences related to activism have been confounded with differences in social-political views. In some studies liberal or radical left activists' have not been compared to other groups (Keniston, 1968), or they have been compared to a cross-section of students with variable political views (Flacks, 1967;Watts & Whittaker, 1966). These studies raise two issues about the attributes found characteristic of the activists.…”

“…Student activism is easily confounded with demographic variables as well as with attitudes (Flacks, 1967;Keniston, 1967;Smith et al, 1967;Watts & Whittaker, 1966;Watts et al, 1969). Demographic correlates of locus of control and activism are not of immediate interest for the present purpose.…”

The Values of Australian Student Activists

“…Watts and Whittaker (1966), Flacks (1976), Lipset (1968aLipset ( , 1968bLipset ( , 1968cLipset ( , 1970 and others note a generally higher rate of scepticism about established religions among activists and their families. Geller and Howard (1972), however, found no significant differences between their samples of activists and controls in the importance attached to observing religious practice.…”

“…Another possible interpretation of the value is being undogmatic. Several writers claim lower dogmatism to be one characteristic of activists (eg., Flacks, 1967 ;Freedman and Kanzer, 1970 ;Keniston, 1967 ;Watts and Whittaker, 1966). In contrast, Feuer (1969), Aldridge (1969), and Deane (1969) stress the absolutist and self-righteous nature of many activists.…”